A challenge for the left & I bet none of them can fulfill it...

[Slade3200]

Like I said, nothing is going to stop killing, gun violence, or mass shootings. But our regulations can help decrease the body count. And limit access to weapons that can inflict massive amounts of death in short periods of time.

Here is a real example. The Orlando shooter went to a gun store to buy more weapons and body armor. They thankfully didn't sell to him. Let's say we do things your way and drop gun control regulations, and he goes in there and buys body armor and a machine gun. Do you really think the body count would have been only 50?

Speculation, at best. No one knows for sure what might have happened under different circumstances. We have no way of knowing how many he would've killed before the cops killed him. The point is, many died, and there's absolutely nothing that would've stopped him from killing many people.

It's not the number of deaths, but gun violence in general, whether it's 3 or 4, or dozens at a time. The point is, and I repeat myself here, there is no way humanly possible to end gun violence. We do not have the technology to read minds. We don't know if the grocery store clerk is on the edge of sanity or not. We don't know if our next door neighbor is depressed, angry, and ready to end it all, and take several innocent people with him when he goes. We don't know if our mail carrier is going through a nasty divorce and wants to just end his life, and take several innocent people with him/her. We never know who is going to go postal, when, why, nor how. We can't read minds. We can't test everyone for mental illnesses every few months forever. We can't stop suicides, murder, illegal drugs, wars, depression, hatred, nor any other human emotions or behavior if we don't know in advance.

Think about domestic disputes, vengeance, hatred, racism, fanatics, terrorists, lunatics, crazies, suicidal people, the mentally disturbed, alcoholics, drug addicts, gangs, criminals, rogue supremacist groups, religious zealots, and others. How do we stop them? How are we going to find them, disarm them, and prevent the tragedies that they would've caused?

Can laws solve all of the problems concerning gun violence and deaths?

I agree, there will always be gun violence and nothing will stop all of these tragic killing from happening. But just use your brain, give Orlando guy body armor a machine gun and grenades... What do you think would have happened?

You seem to be saying that if we can't stop all violence then we should t do anything that can reduce it. This makes no sense to me

No, I'm NOT saying that at all. What I am saying, is that there are NO additional laws, those not already on the books, that will prevent what we've seen, and what we'll no doubt see in the future. We have strict gun laws now, and still we have mass killings by guns.

Do you know of any additional laws that we could enact, that would greatly minimize, or stop what has been making headlines such as Orlando? Limiting magazine capacity will not solve, nor minimize the attacks. Banning automatic weapons will not prevent what we saw in Orlando. Anyone can purchase kits to make semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic. Background checks will not stop nor minimize the attacks.

Any suggestions? Give me an example of what you would do if you had the power and authority to enact laws.

I'm personally not a big advocate to banning assault riffles but I'm not opposed to the discussion and think it is a healthy one for our law makers to have. The regulations on automatic weapons and others capable of mass destruction is a very good thing that I'm confident has saved lives.

A better background check system could have prevented the Orlando shooting.... He was under FBI surveillance for 10 months. I'd hope that when he went into a gun store to purchase body armor and more weapons that would set off a flag and the gun store and FBI would be made aware. Perhaps the FBI would have watched him again, seen him casing out Disney and the club, they may have been able to get him before he acted.

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Do existing laws prevent people from being killed on carnival rides? From being eaten by alligators? dying from automobile accidents? Drowning in swimming pools? Being killed by drunk drivers? Being hit by lightning? Of course not. Never have and never will.

Yes, laws and regulations affect many of those... Carnival rides need safety checks, people's lives are saved by seat belts and airbags every day in auto accidents, DUIs take drunks off the road and make them think twice before driving drunk, fences around pools prevent children from drowning... The list goes on

Really? Are you sure about that?

Then how do drunk drivers kill so many people each year?
Why do kids still drown in swimming pools?
Why do small children still die as a result of carnival rides?
Why do motorists die even with seat belts on when involved in horrible high speed car accidents?
Why do airbags cause the death of people, and result in so many law suits?
Does speed limits on our roads and highways prevent speeding?
Does drunk driving laws prevent drunks from driving?
Do our laws concerning crime prevent bank robberies?
Do our laws prevent rape, child molestation, theft, the sell of illegal drugs, or prevent income tax evasion?
Do our laws prevent prostitution?

So, in your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent gun violence? In your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent lunatics and crazies from going postal and killing people?

It's not all or nothing... All these things will still happen. My claim is that they minimize the number of casualties. Are you claiming that no lives are being saved from any of these pretective/preventative measures?

Well, if existing laws have no effect on gun violence, what additional laws will? Any idea? What additional laws will prevent what happened in Orlando, Charleston South Carolina, Los Angeles, Columbine High School, and other senseless deadly attacks on innocent citizens? Any idea?

How do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies, lunatics, the mentally disturbed, and the haters? Any suggestions?

Yes, we don't let risky people easy buy a gun at a store. Make them try to steal one where they could get caught or make them ask around to buy one on the black market which then involves others as accomplices in their crimes.

I can pretty confidently say that the fact the Orlando shooter didn't have a machine gun grenades and body armor reduced the body count. Perhaps better FBI servellence could have prevented the attack but we are never going to stop all of them. Best we can do is lay out as many speed bumps as possible to slow them down and implement as many prevention techniques as we can.

