Can The Students Be Silenced?

[Rustic]

An ar15 is just a sporting rifle

Sure it is, one man's sport is another families nightmare.

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

You put a lot of words together to spin my points. Credit to you for your attempt, which any demagogue and those who are biddable will find enlightening. I don't.

The simple possession of a gun does impact how a person acts. A gun exudes power, and power impacts judgment. That you deny this is dishonest, and if you've ever been entrusted the responsibility to have a gun in your possession you would understand my point. In some it maybe subtle, but he same impact on having power - for example being a peace officer - requires the actor to be mature and reasoned in their behavior.

Agreed, it maybe easier to buy a knife, a bat or a chainsaw than to buy a gun. Yet it is too easy to buy or steal a gun, given the objections of the NRA and the legislators who do their bidding.

My third point is spot on. Mass murder by guns, cars or bombs are less personal than one's fists, a knife, a bat or other deadly weapon which requires very close contact with the victim.

Guns can be used at a safe distance, and are more effective in mass killing that those few items I noted above; bombs and cars are restricted to time and place.

And banning firearms will not save a single soul...

 

[asaratis]

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

Duh...

Then only criminals and the government would have guns. Duh! Many students have died at schools waiting for the government to arrive.

 

[asaratis]

Sure it is, one man's sport is another families nightmare.

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

You put a lot of words together to spin my points. Credit to you for your attempt, which any demagogue and those who are biddable will find enlightening. I don't.

The simple possession of a gun does impact how a person acts. A gun exudes power, and power impacts judgment. That you deny this is dishonest, and if you've ever been entrusted the responsibility to have a gun in your possession you would understand my point. In some it maybe subtle, but he same impact on having power - for example being a peace officer - requires the actor to be mature and reasoned in their behavior.

Agreed, it maybe easier to buy a knife, a bat or a chainsaw than to buy a gun. Yet it is too easy to buy or steal a gun, given the objections of the NRA and the legislators who do their bidding.

My third point is spot on. Mass murder by guns, cars or bombs are less personal than one's fists, a knife, a bat or other deadly weapon which requires very close contact with the victim.

Guns can be used at a safe distance, and are more effective in mass killing that those few items I noted above; bombs and cars are restricted to time and place.

And banning firearms will not save a single soul...

Exactly! It will only increase the number of innocent people murdered by criminals.

 

[Wry Catcher]

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

You put a lot of words together to spin my points. Credit to you for your attempt, which any demagogue and those who are biddable will find enlightening. I don't.

The simple possession of a gun does impact how a person acts. A gun exudes power, and power impacts judgment. That you deny this is dishonest, and if you've ever been entrusted the responsibility to have a gun in your possession you would understand my point. In some it maybe subtle, but he same impact on having power - for example being a peace officer - requires the actor to be mature and reasoned in their behavior.

Agreed, it maybe easier to buy a knife, a bat or a chainsaw than to buy a gun. Yet it is too easy to buy or steal a gun, given the objections of the NRA and the legislators who do their bidding.

My third point is spot on. Mass murder by guns, cars or bombs are less personal than one's fists, a knife, a bat or other deadly weapon which requires very close contact with the victim.

Guns can be used at a safe distance, and are more effective in mass killing that those few items I noted above; bombs and cars are restricted to time and place.

And banning firearms will not save a single soul...

Exactly! It will only increase the number of innocent people murdered by criminals.

Duh 2: What comes first, the criminal or the murder? I hope that's not too abstract for you to comprehend.

 

[John Shaw]

Besides, insanity . . . . has nothing to do with mental health.

DUH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YAWN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They can laugh, but at the end of the day I'm right and they're wrong. I doubt you'll hear any mental health professional use the word "insanity" in a professional context.. Only lawyers and lay people use it.

 

[Doc1]

Does this surprise anyone?

 

[asaratis]

Does this surprise anyone?

