So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[candycorn]

The federal government does not live within is means, that is why its a failure...

he he he....

 

[Rustic]

I sell ar15's(bushmaster) for under $550 as an everyday price. And no, they are NOT assault rifles.
So as production catches up to demand, prices go down.

Buy more guns and ammo

 

[candycorn]

I sell ar15's(bushmaster) for under $550 as an everyday price. And no, they are NOT assault rifles.
So as production catches up to demand, prices go down.

Buy more guns and ammo

Yeah, that is what we need to reverse; raise the prices, dry up the pool of easy-to-get killing machines.

 

[Rustic]

I sell ar15's(bushmaster) for under $550 as an everyday price. And no, they are NOT assault rifles.
So as production catches up to demand, prices go down.

Buy more guns and ammo

Yeah, that is what we need to reverse; raise the prices, dry up the pool of easy-to-get killing machines.

They can't kill on their own...

A nonissue

 

[ninja007]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

i would like to pick apart every one of your idiotic proposals, but for now i will concentrate on just the most stupid one,
#3 Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
then we need to make automobile makers liable, knife makers, ball bats, pens and pencils, scissors, medicines, poisons etc. in fact any thing that can be used as a potential weapon.

... and with a garden fork

Well no.

Unlike that list of products you provided, none are used for the specific purpose of killing human beings. Guns, however, are used to kill human beings.

Additionally, the manufacturers of the products you mention are liable in many cases if their product harms or kills a human being.

That unique property of a firearm adds a great deal of danger to the public. The "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, includes keeping American citizens relatively safe, both from foreign and domestic threats.

We have a pretty big problem in this country with firearms. That would place the solution in either the public and/or private realms. Right now? Neither is doing much of anything and the current situation is entirely unacceptable.

So unless gun manufacturers enact some sort of protocol that minimizes the risk to human beings, they should be held responsible if their product does harm.

Simple enough.

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

and who is using the guns dingbat? criminals. Think. You want to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

 

[JoeB131]

YOU MISERABLE STUPID FUCK? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO WHO WERE THE 6,000,000 INDIVIDUALS SLAUGHTERED? CRAZY HORSE AND THE LAKHOTAN INDIANS..........again?

SO THIS CRAZY TALK ABOUT THE SCHUTZSTAFFEL LIKING THEIR TROOPS TO BE SHOT AT , IS JUST THAT, CRAZY TALK.

I already explained that to you, dumbass. They were Polish Jews and Russian Jews and Hungarian Jews. People who had armies and planes and tanks and the Nazis rolled over them anyway.

Oh, there was an armed uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. they killed a whopping 19 German Soldiers. The Nazis killed 13,000 Poles and Jews and sent another 58,000 off to the death camps.

Good thing they had guns.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong....the countries the Germans occupied were forced to hand over their Jews for murder.......look up the Holocaust........

Uh, no, they actually "Happily handed them over because they really fucking hated the Jews, anyway."

Antisemitism isn't a flaw in Christianity, it's a design feature.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes...and the Polish Jews and the Russian Jews were unarmed as well....as were the rest of the people of Europe, so when the Germans rolled over their militaries the civilians were unarmed and helpless......

It would be nice to try it the other way next time...several milliona well armed civilians in the face of an attacker....

Uh, no, actually, it wouldn't. Any fool who wants a gun to fight the "government" is a lot more frightening than any government in the world.

The thing was, the Poles had plenty of guns. The Germans had tanks. And Planes. And battleships.

Same with the Russians. Lots of guns in Russia, contrary to what you guys claim.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope...the first invasions were the muslims invading Spain and France....50 years later you had the first crusade.

Not even close.

Okay, going to give you a little history lesson.

The invasion of Spain by the Muslims was in 711 AD. The Battle of Tours, where Charles Martel pushed back what was probably no more than a scouting party, was in 732.

Then for about 300 years, the Muslim Kingdom in Andalusia was pretty much minding its own business and no one cared all that much what it was doing. Jews, Christians and Muslims all kind of lived together.

Then in 1096, you had the First Crusade, which had nothing to do with Spain, but was a Pope trying to build his street cred because the Emperor chased his ass out of Rome.

Now, to the point. Europe conquered the Middle East when they found out they had oil, but by that point, the Europeans has pretty much spent themselves as a force. (White People, we tend to be really kind of idiots.)

So someone had the brilliant idea, "Hey, let's dump our Jews in Palestine!"

But before WWII, few European Jews were too keen on that idea.

and Hitler said, "Why don't we just dump them in a mass grave?"

Palestine looked a lot better. Those Palestinians weren't going to fight back, right?

 

[2aguy]

Yes...and the Polish Jews and the Russian Jews were unarmed as well....as were the rest of the people of Europe, so when the Germans rolled over their militaries the civilians were unarmed and helpless......

It would be nice to try it the other way next time...several milliona well armed civilians in the face of an attacker....

Uh, no, actually, it wouldn't. Any fool who wants a gun to fight the "government" is a lot more frightening than any government in the world.

The thing was, the Poles had plenty of guns. The Germans had tanks. And Planes. And battleships.

