Another school shooting

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Don't those sound like problems that actually COULD be fixed with money?

For who? Any swinging dick that wants to enter the field? Why are kids with full rides not choosing that field? Do you plan to fast track people who couldn't get accepted or make it through the schooling just to meet quotas? If mental health is not affordable now what makes you think the cost will be brought down? Gov regulating what they can charge? Subsidies? And when those run out like they always do? Social worker is a great example, get a masters to earn 40k a year & since it's gov aside from your benefits you'll never make a decent wage. That is exactly what will happen to PHD's in mental health, lower wages. The Gov already pays for mental health via Obamacare but since the fee is structure & limited most doctors won't accept it & want cash.

I just googled mental health in the UK & Canada & they seem to have even bigger problem than we do, minus the crazies shooting **** up.

Originally Posted by racer808

I just googled mental health in the UK & Canada & they seem to have even bigger problem than we do, minus the crazies shooting **** up.

Hmmm, what's different about the UK and Canada? Off the top of my head, I'm going to say access to firearms, something that the right takes off the table here. So if that's off the table, we can't just say, "well sure, we do have mass shootings, but that's a function of mental health and look, these other developed countries have bad mental healthcare too"

With great power comes great responsibility. If we aren't responsible enough to have a mental healthcare system that's up to the task of addressing the "crazies," then are we responsible enough to have such easy access to firearms?

Why are kids with full rides not choosing that field?

you said because it doesn't pay well enough. If we (we meaning all of us meaning yes, government funding) correct the poor compensation problem that should attract more qualified candidates, no?

Do you plan to fast track people who couldn't get accepted or make it through the schooling just to meet quotas?

No? Did I say that? This doesn't seem like a problem that gets fixed overnight. Columbine was 20 years ago... how about 20 years from now we're doing a much better job?

If mental health is not affordable now what makes you think the cost will be brought down?

Controlling access to firearms is not a priority so we have to fix it the more expensive way. That means government funding.

Gov regulating what they can charge? Subsidies?

vast expansion of public mental healthcare sounds like the right's argument, right? So yeah, basically, public funding.

And when those run out like they always do?

We do like Trump and borrow from the future like we always do? These shooters all seem to have pretty B.A. firearms too, so is money really that tight?

Social worker is a great example, get a masters to earn 40k a year & since it's gov aside from your benefits you'll never make a decent wage. That is exactly what will happen to PHD's in mental health, lower wages. The Gov already pays for mental health via Obamacare but since the fee is structure & limited most doctors won't accept it & want cash.

That's just saying that there's a funding problem, right? When we don't have enough money being spent on defense, what do we do? We spend more. Need more nukes? spend more. Need more ships? spend more. Need more Navy? spend more. How many defense contractors are getting out of the game because the pay just isn't there? Why should this be any different?

"Here in CO if you get a MMJ card you can no longer get a conceal carry."

How does that work when it's perfectly legal there and you don't need a card to buy it?

Originally Posted by stanfield

"Here in CO if you get a MMJ card you can no longer get a conceal carry."

How does that work when it's perfectly legal there and you don't need a card to buy it?

Exactly. It's a dumb law.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Hmmm, what's different about the UK and Canada? Off the top of my head, I'm going to say access to firearms, something that the right takes off the table here. So if that's off the table, we can't just say, "well sure, we do have mass shootings, but that's a function of mental health and look, these other developed countries have bad mental healthcare too"

With great power comes great responsibility. If we aren't responsible enough to have a mental healthcare system that's up to the task of addressing the "crazies," then are we responsible enough to have such easy access to firearms?



you said because it doesn't pay well enough. If we (we meaning all of us meaning yes, government funding) correct the poor compensation problem that should attract more qualified candidates, no?



No? Did I say that? This doesn't seem like a problem that gets fixed overnight. Columbine was 20 years ago... how about 20 years from now we're doing a much better job?



Controlling access to firearms is not a priority so we have to fix it the more expensive way. That means government funding.



vast expansion of public mental healthcare sounds like the right's argument, right? So yeah, basically, public funding.



We do like Trump and borrow from the future like we always do? These shooters all seem to have pretty B.A. firearms too, so is money really that tight?



That's just saying that there's a funding problem, right? When we don't have enough money being spent on defense, what do we do? We spend more. Need more nukes? spend more. Need more ships? spend more. Need more Navy? spend more. How many defense contractors are getting out of the game because the pay just isn't there? Why should this be any different?