Serious question: Who are the risky people? Our next door neighbor? The grocery store clerk where we shop? The nice man that helps the school kids cross the street? Our mail carrier? The auto mechanic that keeps our vehicle running smoothly? The pharmacist at our local drug store? The kid that mows our lawn and cleans the gutters? The young man that just got back from 2 tours in Afghanistan? The retired police officer that volunteers at the local food kitchen for the poor? The paper boy that delivers our morning paper? The lady that takes up collections for the Red Cross? The football coach at the local high school? The quiet old man that sits on his porch waving at everyone that passes his house?

Please, tell me who do we watch, test, suspect, and restrict?

Who is risky? Was the soldier "risky" that took out lives on the military base in Texas? If so, why was he in the military? Why was he on a military base to begin with?

 

[Slade3200]

Speculation, at best. No one knows for sure what might have happened under different circumstances. We have no way of knowing how many he would've killed before the cops killed him. The point is, many died, and there's absolutely nothing that would've stopped him from killing many people.

It's not the number of deaths, but gun violence in general, whether it's 3 or 4, or dozens at a time. The point is, and I repeat myself here, there is no way humanly possible to end gun violence. We do not have the technology to read minds. We don't know if the grocery store clerk is on the edge of sanity or not. We don't know if our next door neighbor is depressed, angry, and ready to end it all, and take several innocent people with him when he goes. We don't know if our mail carrier is going through a nasty divorce and wants to just end his life, and take several innocent people with him/her. We never know who is going to go postal, when, why, nor how. We can't read minds. We can't test everyone for mental illnesses every few months forever. We can't stop suicides, murder, illegal drugs, wars, depression, hatred, nor any other human emotions or behavior if we don't know in advance.

Think about domestic disputes, vengeance, hatred, racism, fanatics, terrorists, lunatics, crazies, suicidal people, the mentally disturbed, alcoholics, drug addicts, gangs, criminals, rogue supremacist groups, religious zealots, and others. How do we stop them? How are we going to find them, disarm them, and prevent the tragedies that they would've caused?

Can laws solve all of the problems concerning gun violence and deaths?

I agree, there will always be gun violence and nothing will stop all of these tragic killing from happening. But just use your brain, give Orlando guy body armor a machine gun and grenades... What do you think would have happened?

You seem to be saying that if we can't stop all violence then we should t do anything that can reduce it. This makes no sense to me

No, I'm NOT saying that at all. What I am saying, is that there are NO additional laws, those not already on the books, that will prevent what we've seen, and what we'll no doubt see in the future. We have strict gun laws now, and still we have mass killings by guns.

Do you know of any additional laws that we could enact, that would greatly minimize, or stop what has been making headlines such as Orlando? Limiting magazine capacity will not solve, nor minimize the attacks. Banning automatic weapons will not prevent what we saw in Orlando. Anyone can purchase kits to make semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic. Background checks will not stop nor minimize the attacks.

Any suggestions? Give me an example of what you would do if you had the power and authority to enact laws.

I'm personally not a big advocate to banning assault riffles but I'm not opposed to the discussion and think it is a healthy one for our law makers to have. The regulations on automatic weapons and others capable of mass destruction is a very good thing that I'm confident has saved lives.

A better background check system could have prevented the Orlando shooting.... He was under FBI surveillance for 10 months. I'd hope that when he went into a gun store to purchase body armor and more weapons that would set off a flag and the gun store and FBI would be made aware. Perhaps the FBI would have watched him again, seen him casing out Disney and the club, they may have been able to get him before he acted.

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

I'd also increase punishments for gun related crimes and invest in education

 

[Sonny Clark]

Speculation, at best. No one knows for sure what might have happened under different circumstances. We have no way of knowing how many he would've killed before the cops killed him. The point is, many died, and there's absolutely nothing that would've stopped him from killing many people.

It's not the number of deaths, but gun violence in general, whether it's 3 or 4, or dozens at a time. The point is, and I repeat myself here, there is no way humanly possible to end gun violence. We do not have the technology to read minds. We don't know if the grocery store clerk is on the edge of sanity or not. We don't know if our next door neighbor is depressed, angry, and ready to end it all, and take several innocent people with him when he goes. We don't know if our mail carrier is going through a nasty divorce and wants to just end his life, and take several innocent people with him/her. We never know who is going to go postal, when, why, nor how. We can't read minds. We can't test everyone for mental illnesses every few months forever. We can't stop suicides, murder, illegal drugs, wars, depression, hatred, nor any other human emotions or behavior if we don't know in advance.

Think about domestic disputes, vengeance, hatred, racism, fanatics, terrorists, lunatics, crazies, suicidal people, the mentally disturbed, alcoholics, drug addicts, gangs, criminals, rogue supremacist groups, religious zealots, and others. How do we stop them? How are we going to find them, disarm them, and prevent the tragedies that they would've caused?

Can laws solve all of the problems concerning gun violence and deaths?

I agree, there will always be gun violence and nothing will stop all of these tragic killing from happening. But just use your brain, give Orlando guy body armor a machine gun and grenades... What do you think would have happened?

