Again, Jon Stewart is distorting the fact.  As I have already pointed out, these school shootings are not “mass shootings” nor do they all involve students.  Yes, even one school shooting is a tragedy, but that doesn’t mean we need to resort to a knee-jerk reaction to start going after guns.   That isn’t a solution.

Jon Stewart is just another fear-mongering, anti-gun talking head.

"but that doesn’t mean we need to resort to a knee-jerk reaction to start going after guns. that isn’t a solution." 

then, pray tell, what exactly is a solution to people who shouldn’t have access to guns being able to bring potentially deadly weapons into places where we should always be safe such as schools? one of the aforementioned incidents was an elementary school near my college and I gotta tell you, as someone who was at the scene that day and spoke to both students and parents, you know what would’ve prevented that traumatic experience from ever happening to those kids? stricter gun laws.

what people like you don’t seem to get is that it’s not about taking away your second amendment rights - rights that only exist, by the way, because when the declaration was drawn up America did not have a military and the government needed farmers and other citizens who owned guns to be readily and legally available to use them if there was a battle in their town, not because the founding fathers wanted some dude in the south to own a shit ton of guns - it’s about protecting people. pro-gun people are really fond of the line “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” and I’ll give you that, guns don’t kill people - but guns do seem to be the method of choice for people who want to kill other people. 

the tragedy in this situation is that schools are no longer a safe place. both kids and parents, not to mention school employees, do not know if their child will be a victim of a school shooting or not when they leave in the morning. a tragedy is not defined by the death total or the injured, it’s defined by the trauma that is inflicted on those involved. the people involved in those 74 shootings have been changed for the rest of their lives because some person who shouldn’t have had access to a gun in the first place decided it was a great idea to shoot up their school. 

the issue jon’s talking about isn’t guns in general. it’s guns being used to hurt other people. and I think we can all agree that is something that needs to be stopped. 

but what I’m hearing from your comment, redbloodedamerica, is that you care more about your right to own a gun than you do the lives and safety of innocent people. and personally? I think that’s fucked up. 

Let me share a little secret fact that totally escapes individuals like yourself, and it’s not necessarily your fault…shootings that occur on school campuses are doubly illegal.  Why?  Because a) schools are designated gun-free zones and b) shooting people is illegal.  If the shooting occurred in a city, then it is also illegal to discharge that weapon.  That’s three laws meant to control guns.  Did they work?  No.  Do psychopaths obey the laws?  No.  Furthermore, many of the times, these shooters obtain guns through all the legal channels.

So, you say even stricter gun laws would have prevented these shootings.  Wow, that’s a pretty lofty claim considering they just broke numerous laws already.  So, what stricter laws would you impose?  Stricter background checks than we already have?  Sure, but many of these shooters have no background issues whatsoever.  Perhaps longer waiting periods?  Ok, but these lunatics are patient and meticulous; you would only be delaying the inevitable.  Maybe, a psychological evaluation test before allowing gun purchases?  Again, many of these shooters are sociopaths that could easily pass any standard test.  Then my favorite knee-jerk ignorant solution of all time is to limit magazine capacity and/or ban “assault rifles” even though most of these shootings involve handguns, not high capacity rifles.

No, unlike you, I’m familiar enough with firearms that I understand that the gun (or type of gun) does not make the criminal and limiting firearms to all citizens does nothing to prevent these handful of mass killers.  Access to firearms means very little to someone who has made up their mind to kill others.  It’s not that I enjoy owning guns over human life (but thanks for alluding to that), it’s that I understand history and simple reasoning.  Like most anti-gun types, you play off emotions rather than common sense.  For instance, you say these 74 shootings have changed people’s lives forever (an emotional but true argument), then what about the people affected by the 10,000+ people killed by drunk drivers?  Maybe we should ban drinking and driving?  Oh wait, we already do that.  Maybe we should ban drinking while buzzed…oh wait, we already do that too.  I guess the next evolutionary step is to ban alcohol again altogether?  Because that worked out well the first time we tried it.  See, the logic you are using?  You can’t ban things to try and fix the problem.  We have hundreds of thousands of people sitting in jail right now because they used marijuana, so is its ban working?  (Please don’t try to argue that marijuana isn’t dangerous compared to guns, because you’d be missing the point.)

Actually, alcohol-related vehicle fatalities are dwindling.  They’re still very tragic and common, but they are dropping nonetheless.  Funny enough, violent crime is also falling and no, mass shootings are not on the rise.

You ask me what I would do to stave off these shootings?  I would first get rid of these pointless gun-free zones.  Then I would add more armed security to schools including even training and arming the faculty.  You see, we can’t wish away violent crime with banning things and good intentions.  It won’t be long before some other sick-headed nut gets his hands on some guns (or even knives like Elliott Rodger also had) and decides to storm up to an elementary school or college again.  Instead of having teachers and students hiding under their desks defenseless, why not put some active protection to thwart the problem?  Not only will a spree shooter be more hesitant to attack a well-armed location, but he might actually be put down before he kills anyone.

That’s actually the point of the Second Amendment, not only to arm the first citizens of the United States (who already won the war when the Constitution was ratified) against invading countries, but to let the citizens protect their property, lives and country from both threats foreign and domestic.  I know you have been programmed by illogical progressives to believe it was only for a militia, but that’s totally incorrect.  You can read plenty of writings from the founders that repudiate that false narrative.

I stand by my point that Jon Stewart is a silver-tongued anti-gun buffoon.  I’m sorry you are so easily fooled by tyranny dressed in good intentions.