I actually agree with a quite a bit of that to an extent. In the interim though, why are you guys so against having trained armed guards at schools? We live in a upper scale part of town & even my kids high school has security, only one entrance in & two armed police present at all times. You guys are just fine with having our politicians be protected by fire arms but not our kids & go to right "to the only answer is a full ban". It's not going to happen & if we're going to spend money the immediate fix is to put trained armed people, ex vets, cops at all schools till we figure the rest out.

Not opposed to cops on site to a point. We have deputized school police in our school district. There’s a cop on staff at each HS and a roving group of backup officers. Seems like a good system. The cops are cops but are also members of the staff who interact with the kids. Mostly I think they deal with arresting kids caught at school smoking weed and whatnot.

Didn’t stop a middle school teacher from being gunned down a few years back tho.

I believe someone else posted something similar in the Vegas thread. Why does it seem so hard to understand that it's a numbers game? The US has a high number of weapons available and some states make it way too easy to get a hold of these firearms. Face it, your beloved 2nd amendment works against you. You have the highest amount of publicly owned firearms in the world even if they are purchased legally it still leaves another higher than normal amount of those guns to then end up in the wrong hands whether stolen or someone that decides they are now angry.

Some of the issues can never really be resolved nor do I have the answers but it's not hard to figure out that with the overall amount of guns in the US you are going to have an above average amount of gun related deaths.

KS has insane gun laws. You can conceal carry here and don't even need a permit. One of the dumbest things I have every seen passed. You basically have to think everyone around you is armed.

^^^Easy guys, the NRA is not going to appreciate you snowflakes calling for tighter gun laws.
You know what they are going to say....if you are old enough to join the military and fight for the country.....

Re how easy a CC in KS...
Right now they are trying to make it legal...if you have a concealed carry permit in your state it will apply to any state you travel to. Not a good idea IMO. Hopefully this event will help them make the correct decision.

F*ck the NRA. They care about nothing but selling more guns. Time for a 2nd amendment advocacy org that is for responsible/educated gun ownership.

Originally Posted by racist808

And now it's out he was a communist radical left wing with ANTIFA crap all over his FB. A product of his environment. Every mass shooting has been some left wing nut. But the NRA's the problem.

What are you talking about, it's alt-right who are more predisposed to goosestepping around killing people. Not that it matters, you can't judge a whole group of people because of what am unstable individual at the extremes

Originally Posted by 95sn

^^^Easy guys, the NRA is not going to appreciate you snowflakes calling for tighter gun laws.
You know what they are going to say....if you are old enough to join the military and fight for the country.....

Re how easy a CC in KS...
Right now they are trying to make it legal...if you have a concealed carry permit in your state it will apply to any state you travel to. Not a good idea IMO. Hopefully this event will help them make the correct decision.

No. You do not need a permit to CC in KS. I went through the process and got licenced right before they changed the law that allows ANYONE to do it permit free. With my permit I can carry in other states that recognize it. Most do but there are a few that don't(CA, MA, etc.).

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Do you think if any of these shooters knew they would be immediately executed after being convicted of their rampage , some may have given it a second thought ?

Since most of them commit suicide before being apprehended, I'd say most wouldn't give it a second thought.

But thanks for your useless advice. If this were 17 cops that were murdered by an Islamic terrorist, you and the kooky right would be ready to wage war on all Muslims. But since it's just 17 kids and educators and you're worried that some may want it to become a bit more difficult to own a gun, you don't give a $h!t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w...imes&smtyp=cur



"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over." — Dan Hodges.

I'd say it has much more to do with "there are no easy answers". It's rather simpleton to just go right to "we must ban guns". It isn't going to happen, so with that I'd say everyone should start looking for answers that could happen & would happen. Like armed guards. Ain't anyone ever hear of a mass shooting anywhere but soft targets, specifically where guns are not allowed.

Originally Posted by psudy

I did just read the kid went out and bought an AR-15 at 18 years old. I think that is too young to be able to purchase such gun, and I would support putting heavy restrictions/background/mental checks on purchasing them.