View attachment 181322

Not me. He was greasing the skids to a cushy job as Sheriff of the White House.

 

[hadit]

Can the students be silenced?

Sure, give it another week, all attention will be gone.

Time is the great Silencer.

They will be silenced when they are no longer useful to their sponsors.

 

[hadit]

Answer this honestly:

If you ban the AR-15, are the kids any safer in school?

If you cannot honestly say yes, why are you trying to can it?

 

[asaratis]

Answer this honestly:

If you ban the AR-15, are the kids any safer in school?

If you cannot honestly say yes, why are you trying to can it?

Some may say yes just to get to the next step...the banning of all semi-automatic firearms. Then they will come after revolvers. They want to ban all firearms.

 

[kaz]

.

Since the student survivors of the mass murder at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School began their drive to ban the sale of semi-automatic, assault type rifles, the tremendous response from other students nationwide has turned their cause into a strong, grass roots movement.

Conservatives and their leaders are deeply concerned over the possible results this overwhelming number of kids could have. Conservatives, gun nuts, and Republican politicians are appalled by these kids demanding their safety be a priority over the gun nuts’ lunatic desire to own the phallic symbol that is their favorite to stroke and kiss.

Due to this uncontrollable fear conservatives have at the thought of losing their penile substitute, Mitch McConnell decided to ignore the growing number of young voters in this movement. With the coming mid-term elections, these many, many, many students now have the potential to join with tens-of-millions of progressive voters and put the Democrats in control of congress.

In addition to Mitch, conservative community leaders, conservatives on school boards and school administrators have done all they can to stifle the students’ enthusiasm. And now, the National Parks Service is doing so.

A “March For Our Lives” rally was planned by the Stoneman Douglas survivors to take place on the Mall in D.C., but organizers were refused a permit by the National Parks Service management. A representative for the Park Service cited a conflict with a “talent show” as the reason.

The co-executive producer of “Dancing With the Stars” Deena Katz was brought in by the Stoneman Douglas survivors to plan the major event and has a nearly $2 million budget. The money is was raised with a “GoFundMe page, along with donations from Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg and George and Amal Clooney.”

The “talent show” permit application listed equipment for the film crew’s use for the Mall as two tables, two bikes and jump ropes.

The list on the permit application for the March For Our Lives rally included 14 Jumbotrons, 2,000 chairs and 2,000 portable restrooms to be funded with part of the $2 million.

This equipment will be used by the “student speakers, musical performers, guest speakers and video tributes,” and up to an estimated 500,000 attendees, according to the permit application.

The D.C. location for March For Our Lives rally is just one of many big and small events planned in cities across the nation on the same day.

For the conservatives, the gun nuts, and Republican politicians sworn to serve the NRA, be afraid, be very afraid. And keep trying to silence this protest by these young voters. Their anger is not going away, and their numbers are growing. How many millions in 2018? And how many millions more in 2020? Yes, be afraid, be very, very afraid. (And keep pi$$ing them off. It can only help their cause.)

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, the conservatives remain either unaware or will deny their individual response to this thread is their typical nonsense consisting of denial, alternate facts, and/or off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, deflection, memes, etc.). Their mindless prattle is expected by people of reason, who also realize it is a waste of time to offer the conservatives any reply.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/organizers-plan-for-500000-attendees-at-march-for-our-lives-rally-in-washington/2018/02/22/a9ff1992-17f9-11e8-8ac5-84161111ace0_story.html?utm_term=.353cdd5cb3f1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/march-for-our-lives-gun-control-rally-bumped-from-mall-by-talent-show/2018/03/01/ad8c7268-1cc6-11e8-9496-c89dc446c2d3_story.html?utm_term=.66b0cab356d5





.

Great thread. Thank you. However, I see it has turned into an NRA gun nutter circle-jerk.

Yes, you wanted a leftist circle jerk and took a wrong turn

 

[kaz]

Answer this honestly:

If you ban the AR-15, are the kids any safer in school?