You seem to be saying that if we can't stop all violence then we should t do anything that can reduce it. This makes no sense to me

No, I'm NOT saying that at all. What I am saying, is that there are NO additional laws, those not already on the books, that will prevent what we've seen, and what we'll no doubt see in the future. We have strict gun laws now, and still we have mass killings by guns.

Do you know of any additional laws that we could enact, that would greatly minimize, or stop what has been making headlines such as Orlando? Limiting magazine capacity will not solve, nor minimize the attacks. Banning automatic weapons will not prevent what we saw in Orlando. Anyone can purchase kits to make semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic. Background checks will not stop nor minimize the attacks.

Any suggestions? Give me an example of what you would do if you had the power and authority to enact laws.

I'm personally not a big advocate to banning assault riffles but I'm not opposed to the discussion and think it is a healthy one for our law makers to have. The regulations on automatic weapons and others capable of mass destruction is a very good thing that I'm confident has saved lives.

A better background check system could have prevented the Orlando shooting.... He was under FBI surveillance for 10 months. I'd hope that when he went into a gun store to purchase body armor and more weapons that would set off a flag and the gun store and FBI would be made aware. Perhaps the FBI would have watched him again, seen him casing out Disney and the club, they may have been able to get him before he acted.

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

Ok. I understand. But, that's nothing new. Those have been bounced around for some time now. We've talked about those for at least several years now. If there were any real meat to them, they would've already been passed and enacted. But, still, those would have very little affect, if any, on what we've seen happen in mass killings.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I agree, there will always be gun violence and nothing will stop all of these tragic killing from happening. But just use your brain, give Orlando guy body armor a machine gun and grenades... What do you think would have happened?

You seem to be saying that if we can't stop all violence then we should t do anything that can reduce it. This makes no sense to me

No, I'm NOT saying that at all. What I am saying, is that there are NO additional laws, those not already on the books, that will prevent what we've seen, and what we'll no doubt see in the future. We have strict gun laws now, and still we have mass killings by guns.

Do you know of any additional laws that we could enact, that would greatly minimize, or stop what has been making headlines such as Orlando? Limiting magazine capacity will not solve, nor minimize the attacks. Banning automatic weapons will not prevent what we saw in Orlando. Anyone can purchase kits to make semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic. Background checks will not stop nor minimize the attacks.

Any suggestions? Give me an example of what you would do if you had the power and authority to enact laws.

I'm personally not a big advocate to banning assault riffles but I'm not opposed to the discussion and think it is a healthy one for our law makers to have. The regulations on automatic weapons and others capable of mass destruction is a very good thing that I'm confident has saved lives.

A better background check system could have prevented the Orlando shooting.... He was under FBI surveillance for 10 months. I'd hope that when he went into a gun store to purchase body armor and more weapons that would set off a flag and the gun store and FBI would be made aware. Perhaps the FBI would have watched him again, seen him casing out Disney and the club, they may have been able to get him before he acted.

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

I'd also increase punishments for gun related crimes and invest in education

FYI - Punishment is "after the fact", and NOT prevention.
Education about what? Educate who?

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, laws and regulations affect many of those... Carnival rides need safety checks, people's lives are saved by seat belts and airbags every day in auto accidents, DUIs take drunks off the road and make them think twice before driving drunk, fences around pools prevent children from drowning... The list goes on

Really? Are you sure about that?

Then how do drunk drivers kill so many people each year?
Why do kids still drown in swimming pools?
Why do small children still die as a result of carnival rides?
Why do motorists die even with seat belts on when involved in horrible high speed car accidents?
Why do airbags cause the death of people, and result in so many law suits?
Does speed limits on our roads and highways prevent speeding?
Does drunk driving laws prevent drunks from driving?
Do our laws concerning crime prevent bank robberies?
Do our laws prevent rape, child molestation, theft, the sell of illegal drugs, or prevent income tax evasion?
Do our laws prevent prostitution?

So, in your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent gun violence? In your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent lunatics and crazies from going postal and killing people?

It's not all or nothing... All these things will still happen. My claim is that they minimize the number of casualties. Are you claiming that no lives are being saved from any of these pretective/preventative measures?

Well, if existing laws have no effect on gun violence, what additional laws will? Any idea? What additional laws will prevent what happened in Orlando, Charleston South Carolina, Los Angeles, Columbine High School, and other senseless deadly attacks on innocent citizens? Any idea?

How do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies, lunatics, the mentally disturbed, and the haters? Any suggestions?

Yes, we don't let risky people easy buy a gun at a store. Make them try to steal one where they could get caught or make them ask around to buy one on the black market which then involves others as accomplices in their crimes.

I can pretty confidently say that the fact the Orlando shooter didn't have a machine gun grenades and body armor reduced the body count. Perhaps better FBI servellence could have prevented the attack but we are never going to stop all of them. Best we can do is lay out as many speed bumps as possible to slow them down and implement as many prevention techniques as we can.

Serious question: Who are the risky people? Our next door neighbor? The grocery store clerk where we shop? The nice man that helps the school kids cross the street? Our mail carrier? The auto mechanic that keeps our vehicle running smoothly? The pharmacist at our local drug store? The kid that mows our lawn and cleans the gutters? The young man that just got back from 2 tours in Afghanistan? The retired police officer that volunteers at the local food kitchen for the poor? The paper boy that delivers our morning paper? The lady that takes up collections for the Red Cross? The football coach at the local high school? The quiet old man that sits on his porch waving at everyone that passes his house?

