What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

First, we need to make killing people illegal. Or, perhaps the best choice is to effectively deal with the mentally ill and get them the help they need, rather than letting them wander around getting worse and worse.

What we should not do is take away the rights of people who have done NOTHING wrong.

"First, we need to make killing people illegal"? Are you serious? There are already laws on the books that makes it illegal to kill people. It's called murder, or in lesser cases, manslaughter.

Killing people is already illegal dude. What are you, a Russian troll bot?

So, you're saying killing people is already illegal, but you think more laws are needed. Seems rather stupid to me. You can't control actions by banning objects. You have to deal with behavior and get those who need help controlling their behavior the help they need.

It worked with the Thompson 45 Auto. It did take it 10 years to actually work and of course, one World War. But it finally did work. Sometimes you have to look at that long ball game.

 

[Markle]

I blame gun violence on policies and laws that make it easy to commit without immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death to the shooter.

Aside from guns, of which there are tens of millions in the hands of tens of million citizens? What is the the most common thread among the mass shooters?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

It is not astounding at all, since there is no solution to gun violence in the US. As the recent mass shooting in Ca. showed, tougher gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings, and such laws will not keep guns out of the hands of gangs, drug dealers and other criminals. As things stand now, if you say, no, to every bad idea about ending gun violence, you've said, no, to all ideas about how to end gun violence since ther are no good ideas on the subject.

 

[hunarcy]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

It is not astounding at all, since there is no solution to gun violence in the US. As the recent mass shooting in Ca. showed, tougher gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings, and such laws will not keep guns out of the hands of gangs, drug dealers and other criminals. As things stand now, if you say, no, to every bad idea about ending gun violence, you've said, no, to all ideas about how to end gun violence since ther are no good ideas on the subject.

Perhaps we need to enforce the laws on the books and get the mentally ill into hospitals where they can be treated and prevented from having a firearm.

 

[Markle]

So, you're saying killing people is already illegal, but you think more laws are needed. Seems rather stupid to me. You can't control actions by banning objects. You have to deal with behavior and get those who need help controlling their behavior the help they need.

Oh but hunarcy, don't "ya" know that infringes on their civil rights? The ACLU will be in the courts before the sun sets.

Progressives demand we open our borders and streets to all manner of violent criminals so they feel loved. Then they won't commit any more crimes and we can all sit naked in a circle, beating on our tom-toms singing Kumbaya!

 

[hunarcy]

So, you're saying killing people is already illegal, but you think more laws are needed. Seems rather stupid to me. You can't control actions by banning objects. You have to deal with behavior and get those who need help controlling their behavior the help they need.

Oh but hunarcy, don't "ya" know that infringes on their civil rights? The ACLU will be in the courts before the sun sets.

Progressives demand we open our borders and streets to all manner of violent criminals so they feel loved. Then they won't commit any more crimes and we can all sit naked in a circle, beating on our tom-toms singing Kumbaya!

That is SUCH crap. I can't believe these buffoons prefer to see these poor people wandering around, arguing with lightposts and pooping on the sidewalks.

 

[Markle]

Given we are the only civilized country in the world with this problem, you have to be pretty dumb to think there is no solution.

Then why do we have far less violent crime than the rest of the civilized countries?

 

[Lesh]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

It is not astounding at all, since there is no solution to gun violence in the US. As the recent mass shooting in Ca. showed, tougher gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings, and such laws will not keep guns out of the hands of gangs, drug dealers and other criminals. As things stand now, if you say, no, to every bad idea about ending gun violence, you've said, no, to all ideas about how to end gun violence since ther are no good ideas on the subject.

So we just "shrug and get used to it"?

I think not.

We had a ten year ban on assault weapons and not only did the sky not fall...but the number of mass shootings decreased

 

[Markle]

Let's see. You want to blame all gun violence on... let's list a few.

1. Mentally ill. Good luck on that one. When a State tries to pass something along those lines, the Reps won't allow it. It happened in Colorado. But look for it to finally pass next year. The Reps screwed up so bad, most were sent packing. You can't just bitch about it unless you are willing to follow through with a fix.

