If your "ilk" could see the issue as possibly more than guns, then the conversation might go forward. What if there were no guns in the conversation but only talk of limiting the internet use to people to passed certain mental health tests? You know, kill the fame these killer nuts desire, solve the problem. You need to look at it as not such a slam dunk anti gun issue. Guns are part of it yes, but there are other factors that should be in the conversation. Just using extremes to start a more expansive conversation.
So if the Pubs elect Ted Cruz, fat chance, but you would be okay if he and some right wingers said "screw all these rights, we are going to regulate the internet, social media, instagram, etc.since that is what gets all these killers their jollies. You know, kill someone and talk about it or even film it. You good with that?
What if social media, video games and internet sites were deemed to have a small effect? Shut them down? Or does this actually infringe on something YOU want to protect and YOU find won't really have an effect on the issue. Easy, right?
By the way, I don't think you can get a good conversation on this right after a shooting. Nothing but knee jerk stupidity flowing mostly. in an effort to "do something", or "outdo, someone elses do something", then every right we have seems to be thrown overboard. There are some things that can be done which is fine and fill the bill as far as doing something, i.e., background checks. They will have little effect in solving this issue, but no real reason not to do them, and maybe the politicians can report of crimes that might have been committed "by their research" to show we need more laws. After all, they are there to save us. Since a lot of you cannot define what sort of mental evaluations are going to be needed to cast a large enough net to catch these guys, I would agree with NN tongue in cheek that basically anyone belonging to the GOP or NRA or whatever some politician might want to include, could find its way into a mental evaluation. Can you imagine politicians writing, a mental evaluation for who should be able to have a firearm. For every 10 people killed at a school tragedy with the whole world reporting it, there are hundreds of home invasions thwarted by an old lady for example firing a gun at intruders into her home. Now, in your good hearted efforts to "do something", are you going to undo something that keeps other safe? Some of the ideas about carry conceal add'l tests seem very short sighted. Here you have people who have been evaluated, went through classes, arms training, 3 month waiting periods and have no criminal backgrounds at all, yet, you want to put more restrictions on "this group". Herein lies the whole thing in a nutshell. Just pass something for the sake of passing something. Rights or results be damned, we want to pass something and make ourselves feel better. This is not productive, but then again, solving the problem does not seem to be the prize here anyway, just a hearing of your long held bias and using any crisis to further your own ideas.
Actually, the old Testament is more Jewish history and Yahweh, as I understand it depicts more warrior than shepherd to the Jews. Jesus, in the new Testament, is the one referred to as the Good Shepherd and followed by "Christians". These followers, or sheep, are the typical authors of the New Testament I actually agree with what Kasich said. There are many common sense areas about family, honesty, taking care of others, etc. where religion has championed some very nice precedents. People, however, in all religions, will use them to justify their own ideologies, and you see it around the world. Christianity, in itself, is one of peace, but followers do not always depict it that way. Same with other religions. It is not exclusive to religions as far as morals, but the secular sometimes run away from everything that has ever had religions stamp of approval, just because religion.
Philosophically, if you have the same ingredients being put into a situation, lets say a cake, for a couple hundred years, and all of a sudden, you get a different result, the cake tastes terrible. Would you ask what is making the outcome different or would you immediately start substituting ingredients and hope it someday tastes good again?
Whether or not he sticks is up to Gman and the cap guys, BUT, he is grossly overpaid for the job he does currently. (and yes I know he is injured), I am talking about the last couple of seasons. He is easily handled by one Olineman, does not require a double team. You can get that for a lot less