Same with the Russians. Lots of guns in Russia, contrary to what you guys claim.

The militaries of Europe disarmed after WW1 except for France who built their Line…..and after the militaries were defeated the people were helpless…..unarmed, and unable to resist….and gave their Jews to the Germans for murder…..

 

[2aguy]

YOU MISERABLE STUPID FUCK? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO WHO WERE THE 6,000,000 INDIVIDUALS SLAUGHTERED? CRAZY HORSE AND THE LAKHOTAN INDIANS..........again?

SO THIS CRAZY TALK ABOUT THE SCHUTZSTAFFEL LIKING THEIR TROOPS TO BE SHOT AT , IS JUST THAT, CRAZY TALK.

I already explained that to you, dumbass. They were Polish Jews and Russian Jews and Hungarian Jews. People who had armies and planes and tanks and the Nazis rolled over them anyway.

Oh, there was an armed uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. they killed a whopping 19 German Soldiers. The Nazis killed 13,000 Poles and Jews and sent another 58,000 off to the death camps.

Good thing they had guns.

Yes….the Warsaw Ghetto…71,000 Jews…..10 pistols……then the Polish army gave them 50 old and broken pistols….and they held out for 4 days against the Germans…

Now…I know it is hard for you lefty gun grabbers to see this since you hate guns…

Imagine 71,000 Jews with rifles, pistols and improvised explosives and booby traps……..that would have made a difference…

Now see the entire population of Poland and the other occupied countries….all with rifles, pistols and improvised explosives…fighting the Germans every step of the way and all during the occupation……

Switzerland kept the Germans out and they had over 400,000 people with rifles, and pistols and the will to fight…..

You guys say…hey, the Germans killed 71,000 unarmed Jews….what difference would guns make….and you don't even see how stupid that comment is…..how about 71,000 armed Jews with a real desire to live…..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple:
Raise the price of guns.

Sate action to this affect creates an infringement on the right to arms.
But, you know that.

No part of the Constitution speaks to the price of weapons. This is a fact.

Also a fact:
No part of the constitution says that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"
No part of the constitution says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
So... what's your point?

Thanks. I'll accept your surrender that the Government can inflate the price of weapons artificially without violating the Constitution.

Just as I will accept your admission that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members" and "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" are nut found in anywhere in the constitution and are thus invalid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I love it when the gun crazies are reduced to being themselves--hateful little boys who know they are on the wrong side of the argument and are reduced to making profane statements about their betters.

Huh.
Not only do you lie to us, you lie to yourself.
Nice.

 

[candycorn]

Simple:
Raise the price of guns.

Sate action to this affect creates an infringement on the right to arms.
But, you know that.

No part of the Constitution speaks to the price of weapons. This is a fact.

Also a fact:
No part of the constitution says that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"
No part of the constitution says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
So... what's your point?

Thanks. I'll accept your surrender that the Government can inflate the price of weapons artificially without violating the Constitution.

Just as I will accept your admission that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members" and "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" are nut found in anywhere in the constitution and are thus invalid.

The word Militia is in the amendment for a reason.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sate action to this affect creates an infringement on the right to arms.
But, you know that.

No part of the Constitution speaks to the price of weapons. This is a fact.

Also a fact:
No part of the constitution says that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"
No part of the constitution says "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons"
So... what's your point?

Thanks. I'll accept your surrender that the Government can inflate the price of weapons artificially without violating the Constitution.

Just as I will accept your admission that "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members" and "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons" are nut found in anywhere in the constitution and are thus invalid.

The word Militia is in the amendment for a reason.

I accept your surrender, that the Constitution does not state "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"" and/or "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Good to see you know your place, puppy..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

Correct, gun laws will work on the majority of people, but only people that are law biding citizens. Much like drugs, they do not work for the criminal element. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

Sure they work; otherwise you'd have larger % on drugs. Do they eliminate 100% of users? No. Why? Because the demand is there to feel good, enhance your performance, or you're addicted.

The idea that making it harder on everybody to purchase firearms will reduce or eliminate gun purchases by those who are not legally allowed to own firearms is ridiculous. It's like saying if we outlawed hamburgers because we have too many fat people, fat people will quit eating hamburgers.

Nice point; now only if it were true.

You can buy beef (ground or otherwise), buns, etc... and make burgers.

To make a firearm, you need considerably more access to metals, equipment, some knowledge, etc...

There is no comparison.

Aside from that, you're missing the point.

Higher price means producers make less. That dries up the pool.
Higher price means fewer aftermkt. sales. That dries up the pool.
Putting thugs w/guns in jail prevents re-use. That dries up the pool.

Supply and demand kicks in. You dry up the supply, the costs skyrocket. So when someone gets pissed; a shooting spree is out of their price range. If they do purchase a gun, they will have to purchase the associated "insurance" policy meaning victims get compensated.

Thankfully guns in general are getting cheaper... As a firearms dealer I see better prices as more and more guns are being produced.