You can sign up to join the military at 18. Is that too young to defend your country? Are you going to send the 18 year old military personnel in the field with knives to fight against soldiers with guns? Are you going to police offices wait till that magical age to have a gun with their badge? I really don't believe "any" gun law would have "any effect on the number of school shootings. I do however believe armed guards will minimize the numbers of victims and the number of occurrences. It would be the only logical proactive change to the status quo.

So 18 isnt old enough to buy a beer but old enough to buy an AK. Criminally stupid.

Originally Posted by psudy

No. You do not need a permit to CC in KS. I went through the process and got licenced right before they changed the law that allows ANYONE to do it permit free. With my permit I can carry in other states that recognize it. Most do but there are a few that don't(CA, MA, etc.).

This sounds so crazy to me. Most likely because I live in CA. Here, the ONLY people with guns are cops, on or off duty. Citizens here cant get CC permits without a REALLY REALLY good reason. Out of over 10 million people, 197 permits.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ion-residents/

Originally Posted by racer808

And now it's out he was a communist radical left wing with ANTIFA crap all over his FB. A product of his environment. Every mass shooting has been some left wing nut. But the NRA's the problem.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikola...up-leader-says

Trained with a white supremacist group and wore a MAGA hat to school.

Republican lawmaker says if you want congress to take action on this issue then vote republicans out of office.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/37...mass-shootings

^^^Ouch Racer. The weed must be really good in Colorado.

If the left enforces gun laws like they enforce immigration laws we really don’t have much to worry about

Originally Posted by plhorn

So 18 isnt old enough to buy a beer but old enough to buy an AK. Criminally stupid.

Lol Don't even bring it up, NRA's solution would be to lower the drinking age. Ha ha.

Ready access to guns has no effect on gun violence. Say it three times while looking in the mirror or the NRA will pay you a visit. Reverse candyman.

Originally Posted by pesos

Republican lawmaker says if you want congress to take action on this issue then vote republicans out of office.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/37...mass-shootings

These hypocrite Democrats have no right to take the high ground, come up with a coherent solution or shut up!

Originally Posted by ralph

These hypocrite Democrats have no right to take the high ground, come up with a coherent solution or shut up!

Coherent solution: gun control.

Now where is your solution or shut up.

Ralph I think you misread. It was a republican congressman who said vote out republicans. He also had some suggestions for democrats on what to do once the nra puppets were out.

Originally Posted by plhorn

Coherent solution: gun control.

Now where is your solution or shut up.

Lol, I've detailed my thoughts on the solution a number of times already.

My point is the democrats had 8 years to do something to improve the issue and have failed to do so, it's a bit rich to now say, vote us in we will fix it, trust us, when they give no indication of how they will fix it

Originally Posted by pesos

Ralph I think you misread. It was a republican congressman who said vote out republicans. He also had some suggestions for democrats on what to do once the nra puppets were out.

Oh. Lol, yes i misread. Good for him, nice to see a politician with a shred of decency.

Again, they didn’t say that - a republican did. But you are not wrong about their ineffectiveness.

As I posted above, it’s simple math. More guns means more shootings.

Originally Posted by ralph

Lol, I've detailed my thoughts on the solution a number of times already.

My point is the democrats had 8 years to do something to improve the issue and have failed to do so, it's a bit rich to now say, vote us in we will fix it, trust us, when they give no indication of how they will fix it

embarrassingly this is true. As Racer also humorously pointed out. Obama just did stuff to make it look like they were doing something. At the same time R's and the NRA are a force. There is no one answer or anything that will fix it overnight. This is a L O N G fix.

I guess $3.3m buys a lot of thoughts and prayers aye Rubio?

Originally Posted by racer808

If the left enforces gun laws like they enforce immigration laws we really don’t have much to worry about

Hey man. You're not off the hook. You accused him of being ANTIFA or a left-wing puppet and you said he was "a product of his environment". Now the evidence is out there he was a right-winger, Trump-supporter. Is he still a "product of his environment"? Yes or No.

Originally Posted by wake77

Since most of them commit suicide before being apprehended, I'd say most wouldn't give it a second thought.

But thanks for your useless advice. If this were 17 cops that were murdered by an Islamic terrorist, you and the kooky right would be ready to wage war on all Muslims. But since it's just 17 kids and educators and you're worried that some may want it to become a bit more difficult to own a gun, you don't give a $h!t.