2. Not Enough Guns. Now, that's a real fix. In 1871, most Western Towns and Cities outlawed firearms to be displayed in their city limits. They got tired of all the murder, mayhem, loss of innocents from cross fires and such. That stood in Dallas Tx for more than 100 years. At the same time, they went to a method where, if you did kill someone with a firearm in the confines of the business district then, even if it was self defense, you were tried and hung. We are no more civilized than they were over 140 years ago. And remember, if you don't pay heed to history you are going to just repeat it.

3. And the #1 one. It's the Democrats Fault. On this one, I just shake my head.

So, we should follow unconstitutional laws from 150 years ago. Got it!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We had a ten year ban on assault weapons and not only did the sky not fall...but the number of mass shootings decreased

But it didn't reduce violence any. It was a failure.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

 

[Lesh]

Violent crime is up some, but still well off historical high

Violent crime rates were increasing right up to 19991...

Were guns per person decreasing during that time?

No?

They were also increasing?

oh...

 

[Lesh]

But it didn't reduce violence any. It was a failure.

The assault ban reduced mass shootings...which increased after it ended.

And violent crime rates were declining during that period...so ...double fail.

 

[Markle]

So we just "shrug and get used to it"?

I think not.

We had a ten year ban on assault weapons and not only did the sky not fall...but the number of mass shootings decreased

And then there are FACTS. Those troublesome things you love to ignore.

Attn. Gun Control Advocates: We Banned Assault Weapons Before ... And It Didn't Work
3/01/18
[...]
A 2004 study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice found that while the ban appeared to have reduced the number of crimes committed with "assault weapons," any benefits were "likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics."

As a result, the Justice study found "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury."

The main reason the failure of the ban to make a difference: "assault weapons" account for a tiny share of gun crimes — less than 6%. Even among mass shootings, most didn't involve an "assault weapon" in the decade before the ban went into effect.

Mass shootings didn't stop during the ban, either — there were 16 while the ban was in effect, which resulted in 237 deaths or injuries. In fact, it was while the ban was in effect that the Columbine High School massacre happened, in which 13 students were killed and 24 injured.

What's more, gun deaths have steadily declined since 1994, even though the rate of gun ownership has climbed.
[...]
Gun Control: Assault Weapons Ban Has Been Tried Before And Failed | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

 

[2aguy]

But it didn't reduce violence any. It was a failure.

The assault ban reduced mass shootings...which increased after it ended.

And violent crime rates were declining during that period...so ...double fail.

No, it didn’t......in fact, actual research states the ban did nothing...

 

[2aguy]

Violent crime is up some, but still well off historical high

Violent crime rates were increasing right up to 19991...

Were guns per person decreasing during that time?

No?

They were also increasing?

oh...

As more AMericans purchased and carried guns out gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

It is not astounding at all, since there is no solution to gun violence in the US. As the recent mass shooting in Ca. showed, tougher gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings, and such laws will not keep guns out of the hands of gangs, drug dealers and other criminals. As things stand now, if you say, no, to every bad idea about ending gun violence, you've said, no, to all ideas about how to end gun violence since ther are no good ideas on the subject.

So we just "shrug and get used to it"?

I think not.

We had a ten year ban on assault weapons and not only did the sky not fall...but the number of mass shootings decreased

Moron....the Virginia tech shooter used 2 pistols and killed 32 people.....the Luby’s Cafe shooter used 2 pistols and killed 24.... the shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun and killed 21 college students.......a rifle ban doesn’t stop mass shootings.....

 

[2aguy]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

It is not astounding at all, since there is no solution to gun violence in the US. As the recent mass shooting in Ca. showed, tougher gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings, and such laws will not keep guns out of the hands of gangs, drug dealers and other criminals. As things stand now, if you say, no, to every bad idea about ending gun violence, you've said, no, to all ideas about how to end gun violence since ther are no good ideas on the subject.

So we just "shrug and get used to it"?

I think not.

We had a ten year ban on assault weapons and not only did the sky not fall...but the number of mass shootings decreased

No...we end gun free zones, allowing good people to carry their legal guns...that stops mass shootings because mass shooters target gun free zones...we know this because captured mass shooters have told us this, and the dead ones left notes......,

Also, we invest in mental health, and start to discourage single teenage motherhood, the biggest driver of gun murder in the country.