Buy more guns and ammo

You get what you pay for. Some of these guns are loaded with plastic. Don't get me wrong, plastic has it's place, but not on a gun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

Correct, gun laws will work on the majority of people, but only people that are law biding citizens. Much like drugs, they do not work for the criminal element. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

Sure they work; otherwise you'd have larger % on drugs. Do they eliminate 100% of users? No. Why? Because the demand is there to feel good, enhance your performance, or you're addicted.

The idea that making it harder on everybody to purchase firearms will reduce or eliminate gun purchases by those who are not legally allowed to own firearms is ridiculous. It's like saying if we outlawed hamburgers because we have too many fat people, fat people will quit eating hamburgers.

Nice point; now only if it were true.

You can buy beef (ground or otherwise), buns, etc... and make burgers.

To make a firearm, you need considerably more access to metals, equipment, some knowledge, etc...

There is no comparison.

Aside from that, you're missing the point.

Higher price means producers make less. That dries up the pool.
Higher price means fewer aftermkt. sales. That dries up the pool.
Putting thugs w/guns in jail prevents re-use. That dries up the pool.

Supply and demand kicks in. You dry up the supply, the costs skyrocket. So when someone gets pissed; a shooting spree is out of their price range. If they do purchase a gun, they will have to purchase the associated "insurance" policy meaning victims get compensated.

In most shootings, there are very few victims. If somebody breaks into my house and I blow their head off, they are not a victim--I was, and I defended myself.

So you think it's a good idea to make guns so unaffordable that only the people with money can afford them? What about people in lower income neighborhoods that really need them because they live in a crime filled neighborhood? Or how about disabled people who couldn't fight if they wanted to and need a gun for protection? What about your sister who was dating a guy she eventually found out was a psyco and promised revenge for her breaking up with him?

Plus if guns are worth much more money, that means they are much more worth killing for or breaking into homes to get.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

You apparently don't understand, it's a control thing.
I don't wear a seatbelt because I don't want to... its not place for the government to say.

The federal government has no credibility...

It takes a special type of idiot not to wear his/her seatbelt. As for the government, Well, it's the only government we got... Its credible enough. If you don't think so, violate federal law and see what happens.

46+ years and no seatbelt, no big deal.
I live in South Dakota no traffic.

It's 25$ fine here in SD if enforced, mostly not. What's $25?

I have been fined a handful of times, most times I get no fine I am pretty sure it is because I am a minority....

I've been pulled over before for a stupid seat belt. One time an officer said "This is just for my personal curiosity, but why don't you wear a seat belt?" I told him that every time I put on a seat belt, I feel the government squeezing the liberty out of my body. He had nothing to say after that. LOL!

 

[Sallow]

i would like to pick apart every one of your idiotic proposals, but for now i will concentrate on just the most stupid one,
#3 Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
then we need to make automobile makers liable, knife makers, ball bats, pens and pencils, scissors, medicines, poisons etc. in fact any thing that can be used as a potential weapon.

... and with a garden fork

Well no.

Unlike that list of products you provided, none are used for the specific purpose of killing human beings. Guns, however, are used to kill human beings.

Additionally, the manufacturers of the products you mention are liable in many cases if their product harms or kills a human being.

That unique property of a firearm adds a great deal of danger to the public. The "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, includes keeping American citizens relatively safe, both from foreign and domestic threats.

We have a pretty big problem in this country with firearms. That would place the solution in either the public and/or private realms. Right now? Neither is doing much of anything and the current situation is entirely unacceptable.

So unless gun manufacturers enact some sort of protocol that minimizes the risk to human beings, they should be held responsible if their product does harm.

Simple enough.

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

and who is using the guns dingbat? criminals. Think. You want to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

I have no problem with you keeping your bolt action rifle or shot gun or six shot revolver in your house for personal protection.

The problem I have is when folks start bringing to bars, movie theaters, schools, public buildings, churches, mosques, temples, restaurants, streets, cars, planes, subways and anywhere else that is open to the public.

That's not where you private gun meant to protect your home should be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well no.

Unlike that list of products you provided, none are used for the specific purpose of killing human beings. Guns, however, are used to kill human beings.

Additionally, the manufacturers of the products you mention are liable in many cases if their product harms or kills a human being.

That unique property of a firearm adds a great deal of danger to the public. The "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, includes keeping American citizens relatively safe, both from foreign and domestic threats.

We have a pretty big problem in this country with firearms. That would place the solution in either the public and/or private realms. Right now? Neither is doing much of anything and the current situation is entirely unacceptable.

So unless gun manufacturers enact some sort of protocol that minimizes the risk to human beings, they should be held responsible if their product does harm.

Simple enough.

You forgot that guns are used for self defense. You're not living in reality.

Guns were created to save the life of the user…...

Guns were created to kill living beings from a distance.

The majority of beings killed by guns had nothing to do with self defense.

and who is using the guns dingbat? criminals. Think. You want to keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

I have no problem with you keeping your bolt action rifle or shot gun or six shot revolver in your house for personal protection.

The problem I have is when folks start bringing to bars, movie theaters, schools, public buildings, churches, mosques, temples, restaurants, streets, cars, planes, subways and anywhere else that is open to the public.

That's not where you private gun meant to protect your home should be.

Because as you know, as soon as you step outside your house your right to self-defense disappears.