Hey dip**** read the followup post to that one. It explains why I asked the obvious question. Still awaiting answers to oh say about 20 questions your candy ass refuses to answer . Hurl all the insults you want . It’s clear you are afraid of the truth . Just cry complain , and throw drive by posts with no substance. King of useless bs

And yes if 17cops were murdered on us soil by an Islamic terrorist you bet I would be for taking action. I am also up for t aking action against domestic terrorist groups that shoot up groups of innocent people. Also for action against a single person that shoots another . But as you mentioned most mass shooters here end up dead. As I have written in every post we need to take action directly at that source as well.


You’ve already made it crystal clear you’d rather sit back and let Muslims murder people on US soil and then allow them asylum into our country. Which one of us is crazy !

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Hey dip**** read the followup post to that one. It explains why I asked the obvious question. Still awaiting answers to oh say about 20 questions your candy ass refuses to answer . Hurl all the insults you want . It’s clear you are afraid of the truth . Just cry complain , and throw drive by posts with no substance. King of useless bs

And yes if 17cops were murdered on us soil by an Islamic terrorist you bet I would be for taking action. I am also up for t aking action against domestic terrorist groups that shoot up groups of innocent people. Also for action against a single person that shoots another .


You’ve already made it crystal clear you’d rather sit back and let Muslims murder people on US soil and then allow them asylum into our country. Which one of us is crazy !

Okay, man. Looks like the guy was a right-winger and a Trump supporter. You still got that massive hard-on for "taking action"? No, your solution is that more guns is going to make this country safer even though the overwhelming evidence shows that is absolute rubbish.

I didn't throw an insult. Look at my comment. I called your advice useless. Nothing insulting about that. There is nothing said in that post that I wouldn't say to your face if you were standing right in front of me.

Originally Posted by wake77

Hey man. You're not off the hook. You accused him of being ANTIFA or a left-wing puppet and you said he was "a product of his environment". Now the evidence is out there he was a right-winger, Trump-supporter. Is he still a "product of his environment"? Yes or No.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/new...say/341751002/

That's a nice MAGA shirt he has on


how to host images

The only thing the 8 yrs of Obama and the lefties running everything did related to guns is embolden criminals and terrorists by creating an atmosphere of hate. I’d argue no single person in the office divided this country more and incited rage than the big eared baffoon that was in charge. Their policies have destroyed any accountability for individuals actions. Everyone now is dealing with the effects of proping up violent thugs , being soft on crime, having no sense of personal responsibility , and ensuring everyone is entitled to a trophy.

The numbers don’t lie triple digit increases across the board in all areas of violent crime , racking up mass shootings after mass shootings. The simple fact is it’s now reaching EVERYONE ! I read thread after thread of people praising Obama’s admin for allegedly righting the ship regarding the economy. Whet is the accountability for the fact our nation is experiencing an astronomical increase in violence ? Oh that’s right it’s the guns fault

Originally Posted by racer808

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Lol, that's not Cruz fool

Gunman, holds 150 hostage in church, good Samaritan wrestles gunman to ground and disarms him. Police bust in and shoot him by mistake. Whoops, our bad. But guns are good!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacre...ps-didnt-hear/

NRA suggests to arm all ministers now. Problem solved! MAGA!

https://www.snopes.com/florida-shooter-antifa-shirt/

So I guess the question is, does racer808 ever get tired of being wrong. Rhetorical question, of course he doesn't. Ha ha.

Originally Posted by xstarrider

The numbers don’t lie triple digit increases across the board in all areas of violent crime

What numbers are those bro?

Originally Posted by ralph

What numbers are those bro?

That graph shows the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people. It doesn’t give you the actual breakdown of number counts for the crimes. It’s also doesn’t mention the reclassifications that occurred in 2012- 2013 which downgraded some violent crimes. Appreciate the pretty graph tho.

Since you want to use that graph. Explain the sudden major increases in crimes beginning in 2014? And the outlier in 2012 . Again your graph is just another picture of my point. 2 decades of decreasing crime per 100,000 and one guy comes into office and the spike occurs as a direct result of policies


So you and all the anti gunners consistently argue more guns equal more crime. The pretty graph you show illustrates just the opposite does it not ? Violent crime according to the graph YOU PROVIDED , has been on the downward trend for years . So how exactly does that illustrate your guns are evil point ? To me having such a downward trend means things were working exactly as they should . 2015 shows an extreme spike quite the opposite way , A significant increase across the nation . No significant gun laws were changed . Millions of guns were not all of a sudden handed out for free ...........So you can discount the more guns argument as the reason for the spike . Geeeeee. I wonder what could’ve happened in 2014 that led to an increase in violent crime across the nation .

