America's Gun Violence

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.  

They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...

Arming teachers is the dumbest idea in the world. Why don't we just arm the kids! Let's arm everyone! Wooooo!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

PJPOWER

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.  

They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...

Arming teachers is the dumbest idea in the world. Why don't we just arm the kids! Let's arm everyone! Wooooo!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

Plenty of them already armed...cannot think of any of these incidents happening in those schools...Lots of colleges actually now allow concealed carriers to exercise that right on campus.

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

tweedyfanjen

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  Do you have any suggestion that would not take 10 years at a minimum to implement?  I, for one, will plan on sending my child to an elementary school where there is some sort of armed security to hopefully protect him if someone wanted to come in guns a blazin.  We can keep having the other debate, though, but I am currently focused on the NOW...not 10 years from now.

Will this school also have armed guards all around the perimeter? If not, what's going to stop someone from shooting kids on the playground (happened in my state) or shooting as they are waiting on the bus or parents to pick them up? I think about this all the time with my niece. All of the kids gather in one place after school. There are measures in place for the parents/guardians to be the ones who pick them up but who's to stop someone riding up on school grounds and shooting into the crowd of kids? 

PJPOWER

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. 
It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.  And to say it “worked” is not necessarily the whole truth.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.  

They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...

Arming teachers is the dumbest idea in the world. Why don't we just arm the kids! Let's arm everyone! Wooooo!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

Plenty of them already armed...cannot think of any of these incidents happening in those schools...Lots of colleges actually now allow concealed carriers to exercise that right on campus.

The world is laughing their asses off at us.

Bentleyspop

A gun owner who gets it......

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/965981417950736386

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. 
It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.

The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?

my2hands

JC29856 said:

I wanted to see how easily I could walk into a local gun show and purchase a AR15 in PA. $8 door fee and within a half hour, I had a AR15, 2 clips and 500 rounds of ammo for less than $600! I opted for a very low budget version instead of the more expensive more reputable models. There were six at the show from $429 to more than $1400.
I filled out two separate forms and provided my ID, handed over the cash and walked out a Glorified G

God bless America 

The Juggler

And by the way---for those who claimed to be so concerned about "draining the swamp," with $31,000,000 from the NRA, Trump is up to his eye balls in the swamp.

PJPOWER

tweedyfanjen said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  Do you have any suggestion that would not take 10 years at a minimum to implement?  I, for one, will plan on sending my child to an elementary school where there is some sort of armed security to hopefully protect him if someone wanted to come in guns a blazin.  We can keep having the other debate, though, but I am currently focused on the NOW...not 10 years from now.

Will this school also have armed guards all around the perimeter? If not, what's going to stop someone from shooting kids on the playground (happened in my state) or shooting as they are waiting on the bus or parents to pick them up? I think about this all the time with my niece. All of the kids gather in one place after school. There are measures in place for the parents/guardians to be the ones who pick them up but who's to stop someone riding up on school grounds and shooting into the crowd of kids? 

Yeah, that would be a difficult thing to stop.  There have also been issues with sexual predators having easy access to children on these playgrounds too.  I do know that a lot of new schools being built place the playgrounds in a central courtyard now for this very reason.  There is no way of stopping every single scenario, but can reduce the odds of a few.  The most prevalent seem to happen within the school buildings.

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

tweedyfanjen said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  Do you have any suggestion that would not take 10 years at a minimum to implement?  I, for one, will plan on sending my child to an elementary school where there is some sort of armed security to hopefully protect him if someone wanted to come in guns a blazin.  We can keep having the other debate, though, but I am currently focused on the NOW...not 10 years from now.

Will this school also have armed guards all around the perimeter? If not, what's going to stop someone from shooting kids on the playground (happened in my state) or shooting as they are waiting on the bus or parents to pick them up? I think about this all the time with my niece. All of the kids gather in one place after school. There are measures in place for the parents/guardians to be the ones who pick them up but who's to stop someone riding up on school grounds and shooting into the crowd of kids? 

Yeah, that would be a difficult thing to stop.  There have also been issues with sexual predators having easy access to children on these playgrounds too.  I do know that a lot of new schools being built place the playgrounds in a central courtyard now for this very reason.  There is no way of stopping every single scenario, but can reduce the odds of a few.  The most prevalent seem to happen within the school buildings.

