Mass Shootings-Why Do We Insist On Thinking Anything Can Be Done?

People will always commit crimes, but we can reduce mass shootings substantially and maybe prevent them - or so many of them that they are negligible. And we don't need gun control to do it.[/QUOTE]
Magic?

 

That was one church in an isolated area. It's a bit more difficult to do in a densely populated area... and some people know how to take tanks out one at a time:

You can't build your case on one isolated incident over two decades ago.

 

There is no evidence of a country that has reduced gun deaths without gun control[/QUOTE]

Switzerland

 

Switzerland[/QUOTE]
Switzerland has massive gun control. That was hilarious. Try to get a CCW in Switzerland. And they have tons more gun control that we don't have. You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

Switzerland has massive gun control. That was hilarious. Try to get a CCW in Switzerland. And they have tons more gun control that we don't have. You have no clue what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

Neither do you. Switzerland used to require that every home own a military firearm and you could not go to the polls without a sidearm or a sword. They may have changed the law over the years, but that is the way it was when I was a kid and Switzerland had the most lax gun laws in the world back then.

 

Neither do you. Switzerland used to require that every home own a military firearm and you could not go to the polls without a sidearm or a sword. They may have changed the law over the years, but that is the way it was when I was a kid and Switzerland had the most lax gun laws in the world back then.[/QUOTE]
That is total nonsense. You are clueless about their current laws. Hilarious

 

If you do nothing you have a 100% chance of not fixing anything.
!00% chance.

Or... you can try.
No prizes for trying, but no prizes for guaranteed failure either.

P.S. everyone else who tried... has succeeded.

 

Neither do you. Switzerland used to require that every home own a military firearm and you could not go to the polls without a sidearm or a sword. They may have changed the law over the years, but that is the way it was when I was a kid and Switzerland had the most lax gun laws in the world back then.[/QUOTE]

They changed the law due to that massacre I expect. The guy had grenades and ****.

 

Name-calling is against forum rules, but I must admit, your diversion tactics, which may be intentional or may be otherwise explainable as a COMPLETE lack of comprehension, are quite aggravating.

Don't you find criticizing MY word choices a bit hypocritical, given that you have arbitrarily elevated yourself to the station of THE omnipotent arbiter in matters involving vocabulary usage??? Also, in my obvious overestimation, I have attempted to communicate with you on your own level and have therefore refrained from using $10 words.

WHAT DO I THINK IS DECEPTIVE???. . . . "However, laws do no protect anyone as we have already established."

When did "WE" ever establish that???

Peddle your malarkey elsewhere. . . . I'm not buying it.

 

I'm having a hard time separating what I wrote from what you wrote, as you send is all as if it were one big quote from me. Which it, obviously, is not.

First of all, rather than worrying about "too long", you should worry about "too discombobulated". It's not as hard as you seem to believe to quote properly. I'm sure a mod would help you if you asked for their assistance.

I haven't said anything about keeping "dangerous people off the streets" What I'm opposed to is allowing them to buy guns. You say you have been working on this for 3 decades and your ultimate solution is not to make it more difficult for them to get an assault weapon but rather to lock them up. That's ridiculous! Not to mention unconstitutional. And a Human Rights violation. Your "three decades" working on this were a waste of time if you don't address these facts.

You are equating fighting in VietNam to playing video games?

Can this get any more ridiculous?

Let me get this straight.... you are in favor of kids owning guns, but you are against them learning how to use them? And you think that "violent games" are those in which they simulate you using your firearm? So you are saying that a kid with a joystick or a game controller learns how to manipulate a real firearm? And, so this means that we need to ban all violent video games?

Yes... it can get more ridiculous!

And it keeps going. There are paragraphs where I don't even need to point out that it's ridiculous. Like this one. The absurdity shines by its own light.

In other words, you want to make psychopaths pay for their own treatment. A treatment that will submit them to supervision, pressure to get better grades and, in the end, they can very well end up locked up. But, in your universe, they would consent to taking the money they work for and paying for this "opportunity" to be locked up themselves.

This is ridicullous and a waste of time. You don't know what you're talking about. You have no idea how much this would cost, and your claim that kids would work to pay for a program in which they might end up locked up is beyond insane.

If you have actually wasted three decades on this, then it's clear your "plan" is not going to get any better. I would find something else to do with your time.

 

Yes we know how it works in the Old World

You are free to say anything as long as the government approves

 

Two simple SEMI-AUTO hand guns.

And yes semi-auto ANYTHING with a removable magazine should be banned.

I agree

 

If you REALLY cared about mass shootings, you;d also argue for the confiscation of same.
Why don't you care about mass shootings?

 

All semi-autos? Even .22 caliber? So much for allowing people the ability to hunt small game for food. Not everyone relies on store bought food. Yes, many do, but should those who like to supply their own food be forced to conform to everyone else? This shouldn’t be an all or nothing thing.

 

We haven't had a war with the gov't. And that is your premise to high cap mags and other fairly useless arms.
They have smart bombs, that can target your hideout.

 

Anyone who thinks the people need arms to keep govt in its place is delusional. To your point, the govt has a trained army with far more sophisticated weapons and far more ammo.

 

Appreciate your concern, but I don't have a hideout and still believe in those David V Goliath scenarios. Besides, what if the war were an invasion by a foreign country? If they bomb us, they have nothing but real estate. They would fight for it. They want the stuff that is worth money.

We lost a war to rice eating peons that didn't even own a helicopter.

 

We did.
You can believe in D v G all you want.

Still not a reason for high cap mags.

 

Don't need a reason. You have a Right. You don't need all the calories of super sized Mickey Ds; don't need cigarettes; don't need booze.

 

So those "telephone poles" that were shooting down our fighter jets didn't exist?

 

Yes, and my right to life should supercede your right to a hardon shooting 30 rounds as a beer can.

 

The North Vietnamese had a huge mechanized army that took Saigon in 1975 with more tanks than the Germans rolled into Paris.

 

Ah yes....that tired old cliche...

 

In theory we should have pummeled them back into the dark ages with air superiority.

 

Then my Right to Life should protect me from people who drink booze, smoke cigarettes and drive cars.