Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
I don’t know. I’m not interested in killing a lot of people. All I’m saying is I don’t think school shootings would end if we ban AR-15s. I shot an AR when I was in high school and it was just kind of boring. Not into shooting. But my friend and his dad love it. He loves the collectibility, the craftsmanship, the hobby, ect. He’s an awesome guy.
I just know that no matter what happens, there will be a lot of pissed off people. Just trying to offer some alternate perceptive. I don’t have any answers, and obviously no one really does, or this wouldn’t have happened.
Also, Australia still has a lot of guns, yet no mass shootings. Also mass shooting have been on an upward trend in the US the past 20 years even though we have had fun access for over 200 years. There’s more to it than availability to weapons. Laws didn’t stop this from happening. It’s against the law to murder, and against the law to carry on school grounds. My point is, laws didn’t prevent this guy. A motivated killer will kill.
Right....and an intelligent society will make it as difficult as possible for those people to kill.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Del you are a smart guy, think about why someone wouldn’t use two handguns? Answer: how the hell are you going to reload in an efficient manner? With any semi automatic weapon you can walk, drop your mag , load a new mag with your other hand and keep going.
.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,261
Also, Australia still has a lot of guns, yet no mass shootings. Also mass shooting have been on an upward trend in the US the past 20 years even though we have had fun access for over 200 years. There’s more to it than availability to weapons. Laws didn’t stop this from happening. It’s against the law to murder, and against the law to carry on school grounds. My point is, laws didn’t prevent this guy. A motivated killer will kill.
Maybe we should study why we have so many more problems than this. We can't spend federal money because someone was scared that it would hurt the NRA (what are they afraid of since guns don't kill people.
Seriously, places like Australia don't have this problem. Maybe it's not the supply of guns that causes the problem here. But there's not much appetite to figure it out. Because once someone asks the question, those in power jump right to serving the NRA.
Gun manufacturers have been producing these mass killing machines like never before over the past 14 years since the ban ended. 40 years ago---these kinds of guns were not nearly in as much demand as they are now. I'm sure the NRA drilling the idea that the government is 'coming to take your guns so you better buy as many as possible now' has nothing to do with it though...
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
Why can't we have more stringent background checks and ban weapons that are designed to kill mass amounts of people?
Hand guns kill more people, but you can make a case for why a law abiding citizen should own one for protection. Can you do the same for a gun like the AR-15? I answered your question earlier about mass shootings prior to the ban in the 90's. Nothing is perfect, but it did curb mass shootings and then they sky rocketed after it expired. Reinstate it and put forth stricter, universal background checks, and also make it mandatory to have a license that needs to be renewed every 5 years in order to own a gun.
Also, the constitution is a living document....
I believe I stated I was for more stringent background checks.
I think you you could make the case of wanting an assault rifle for protection, but that’s not the argument we are having.
The assult rifle ban you keep holding up didn’t really cause any change in gun fatalities.
Also you answered with 3 mass shootings over the course of 30 years prior to the assult rifle ban. There wasn’t some epidemic of mass shootings before the ban. This is resent. The guns didn’t change, we as a society has changed. You can ban all the assault weapons you want to but just because they are banned doesn’t mean they go away.
I think we should find better ways of restricting firearms and also try to figure out why we are having what appears to be more and more people that want to cause these violent acts.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Virgins Tech, and possibly Columbine off the top of my head.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Virgins Tech, and possibly Columbine off the top of my head.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Virgins Tech, and possibly Columbine off the top of my head.
Ha, damn autocorrect from my phone!
The school for virgins
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,261
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
Why can't we have more stringent background checks and ban weapons that are designed to kill mass amounts of people?
Hand guns kill more people, but you can make a case for why a law abiding citizen should own one for protection. Can you do the same for a gun like the AR-15? I answered your question earlier about mass shootings prior to the ban in the 90's. Nothing is perfect, but it did curb mass shootings and then they sky rocketed after it expired. Reinstate it and put forth stricter, universal background checks, and also make it mandatory to have a license that needs to be renewed every 5 years in order to own a gun.
Also, the constitution is a living document....
I believe I stated I was for more stringent background checks.