Thank you for again providing the data proving my points . You guys really make this too easy .

Originally Posted by racer808

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/new...say/341751002/

That's a nice MAGA shirt he has on


how to host images

Racer are you off your meds bro? You usually make some semblance of sense but if you think that is Cruz you needs your eyes checked.

MAGA
https://www.snopes.com/did-shooters-...ture-maga-hat/

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Thank you for again providing the data proving my points

Your welcome, always happy to bring stats to the discussion. From the graph when Obama came in the rate was just over 400 and when he went out it was just below 400 so seems to me the trend is pretty flat to slightly down. How does that relate to this 3 fold increase across the board you were talking about? Is this like the % of food stamps that go to illegals? Alternative maths, lol.

Originally Posted by racer808

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

https://www.snopes.com/florida-shooter-antifa-shirt/

Yeah yeah, I fell for that one. But snopes is still a bull**** site that's been caught lying before (not on this one)

Originally Posted by cwb4me

You can sign up to join the military at 18. Is that too young to defend your country? Are you going to send the 18 year old military personnel in the field with knives to fight against soldiers with guns? Are you going to police offices wait till that magical age to have a gun with their badge? I really don't believe "any" gun law would have "any effect on the number of school shootings. I do however believe armed guards will minimize the numbers of victims and the number of occurrences. It would be the only logical proactive change to the status quo.

Joining the military or a police force is entirely different than being able to walk into a store and buy an AR 15. If you can't see the difference there is no point in discussing it.

Originally Posted by psudy

Joining the military or a police force is entirely different than being able to walk into a store and buy an AR 15. If you can't see the difference there is no point in discussing it.

putting armed guards at all schools is an excellent choice to defend our kids NOW. If you can't see the difference between that & trying to round up guns there is no point in discussing it.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

You can sign up to join the military at 18. Is that too young to defend your country? Are you going to send the 18 year old military personnel in the field with knives to fight against soldiers with guns? Are you going to police offices wait till that magical age to have a gun with their badge? I really don't believe "any" gun law would have "any effect on the number of school shootings. I do however believe armed guards will minimize the numbers of victims and the number of occurrences. It would be the only logical proactive change to the status quo.

Last I checked, military service wasn't "bring your own gun."

We let those same 18 year old infantrymen handle grenades too. Why can't I buy one of them at walmart?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

We let those same 18 year old infantrymen handle grenades too. Why can't I buy one of them at walmart?

Cause you bleeding heart liberals won't let us

Originally Posted by racer808

Cause you bleeding heart liberals won't let us

I dunno? Does the constitution not extend to grenades? Second says right to bear arms, not right to bear firearms. Firearms are definitely included within the definition of arms covered by the 2nd. Why isn't the grenade lobby advocating for grenades too?

Authority: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr

"Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)."

Originally Posted by racer808

putting armed guards at all schools is an excellent choice to defend our kids NOW. If you can't see the difference between that & trying to round up guns there is no point in discussing it.

I am not against armed guards(I was the one talking about training and arming a few teachers). I am also not for rounding up all the guns either. However, I am for making it more difficult to purchase certain types of guns. There is no reason someone can't jump through hoops to purchase a gun.

Originally Posted by psudy

I am not against armed guards(I was the one talking about training and arming a few teachers). I am also not for rounding up all the guns either. However, I am for making it more difficult to purchase certain types of guns. There is no reason someone can't jump through hoops to purchase a gun.

I agree with you. To what extent these hoops should be I don't know. I think what we both said earlier in the thread is workable. What I see though is too much "our way or nothing" from both sides.

All over facebook & other places all I be reading this morning is "we need to round up & kill republicans". Telling people to go attack another GOP ball game, etc. That's plenty reason for me to never disarm when half the citizens act like that.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I dunno? Does the constitution not extend to grenades? Second says right to bear arms, not right to bear firearms. Firearms are definitely included within the definition of arms covered by the 2nd. Why isn't the grenade lobby advocating for grenades too?

Authority: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr

"Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)."

Are you a lawyer? That's a little too technical to me & I don't think the courts see it that way. Also keep in mind, the first machine gun was invented 100 plus years before the constitution was written.