Please, tell me who do we watch, test, suspect, and restrict?

Who is risky? Was the soldier "risky" that took out lives on the military base in Texas? If so, why was he in the military? Why was he on a military base to begin with?

You're just gonna keep poking aren't you. Risky people are ones with mental health issues, a violent history, those on an FBI watch list. Are all crazies going to be identified and caught? No. Could some be prevented from getting weapons? Yes. Is that a good thing? Yes

The army dude was risky and that one fell through the cracks. He showed signs that the army ignored. Again, we are never going to catch and prevent them all... But why don't you think we should try?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Really? Are you sure about that?

Then how do drunk drivers kill so many people each year?
Why do kids still drown in swimming pools?
Why do small children still die as a result of carnival rides?
Why do motorists die even with seat belts on when involved in horrible high speed car accidents?
Why do airbags cause the death of people, and result in so many law suits?
Does speed limits on our roads and highways prevent speeding?
Does drunk driving laws prevent drunks from driving?
Do our laws concerning crime prevent bank robberies?
Do our laws prevent rape, child molestation, theft, the sell of illegal drugs, or prevent income tax evasion?
Do our laws prevent prostitution?

So, in your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent gun violence? In your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent lunatics and crazies from going postal and killing people?

It's not all or nothing... All these things will still happen. My claim is that they minimize the number of casualties. Are you claiming that no lives are being saved from any of these pretective/preventative measures?

Well, if existing laws have no effect on gun violence, what additional laws will? Any idea? What additional laws will prevent what happened in Orlando, Charleston South Carolina, Los Angeles, Columbine High School, and other senseless deadly attacks on innocent citizens? Any idea?

How do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies, lunatics, the mentally disturbed, and the haters? Any suggestions?

Yes, we don't let risky people easy buy a gun at a store. Make them try to steal one where they could get caught or make them ask around to buy one on the black market which then involves others as accomplices in their crimes.

I can pretty confidently say that the fact the Orlando shooter didn't have a machine gun grenades and body armor reduced the body count. Perhaps better FBI servellence could have prevented the attack but we are never going to stop all of them. Best we can do is lay out as many speed bumps as possible to slow them down and implement as many prevention techniques as we can.

Serious question: Who are the risky people? Our next door neighbor? The grocery store clerk where we shop? The nice man that helps the school kids cross the street? Our mail carrier? The auto mechanic that keeps our vehicle running smoothly? The pharmacist at our local drug store? The kid that mows our lawn and cleans the gutters? The young man that just got back from 2 tours in Afghanistan? The retired police officer that volunteers at the local food kitchen for the poor? The paper boy that delivers our morning paper? The lady that takes up collections for the Red Cross? The football coach at the local high school? The quiet old man that sits on his porch waving at everyone that passes his house?

Please, tell me who do we watch, test, suspect, and restrict?

Who is risky? Was the soldier "risky" that took out lives on the military base in Texas? If so, why was he in the military? Why was he on a military base to begin with?

You're just gonna keep poking aren't you. Risky people are ones with mental health issues, a violent history, those on an FBI watch list. Are all crazies going to be identified and caught? No. Could some be prevented from getting weapons? Yes. Is that a good thing? Yes

The army dude was risky and that one fell through the cracks. He showed signs that the army ignored. Again, we are never going to catch and prevent them all... But why don't you think we should try?

OK. Fair enough.
So, do we test everyone? Please look at the list I gave in thread #102 of this conversation, and then tell me who of those do we watch, test, suspect, do a background check on, and make a determination as to the "risk factor". Thanks.

Please keep in mind that many show no signs of aggression prior to going postal.

Who do we watch? Who are to be considered "risky" that are not already being watched?

 

[Slade3200]

I agree, there will always be gun violence and nothing will stop all of these tragic killing from happening. But just use your brain, give Orlando guy body armor a machine gun and grenades... What do you think would have happened?

You seem to be saying that if we can't stop all violence then we should t do anything that can reduce it. This makes no sense to me

No, I'm NOT saying that at all. What I am saying, is that there are NO additional laws, those not already on the books, that will prevent what we've seen, and what we'll no doubt see in the future. We have strict gun laws now, and still we have mass killings by guns.

Do you know of any additional laws that we could enact, that would greatly minimize, or stop what has been making headlines such as Orlando? Limiting magazine capacity will not solve, nor minimize the attacks. Banning automatic weapons will not prevent what we saw in Orlando. Anyone can purchase kits to make semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic. Background checks will not stop nor minimize the attacks.

Any suggestions? Give me an example of what you would do if you had the power and authority to enact laws.

I'm personally not a big advocate to banning assault riffles but I'm not opposed to the discussion and think it is a healthy one for our law makers to have. The regulations on automatic weapons and others capable of mass destruction is a very good thing that I'm confident has saved lives.

A better background check system could have prevented the Orlando shooting.... He was under FBI surveillance for 10 months. I'd hope that when he went into a gun store to purchase body armor and more weapons that would set off a flag and the gun store and FBI would be made aware. Perhaps the FBI would have watched him again, seen him casing out Disney and the club, they may have been able to get him before he acted.