I think you you could make the case of wanting an assault rifle for protection, but that’s not the argument we are having.
The assult rifle ban you keep holding up didn’t really cause any change in gun fatalities.
Also you answered with 3 mass shootings over the course of 30 years prior to the assult rifle ban. There wasn’t some epidemic of mass shootings before the ban. This is resent. The guns didn’t change, we as a society has changed. You can ban all the assault weapons you want to but just because they are banned doesn’t mean they go away.
I think we should find better ways of restricting firearms and also try to figure out why we are having what appears to be more and more people that want to cause these violent acts.
Sorry. Those three that I mentioned and the one Halifax mentioned were all within the previous 4-5 years leading up to the ban that was also supported by G HW Bush and Ronald Reagan. It was becoming an epidemic. After the ban, mass shootings decreased. After the ban, they started sky rocketing. Simple.
The answer to the questions you seek in your last paragraph are available all over the rest of the civilized world where these mass shootings happen at far lesser frequency than here--they have much stricter gun laws than we do.
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
3% of the victims of Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Texas and both Florida massacres equates to 5 people. Ask any of the victim’s family and friends if they think that your “3%” would be worth it.
I’m really not sure what your point here is in context of what I said. You come across as a sensationalist. I don’t have any problem with it, but it makes it hard to have a grown up discussion. Ask the other 97% of the family victims if it was worth it to them by going after assault riffles would be my response on your level.
You’re dismissive of 3%. 3% of just 5 mass shootings since 2012 is 5 people that might still be alive. 3% of the hundreds injured in just the Vegas shooting is double digits. But go ahead and dismiss it. It’s only 3%.
Lots of great points being made and some ridiculous ones in here on both sides. Adding armed security at schools (still a longer term solution and budget issue) is a response until the ban of assault rifles is implemented and stricter measures for gun ownership are taken. Arming teachers is a solution I hope never becomes universal because it's a horrible idea. And just adding armed security stops no one from shooting up anywhere, ever. Most of these places had armed security and even police on site. They can't be every where to stop it from occurring.
Metal detectors, while great in theory, will be impossible to implement at most schools. Think of anywhere you go that has one. Controlled entrance points, lines and staffing at all times when people can enter. Most schools need to utilize multiple entries and exits. Schools still need to conduct fire drills, have recess and allow pick up and drop off.
Gun control with bans on certain types of firearms and accessories coupled with extensive backgrounds, psychological assessments and gun registries would make a huge impact. Doesn't solve all the problems, but makes it significantly more difficult and frees up the time and money to spend on the social/emotional resources needed to help prevent these types of people from being procured from our shitty society.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Mag limits to 10 or 15 rounds is a great way to start.
Why not 5? What do you need 10 to 15 rounds for?
See what you did, you went with no compromise. If you went 5 then a hell of a lot of guns would be illegal. Revolvers for example, m1 garand s, tube fed .22’s.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
Why can't we have more stringent background checks and ban weapons that are designed to kill mass amounts of people?
Hand guns kill more people, but you can make a case for why a law abiding citizen should own one for protection. Can you do the same for a gun like the AR-15? I answered your question earlier about mass shootings prior to the ban in the 90's. Nothing is perfect, but it did curb mass shootings and then they sky rocketed after it expired. Reinstate it and put forth stricter, universal background checks, and also make it mandatory to have a license that needs to be renewed every 5 years in order to own a gun.
Also, the constitution is a living document....
I believe I stated I was for more stringent background checks.
I think you you could make the case of wanting an assault rifle for protection, but that’s not the argument we are having.
The assult rifle ban you keep holding up didn’t really cause any change in gun fatalities.
Also you answered with 3 mass shootings over the course of 30 years prior to the assult rifle ban. There wasn’t some epidemic of mass shootings before the ban. This is resent. The guns didn’t change, we as a society has changed. You can ban all the assault weapons you want to but just because they are banned doesn’t mean they go away.
I think we should find better ways of restricting firearms and also try to figure out why we are having what appears to be more and more people that want to cause these violent acts.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Never.
Only two handguns used in Virginia Tech, right?
Do you know that was '07?
