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

[Cecilie1200]

Stronger mental health system, which confines the violent.

Make firearms a mandatory class in school.

This I can agree with but I think we should fold firearms into history to explain to people the role they played in our past. No denying that the expansion that took place would not have done so without brutal men willing to kill on our behalf

That is the history of all humans...around the entire world...and long before we had guns humans were butchering each other with clubs, spears, arrows, swords, axes...and any other implement they could find.....it was here when we arrrived, the indians were killing and enslaving each other, it was in Africa where the Africans captured each other to sell to Europeans and murdered each other...Asia, South America.....

Why is it you lefties only attribute violence to the United States?

In our country we created a nation based on Prinicpals that give us direction to end that.....and you still hate the country...

Honestly, sometimes I don't think there's a "still" about it. Sometimes I think that's why they hate this country.

 

[saveliberty]

I find it an interesting study in fear that people can fear a gun, yet having mentally ill people walk around perfectly acceptable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Violence only begets more violence.

No, people who think they know better how you should live, than you do... and who want to disarm you so they can force their will on you (that is, modern liberals) beget more violence.

When the victims try to fight back and refuse disarmament, the resulting violence is not the victims' fault. It's still the liberals' fault, who tried to coerce them in the first place.

And the best way to reduce mass shootings, is still allowing everyone to carry. Most people still won't bother. But a few will. And the criminal knows that when he wants to shoot up a shopping mall or school, knows that a few adults in the crowd are probably carrying... and he won't know which ones they are. But he knows it's unlikely he'll be able to rack up the huge body counts he wants, to get weeks of lurid headlines after he's dead. And so he often will change his mind and not try. Without a shot being fired.

You can never eliminate all mass shootings 100%. But this is the best way to reduce them.

And the liberals are dead set against it. Even though they know the methods they are pushing, don't work.

Total nonsense.

If more guns made the public safer, the US would have the safest society by far since, by far, we have the highest number of guns in the hands of citizenry of any 1st world nation.

Instead, we have, by far, the highest homicide rate of any developed nation.

Meanwhile, nations that have passed strict gun control efforts have very few shootings compared to the United States.

Its vividly clear that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

What's vividly clear is that you really like vague, generalized statistics, since the more specific ones show you for the doofus your posts do.

See, if you look at violent crime rates by areas, instead of just looking at the United States as a whole (because, you know, it's kinda big, and has different laws in different places, and all), you notice that places that adopt concealed-carry enjoy a dramatic reduction in violent crimes, while places that implement your asinine fairy-tale plan get higher rates . . . which you then try to spread out to everyone by talking about "US homicide rates" as though it's all the same.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it an interesting study in fear that people can fear a gun, yet having mentally ill people walk around perfectly acceptable.

Well, leftism is a mental disorder, so they seem to think all crazy people are just like them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Violence only begets more violence.

No, people who think they know better how you should live, than you do... and who want to disarm you so they can force their will on you (that is, modern liberals) beget more violence.

When the victims try to fight back and refuse disarmament, the resulting violence is not the victims' fault. It's still the liberals' fault, who tried to coerce them in the first place.

And the best way to reduce mass shootings, is still allowing everyone to carry. Most people still won't bother. But a few will. And the criminal knows that when he wants to shoot up a shopping mall or school, knows that a few adults in the crowd are probably carrying... and he won't know which ones they are. But he knows it's unlikely he'll be able to rack up the huge body counts he wants, to get weeks of lurid headlines after he's dead. And so he often will change his mind and not try. Without a shot being fired.

You can never eliminate all mass shootings 100%. But this is the best way to reduce them.

And the liberals are dead set against it. Even though they know the methods they are pushing, don't work.

Total nonsense.

If more guns made the public safer, the US would have the safest society by far since, by far, we have the highest number of guns in the hands of citizenry of any 1st world nation.

Instead, we have, by far, the highest homicide rate of any developed nation.

Meanwhile, nations that have passed strict gun control efforts have very few shootings compared to the United States.

Its vividly clear that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

and another thing....according to bill clinton and the study he commissioned, Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack and save lives 1.5 million times a year......

so....

Gun murder in 2014.... 8,124

Guns used to stop crime..... 1..5 million, according to bill clinton

So guns, by far, stop more crime and save more lives than they take.....

And remember as well......European criminals and Australian criminals can get guns whenever they want them....it is as easy for them to get guns as it is for American criminals to get guns...they just don't use them as much...but they use them when the want to use them and they have had confiscation and extreme gun control in Europe...and it hasn't worked either.....

Again, you cannot walk into a store and buy a gun in Europe as you can here.
You're lying. And you know it.

Yes, because criminals just walk into stores and pick up guns over-the-counter like candy bars.

 

[JoeB131]

I find it an interesting study in fear that people can fear a gun, yet having mentally ill people walk around perfectly acceptable.

42 million Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (And probably 99% of USMB conservatives, but that's another story)

We can't lock them all up.

We should be able to make sure they can't get guns, though.

 

[saveliberty]

I find it an interesting study in fear that people can fear a gun, yet having mentally ill people walk around perfectly acceptable.

42 million Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (And probably 99% of USMB conservatives, but that's another story)

We can't lock them all up.

We should be able to make sure they can't get guns, though.

Painting a pretty broad brush there. Depression is probably the most common and those folks are usually more a danger to themselves than others.

