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

[candycorn]

They have tough gun laws in Europe and very few gun crimes. Obviously gun laws do work.

What they don't have is a counter productive second amendment keeping the spigot open.

You have clearly established the fact that Europe is not America. The remaining questions are where would you rather live? And why?

Here. I was born here. Too old to learn another culture. Thanks for the questioning.

The remaining question is why can't we look at Europe and duplicate a system that works so well for so many. Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

We don't want to live in an incestuous sh!t hole like Europe, dumba$$

now you're just being stupid on purpose.

No, I have been to Europe, it sucked. Could not get out of there fast enough...

I'm sure nobody missed you on either continent.

 

[OKTexas]

Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

When a liberal loses debate after debate, he usually starts ranting hysterically like this.

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You never answered the question...with everyone packing heat, what do you do if you're the bank guard or the guard at the race track and 5,000 people have weapons and anyone can open fire at any time.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons. As insane as it sounds, that is your remedy. Now walk us through what the guard at the bank should do when 30-50 customers are packing Uzis in the lobby....will you please?

The bank guard would say good morning/afternoon and have a nice day.

Obviously because nobody with a gun has ever shot anyone. Right?

Please provide a link where someone shot a person in a bank with 30-50 Uzis present. It's your scenario don't deflect from it.

 

[candycorn]

Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

When a liberal loses debate after debate, he usually starts ranting hysterically like this.

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You never answered the question...with everyone packing heat, what do you do if you're the bank guard or the guard at the race track and 5,000 people have weapons and anyone can open fire at any time.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons. As insane as it sounds, that is your remedy. Now walk us through what the guard at the bank should do when 30-50 customers are packing Uzis in the lobby....will you please?

The bank guard would say good morning/afternoon and have a nice day.

Obviously because nobody with a gun has ever shot anyone. Right?

Please provide a link where someone shot a person in a bank with 30-50 Uzis present. It's your scenario don't deflect from it.

We don't have universal carry yet. If we did, the scenario may come about.

The entire idea of deterrence is having force equal to or greater than what you may face. The old "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" idiom. So faced with 30-50 armed people in the lobby at any one time, prudence dictates that you ramp up the deterrence because the threat is ramped up as well.

You know, what you and the other gun nuts have tried to avoid saying.

Basically, if a balloon for Jenny's birthday happens to pop unexpectedly, you will have a blood bath because of the presence of guns. Nothing else.

 

[Mudda]

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

The Founding Fathers made no mention of specific types of firearms in their Second Amendment assurance that American citizens shall retain the ability to defend themselves against oppression. They referred only to "arms," neither the (blunderbuss) arms of their yesteryear nor the presumably advanced arms of their tomorrow.

So the government could ban all kinds of arms as long as they keep a few legal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

When a liberal loses debate after debate, he usually starts ranting hysterically like this.

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You not only lose hem you lose them at the top of your lungs.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons.

This is a lie - and thus, another argument lost by you.

 

[dblack]

Can't we just pass a law to make mass shootings illegal?

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[MikeK]

So the government could ban all kinds of arms as long as they keep a few legal.

During the time when the Constitution was conceived the word "arms" referred to firearms, the rifles and pistols which the ordinary citizen owned for defensive purpose. Since that time a number of highly advanced types of weaponry have been developed, such as machine guns, sub-machine guns, sophisticated missiles, hand-grenades, mines, chemical bombs, etc. These weapons are categorical armaments, often referred to by the abbreviated designation, "arms," but certainly are not the kind of arms (simple firearms) the ordinary citizen has any immediate need for.

So it is plainly presumable the authors of Amendment Two were not in their use of the word arms referring to the kind of exotic military weaponry which exists today but rather the ordinary hand and shoulder (fire)arms which are essential to the purpose of defending the home and persons.

 

[MikeK]

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

The Founding Fathers made no mention of specific types of firearms in their Second Amendment assurance that American citizens shall retain the ability to defend themselves against oppression. They referred only to "arms," neither the (blunderbuss) arms of their yesteryear nor the presumably advanced arms of their tomorrow.

So the government could ban all kinds of arms as long as they keep a few legal.

That seems to be the present situation.

 

[OKTexas]

When a liberal loses debate after debate, he usually starts ranting hysterically like this.

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You never answered the question...with everyone packing heat, what do you do if you're the bank guard or the guard at the race track and 5,000 people have weapons and anyone can open fire at any time.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons. As insane as it sounds, that is your remedy. Now walk us through what the guard at the bank should do when 30-50 customers are packing Uzis in the lobby....will you please?

The bank guard would say good morning/afternoon and have a nice day.

Obviously because nobody with a gun has ever shot anyone. Right?

Please provide a link where someone shot a person in a bank with 30-50 Uzis present. It's your scenario don't deflect from it.

We don't have universal carry yet. If we did, the scenario may come about.

The entire idea of deterrence is having force equal to or greater than what you may face. The old "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" idiom. So faced with 30-50 armed people in the lobby at any one time, prudence dictates that you ramp up the deterrence because the threat is ramped up as well.

You know, what you and the other gun nuts have tried to avoid saying.

Basically, if a balloon for Jenny's birthday happens to pop unexpectedly, you will have a blood bath because of the presence of guns. Nothing else.

So basically what you're saying is you have an irrational fear of law abiding citizens simply exercising their rights and you see them as a threat. Are you aware that citizens are far less likely to shoot an innocent person than the police?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Basically, if a balloon for Jenny's birthday happens to pop unexpectedly, you will have a blood bath because of the presence of guns. Nothing else.

The above is not an unfounded fear. Which is why I strongly advocate competence testing and substantial training (where needed) for all gun owners.