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

Ok. I understand. But, that's nothing new. Those have been bounced around for some time now. We've talked about those for at least several years now. If there were any real meat to them, they would've already been passed and enacted. But, still, those would have very little affect, if any, on what we've seen happen in mass killings.

The problem is that we cant have a rational discussion about these things without the partisan knee jerk reactions. The right thinks anything from the left with gun control is a hidden attempt to disarm America, and the left thinks everybody on the right is a NRA puppet.

Fact is bad things happen and will always happen. We should be able to take small steps to help the situation using rational debate and not over exaggerated rhetoric and gross distortions of the oppositions motives

 

[Slade3200]

It's not all or nothing... All these things will still happen. My claim is that they minimize the number of casualties. Are you claiming that no lives are being saved from any of these pretective/preventative measures?

Well, if existing laws have no effect on gun violence, what additional laws will? Any idea? What additional laws will prevent what happened in Orlando, Charleston South Carolina, Los Angeles, Columbine High School, and other senseless deadly attacks on innocent citizens? Any idea?

How do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies, lunatics, the mentally disturbed, and the haters? Any suggestions?

Yes, we don't let risky people easy buy a gun at a store. Make them try to steal one where they could get caught or make them ask around to buy one on the black market which then involves others as accomplices in their crimes.

I can pretty confidently say that the fact the Orlando shooter didn't have a machine gun grenades and body armor reduced the body count. Perhaps better FBI servellence could have prevented the attack but we are never going to stop all of them. Best we can do is lay out as many speed bumps as possible to slow them down and implement as many prevention techniques as we can.

Serious question: Who are the risky people? Our next door neighbor? The grocery store clerk where we shop? The nice man that helps the school kids cross the street? Our mail carrier? The auto mechanic that keeps our vehicle running smoothly? The pharmacist at our local drug store? The kid that mows our lawn and cleans the gutters? The young man that just got back from 2 tours in Afghanistan? The retired police officer that volunteers at the local food kitchen for the poor? The paper boy that delivers our morning paper? The lady that takes up collections for the Red Cross? The football coach at the local high school? The quiet old man that sits on his porch waving at everyone that passes his house?

Please, tell me who do we watch, test, suspect, and restrict?

Who is risky? Was the soldier "risky" that took out lives on the military base in Texas? If so, why was he in the military? Why was he on a military base to begin with?

You're just gonna keep poking aren't you. Risky people are ones with mental health issues, a violent history, those on an FBI watch list. Are all crazies going to be identified and caught? No. Could some be prevented from getting weapons? Yes. Is that a good thing? Yes

The army dude was risky and that one fell through the cracks. He showed signs that the army ignored. Again, we are never going to catch and prevent them all... But why don't you think we should try?

OK. Fair enough.
So, do we test everyone? Please look at the list I gave in thread #102 of this conversation, and then tell me who of those do we watch, test, suspect, do a background check on, and make a determination as to the "risk factor". Thanks.

Please keep in mind that many show no signs of aggression prior to going postal.

Who do we watch? Who are to be considered "risky" that are not already being watched?

We check people who purchase weapons. That's a great discussion to be had. Don't you think it's worth exploring? Work with gun store owners, gun owners, the FBI, and law enforcement to better our current background check system?

 

[Sonny Clark]

No, I'm NOT saying that at all. What I am saying, is that there are NO additional laws, those not already on the books, that will prevent what we've seen, and what we'll no doubt see in the future. We have strict gun laws now, and still we have mass killings by guns.

Do you know of any additional laws that we could enact, that would greatly minimize, or stop what has been making headlines such as Orlando? Limiting magazine capacity will not solve, nor minimize the attacks. Banning automatic weapons will not prevent what we saw in Orlando. Anyone can purchase kits to make semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic. Background checks will not stop nor minimize the attacks.

Any suggestions? Give me an example of what you would do if you had the power and authority to enact laws.

I'm personally not a big advocate to banning assault riffles but I'm not opposed to the discussion and think it is a healthy one for our law makers to have. The regulations on automatic weapons and others capable of mass destruction is a very good thing that I'm confident has saved lives.

A better background check system could have prevented the Orlando shooting.... He was under FBI surveillance for 10 months. I'd hope that when he went into a gun store to purchase body armor and more weapons that would set off a flag and the gun store and FBI would be made aware. Perhaps the FBI would have watched him again, seen him casing out Disney and the club, they may have been able to get him before he acted.

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

Ok. I understand. But, that's nothing new. Those have been bounced around for some time now. We've talked about those for at least several years now. If there were any real meat to them, they would've already been passed and enacted. But, still, those would have very little affect, if any, on what we've seen happen in mass killings.

The problem is that we cant have a rational discussion about these things without the partisan knee jerk reactions. The right thinks anything from the left with gun control is a hidden attempt to disarm America, and the left thinks everybody on the right is a NRA puppet.

Fact is bad things happen and will always happen. We should be able to take small steps to help the situation using rational debate and not over exaggerated rhetoric and gross distortions of the oppositions motives

FYI - The people with the power and authority to enact laws have been discussing this issue for years now. This is nothing new. Senseless deadly killings have been taking place for many years now. And, each time tragedy strikes, this same discussion pops up. The results is a merry-go-round, endless back-and-forth rhetoric, and no solutions are offered.

