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

[Mudda]

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

Nor does it mention words.
Thus, banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words.

Go for it if you think that will help in some manner. Please explain.

Please explain what?
That banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words?
As you said: the constitution never mentions "words"; this means they can be banned, just like ammunition.

Words are already banned like n1gger. Or yelling FIRE! in a crowded space... But for the purpose of this thread, I think that banning bullets would be more effective. Don't you think?

Words in general are banned? Really? Where?

Why don't YOU explain it, you brought up banning words.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

It doesn't mention computers, telephones, iPads, internet……...

You're already banned from owning all kinds of arms and ammo anyways, like tanks and tank shells, ground to air missile, nukes, mines... what's a bunch of bullets more?

Why do you think "ban ammunition because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution" is a clever and novel argument?

I don't know if it's clever and novel, but it would be worth a try.

Only the deliberately stupid does not understand that the 2nd amendment protects ammunition.
Why are you deliberately stupid?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nor does it mention words.
Thus, banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words.

Go for it if you think that will help in some manner. Please explain.

Please explain what?
That banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words?
As you said: the constitution never mentions "words"; this means they can be banned, just like ammunition.

Words are already banned like n1gger. Or yelling FIRE! in a crowded space... But for the purpose of this thread, I think that banning bullets would be more effective. Don't you think?

Words in general are banned? Really? Where?

Why don't YOU explain it, you brought up banning words.

I accept your concession of the point.

 

[Rustic]

Guns are not the problem. It is a proven fact that gun laws have no effect on crime. Even if you confiscated every gun in America, it would have no effect on the number of people killed.

Agreed. No basic argument on the effects of gun laws, although you're not addressing the actual topic.

All it would do is force criminals to find other ways to kill. A knife will kill you just as easily as a gun. Many people could kill with a club, or even their bare hands. There are, after all, a thousand ways to die. There is only one reason that people are murdered. It is the result of human intent. Until you address that, which is the direct result of our Godless society, nothing will change.

Argument here.

You've again broadened this topic from what it starts out as (mass shootings) to "crime in general". That's deflection. And insofar as the actual scope of the original topic you've further taken the false premise that mass shootings are about "murder". They're really not. They're about carnage. The sensory feedback of hapless victims running for cover, screaming and bleeding to death. That's a power trip, not an act of targeted homicide.

Only a firearm bestows the power to deliver that kind of carnage from a remote base, the same way a TV remote delivers the ability to change channels with minimal effort. The mass shooter isn't out to kill people per se --- he's (and it's always a he, big hint) out to indulge his own sick sensory scenario. It's an entirely self-centered act. Unlike murder where the victim is unique (personal), the mass shooter's victims are no more meaningful than bumpers in a pinball game -- IMpersonal.

That's what it's about -- the sensory feedback of a perverted power trip. And until we start understanding that, we continue to play whack-a-mole.

So, if someone has a lot of firearms and/or a certain type, they can't help but to start killing people?
And the only the federal government can stop the murders/mass killings??

 

[Mudda]

Go for it if you think that will help in some manner. Please explain.

Please explain what?
That banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words?
As you said: the constitution never mentions "words"; this means they can be banned, just like ammunition.

Words are already banned like n1gger. Or yelling FIRE! in a crowded space... But for the purpose of this thread, I think that banning bullets would be more effective. Don't you think?

Words in general are banned? Really? Where?

Why don't YOU explain it, you brought up banning words.

I accept your concession of the point.

You bring up a stupid point and ask me to explain it. I laugh at you and you declare victory. Wow, what a debating site! Don't have a point? You win!

 

[Mudda]

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

It doesn't mention computers, telephones, iPads, internet……...

You're already banned from owning all kinds of arms and ammo anyways, like tanks and tank shells, ground to air missile, nukes, mines... what's a bunch of bullets more?

Why do you think "ban ammunition because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution" is a clever and novel argument?

I don't know if it's clever and novel, but it would be worth a try.

Only the deliberately stupid does not understand that the 2nd amendment protects ammunition.
Why are you deliberately stupid?

Ok, I'll let you have what the Founding Fathers envisioned: musket balls and powder.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please explain what?
That banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words?
As you said: the constitution never mentions "words"; this means they can be banned, just like ammunition.

Words are already banned like n1gger. Or yelling FIRE! in a crowded space... But for the purpose of this thread, I think that banning bullets would be more effective. Don't you think?

Words in general are banned? Really? Where?

Why don't YOU explain it, you brought up banning words.