Violent tendencies with mental illness is a specific group Your assumption that most people should not have guns is laughable. All but a small number of guns were not even fired today or even this month. Of those that were, some deterred a crime or were by law enforcement. How about the drunk lady who killed four this weekend? Should we keep cars from people that drink? Or even more to the point, stop driving all together?

 

[Little-Acorn]

42 million Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (And probably 99% of USMB conservatives, but that's another story)
We can't lock them all up.
We should be able to make sure they can't get guns, though.

(patiently)

How?

 

[Contumacious]

I find it an interesting study in fear that people can fear a gun, yet having mentally ill people walk around perfectly acceptable.

42 million Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (And probably 99% of USMB conservatives, but that's another story)

We can't lock them all up.

We should be able to make sure they can't get guns, though.

So you are advocating another civil war?


Or are your sources telling you that Americans will meekly follow Australia's footsteps?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Pogo]

Stronger mental health system, which confines the violent.

Make firearms a mandatory class in school.

What if you're simply not interested in blood guts killing violence intimidation loud noises aggression via remote control destruction death firearms?

What if you're not interested in evolution or global warming?

That's not a fetish.

What if it violates your religious principles?

To allow other people to exercise their rights? As far as I can tell, that DOES violate your religious principles. Too bad the First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to invalidate others' free will to suit yourself.

No Stupid -- to be FORCED INTO A SCHOOL FIREARMS CLASS.

Learn to fucking read. You're apparently doing it backwards.

 

[candycorn]

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

 

[candycorn]

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

Yes, most of the world is full of peaceful, fluffy puppies and unicorns shooting glittery rainbows out their asses.

No, most of the world is full of nations that have sensible gun laws and those nations live in peace and are fairly prosperous.

Still no answer, how do you plan to disarm the nation??

I don't plan to disarm the nation.

But it does bring up an interesting question. We're told over and over and how much gun crazies love the country, are law abiding citizens, yada yada yada....

Are you stating that they would disobey the law?

 

[JoeB131]

Painting a pretty broad brush there. Depression is probably the most common and those folks are usually more a danger to themselves than others.

But that's the point. They are a danger to someone. Mot of the 19,500 sucides with guns did involve depression. These people never should have had a gun.

Violent tendencies with mental illness is a specific group Your assumption that most people should not have guns is laughable. All but a small number of guns were not even fired today or even this month. Of those that were, some deterred a crime or were by law enforcement. How about the drunk lady who killed four this weekend? Should we keep cars from people that drink? Or even more to the point, stop driving all together?

We do have laws to keep cars away from people who drink. We also have laws that hold people responsible if they serve someone too much to drink and they go out and run people over. We also have laws that make sure those who operate cars are licensed, insured and qualify their vehicles for safety and pollution emissions. We ALSO have a large chunk of the Police Force dedicated to - get this - enforcing the traffic laws.

So if you want to treat guns like cars, I'm totally good with that.


"BUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED US TO HAVE GUNS!!!!! FREEEEEEEDOM!!!!"

 

[JoeB131]

So you are advocating another civil war?


Or are your sources telling you that Americans will meekly follow Australia's footsteps?!?!?!?!?!?!?

i think Americans are going to get fed up with you guys just like Australians did.

 

[JoeB131]

42 million Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (And probably 99% of USMB conservatives, but that's another story)
We can't lock them all up.
We should be able to make sure they can't get guns, though.

(patiently)

How?

1) Hold Gun Sellers responsible for who they sell guns to criminally.
2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

I promise you, the day that happens, they will be doing Rorschach tests at Gun Stores before they sell to anyone.

Gun Seller - "What does that Ink Blot look like to you?"

2AGuy - "Some Darkie Done Getting his Head Blowed Off".

Yup. He ain't getting a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

 

[Pogo]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

 

[candycorn]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

Precisely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Stronger mental health system, which confines the violent.

Make firearms a mandatory class in school.

What if you're simply not interested in blood guts killing violence intimidation loud noises aggression via remote control destruction death firearms?

What if you're not interested in evolution or global warming?

That's not a fetish.

What if it violates your religious principles?

To allow other people to exercise their rights? As far as I can tell, that DOES violate your religious principles. Too bad the First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to invalidate others' free will to suit yourself.

No Stupid -- to be FORCED INTO A SCHOOL FIREARMS CLASS.

Learn to fucking read. You're apparently doing it backwards.

Okay, sarcasm is apparently lost on you, so let's go another way. What religion is it that preaches that understanding firearm technology is a sin? What are you, Amish? How would you study basic science, which certainly teaches the same fundamental principles that are used in creating guns? Why does this "against religious principles" argument not work when people don't want their children taught about sexual practices, because you and your ilk, in your infinite wisdom, have decided it's "for the public good" for them to take that class? Bit of a one-way street?

I think that leads us back to my original point that so confounded you: what's against your religious principles is letting other people exercise their rights when you don't like how they do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

How about first, I address your possibly-deliberate and possibly-due-to-being-a-fucking-moron misquote of what I said, because as I have to keep reminding you, you will NOT be imposing your parameters on the debate?

The phrase about militia - which, to the Founding Fathers, would have been simply the citizens of an area - exists to articulate a reason for firearms that is not already covered in other places, either explicitly or implicitly. That clause is completely independent of the one following. Grammatically, it in no way modifies the second clause. There is no number of times you are going to demand, "why is it there?! Doesn't it mean what I want it to mean?!" that that is going to change.

This is the last time I'm saying it. You have your answer. Ignoring it won't make it go away.