Yes, at some point in time, something needs to be done. But, until a doable, workable, and fair solutions is placed on the table, we'll continue to see and read about gun violence ending in tragedy and horror. Obviously, you have no answers, or you would've given the answer two hours ago. I certainly don't have the answer, and neither does anyone else. There is no answer until such time as the technology comes along that will allow us to read minds.

There will always be guns, or weapons capable of killing. There will always be lunatics, crazies, the mentally disturbed, the fanatics, the losers, and the haters. The bottom line is, we can talk about it, argue about it, cry over lost loved ones, ache for families caught up in the tragedies, but aside from that, we can do nothing to prevent senseless deadly gun violence.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm personally not a big advocate to banning assault riffles but I'm not opposed to the discussion and think it is a healthy one for our law makers to have. The regulations on automatic weapons and others capable of mass destruction is a very good thing that I'm confident has saved lives.

A better background check system could have prevented the Orlando shooting.... He was under FBI surveillance for 10 months. I'd hope that when he went into a gun store to purchase body armor and more weapons that would set off a flag and the gun store and FBI would be made aware. Perhaps the FBI would have watched him again, seen him casing out Disney and the club, they may have been able to get him before he acted.

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

Ok. I understand. But, that's nothing new. Those have been bounced around for some time now. We've talked about those for at least several years now. If there were any real meat to them, they would've already been passed and enacted. But, still, those would have very little affect, if any, on what we've seen happen in mass killings.

The problem is that we cant have a rational discussion about these things without the partisan knee jerk reactions. The right thinks anything from the left with gun control is a hidden attempt to disarm America, and the left thinks everybody on the right is a NRA puppet.

Fact is bad things happen and will always happen. We should be able to take small steps to help the situation using rational debate and not over exaggerated rhetoric and gross distortions of the oppositions motives

FYI - The people with the power and authority to enact laws have been discussing this issue for years now. This is nothing new. Senseless deadly killings have been taking place for many years now. And, each time tragedy strikes, this same discussion pops up. The results is a merry-go-round, endless back-and-forth rhetoric, and no solutions are offered.

Yes, at some point in time, something needs to be done. But, until a doable, workable, and fair solutions is placed on the table, we'll continue to see and read about gun violence ending in tragedy and horror. Obviously, you have no answers, or you would've given the answer two hours ago. I certainly don't have the answer, and neither does anyone else. There is no answer until such time as the technology comes along that will allow us to read minds.

There will always be guns, or weapons capable of killing. There will always be lunatics, crazies, the mentally disturbed, the fanatics, the losers, and the haters. The bottom line is, we can talk about it, argue about it, cry over lost loved ones, ache for families caught up in the tragedies, but aside from that, we can do nothing to prevent senseless deadly gun violence.

Nicely said... I appreciate the debate

 

[Sonny Clark]

Well, if existing laws have no effect on gun violence, what additional laws will? Any idea? What additional laws will prevent what happened in Orlando, Charleston South Carolina, Los Angeles, Columbine High School, and other senseless deadly attacks on innocent citizens? Any idea?

How do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies, lunatics, the mentally disturbed, and the haters? Any suggestions?

Yes, we don't let risky people easy buy a gun at a store. Make them try to steal one where they could get caught or make them ask around to buy one on the black market which then involves others as accomplices in their crimes.

I can pretty confidently say that the fact the Orlando shooter didn't have a machine gun grenades and body armor reduced the body count. Perhaps better FBI servellence could have prevented the attack but we are never going to stop all of them. Best we can do is lay out as many speed bumps as possible to slow them down and implement as many prevention techniques as we can.

Serious question: Who are the risky people? Our next door neighbor? The grocery store clerk where we shop? The nice man that helps the school kids cross the street? Our mail carrier? The auto mechanic that keeps our vehicle running smoothly? The pharmacist at our local drug store? The kid that mows our lawn and cleans the gutters? The young man that just got back from 2 tours in Afghanistan? The retired police officer that volunteers at the local food kitchen for the poor? The paper boy that delivers our morning paper? The lady that takes up collections for the Red Cross? The football coach at the local high school? The quiet old man that sits on his porch waving at everyone that passes his house?

Please, tell me who do we watch, test, suspect, and restrict?

Who is risky? Was the soldier "risky" that took out lives on the military base in Texas? If so, why was he in the military? Why was he on a military base to begin with?

You're just gonna keep poking aren't you. Risky people are ones with mental health issues, a violent history, those on an FBI watch list. Are all crazies going to be identified and caught? No. Could some be prevented from getting weapons? Yes. Is that a good thing? Yes

The army dude was risky and that one fell through the cracks. He showed signs that the army ignored. Again, we are never going to catch and prevent them all... But why don't you think we should try?

OK. Fair enough.
So, do we test everyone? Please look at the list I gave in thread #102 of this conversation, and then tell me who of those do we watch, test, suspect, do a background check on, and make a determination as to the "risk factor". Thanks.

Please keep in mind that many show no signs of aggression prior to going postal.

Who do we watch? Who are to be considered "risky" that are not already being watched?

