Me, then.

...No

"Common sense is not so common." 🤷🏽

It seems obvious to me that a right *to* technology (esp. an iPhone) seems ridiculous. :/

In terms of being available for purchase, sure, but not for it to just be handed to you. And even then, that should have some limitations.
Obviously, private citizens shouldn't be allowed to purchase nuclear weapons.

Yes, availability & ability to purchase one make sense.

(I apologize; English is not my first language.)

recreational gun ownership is the same as "hunter" for me... basically the same regulations for both

You're moving goal posts...

not really

And @Miss Direction IIRC it's an EU human right to have access to the internet

Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Ntk8peiIE

I just think it's more complicated than that, especially in the United States. There are plenty of areas in the US where it is not uncommon to be miles away from the nearest telephone pole, much less being within a reasonable response time to a police station or sheriff's office.

Because most north/west EU countries have basically fully digitized their government communication

hunter/sportsschiessen: heavily regulated where you are allowed to use your guns, what guns you can use and even how you can use your guns.

And in a lot of the major cities, there *is* very strict gun control, if not outright bans.

I depart. Good luck, all.

Yes, but you at first just said hunter. When I pointed out that isn't true, you suddenly changed that to hunter 'also means recreational shooting'

to me hunting is recreational shooting

but you are right that there IS a destinction in the law

Here is a problem, in the us, with at least some instances. There are several laws already in place that are not enforced as well as the should be. Yet the solution proposed is to add more to it? In Florida, it seems literally everyone knew this was a very real possibility with this kid
The FBI even knew but couldn't get him on anything. Banning assault weapons doesn't really fix it. Or more accurately is like having a hammer and treating everything like a nail. Why ban all cars, for example, when you knew a person was very likely going to use a car to commit a terror act. Why not find where they should have been able get them, and add a small piece of legislation there, rather than punish all the law abiding companies and citizens for the action of a minority.

why should anyone give a sliver of their rights up to stopgap something that may or may not do anything long term?

In the grand scheme of things, you cannot reasonably stop people who lose their shit from doing anything.

You ban guns and they run around with cars or swords or make explosives

we cannot un-learn these things

NICS should have a bit more of a handle on things

but in this shooter's case; really I'm not sure that the feds should have been able to do anything

maybe the teachers could have actually been armed?

As much as I might dislike that kids were shot and killed; it's honestly probably not possible to actually predict and 100% stop nutjobs like this

Arming teachers and having armed security is a very logical thing to do.

short of infringing rights significantly

Well, I'm not suggesting arming them per-se, but allowing them to do so would be nice

Giving them the ability to be armed yes.

Don’t have to force them.

In that case, you're removing at least one penal code from the state

so I has no issue

It sounds fucked up to say, but I am more OK with random spurious lunatics losing it than I am with giving up the rights enumerated in the constitution of the US

I'd of course, rather they be stopped

but I don't want to go down the thoughtcrime path

Where I live we have security guards at all schools, some teachers have personal weapons, and in general lots of people walk around with military grade weapons (which are allowed in schools). Can’t recall ever having a school shooting so guns aren’t the problem.