 

[Lesh]

In 1975 47% of households had a gun.

Now it's about 30%. So fewer people own a shitload more guns.

Violent crime is absolutely unrelated to gun ownership

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If I thought that more gun control would reduce the gun violence, I'd be for it however so far there is no real correlation. This issue isn't the inanimate object, it isn't the inanimate object that is the issue. It is our culture. We are a country that needs problems solved in a 30 minute sitcom. We have several generations that have not learned how to handle disappointment, of failure. We watch violent TV show, movies, play violent video games, social interaction is now reduced to Twitter and Facebook posts, we all want instant gratification, we believe we are entitled and our thoughts and feelings should supersede others. We have political leaders that bicker and fight and us inflammatory language.

It isn't a gun problem, we have a people problem.

Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings.

we have strong gun controls and chicago and other democrat run cities have thousands of deaths due to guns. why?

Our laws are incredibly weak. Chicago doesn’t have walls, guns come from areas with weak laws.

Actually most guns criminals have come from straw buyers or are stolen. Regardless where the guns come from, laws should stop people from using them........shouldn't they?

Actually, it's easy to buy guns in southern states like Texas (especially at gun shows), and there are no checkpoints between Texas and Chicago. Because of that, there are unscrupulous people who will go to Texas and buy a whole bunch of guns, then take them north to places like Chicago where the gun laws are much stricter. They then sell them on the black market and triple their money.

VICE Channel did a documentary on it a while back. It was called "The Iron Pipeline", and it showed how there were quite a few people who were doing that. And, because they weren't commercial vehicles, they didn't have to stop at weigh stations for inspection, meaning if they obeyed the traffic laws and drove sensibly, they stood very little chance of getting caught gun running. And, the gun they bought in TX for 300 bucks can fetch 900 to 1500 in Chicago.

Unless they were stolen guns, they are still traceable. If you are selling traceable guns on the black market, it's only a matter of time before somebody tells the authorities how a criminal in Chicago got their gun from Texas.

If they are stolen guns, then that's a huge risk they are taking, and probably the payout wouldn't be nearly as good as if they decided to traffic illegal narcotics. It certainly pays better.

As for gun shows, statistically, very few criminals ever used a gun purchased from a gun show, and many of those shows have licensed dealers who have to abide by state and federal laws to sell firearms no matter where they are selling those firearms from.

 

[2aguy]

we have strong gun controls and chicago and other democrat run cities have thousands of deaths due to guns. why?

Our laws are incredibly weak. Chicago doesn’t have walls, guns come from areas with weak laws.

Actually most guns criminals have come from straw buyers or are stolen. Regardless where the guns come from, laws should stop people from using them........shouldn't they?

Actually, it's easy to buy guns in southern states like Texas (especially at gun shows), and there are no checkpoints between Texas and Chicago. Because of that, there are unscrupulous people who will go to Texas and buy a whole bunch of guns, then take them north to places like Chicago where the gun laws are much stricter. They then sell them on the black market and triple their money.

VICE Channel did a documentary on it a while back. It was called "The Iron Pipeline", and it showed how there were quite a few people who were doing that. And, because they weren't commercial vehicles, they didn't have to stop at weigh stations for inspection, meaning if they obeyed the traffic laws and drove sensibly, they stood very little chance of getting caught gun running. And, the gun they bought in TX for 300 bucks can fetch 900 to 1500 in Chicago.

This isn't a gun problem it's a Chicago problem

The quickest way to fix the problem would be to nationalize some gun laws. At least make sure that everyone who buys one is checked out, even at gun shows.

And, they could do it like the military does instructions. When the Navy came out with a directive, it was fairly general, but still outlined how things were supposed to be done. A command could make additional rules that made the directive even stricter, but they could never lessen the directives issued at the SECNAV or BUPERS level.

Get a general set of gun laws that all states can agree on, and enforce those. If various places wanted to make the laws even stricter, they could, but they would have to follow the minimums outlined in the federal gun laws. They couldn't make them less strict than the federal laws.

All of the mass shooters checked out under current background checks...which means they would check out under any national system too..and criminals can’t buy guns under current laws, but still get them....

Your solutions fail.....