I accept your concession of the point.

You bring up a stupid point and ask me to explain it.

"The Constitution does not protect ammunition" is the quintessential stupid point; I apologize for having wasted even this tiny bit of time on you.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

(sigh)

Yet another liberal fanatic trying to resurrect the "Let's ban ammunition" silliness when it's already been explained, refuted, debunked, and beaten to death in this very thread?

These people are really desperate, to bring up an "issue" again, on which they've already been soundly thrashed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

(sigh)
Yet another liberal fanatic trying to resurrect the "Let's ban ammunition" silliness when it's already been explained, refuted, debunked, and beaten to death in this very thread?
These people are really desperate, to bring up an "issue" again, on which they've already been soundly thrashed.

They cannot help themselves - they hate guns; they have no idea why, they just do.
They understand they cannot argue without restoring to emotion, ignorance and/of dishonesty; they hate themselves for this, but they know they have no other choice.

 

[Pogo]

Guns are not the problem. It is a proven fact that gun laws have no effect on crime. Even if you confiscated every gun in America, it would have no effect on the number of people killed.

Agreed. No basic argument on the effects of gun laws, although you're not addressing the actual topic.

All it would do is force criminals to find other ways to kill. A knife will kill you just as easily as a gun. Many people could kill with a club, or even their bare hands. There are, after all, a thousand ways to die. There is only one reason that people are murdered. It is the result of human intent. Until you address that, which is the direct result of our Godless society, nothing will change.

Argument here.

You've again broadened this topic from what it starts out as (mass shootings) to "crime in general". That's deflection. And insofar as the actual scope of the original topic you've further taken the false premise that mass shootings are about "murder". They're really not. They're about carnage. The sensory feedback of hapless victims running for cover, screaming and bleeding to death. That's a power trip, not an act of targeted homicide.

Only a firearm bestows the power to deliver that kind of carnage from a remote base, the same way a TV remote delivers the ability to change channels with minimal effort. The mass shooter isn't out to kill people per se --- he's (and it's always a he, big hint) out to indulge his own sick sensory scenario. It's an entirely self-centered act. Unlike murder where the victim is unique (personal), the mass shooter's victims are no more meaningful than bumpers in a pinball game -- IMpersonal.

That's what it's about -- the sensory feedback of a perverted power trip. And until we start understanding that, we continue to play whack-a-mole.

So, if someone has a lot of firearms and/or a certain type, they can't help but to start killing people?
And the only the federal government can stop the murders/mass killings??

How in the wide world of Blue Fuck do you even begin to get either of those out of anything I've posted?

Did you just not read the post at all?
That's a direct contradiction of what I just said. Take reading lessons.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They cannot help themselves - they hate guns; they have no idea why, they just do.
They understand they cannot argue without restoring to emotion, ignorance and/of dishonesty; they hate themselves for this, but they know they have no other choice.

Well, the good news is, every time these nutty people come up wit their failed talking points, it gives normal people another chance to point out how wrong they are, and then reiterate the truth to counter them.

Speaking of which....

What is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

Most of them still won't bother, but a few will.

And so, when some nut job is considering shooting up the local strip mall, school, or post office, he'll know that there's probably a few armed folks in the crowd. And he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect to get bullets from an unknown direction (or two) which will prevent him from racking up the huge body counts he wants for lurid headlines after he's gone. And so many of those nut jobs will decide not to commit their mass murders in the first place, if they know there are no longer any "gun free zones" where he can blast away for minutes on end until the cops get there. Mass murders will be reduced or prevented without a shot being fired. The best possible solution.

And one that liberal fanatics like little candycorn are dead set against.

Their goal is not to reduce or prevent mass shootings. It's to control the people around them.

 

[Pogo]

What is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

If you're so bereft of creative thought that you think there's an "only way" and you're not willing to listen to alternatives that may challenge that only-ness --- then what the fuck was the purpose of starting this thread?

 

[2aguy]

What is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

If you're so bereft of creative thought that you think there's an "only way" and you're not willing to listen to alternatives that may challenge that only-ness --- then what the fuck was the purpose of starting this thread?

You are more than free to share your wisdom on the matter……..we are waiting…..

 

[MikeK]

Mass murderers are disproportionally young men who have never had a girlfriend and never had sex. Legalize prostitution.

That's one good reason to legalize prostitution. Reducing the spread of STD is another -- and there are more. One which has always annoyed me is this specific example of government dictating such an intimate and personal behavior, both by prostitutes and their clients.