If you cannot honestly say yes, why are you trying to can it?

Some may say yes just to get to the next step...the banning of all semi-automatic firearms. Then they will come after revolvers. They want to ban all firearms.

The goal of leftists is to ensure that only government has firearms to protect their precious ubiquitous government from it's only threat, honest citizens

 

[theliq]

Sure it is, one man's sport is another families nightmare.

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

But it will eliminate Mass Shootings...So your point Was???????

 

[Rustic]

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

But it will eliminate Mass Shootings...So your point Was???????

Lol
When pigs fly... Only a fool thinks that gun confiscation will make anything safer.

 

[2aguy]

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

But it will eliminate Mass Shootings...So your point Was???????

No...it won't....it hasn't stopped mass shootings in Australia or Britain...they keep getting by on dumb luck...but their criminals and others get guns, and only pure, dumb luck has saved them...

 

[asaratis]

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

But it will eliminate Mass Shootings...So your point Was???????

Mass shooters are criminals, dumbass!

 

[Cecilie1200]

An ar15 is just a sporting rifle

Sure it is, one man's sport is another families nightmare.

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Yeah, it's amazing how abject slavery is always the simple, obvious answer . . . to the prospective slaveowners, anyway.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

But it will eliminate Mass Shootings...So your point Was???????

No, it won't. Amazingly enough, mass shootings only require a tool capable of shooting, and an evil/crazy person willing to fire. (Of the two, the second one is really more important. You're a leftist, so I figured you wouldn't get that on your own.) Mass shootings can be and have been accomplished with guns other than the AR15.

And before you leap to, "Well, then, just ban all guns!" let me point out that MY goal - and it ought to be yours - is to prevent mass KILLINGS; it is not to merely change the method of them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Most people learn that in grade school. You Musta went to public school… A politically correct one

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

But it will eliminate Mass Shootings...So your point Was???????

OMG.... and I bet you actually believe this.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're wrong. The simple possession of a gun changes how a person acts. The changes may not be perceptible, but they can and many times do provide false security to act in a manner they would not without having the gun in their possession.

How many would have been killed or wounded had the mass killers in recent school attacks used a knife, a baseball bat, or chain saw? All of which are easy to buy as are firearms.

In post 509 Rustic makes once claim I which I totally agree with, he claimed, "I don't understand". Clearly he doesn't on most issues.

Your first attempted point is obvious....except for the sense of security being false.

Your second attempted point is obviously bullshit. Knives, bats, and chainsaws are substantially easier to buy than firearms.

Your third attempted point is highly speculative and ignores that fact that all those weapons must be used in close proximity to the intended victims. Many others will run away. Some brave souls might attack the weapon wielder with school desks, chairs, coat racks, books...anything that can be thrown his way...then pile on and hold his ass to the floor until the man with the gun arrives.

The only advantage the knife and bat have over the chain saw is lack of significant noise other than screaming of the targets.

Three strikes...you're out!

Wrong....Just BAN GUNS and revoke the 2nd,educate the morons...THAT's 3 STRIKES,YOUR OUT

Neither banning guns nor revoking the 2nd Amendment will take guns from criminals or from the government.

But it will eliminate Mass Shootings...So your point Was???????

No, it won't. Amazingly enough, mass shootings only require a tool capable of shooting, and an evil/crazy person willing to fire. (Of the two, the second one is really more important. You're a leftist, so I figured you wouldn't get that on your own.) Mass shootings can be and have been accomplished with guns other than the AR15.

And before you leap to, "Well, then, just ban all guns!" let me point out that MY goal - and it ought to be yours - is to prevent mass KILLINGS; it is not to merely change the method of them.

So, what solution do you have? People control? If so, how do you decide who should and who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

There is no singular solution to our national disgrace. It requires men and women of good will to proffer ideas and evaluate their merit. Something unheard of on this thread, and on every thread related to gun violence.