Lets say "assault rifles" are banned. I can still buy tanertite by the pounds, pack a cooler, fridge, car, etc full of it & one shot from a 9mm is going to blow it sky high & everything around it. Mass murder is going to happen anywhere. You have valid points but I would submit to you; take away soft targets, gun free zones, public knowledge or what or who is armed & my money says we won't see a mass shooting for a while. We also have a effed up culture that taking weapons, mental health is not going to fix. Why do we seem to have more people wanting to kill in mass than other countries outside of islam?

Originally Posted by racer808

Cause you bleeding heart liberals won't let us

You got that right. But it just goes to show how the implication can distort the truth.

Originally Posted by fly135

You got that right. But it just goes to show how the implication can distort the truth.

I can buy an F-16 without weapons but money keeps me & most people from that. Why do you only want the wealthy to have planes of war?

I am pretty sure a 9mm doesn't have the velocity to ignite tanerite. Has to be a high powered rifle. We usually use a 223 or 308.

Originally Posted by psudy

I am pretty sure a 9mm doesn't have the velocity to ignite tanerite. Has to be a high powered rifle. We usually use a 223 or 308.

I've read a 9mm carbine could get it done. A .44 for sure has gotten done but I think it was at 40 yards & there's no way I'd want to be that close

Originally Posted by racer808

Are you a lawyer? That's a little too technical to me & I don't think the courts see it that way. Also keep in mind, the first machine gun was invented 100 plus years before the constitution was written.

Read the link. It's the supreme court decision in DC vs. Heller, which is the latest and greatest on the scope and extent of the 2nd. It IS how courts see it (at least the highest court in the land, which is really the only one that matters). You are a smart guy and it's a well written and not-too-hard-to-understand (if a little whack in this bleeding-heart liberal's opinion). Basically the NRA asked the court to go to crazytown and the court said how fast can we get there.

Originally Posted by racer808

Lets say "assault rifles" are banned. I can still buy tanertite by the pounds, pack a cooler, fridge, car, etc full of it & one shot from a 9mm is going to blow it sky high & everything around it. Mass murder is going to happen anywhere. You have valid points but I would submit to you; take away soft targets, gun free zones, public knowledge or what or who is armed & my money says we won't see a mass shooting for a while.

Many of us just fundamentally disagree with a dystopian vision of america where everyone *needs* to be armed to be safe. What could possibly go wrong when every moron on the street is packing?

If america is safer with everyone armed, is the world safer with "best" korea (I know how much you love the DPRK ;-) ) having nukes? Again, what could possibly go wrong?

I guess I also disagree with the strawman that the only gun regulation that could possibly be on the table is "taking away all the guns." There's pretty clearly a pattern with AR/AK style weapons being used in mass shootings. And mass shootings seem to be something pretty abhorrent. Sure, mass shootings are just a drop in the gun violence bucket, but certainly the most tragic. Can we try to make those guns more difficult to get on a going forward basis? Nope. Instead of trying anything, we all just throw up our hands and say "whelp, there's another one, nothing you can do."

I mean for goodness sake -- bump stocks! There's something that gun enthusiasts seem to agree is kinda dumb because it's hard to be accurate, but we've got an example where a guy figured out that if he started with a "shooting fish in a barrel" scenario, it could be effective. So why in the world can't we even get legislation passed to ban that one stupid thing and avoid the next copycat who wants to go Rambo?

Originally Posted by racer808

Yeah yeah, I fell for that one. But snopes is still a bull**** site that's been caught lying before (not on this one)

Might want to provide some sources to back that up - you know, the way snopes does. That was straight up Grant-and Obama-Grandma style lol. As others posted earlier - is the conclusion you drew about his “environment” still valid now that your assumptions about him aren’t?

Originally Posted by racer808

I can buy an F-16 without weapons but money keeps me & most people from that. Why do you only want the wealthy to have planes of war?

So they can crash them and redistribute their wealth. But you guys are going to screw that up by eliminating the estate tax.

Self described "proud NRA sellout" pushes vote to relax background checks 24 hours after shooting:

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fl...oting-10090033

Originally Posted by racer808

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/new...say/341751002/

That's a nice MAGA shirt he has on


how to host images

You want to try again?

One thing I noticed about you right-wingers is you refuse to admit when you are wrong.