By far the most important reason to legalize prostitution is it will remove the criminal element from the oldest profession.

 

[MikeK]

There is no reason to fear guns...
They can do nothing on their own

Quite true.
If they remained on their own, there'd be no problem. And neither this thread, nor the issue it addresses, would exist.

It takes a person to kill, and a village in Chicago's case, black on black crime.

It takes a culture of gun fetishism to come up with epidemics of mass shootings.
Which, once again, is the topic.

Guns are not the problem. It is a proven fact that gun laws have no effect on crime. Even if you confiscated every gun in America, it would have no effect on the number of people killed. All it would do is force criminals to find other ways to kill. A knife will kill you just as easily as a gun. Many people could kill with a club, or even their bare hands. There are, after all, a thousand ways to die. There is only one reason that people are murdered. It is the result of human intent. Until you address that, which is the direct result of our Godless society, nothing will change.

DUMBEST
POST
EVER

Really?

Go here: Calif. university stabber shot dead after lunging at officer, student says

 

[Pogo]

What is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

If you're so bereft of creative thought that you think there's an "only way" and you're not willing to listen to alternatives that may challenge that only-ness --- then what the fuck was the purpose of starting this thread?

You are more than free to share your wisdom on the matter……..we are waiting…..

"Waiting"???

I did that when this thread first started, over a thousand posts ago. It was ignored as inconvenient. I revived it again periodically. It's still ignored. Now you're "waiting?!?

After a thousand posts the OP sees no alternative to his preconception, yet he started a thread asking that very question. Basically he poses a very good question and then goes

That's kinda fucked up.

 

[2aguy]

What is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

If you're so bereft of creative thought that you think there's an "only way" and you're not willing to listen to alternatives that may challenge that only-ness --- then what the fuck was the purpose of starting this thread?

You are more than free to share your wisdom on the matter……..we are waiting…..

"Waiting"???

I did that when this thread first started. It was ignored as inconvenient. I revived it again periodically. It's still ignored. Now you're "waiting?!?

After a thousand posts the OP sees no alternative to his preconception, yet he started a thread asking that very question.

That's kinda fucked up.

You offered up things that would not do anything…..that isn't offering anything useful.

 

[2aguy]

Mass murderers are disproportionally young men who have never had a girlfriend and never had sex. Legalize prostitution.

That's one good reason to legalize prostitution. Reducing the spread of STD is another -- and there are more. One which has always annoyed me is this specific example of government dictating such an intimate and personal behavior, both by prostitutes and their clients.

By far the most important reason to legalize prostitution is it will remove the criminal element from the oldest profession.

It doesn't….an author and screen writer, Andrew Klavan explored legal brothels for a novel…he said organized crime is all over them….and the girls still have pimps….even in the legal brothels…...

 

[Pogo]

What is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

If you're so bereft of creative thought that you think there's an "only way" and you're not willing to listen to alternatives that may challenge that only-ness --- then what the fuck was the purpose of starting this thread?

You are more than free to share your wisdom on the matter……..we are waiting…..

"Waiting"???

I did that when this thread first started. It was ignored as inconvenient. I revived it again periodically. It's still ignored. Now you're "waiting?!?

After a thousand posts the OP sees no alternative to his preconception, yet he started a thread asking that very question.

That's kinda fucked up.

You offered up things that would not do anything…..that isn't offering anything useful.

"Would not do anything" = "not what I want to hear".

Again ....

Obviously Gummo..... You're not the one "waiting". That entity would be me.

 

[2aguy]

What is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

If you're so bereft of creative thought that you think there's an "only way" and you're not willing to listen to alternatives that may challenge that only-ness --- then what the fuck was the purpose of starting this thread?

You are more than free to share your wisdom on the matter……..we are waiting…..

"Waiting"???

I did that when this thread first started. It was ignored as inconvenient. I revived it again periodically. It's still ignored. Now you're "waiting?!?

After a thousand posts the OP sees no alternative to his preconception, yet he started a thread asking that very question.

That's kinda fucked up.

You offered up things that would not do anything…..that isn't offering anything useful.

"Would not do anything" = "not what I want to hear".

Again ....

No….would not do anything means that what you advocate would not stop mass shootings…which is the point to the things that are supposed to be proposed…you know…actually stopping mass shootings vs. making it more difficult for normal gun owners to buy and own guns while doing nothing at all….nothing at all, to stop mass shooters……

Kind of like creating a device that keeps a car from crashing….but the device doesn't keep the car from crashing…..and then saying you came up with a device that keeps cars from crashing…….