We check people who purchase weapons. That's a great discussion to be had. Don't you think it's worth exploring? Work with gun store owners, gun owners, the FBI, and law enforcement to better our current background check system?

FYI - A lot of people that have guns did not purchase them through normal lawful channels, and certainly not from gun stores. Also, why check them "after" the sale? Why not do as we do now, check them before placing the gun in their hands? Isn't that what background checks are? It would be dumb to issue a gun, and then start checking out the person that just bought it. We check now to see if there's any reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to lawfully purchase a gun, do we not? Why check after the fact? Do we send a member of the ATF, FBI, CIA, or NSA to keep an eye on every single person that lawfully purchases a gun? Think of the manpower and cost involved.

And still, that wouldn't have any affect on those that get guns through unlawful channels. Remember, it's not only guns that are purchased at gun stores that do the damage.

Anything other suggestions? Ideas?

 

[Sonny Clark]

So, in other words, you have no answer? You just guess, speculate, that some action MAY prevent future deadly attacks where guns may be involved? So, you don't have any idea as to what law, or laws, could be enacted that would greatly reduce deadly gun violence? So, you're whole argument is that we need to do something, but you have no earthly idea as to what that "something" might be?

Am I correct? If not, then please explain exactly how you would greatly reduce deadly gun violence in this country. Thanks.

Did you read what I wrote? Here I'll simplify...
Furthering discussions on regulations for highly destructive weapons I'd support. And beefing up our background check system.

Ok. I understand. But, that's nothing new. Those have been bounced around for some time now. We've talked about those for at least several years now. If there were any real meat to them, they would've already been passed and enacted. But, still, those would have very little affect, if any, on what we've seen happen in mass killings.

The problem is that we cant have a rational discussion about these things without the partisan knee jerk reactions. The right thinks anything from the left with gun control is a hidden attempt to disarm America, and the left thinks everybody on the right is a NRA puppet.

Fact is bad things happen and will always happen. We should be able to take small steps to help the situation using rational debate and not over exaggerated rhetoric and gross distortions of the oppositions motives

FYI - The people with the power and authority to enact laws have been discussing this issue for years now. This is nothing new. Senseless deadly killings have been taking place for many years now. And, each time tragedy strikes, this same discussion pops up. The results is a merry-go-round, endless back-and-forth rhetoric, and no solutions are offered.

Yes, at some point in time, something needs to be done. But, until a doable, workable, and fair solutions is placed on the table, we'll continue to see and read about gun violence ending in tragedy and horror. Obviously, you have no answers, or you would've given the answer two hours ago. I certainly don't have the answer, and neither does anyone else. There is no answer until such time as the technology comes along that will allow us to read minds.

There will always be guns, or weapons capable of killing. There will always be lunatics, crazies, the mentally disturbed, the fanatics, the losers, and the haters. The bottom line is, we can talk about it, argue about it, cry over lost loved ones, ache for families caught up in the tragedies, but aside from that, we can do nothing to prevent senseless deadly gun violence.

Nicely said... I appreciate the debate

Thanks. I also enjoyed it. It was very good.

 

[Londoner]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

Same is true for nuclear weapons, which also require a user.

But that doesn't mean we should let Iran or any terrorist posses one.

We regulate guns and nukes because we don't want to make it easier for evil or angry or crazy people to kill others.

Cars also require a user, but we have vehicles laws to limit the harm that humans can cause with them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Our problem is human nature & how it can be perverted or ill. Not guns.
As sad as situations like these are they pale in comparison to the weekly murder rates of our biggest & even smallest cities. But those topics are considered taboo. Go figure

 

[RandallFlagg]

Oh, I think Young Blood has proven the case many times already.

In your own words, what was proved? Seriously, I'd like to hear from you what exactly was proven.

Like I just told you - land mines are NOT legal, by any stretch of the imagination. Never have been, never will. Get your act together before you enter into an argument that you have no chance of winning.

Nobody is arguing that landmines are legal. I didn't think you were following along.

No you are asking why we should not ban guns.

First is that a gun ban will not stop mass murders.
Second, criminals can obtain guns through the black market
And Third, you are disarming innocent people for what killers do

The only thing you gain from a ban of guns is a false sense of security. You may have ban the sales, but the ban does not remove guns from the society.

As already correctly noted: no one is advocating that guns be ‘banned,’ the notion is both un-Constitutional and untenable.

No one is advocating that citizens be ‘disarmed,’ that’s a ridiculous lie.

And that criminals can obtain firearms by means other than an FFL fails as a red herring fallacy.

Nope. you and yours just want to "amend" the Constitution to say something that it doesn't currently say - so that down the line - you can do your tyrannical thing. You fool no one hypocrite.

 

[HappyJoy]

In your own words, what was proved? Seriously, I'd like to hear from you what exactly was proven.

Like I just told you - land mines are NOT legal, by any stretch of the imagination. Never have been, never will. Get your act together before you enter into an argument that you have no chance of winning.

Nobody is arguing that landmines are legal. I didn't think you were following along.

No you are asking why we should not ban guns.

First is that a gun ban will not stop mass murders.
Second, criminals can obtain guns through the black market
And Third, you are disarming innocent people for what killers do

The only thing you gain from a ban of guns is a false sense of security. You may have ban the sales, but the ban does not remove guns from the society.

