What is the solution? Or at least what action should be taken?

[rjs330]

You mean except for the ones that used pistols...except for those.....and the one in Russia they used a 5 shot pump action shotgun....... the gun doesn't matter, the gun free zone is the cause of the deaths....

I clearly said reduced, not eliminate.

If the fun doesn't matter, why do you want an assault type rifle?

It isn't an Assault type rifle.....how many times do you have to be told that.

These rifles are not military weapons...they are regular, semi-auto rifles, no different from any other semi-auto rifle........

Why would someone want an AR-15, the most common type of rifle in the country with likely 10 million in private hands....?

One, it is customizable, unlike the same rifle in a wood stock...that means the husband can shoot it, adjust the stock, and the wife can shoot, adjust the stock again and the kids can shoot it......then you can change barrels for different size bullets, you can have a rail on the top, unlike many wood rifles, where you can attach different types of sites and scopes....and on the bottom of the barrel you can add a laser and a light for home defense....

That's why...also, it is light, and you can carry it around the house more easily than a shotgun.

Oh Jesus Fuck. You assfucks & your " OMG OMG OMG that is not an assault rifle" bullshit

People are DYING & you play these games. I said assault TYPE weapons. I know what they are. You know whsat we are talking about, So how about you shove your crap up your fat dishonest ass.

People are dying because of assfucks like you.

Funny shit how Remmington can sell deer rifles that are bolt action & not adjustable. People buy them & actually hit the deer they shoot at. Really.

There is no need for semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Ban them now. Trust me, you can survive without your toys.

More people are killed by knives but I don't see you complaining about knives.....


2018, 12 mass public shootings... total killed for the year, 93

Knives kill over 1,500 every single year....yet you don't care about that, and don't call for banning knives.

Cars killed over 38,000 people.... vs ..... 93.... yet you aren't calling for banning cars....

You are irrational....and stupid.....and a moron.....

Again..... a 5 shot, tube fed pump action shotgun killed more people than Gilroy and Ohio combined......3 in Gilroy, 9 in ohio, 20 killed by the tube fed, pump action shotgun....

It isn't the gun you twit...it is the gun free zone where the shooter has free reign until someone points a gun at them.....

Then you have the 32 people killed at Virgingia Tech...with 2 pistols...

The 12 people killed at the navy yard, with a pump action shotgun...

the 24 people killed with the 2 pistols at Luby's Cafe....

It isn't the rifle you asshat.......gun free zones....

Another copy & paste post. You just can't learn. Pathetic.

38,000 people killed in casr crashes. You do know how much has been done to make cars safer. We make people wear selt belts - OMG OMG OMG.

We tell them how fast they can drive.

We have millions of cars & trucks on the road. If say 6 models catch fire, there is a recall. Maybe 6 our of 100,000 on the road. According to you, they should havre ignored it & done nothing.

5 babies get hiurt when a brand of baby furniture fails, there is a recall.

^ people die of food poisoning, tons of food is recalled.

100 people die in mass shootings and we do nothing? Mass shooters tend to use assault type weapons, they want the killing power. Would they do it without this power? Maybe not.

Weapons that are not needed.

You are confusing things. Most of the acts you mention are accidents. Or they are the result of peoples actions that are not deliberate.

The violence you are talking about are deliberate acts by people. The guns didn't do anything by accident. A person deliberately picked up a gun and used it to kill someone.

 

[WinterBorn]

I was trying to have a constructive discussion. Pity so few others were.

For how long have we heard that the Death enalty does not deter and we are getting rid of it slowly across the country.

We have adopted codlling of prisoners because it doesn't help to be course with them.

We are disintegrating into a society of individual iPhone users and see little of the ties that bind us, but that wasn't supposed to make a difference either.

And yet we see more and more of these massacres each y ear it seems.

Maybe shaming these miscreants, executing them within a month if not a week and burying their remains at sea over an undisclosed location would deter some of this crap?

Worth trying in my opinion.

I know what does N OT work:

Blaming the other party

whining about it

making a martyr out of the guy t rying to find out why he did it

blaming guns instead of the perp

proposing pointless feel good remedies that we all know will not work.

Faster death penalties might deter some crimes. But not these mass shooting crazies. It is very, very rare that the shooter lives. When they don't kill themselves they are killed by cops.

 

[Preacher]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. Fuck party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

Give us back our country or these acts of war will continue.

 

[WEATHER53]

I have been brought to the thought that the stays quo does not work anymore.
I can’t offer a solution
I’m thinking that if one in ten people around me was expert In firearms and had one then let’s try that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. Fuck party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

Give us back our country or these acts of war will continue.

And the perpetrators of these "acts of war" will continue to be killed and vilified by the population at large.

But what, specifically, do you mean by "Give us back our country"? What do you want to see happen?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The significant uptick in frequency obviously coincides with the internet and most of those are in the age of social media.
So it appears that social media is likely exacerbating mental issues and pushing those vulnerable to the edge.
At least now there is a focal point in addressing the problem.
What to do about it is the question.

