A Challenge To Anyone

Secure schools like prisons where an armed person can't penetrate the school.

 

We know there are red flag laws that could have - should have - interdicted the Buffalo shooter, and that's nearly always the case when one of these cockroaches goes off the rails. A good 1st step would be enforcing the laws we already have, that are in place to stop exactly this sort of bs.

In Florida, Polk County Sherriff Grady Judd has an armed teacher program in his county - the same county as the Lakeland school shooting. Teachers & staff who volunteer have to pass an exhaustive background check, and then undergo training even more intensive than his own deputies have to go thru. There are dozens of programs like it nationwide. There ought to be hundreds more.

 

No, that did not actually prove that. Mass shootings don't happen because someone has a certain type of gun. They happen because the person is f'd up in the head. I have a gun that could be used in a mass shooting and yet have never carried out a mass shooting. Why is that? According to you it should happen because of the type of gun I have.

 

Couldn't have been that secure if he was able to just walk right in

 

We get the culture of violence as much from Hollywood as we do from anywhere. You can tune to 100 shows at any given time on your television that demonstrate violence, most often in the form of guns. It is not the NRA promoting guns that most people see. It is your television, the movies, and real life crime in the big cities and especially in the inner cities. And Hollywood glamorizes gun violence. The song rappers glamorize gun violence (not all, but too many).

Schools need to be secured and there must be armed resource officers required at each. Put in metal detectors if that is necessary. These are steps we can take right now, regardless if you agree with them as the solution, to secure and safeguard our children. Whatever happened to the good old stranger danger? How did that person get into that school? Trust no one!

By taking guns away from 95% of the law abiding citizens of this country only makes us all less safe!

 

I don't think the argument against the "solutions" you enumerated is about loss of rights, though that would be the ultimate result. The argument I have is that the "solutions" you enumerate will have no effect on the people who are committing crimes, and therefore are not solutions at all.

 

That is because a lot of people think Hollywood Movie is reality and reality is a Hollywood Fantasy, even the police drama shows on TV thinking that is how court is done.

In the 1990s, when OJ Simpson was on trial for murder, I literally heard someone say, "Well, this is boring, if Matlock was there, I am sure we would know the truth in an hour or so." I literally fell out of my chair and started laughing.

If you want something to watch, watch Court TV of a murder trial in which the defendant is NOT on national news or news in your area. You will be surprised I think. And no, I am not talking snippets here, I am talking live feed from beginning to end.

 

Guess you didn't read my last sentence.

 

Volunteer, Lord knows you have spare time to burn!

 

The Dems control the presidency and both houses. Time for stupid Joe to get some real gun control passed to protect us. Step up to the plate there old stupid one and get it done.
(Ain’t gonna happen)

 

After a long winded discussion, you have not contradicted a single thing I said.

Universal background checks would require universal registration. Otherwise, I can just deny I ever owned a gun which ended up in someone else's possession.

Universal registration would require no notice inspections to insure that you have all the guns and only the guns you have registered to you. That no notice inspection would also have to include all those households who do not own guns.

We need to strictly enforce the laws already on the books and increase the penalties.

 

A lot of the solutions out there are not taking you right away at all, period. Even the Heller case didn't argue that the right was to every firearm or every type, etc. Red Flag laws do not take away your right to own a firearm forever. But if you commit a felony, then that right is taken away, isn't it under Federal and/or State law. Right. So a person commits a class C felony drug with intent to distribute, spends five years in prison, and is released. he has no right to own a firearm but he will not go to Academy or Walmart or any other place to obtain such a firearm. He will go to the "community" who will sell the firearm privatively where there is no background check. It is only after the fact that it is determined he should have a firearm.

As far as committing crimes, most of the mass gun shootings are done by law-abiding citizens until they commit the crime, like in the case of Las Vegas, California Church Shooting, and even Uvalde, and others. In a lot of other crimes, a firearm is produced as intimidation by never fired, or someone says "I have a firearm" and threatens to use it when committing a robbery felony. Furthermore, most crimes are committed by persons closest to you or whom you know well. Most of the time it is a relative, a friend, a coworker, an employee, an ex-employee, etc. It is rare for a random thing and that usually involves mass causalty events.

Finally, the FBI stated that 90% of the felonies committed are done by 3% are repeat offenders of the total offender population released from jail. But those are the robberies and other felonies, including homicides other than mass casualty events with the use of firearms.

 

Oh I read. That doesn't change the fact that you mainly blame guns

 

above is the perfect example of why nothing can be done about gun violence

when applying for a drivers license, a person has a background check..why not try something similar when purchasing gun ??

better yet why not make a gun license similar to a drivers license?? to drive a car you must be trained and pass a test

lets make a law that says to carry a gun you must be licnesed..driving a car without a license get a person in jail

carrying a gun without a license should do the same

what non sense...why must the gun lovers always say they will come into your home to take you guns

NOBODY is wanting to do this...keep you guns in your home..that is the safest place for them

and it is NOT the guns inside a person home that are dangerous..the police are NOT coming after your guns

it is the guns outside a persons home doing the damage

so stop with the insane accusations

the kids will thank you

 

You know it's a futile discussing when the end of the debate is "Criminals will never be disarmed" and that's the honest truth! The sad fact is CRIMINALS without argument commit gun crimes, the gun is their top tier tool of their trade!

Ditch diggers will always own a shovel and criminal will always own a firearm and no law, even penalty of death stops them from owning and using them...

 

So, just so I'm sure I understand: Your solution functions entirely on preventing the law-abiding from committing gun crimes?

 

Of course, strictly enforcing the laws already on the books does a world of good for those who already gave the middle finger to most laws.

IMO, anyone found to have used a weapon in the commission of a crime, should be severely punished.

While the idea of lets say, removing a finger or five comes to mind, it's not socially acceptable. Yet letting criminals back out on the street is acceptable to some.

Those that are going to follow the laws, already do so, so 'enforcing them' seems like an exercise in futility. We need to make the penalties for violating them steeper, and be more proactive in protecting those who cannot defend themselves (children/elderly).

 

That's all they have! Press the question all you like but you'll never get an answer as to how they will stop the murderer and other criminals from acquiring or using them..

If the penalty of death can not detour them from using the tool, what other means of punishment will ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

This makes me think you must not have been old enough to be cognizant in any decade prior to the 90's, because the "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" mentality existed LONG before the 90's. The above assumption could not possibly be further from the truth.

 

If it would save lives, yes.

but are you willing to put restrictions on guns that would slow someone down...smaller magazines?

 

Well said, and in some high risk/crime area's they are!

 

So. You want to teach someone who is basically insane how to better operate a gun. The problem is not the gun and the ability to operate the gun. The problem is that insane people are allowed to have guns.

Go back and reread what I said.

What insane accusations.

 

Really? No notice inspections any time of anything and everything you own. And that is pretending we have enough law enforcement officers to actually do all these inspections.

 

Technically every mass shooter was a law-abiding citizen prior to the mass shootings at schools, malls, churches, etc. Meaning I don't believe there have been any career criminals who've shot up schools

Virginia tech shooter used a 10 round mag 9mm handgun. He killed 32 and wounded 17. That didn't slow him down. What would you propose? 5 round mags? I have no issue with 10 rounds

 

No, only certain type guns. Remember YOU agreed, muskets couldn't have done this.