As already correctly noted: no one is advocating that guns be ‘banned,’ the notion is both un-Constitutional and untenable.

No one is advocating that citizens be ‘disarmed,’ that’s a ridiculous lie.

And that criminals can obtain firearms by means other than an FFL fails as a red herring fallacy.

Nope. you and yours just want to "amend" the Constitution to say something that it doesn't currently say - so that down the line - you can do your tyrannical thing. You fool no one hypocrite.

No one here is seriously advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment and it's actually an entirely different debate than talking about what should be legal or not legal within the bound of the 2nd. Histrionics about over ruling the 2nd doesn't do you guys any good, it's in the bill of rights, it's protected and at this moment it's damn near impossible to overturn an amendment. If it were to become possible then at that point you've already lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our problem is human nature & how it can be perverted or ill. Not guns.
As sad as situations like these are they pale in comparison to the weekly murder rates of our biggest & even smallest cities. But those topics are considered taboo. Go figure

So the Koran never killed anyone either.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yes, laws and regulations affect many of those... Carnival rides need safety checks, people's lives are saved by seat belts and airbags every day in auto accidents, DUIs take drunks off the road and make them think twice before driving drunk, fences around pools prevent children from drowning... The list goes on

Really? Are you sure about that?

Then how do drunk drivers kill so many people each year?
Why do kids still drown in swimming pools?
Why do small children still die as a result of carnival rides?
Why do motorists die even with seat belts on when involved in horrible high speed car accidents?
Why do airbags cause the death of people, and result in so many law suits?
Does speed limits on our roads and highways prevent speeding?
Does drunk driving laws prevent drunks from driving?
Do our laws concerning crime prevent bank robberies?
Do our laws prevent rape, child molestation, theft, the sell of illegal drugs, or prevent income tax evasion?
Do our laws prevent prostitution?

So, in your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent gun violence? In your opinion, ramping up gun laws will prevent lunatics and crazies from going postal and killing people?

It's not all or nothing... All these things will still happen. My claim is that they minimize the number of casualties. Are you claiming that no lives are being saved from any of these pretective/preventative measures?

Well, if existing laws have no effect on gun violence, what additional laws will? Any idea? What additional laws will prevent what happened in Orlando, Charleston South Carolina, Los Angeles, Columbine High School, and other senseless deadly attacks on innocent citizens? Any idea?

How do we keep guns out of the hands of crazies, lunatics, the mentally disturbed, and the haters? Any suggestions?

Yes, we don't let risky people easy buy a gun at a store. Make them try to steal one where they could get caught or make them ask around to buy one on the black market which then involves others as accomplices in their crimes.

I can pretty confidently say that the fact the Orlando shooter didn't have a machine gun grenades and body armor reduced the body count. Perhaps better FBI servellence could have prevented the attack but we are never going to stop all of them. Best we can do is lay out as many speed bumps as possible to slow them down and implement as many prevention techniques as we can.

OK. Fair enough. So, tell me how we can do it? What additional laws can we enact to prevent incidents such as Orlando, Los Angeles, and other known tragedies involving guns. Please give me an example of a law that would be effective, fair to everyone, and greatly reduce gun violence.

See, that's just it. They can't "enact" anything that doesn't basically go directly against the second amendment. Now, the liber, communist, pussy left will scream for "laws" all day and all night, because they have no respect whatsoever for the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. None whatsoever. However, try to take abortions away from women and they'll go to war with you. You see, to liberal communists - "freedom" applies to every liberal agenda on earth - just as long as it doesn't include conservatives. We're not entitled to "freedom".

 

[RandallFlagg]

Like I just told you - land mines are NOT legal, by any stretch of the imagination. Never have been, never will. Get your act together before you enter into an argument that you have no chance of winning.

Nobody is arguing that landmines are legal. I didn't think you were following along.

No you are asking why we should not ban guns.

First is that a gun ban will not stop mass murders.
Second, criminals can obtain guns through the black market
And Third, you are disarming innocent people for what killers do

The only thing you gain from a ban of guns is a false sense of security. You may have ban the sales, but the ban does not remove guns from the society.

As already correctly noted: no one is advocating that guns be ‘banned,’ the notion is both un-Constitutional and untenable.

No one is advocating that citizens be ‘disarmed,’ that’s a ridiculous lie.

And that criminals can obtain firearms by means other than an FFL fails as a red herring fallacy.

Nope. you and yours just want to "amend" the Constitution to say something that it doesn't currently say - so that down the line - you can do your tyrannical thing. You fool no one hypocrite.

No one here is seriously advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment and it's actually an entirely different debate than talking about what should be legal or not legal within the bound of the 2nd. Histrionics about over ruling the 2nd doesn't do you guys any good, it's in the bill of rights, it's protected and at this moment it's damn near impossible to overturn an amendment. If it were to become possible then at that point you've already lost.

You know, you jerk offs aren't fooling anyone. Of course you are advocating the repeal of the second amendment. What the hell do you take us for? idiots? Tell you what, I'll scede to your demands and call for a repeal to the second amendment. Just as soon as you assholes stop murdering hundreds of thousands of babies each year - claiming it as a "woman's right".