LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

How so? Also, keep in mind the _entire_ gun lobby spends less than Microsoft does each year. It's pitifully small compared to many other lobbying groups.

> Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one.

Yeah. Although I don't recall bringing him up. :-)

> 1, 2, and 3

1. Sure, perhaps not "well-regulated" (whatever that means), but see #2

2. They are, because see #3

3. Not really. Consider the case of the middle east: two super powers—Russia in the late 70s/80s and the US ever since—haven't been able to "win" their wars in that area for the last 40 or so years. Why? Because ultimately you still need boots on the ground physically controlling the area. Sure, we could use our military prowess to turn the entire thing into a sea of glass, there's _zero_ benefit to that. Which is why we've lost over 4,000 soldiers instead of just bombing the place and calling it good.

Now consider if the US government turned on its citizens or if the US were attacked by another state. You'd end up with the same thing as the middle east, except for the US has many more firearms and, in case #1, the US government would be fractured: plenty of soldiers and police would not want to take the government's side. That's what plenty of people think about wrt "militia."

> Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety...my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership.

This is part of the long debate about the 2nd amendment. You can reach different conclusions depending on how you interpret it. When it was written, firearm ownership was simply an assumed right. People owned guns and could protect themselves with them. Depending on how you parse the 2nd amendment's text you can reach different conclusions. That one comma could make a world of difference (historical details about gun ownership notwithstanding).

> but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it.

And so it seems the question is then: are there better ways that don't trample gun rights, and if not, is losing the gun rights worth the extra time it buys some individuals?

(As an aside, I'm not incredibly familiar with suicide, I just know what I was told by doctors when I had a close family member "go through" it, for lack of a better term.)

> As a citizen I want my schools safer than this.

I do too, but at 4 per 50 million (1 per 12.5 million) I'd consider it safer for my kids to attend school than, say, swim in pools or drive a car—both of which are considered routine and "safe" events.

Interesting link! I've always wondered what would happen to the rates of mass killings and such (the "high profile" incidents) if we'd focus on it less. It seems the 24/7 news stories only seem to inflame tensions and normalize it, increasing the propensity of it happening again and spreading fear of what is an otherwise rare occurrence (see: right-wing folk and terrorist attacks).

> If only this had any real world effect :)

We can dream, huh?

And herein lies the crux. We are staking up to 30k lives a year on a comma. Also, historical context is important in that when the second amendment was written, a group of people with muskets could take on a government force. That's not the case anymore. Police now drive tanks and come at you wearing body armor. I agree that if there was a full scale uprising, with say all the liberals arming themselves to the teeth and going up against Trump's administration in a rebellion, the police and military might be at best divided on the issue. But still, there is no well regulated militia that currently exists.

So my point is that why not re-write the damn thing, taking into account modern tech and modern way of life? The second amendment is held as nearly holy by some, but at one point it was just written down on paper by a few people. It's not exactly a stellar piece of legislature that is above all scrutiny and reproach.

Well, 2/3 of those might be taken with other (possibly "worse," like suicide by cop or ODing) means. But, regardless. I understand what you mean.

> That's not the case anymore.

Sure it is, because ...

> Police now drive tanks and come at you wearing body armor.

... anybody can buy body armor. Hell, you can even own tanks in the US. And, like we've seen with the middle east, a guerilla group doesn't need body armor and tanks to stall and protect themselves from the world's largest super power.

> So my point is that why not re-write the damn thing, taking into account modern tech and modern way of life? The second amendment is held as nearly holy by some, but at one point it was just written down on paper by a few people. It's not exactly a stellar piece of legislature that is above all scrutiny and reproach.

To me, that sorta defeats the entire purpose of the US experiment. I believe a lot of our successes have to do with how seriously we take the constitution. Sure, we've trampled over it from time-to-time (e.g., slavery, women's suffrage, etc.) but a lot of the ideas that went into it are just as prevalent in the US as they were 240-some years ago. In fact, some of those ideas have helped the least fortunate and minority groups. Minor edits are one thing, but complete rewrites usually don't go as planned. And having 240-some years of history simply makes parts of it that much stronger. Unfortunately, humans are more complicated than software. :-)

Side note: I'm checking out your family fortune app. It should work fine for just one person, right?

That's what makes this so much worse - the guy who got killed never knew why the cops were there, which is presumably why he was confused and made the mistake that killed him. He died because he was innocent.