Yes...what’s your point, they asked why handguns were never used in these incidents...did I miss something?
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,261
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Never.
Only two handguns used in Virginia Tech, right?
Do you know that was '07?
Yes...what’s your point, they asked why handguns were never used in these incidents...did I miss something?
I didn't say never. Why are they not used as frequently as assault rifles?
And that kid was also fucked up in the head right? Another example why need a more extensive background check.
Mag limits to 10 or 15 rounds is a great way to start.
Why not 5? What do you need 10 to 15 rounds for?
See what you did, you went with no compromise. If you went 5 then a hell of a lot of guns would be illegal. Revolvers for example, m1 garand s, tube fed .22’s.
It's a compromise, just not one you like. It would require changes in manufacturing.moving forward.
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Never.
Only two handguns used in Virginia Tech, right?
Do you know that was '07?
Yes...what’s your point, they asked why handguns were never used in these incidents...did I miss something?
I didn't say never. Why are they not used as frequently as assault rifles?
And that kid was also fucked up in the head right? Another example why need a more extensive background check.
You, in fact, did say “never”: ”.why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles?” But I’m okay with background checks as most are. You have to get an FBI background check before getting a license to carry...
Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book.
Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven.
A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?
Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?
And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.
It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out.
Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.
Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...
Lighter. Easier to carry.
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
Del you are a smart guy, think about why someone wouldn’t use two handguns? Answer: how the hell are you going to reload in an efficient manner? With any semi automatic weapon you can walk, drop your mag , load a new mag with your other hand and keep going.
.
Exactly.
The AR15 is the preferred weapon of the homicidal psychopath for so many great reasons.
Comments
I just know that no matter what happens, there will be a lot of pissed off people. Just trying to offer some alternate perceptive. I don’t have any answers, and obviously no one really does, or this wouldn’t have happened.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.
in sandy hook, didn’t the medical examiner date that the rifle wasn’t used and it was a short barrel hand gun that was used to kill?
I remember the video of him, but I could be wrong.
.
Gun manufacturers have been producing these mass killing machines like never before over the past 14 years since the ban ended. 40 years ago---these kinds of guns were not nearly in as much demand as they are now. I'm sure the NRA drilling the idea that the government is 'coming to take your guns so you better buy as many as possible now' has nothing to do with it though...
I think you you could make the case of wanting an assault rifle for protection, but that’s not the argument we are having.
The assult rifle ban you keep holding up didn’t really cause any change in gun fatalities.
Also you answered with 3 mass shootings over the course of 30 years prior to the assult rifle ban. There wasn’t some epidemic of mass shootings before the ban. This is resent. The guns didn’t change, we as a society has changed. You can ban all the assault weapons you want to but just because they are banned doesn’t mean they go away.
I think we should find better ways of restricting firearms and also try to figure out why we are having what appears to be more and more people that want to cause these violent acts.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
Sorry. Those three that I mentioned and the one Halifax mentioned were all within the previous 4-5 years leading up to the ban that was also supported by G HW Bush and Ronald Reagan. It was becoming an epidemic. After the ban, mass shootings decreased. After the ban, they started sky rocketing. Simple.
The answer to the questions you seek in your last paragraph are available all over the rest of the civilized world where these mass shootings happen at far lesser frequency than here--they have much stricter gun laws than we do.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Metal detectors, while great in theory, will be impossible to implement at most schools. Think of anywhere you go that has one. Controlled entrance points, lines and staffing at all times when people can enter. Most schools need to utilize multiple entries and exits. Schools still need to conduct fire drills, have recess and allow pick up and drop off.
Gun control with bans on certain types of firearms and accessories coupled with extensive backgrounds, psychological assessments and gun registries would make a huge impact. Doesn't solve all the problems, but makes it significantly more difficult and frees up the time and money to spend on the social/emotional resources needed to help prevent these types of people from being procured from our shitty society.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I didn't say never. Why are they not used as frequently as assault rifles?
And that kid was also fucked up in the head right? Another example why need a more extensive background check.
”.why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles?”
But I’m okay with background checks as most are. You have to get an FBI background check before getting a license to carry...
The AR15 is the preferred weapon of the homicidal psychopath for so many great reasons.