 

[MarathonMike]

Just like the border problems, the mass shooter problems are complex and there is no "magic bullet" solution, pardon the pun. It will take profiling high risk individuals and banning them from all access to weapons of any kind. Along with that, get those high risk individuals into counseling. It will take armed guards in the malls, the big box stores, the open air events and the schools. It will also take more citizens who have gun skills to go into public with weapon locked and loaded. Ban gun free zones, or at least rename them soft target zones. If we do all that, then I would go along with limitations and greater scrutiny on semi-automatic weapon sales, background checks etc. That will have the least impact on the problem, but could buy us some lead time on the next shooter.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Just like the border problems, the mass shooter problems are complex and there is no "magic bullet" solution, pardon the pun. It will take profiling high risk individuals and banning them from all access to weapons of any kind. Along with that, get those high risk individuals into counseling. It will take armed guards in the malls, the big box stores, the open air events and the schools. It will also take more citizens who have gun skills to go into public with weapon locked and loaded. Ban gun free zones, or at least rename them soft target zones. If we do all that, then I would go along with limitations and greater scrutiny on semi-automatic weapon sales, background checks etc. That will have the least impact on the problem, but could buy us some lead time on the next shooter.

No, the gun control thing is a loser. As previously pointed out, the psychos would morph their MO to fit accessible resources.

 

[lennypartiv]

What is the solution?
A. Deport Hispanics
B. Deport blacks
C. Deport liberals
D. All of the above.

 

[lennypartiv]

More guns make us safer.

 

[Preacher]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. Fuck party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

Give us back our country or these acts of war will continue.

And the perpetrators of these "acts of war" will continue to be killed and vilified by the population at large.

But what, specifically, do you mean by "Give us back our country"? What do you want to see happen?

You don't think they know that? They know VERY WELL what will happen. Either killed by police,executed in next 10-15 years or taking their own lives.

Every non citizen deported,close down the borders, move ALL blacks to south Florida into a LARGE prison camp give them all the drugs and alcohol and entertainment they want but sterilize them. Execute all politicians and Jews for crimes against humanity and treason. Nuke the entire middle east. Pull ALL troops from EVERY base overseas. That should be a great start. I doubt this will ever happen but the rate the US keeps printing money that nothing is backing eventually the US will collapse under its own debt weight.

 

[August West]

Ban Assault type rifles, semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. For current owners, make it illegal to carry one off one's property or sell it.

Ban large capacity magazines.

Put a gag on Trump.

Give Republicans a back bone

Pass the Democrat bills that passed the House. These look at mental aspects.

Putting a gag on Trump is a good idea; the rest is not.

‘Banning’ assault weapons won’t work – it was tried once before and it was a failure.

We need to consider other solutions that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.

The assault weapons ban was a failure? Not so fast there my friend. We do know that it did no harm.
Did mass shootings spike 200% since assault weapons ban?
Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/

 

[WinterBorn]

What is the solution?
A. Deport Hispanics
B. Deport blacks
C. Deport liberals
D. All of the above.

A. US Citizens?
B. US Citizens?
C. Demand no disagreement?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. Fuck party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

Give us back our country or these acts of war will continue.

And the perpetrators of these "acts of war" will continue to be killed and vilified by the population at large.

But what, specifically, do you mean by "Give us back our country"? What do you want to see happen?

You don't think they know that? They know VERY WELL what will happen. Either killed by police,executed in next 10-15 years or taking their own lives.

Every non citizen deported,close down the borders, move ALL blacks to south Florida into a LARGE prison camp give them all the drugs and alcohol and entertainment they want but sterilize them. Execute all politicians and Jews for crimes against humanity and treason. Nuke the entire middle east. Pull ALL troops from EVERY base overseas. That should be a great start. I doubt this will ever happen but the rate the US keeps printing money that nothing is backing eventually the US will collapse under its own debt weight.

Deporting illegals and closing the border is rational.

Removing 14% of the population for imprisonment and sterilization based on something as trivial as skin color is ridiculous. You imagine it being all gang members and welfare queens, but it will also be doctors, engineers, and workers of all levels. The same goes for executing Jews.

 

[Weatherman2020]

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to possessing a firearm, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms."

See how that works?

Yes....and in the same ruling Scalia said this...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Then, Scalia wrote this...protecting all of those rifles you anti-gunners want to ban....and by name, he stated the AR-15 is a protected rifle.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

The government will round up the 5 million AR-15’s and the problem solved.

Right after the government finishes rounding up all of the meth, PCP, heroin, cocaine, etc etc .....

 

[rjs330]

In 1964 God was kicked out of schools and children were no longer told they were made in the image of God.

Now we enjoy the fruits of that decision.

View attachment 272695

Nonsense – ‘god’ never belonged in schools to begin with.

You do know that God was a huge part of the schools before AND after the founding right? The Bible was a text book. He was also a large part of the founding.

 

[progressive hunter]

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,

And, as I showed you, the 1st amendment can be regulated.

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

 

[progressive hunter]

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

they cant be,,,and only a commie mother fucker would,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,

And, as I showed you, the 1st amendment can be regulated.

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

"(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

If you urge, counsel, or advise others to riot, when there is a clear and present danger of there being a riot, you are guilty of the charge. There can be a clear and present danger of a riot, but not a riot. You are charged with a crime because of your speech.

 

[progressive hunter]

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,

And, as I showed you, the 1st amendment can be regulated.

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,