...perhaps we could also try to eliminate that kind of gun as well.......yah? Or nah---that's too hard for us Americans! Let's just arm everybody! Woo!

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.  

They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...

Yeah. So? Having an armed guard at the Florida school didn’t help. The shooter knew exactly when and how to get in that circumvented the available security measures. 

my2hands

Mass shootings don't just happen at schools, in case anybody hasn't noticed... but anyway 

teams of armed guards at every school in America? Metal detectors at every entrance? Every doorway to every school secured and guarded?

Great solution LOL... wtf is wrong with this country? It's fucking absurd

How about when they get off the bus? Get let out for the day? The friday night football game? The Tuesday afternoon soccer practice? It's so easy to poke holes in this shirt sighted bullshit it's fucking laughable, if it wasn't so sad

Imagine, just for a second, if America had no guns... what's that look like? Think about that for a second before you swallow down more NRA propaganda convincing you to cling to your AR-15

josevolution

unsung said:

People should be asking that kids not be placed amongst the fish in a barrel.

Or maybe you all would prefer to get on that airplane now without any security checks?

When the next white cop shoots an unarmed black man will you be blaming the gun?

Let me know when the outrage gets to be enough to march on some inner city streets.

So now kids are not allowed to show their displeasure by marching or calling for marches across the country , to try to get something done about this giant fucking massacre problem we have , leave it to your or my generation to just sit on our hands and go absolutely nothing ....
let me guess you have no kids in any schools ? 

riley540

America has a way of blasting the shooters name in every outlet. They become famous. I bet there’s some crooked person in their house somewhere watching the response to this shooting, gearing up to perform their mass shooting. This day and age, I say just protect yourself. 

PJPOWER

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. 
It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.

The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?

Must you be so condescending in every post?  Of course it could change in one voting cycle.  Look at the way it changed in the last.  I do not see the country becoming more bipartisan right now though, do you?  I still see hardcore republicans and hardcore democrats being bound by lobbying groups.  Again, how are you going to sway the minds of hardcore voting republicans who do not support gun control?  I guess you could try calling them deplorables and shaming them, but is that really going to work?  Maybe a trade, abortion for gun control?  I, currently, have no realistic political strategies in mind that will result in the banning of “assault weapons” over at least the next 2 years...You cannot just tell people “don’t vote for gun nuts” and see that as a failsafe strategy...or do you?

my2hands

Guns are SO awesome!!!! Yay!!!!! I love guns!!!!!

riley540

I think we really need to look at why humans want to do these things. I could just as easily make a nail bomb at home as I could purchase a gun. I’m in a class right now and realized how easy it would be to commit a mass murder. 

But I’m a normal, sane person. So I am not going to do that. 99% of gun owners are not going to commit mass murder. Since columbine, there’s been a massive upswing. It takes a super fucked up induvidual to pull the trigger. I’m not much of a gun person, only been shooting a few times and found it boring, but I just don’t see banning guns solving the current problem. 

If AR15s are banned, I can just as easily buy a high capacity hand gun, or a normal rifle. It’s not a solution at all. 

The Juggler

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. 
It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.

The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?

Must you be so condescending in every post?  Of course it could change in one voting cycle.  Look at the way it changed in the last.  I do not see the country becoming more bipartisan right now though, do you?  I still see hardcore republicans and hardcore democrats being bound by lobbying groups.  Again, how are you going to sway the minds of hardcore voting republicans who do not support gun control?  I guess you could try calling them deplorables and shaming them, but is that really going to work?  Maybe a trade, abortion for gun control?  I, currently, have no realistic political strategies in mind that will result in the banning of “assault weapons” over at least the next 2 years...You cannot just tell people “don’t vote for gun nuts” and see that as a failsafe strategy...or do you?

Dude....your solution is "more guns." Which sounds more logical: voting in responsible people who realize we need more gun control....or, MORE GUNS!!? Think about your argument here. What if back in the 60's, instead of working hard and galvanizing support for the Civil Rights Act, people just threw their hands up in the air and said "Fuck this shit! This is too hard! We're never gonna convince rural, southern Americans that this makes sense---let's just not let black people vote again!"

Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight. It starts by accepting that there is a problem and actively advocating for change like these kids in Florida are doing right now. And then enough people have to make their voices heard in voting booths. And again, gun owners who don't want to change gun laws are in the MINORITY. They are a loud and vociferous minority but they still are in the MINORITY.