While I am in favor of liberal gun ownership laws I believe those who do own guns know how to handle them -- and when and how to use them. I believe emphasis on this requirement will significantly reduce misuse of guns.

What I'm talking about is a simple matter of education, which is always a good thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

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?

Because he's a leftist and wouldn't know "clever" if it crawled up his pants leg and bit him on the left ass cheek.

 

[2aguy]

Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

When a liberal loses debate after debate, he usually starts ranting hysterically like this.

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You never answered the question...with everyone packing heat, what do you do if you're the bank guard or the guard at the race track and 5,000 people have weapons and anyone can open fire at any time.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons. As insane as it sounds, that is your remedy. Now walk us through what the guard at the bank should do when 30-50 customers are packing Uzis in the lobby....will you please?

well...since none of them are shooting...and criminals stay away because so many people can shoot them if they try to rob the bank.....the bank guard simply says "have a nice day" as the well armed customer leaves......since normal,people aren't robbing banks or shooting other people...

there is no problem to deal with....

 

[2aguy]

[...]

Basically, if a balloon for Jenny's birthday happens to pop unexpectedly, you will have a blood bath because of the presence of guns. Nothing else.

The above is not an unfounded fear. Which is why I strongly advocate competence testing and substantial training (where needed) for all gun owners.

While I am in favor of liberal gun ownership laws I believe those who do own guns know how to handle them -- and when and how to use them. I believe emphasis on this requirement will significantly reduce misuse of guns.

What I'm talking about is a simple matter of education, which is always a good thing.

Nope...mandatory training as a bar to the exercise of the Right is a non starter....that is what they do in Europe,and only the wealthy and politically connected get to have guns...

 

[Cecilie1200]

They have tough gun laws in Europe and very few gun crimes. Obviously gun laws do work.

What they don't have is a counter productive second amendment keeping the spigot open.

You have clearly established the fact that Europe is not America. The remaining questions are where would you rather live? And why?

Here. I was born here. Too old to learn another culture. Thanks for the questioning.

The remaining question is why can't we look at Europe and duplicate a system that works so well for so many. Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

Well, since you haven't bothered to learn much about THIS culture, other than vilifying talking points to parrot, I can't see this as a huge barrier to you leaving.

Buh-bye.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

When a liberal loses debate after debate, he usually starts ranting hysterically like this.

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You never answered the question...with everyone packing heat, what do you do if you're the bank guard or the guard at the race track and 5,000 people have weapons and anyone can open fire at any time.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons. As insane as it sounds, that is your remedy. Now walk us through what the guard at the bank should do when 30-50 customers are packing Uzis in the lobby....will you please?

Cornball, you lose every argument you ever get into. You're just too damned dumb to recognize what a fool you make of yourself.

The guard at the bank shouldn't do anything he doesn't already do with peaceful customers who are minding their own business. Except maybe be thankful that nobody's going to be dumb enough to try to rob a bank full of armed customers. Even you aren't that dumb . . . I think.

You should really stop projecting your anthropophobia onto everyone else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

When a liberal loses debate after debate, he usually starts ranting hysterically like this.

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You never answered the question...with everyone packing heat, what do you do if you're the bank guard or the guard at the race track and 5,000 people have weapons and anyone can open fire at any time.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons. As insane as it sounds, that is your remedy. Now walk us through what the guard at the bank should do when 30-50 customers are packing Uzis in the lobby....will you please?

The bank guard would say good morning/afternoon and have a nice day.

Obviously because nobody with a gun has ever shot anyone. Right?

How well is disarming those who obey the law working out to stop people who don't obey laws from shooting people?

 

[Cecilie1200]

They have tough gun laws in Europe and very few gun crimes. Obviously gun laws do work.

What they don't have is a counter productive second amendment keeping the spigot open.

You have clearly established the fact that Europe is not America. The remaining questions are where would you rather live? And why?

Here. I was born here. Too old to learn another culture. Thanks for the questioning.

The remaining question is why can't we look at Europe and duplicate a system that works so well for so many. Are we afraid that we will have too few murders?

We don't want to live in an incestuous sh!t hole like Europe, dumba$$

now you're just being stupid on purpose.

No, I have been to Europe, it sucked. Could not get out of there fast enough...

Europe is a place to tour castles and historical monuments on vacation, before catching a plan and getting the hell out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can't we just pass a law to make mass shootings illegal?

I think we already did. I'm pretty sure it's quite, quite illegal. It's almost like criminals don't respect the law, or something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll let you know when I lose one.

You never answered the question...with everyone packing heat, what do you do if you're the bank guard or the guard at the race track and 5,000 people have weapons and anyone can open fire at any time.

Your remedy for gun violence is to have everyone carry weapons. As insane as it sounds, that is your remedy. Now walk us through what the guard at the bank should do when 30-50 customers are packing Uzis in the lobby....will you please?

The bank guard would say good morning/afternoon and have a nice day.

Obviously because nobody with a gun has ever shot anyone. Right?

Please provide a link where someone shot a person in a bank with 30-50 Uzis present. It's your scenario don't deflect from it.

We don't have universal carry yet. If we did, the scenario may come about.

The entire idea of deterrence is having force equal to or greater than what you may face. The old "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" idiom. So faced with 30-50 armed people in the lobby at any one time, prudence dictates that you ramp up the deterrence because the threat is ramped up as well.

You know, what you and the other gun nuts have tried to avoid saying.

Basically, if a balloon for Jenny's birthday happens to pop unexpectedly, you will have a blood bath because of the presence of guns. Nothing else.

So basically what you're saying is you have an irrational fear of law abiding citizens simply exercising their rights and you see them as a threat. Are you aware that citizens are far less likely to shoot an innocent person than the police?

Although in all fairness to the police, they DO spend a lot more time in the presence of people who need shooting than regular people do.