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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

That is correct. Shoot to kill the kook who is trying to wipe out a bunch of innocents.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

That is correct. Shoot to kill the kook who is trying to wipe out a bunch of innocents.

According to some, only a Trumpite can do this. If anyone else says the same thing that person is labeled as a blood thirsty maniac that is just looking to kill something and uses that as an excuse. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I am a blood thirsty....... according to some in here.

 

[Lesh]

Better for hunting?

I know a lot of hunters. NONE use assault rifles

And it's the revolver stupid.

Sorry Lesh, all five are semi-automatic weapons. Thank you for being so cooperative.

Living in the Panhandle of Florida. Most of my friends are hunters. All use semi-automatic rifles, some use the rifle at the top of the photo below. Hint, it is NOT an assault rifle. Do you even know what constitutes an assault rifle? Please share with us.

Your friends must be pretty bad marksmen...and trying to call a revolver a semi-auto is pretty lame. What is the cocking action and more importantly I was talking about MAGAZINE fed semi-autos. Neither that nor the shotgun are that genius

 

[Crixus]

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.

Man, we whipping this dead horse again? Libtards have passed laws, how about enforcing those?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

And?

We should try to reason with a suicidal murderer on a killing spree? No thanks.

Don't start nothin'
won't be nothin'

If being shot is a real posibility and anyone could be armed, mass shootings will happen much less frequently and would be far less deadly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

That is correct. Shoot to kill the kook who is trying to wipe out a bunch of innocents.

According to some, only a Trumpite can do this. If anyone else says the same thing that person is labeled as a blood thirsty maniac that is just looking to kill something and uses that as an excuse. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I am a blood thirsty....... according to some in here.

I think that when an armed citizen saves the day by either protecting themselves or others, nobody questions their political affiliation. In fact if it was learned a Democrat or liberal bravely did such a thing, we would applaud them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Better for hunting?

I know a lot of hunters. NONE use assault rifles

And it's the revolver stupid.

Sorry Lesh, all five are semi-automatic weapons. Thank you for being so cooperative.

Living in the Panhandle of Florida. Most of my friends are hunters. All use semi-automatic rifles, some use the rifle at the top of the photo below. Hint, it is NOT an assault rifle. Do you even know what constitutes an assault rifle? Please share with us.

Your friends must be pretty bad marksmen...and trying to call a revolver a semi-auto is pretty lame. What is the cocking action and more importantly I was talking about MAGAZINE fed semi-autos. Neither that nor the shotgun are that genius

You are clueless. Jesus.

1. If they are poor marksmen, they need more bullets and firepower for defense. You're making the argument for them.

2. A semi-auto = 1 pull of trigger and one round discharges, and the weapon is automatically reloaded and ready to fire again. ALL revolvers made after, what, 1950, have what is called "double action" which has the effect of 1 pull 1 round, no cocking necessary.

3 There are magazine-fed, semi-auto shotguns.

 

[Lesh]

You are a clueless. Jesus.

1. If they are poor marksmen, they need more bullets and firepower for defense. You're making the argument for them.

2. A semi-auto = 1 pull of trigger and one round discharges, and the weapon is automatically reloaded and ready to fire again. ALL revolvers made after, what, 1950, have what is called "double action" which has the effect of 1 pull 1 round, noncocking necessary.

3 There are magazine-fed, semi-auto shotguns.

1. We were talking about HUNTING...moron. And the idea of idiots that can't hit a friggin target spraying bullets every which way is hardly comforting and not much of an argument

2.There is a distinct difference between semi-auto and double action. You're out of your league. The main point is the magazine RELOAD

3. Yea? And that matters how. Hunters and target shooters can do just fine with pump or tube loaded semi-shotguns

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

You want to curb mass shootings- control social media. There’s your answer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are a clueless. Jesus.

1. If they are poor marksmen, they need more bullets and firepower for defense. You're making the argument for them.

2. A semi-auto = 1 pull of trigger and one round discharges, and the weapon is automatically reloaded and ready to fire again. ALL revolvers made after, what, 1950, have what is called "double action" which has the effect of 1 pull 1 round, noncocking necessary.

3 There are magazine-fed, semi-auto shotguns.

1. We were talking about HUNTING...moron. And the idea of idiots that can't hit a friggin target spraying bullets every which way is hardly comforting and not much of an argument

2.There is a distinct difference between semi-auto and double action. You're out of your league. The main point is the magazine RELOAD

3. Yea? And that matters how. Hunters and target shooters can do just fine with pump or tube loaded semi-shotguns

Hunting is irrelevant.

.

 

[Lesh]

Hunting is irrelevant.

Not to hunters moron...

 

[LittleNipper]

The solution is that all mass shooters should be publicly executed. And that execution should be by stoning. In that way the gun doesn't become equated with execution. I'm very sure that if this happens once or twice televised that even the most ardent criminal will wince even thinking about ever committing such an offence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The solution is that all mass shooters should be publicly executed. And that execution should be by stoning. In that way the gun doesn't become equated with execution. I'm very sure that if this happens once or twice televised that even the most ardent criminal will wince even thinking about ever committing such an offence.

Why not all murderers?

I always thought that executions should be held in public and on television. Pay-per-view proceeds should be given to the family of the victim and the state pick 10 to 15 kids in juvenile detention to witness it in person.