Originally Posted by pesos

Might want to provide some sources to back that up - you know, the way snopes does. That was straight up Grant-and Obama-Grandma style lol. As others posted earlier - is the conclusion you drew about his “environment” still valid now that your assumptions about him aren’t?

I am starting to believe we are going to get an answer to that question from Jack. He's too busy digging up phony memes and looking for false narratives to share. This is what our country has become; the truth is called "fake news" and blatant lies are called the truth.

If you think you NEED a semi automatic weapon, you are not mentally fit enough to have one.

Trumps solution, ok keep selling weapons with current controls and cut $25m off the education program to try influence violence in schools.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2...mpression=true

How do you manage to cut $25m from a program like this and still run a budget deficit of $1t? Tax cuts and increased military spending to the already biggest military budget in the world. Trump and his team of dunces are truely too stupid to run your country.

Meat cleavers need to be made illegal to purchase as well!!! https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world...-st=1518896236

10 attackers, dumbass.

Originally Posted by Laker1234

Meat cleavers need to be made illegal to purchase as well!!! https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world...-st=1518896236

Ten attackers, 29 dead. How many would be dead if they had AR15s instead of knives?

Typical liberal if you don't like something you want it eliminated. You use whatever logic suits you. Perfect example School shootings are killing our kids. Rather than addressing the real issue evil hearts and kids that don't respect life or authority. You blame guns and tell gun supporters owning a gun isn't necessary even though it's a right given to all Americans in our Constitution. Then I ask you if you want to save kids lives why do you support abortion? You say it's a mother's right to choose. Science has proven life begins at conception, so mother's are killing their children and the children have no rights. How can you say you care about kids when you murder over 300 million kids a year? Mother's can choose to kill their kids and aren't held accountable for their actions just like kids that kill other kids aren't responsible for their actions. Liberal logic blame guns. I see why you can't explain your thinking.

[QUOTE=cwb4me;1975304]Typical liberal if you don't like something you want it eliminated. You use whatever logic suits you. Perfect example School shootings are killing our kids. Rather than addressing the real issue evil hearts and kids that don't respect life or authority. You blame guns and tell gun supporters owning a gun isn't necessary even though it's a right given to all Americans in our Constitution.[/QUOTE

Keep in mind it was writren at the same time that it was a right given to all people to own other people. It's called an amebdment for a reason so we can change it.

Got a solution for evil kids? ... no, then lets get rid of the guns

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Then I ask you if you want to save kids lives why do you support abortion? You say it's a mother's right to choose. Science has proven life begins at conception, so mother's are killing their children and the children have no rights. How can you say you care about kids when you murder over 300 million kids a year?

No science has not shown that. Unless you are defining life as a single cell life form at which point you need to go vegan then stop eating vegetables. But in any case your just trying to change the subject.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Mother's can choose to kill their kids and aren't held accountable for their actions just like kids that kill other kids aren't responsible for their actions. Liberal logic blame guns. I see why you can't explain your thinking.

Its a simple explanation, guns are the most effective easy to use human killing tools. And unless you are planning to kill humans with it they are a hobby. A hobby is not as important as protecting our kids so get rid of your stupid hobby. Have you considered stamp collecting?

Originally Posted by cwb4me

How can you say you care about kids when you murder over 300 million kids a year?

Who murders >300,000,000 kids per year?

Until society is willing to entertain the notion that children are valuable enough to be guarded on school grounds rather than worrying about how uncomfortable it is to consider, nothing will change. It's unfortunate the world we live in has deteriorated to necessitate such action. To pretend that guarding children is more unacceptable than their potential death is preposterous. With an active shooter, schools don't call law enforcement because they have badges......

+1 to this reply. That has to be the most ignorant post of this whole thread

Oops out of order now. +1 to plhorn

Ten attackers, 29 dead. How many would be dead if they had AR15s instead of knives? How many would still be alive if the civilians were armed?

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Then I ask you if you want to save kids lives why do you support abortion?.

I don't support abortion.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Who murders >300,000,000 kids per year?

I think he is referring to the 600k legal abortions per year. Run it though the xstarrider advanced maths calculator = 300m

Originally Posted by cwb4me

How can you say you care about kids when you murder over 300 million kids a year?

So you are making this argument to prove that he doesn't care about kids anymore than you? And therefore you both should just be happy about not caring.