I don't believe in torture, but I think a family member should be (if desired) the one to twist the petcock of the fluid that kills the murderer. All appeals of (without a doubt) murderers should be exhausted in four months.

Liberals can take away all the guns they desire, but if you really want to see a drastic reduction in murder, do what I posted above. Then we can all keep our guns while at the same time, reducing murders by half.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

That is correct. Shoot to kill the kook who is trying to wipe out a bunch of innocents.

According to some, only a Trumpite can do this. If anyone else says the same thing that person is labeled as a blood thirsty maniac that is just looking to kill something and uses that as an excuse. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I am a blood thirsty....... according to some in here.

I think that when an armed citizen saves the day by either protecting themselves or others, nobody questions their political affiliation. In fact if it was learned a Democrat or liberal bravely did such a thing, we would applaud them.

I agree. But I have mixed feelings on arming a lot of people that should not be armed. Bad things can happen fast. Like one Rexall Ranger that would pull his weapon if a Robbery were to be happening. As long as the situtation is just about a few bucks, it should be let run it's course. But pulling that weapon may cause a cascade effect that no one wants.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

That is correct. Shoot to kill the kook who is trying to wipe out a bunch of innocents.

According to some, only a Trumpite can do this. If anyone else says the same thing that person is labeled as a blood thirsty maniac that is just looking to kill something and uses that as an excuse. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I am a blood thirsty....... according to some in here.

I think that when an armed citizen saves the day by either protecting themselves or others, nobody questions their political affiliation. In fact if it was learned a Democrat or liberal bravely did such a thing, we would applaud them.

I agree. But I have mixed feelings on arming a lot of people that should not be armed. Bad things can happen fast. Like one Rexall Ranger that would pull his weapon if a Robbery were to be happening. As long as the situtation is just about a few bucks, it should be let run it's course. But pulling that weapon may cause a cascade effect that no one wants.

That would happen a few times at first.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

That is correct. Shoot to kill the kook who is trying to wipe out a bunch of innocents.

According to some, only a Trumpite can do this. If anyone else says the same thing that person is labeled as a blood thirsty maniac that is just looking to kill something and uses that as an excuse. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I am a blood thirsty....... according to some in here.

I think that when an armed citizen saves the day by either protecting themselves or others, nobody questions their political affiliation. In fact if it was learned a Democrat or liberal bravely did such a thing, we would applaud them.

I agree. But I have mixed feelings on arming a lot of people that should not be armed. Bad things can happen fast. Like one Rexall Ranger that would pull his weapon if a Robbery were to be happening. As long as the situtation is just about a few bucks, it should be let run it's course. But pulling that weapon may cause a cascade effect that no one wants.

That does happen, but rarely. You find ten times more stories about a CCW holder saving their life or a life of others than you do a holder hurting or killing innocent people. You do have to dig for those stories as MSM (for the most part) doesn't report them. They are usually local stories at best.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Republicans have one solution. Shoot to kill.

That is correct. Shoot to kill the kook who is trying to wipe out a bunch of innocents.

According to some, only a Trumpite can do this. If anyone else says the same thing that person is labeled as a blood thirsty maniac that is just looking to kill something and uses that as an excuse. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I am a blood thirsty....... according to some in here.

I think that when an armed citizen saves the day by either protecting themselves or others, nobody questions their political affiliation. In fact if it was learned a Democrat or liberal bravely did such a thing, we would applaud them.

I agree. But I have mixed feelings on arming a lot of people that should not be armed. Bad things can happen fast. Like one Rexall Ranger that would pull his weapon if a Robbery were to be happening. As long as the situtation is just about a few bucks, it should be let run it's course. But pulling that weapon may cause a cascade effect that no one wants.

That does happen, but rarely. You find ten times more stories about a CCW holder saving their life or a life of others than you do a holder hurting or killing innocent people. You do have to dig for those stories as MSM (for the most part) doesn't report them. They are usually local stories at best.

You are wrong. It's about even. You leave out the stupid shootings because some idiot got heated or drunk and decided to settle an argument and he's carrying.

 

[JoeB131]

Why not all murderers?

I always thought that executions should be held in public and on television. Pay-per-view proceeds should be given to the family of the victim and the state pick 10 to 15 kids in juvenile detention to witness it in person.

I don't believe in torture, but I think a family member should be (if desired) the one to twist the petcock of the fluid that kills the murderer. All appeals of (without a doubt) murderers should be exhausted in four months.

Liberals can take away all the guns they desire, but if you really want to see a drastic reduction in murder, do what I posted above. Then we can all keep our guns while at the same time, reducing murders by half.

Wow...

So tell me Ray how is it was have all these guns, all these prisons, and are the only advanced country that still executes people... and we have the highest crime rate in the Western World...

While European countries that ban guns, have abolished the death penalty and imprison very few people have such low crime rates?

Hmmmmmm.....

Wait for it... wait for it....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

America is not like other nations. We have more rights. It is not a place for wormy little twat burgers. We have the power to overthrow and replace our government by force. Citizens of other nations do not.

As such, we cannot ever hope to be rid of guns. They are necessary and unavoidable. That is the price we pay for having power over our own government.

Pussies who don't want the responsibility of arming and protecting themselves can die or get the fuck out.

FACT.

.

 

[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.

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

You sir, are a liar. In fact, the FIRST school mass shooting happened during the assault weapons ban.