Some gun related questions for liberals:

[1a] Given the fact that murder laws do not stop mass murders from happening, why do you believe that additional laws (e.g. gun regulation/confiscation laws) will somehow stop mass murders from happening?

[1b] Isn't your belief in [1a] the very definition of insanity?

[2] MANY millions of Statesman own guns and have not committed any crimes with them. Why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent people for the actions of a select few people?

[3] Given the fact that you support various politicians, celebrities, assemblies, and locations all across the States being protected with guns, why do you oppose protecting schools, and more importantly the children within them, with guns?

[4a] Why do you immediately blame the gun rather than the person using it?

[4b] Why do you never examine the murderers themselves in order to find common links between them which could then be addressed (e.g. prescription of psychoactive drugs)?

[4c] Why do you never consider taking simple preventative measures (e.g. installing special doors that can be quickly closed and locked)?

[5] What gives you the right to tell other people what they do or do not "need"?

 

Its what they are trained to do. You can't ask them to think for themselves.

 

I don't believe gun laws will stop the retards from killing people.

 

If you want to make the point I think you are trying to make to liberals then let me help

they think “ban guns = no guns or less guns”

so they’ll need to be proven why that won’t work. I don’t personally have an answer for that except I’m sure most thugs, gangsters (all kinds) and career criminals are not purchasing firearms through legal means

my other argument is if you do that the bad guys will still be strapped and a poor old little single mom (half of all liberal mothers) won’t be able to defend herself when the bad guys come because she doesn’t know how to buy one illegally

but still, even with all that being said. I can 100% see why they think this
“Ban guns, reduce shootings dramatically “
If I was a liberal I’d stand by this as well as it does “sound” like a logical argument


What say you?

 

Okey dokey. As a liberal gun owner, I'll take this on.

1a: I don’t. We need to replace the 2nd Amendment with something that makes sense in the modern world. The men who wrote the 2nd didn't even know what bullets were, ffs.

1b: Yes, it is insane to continue doing nothing but talking and "sending our thoughts and prayers."

4a: I don't. I blame we the people for allowing the few to bully us into thinking that the 2nd Amendment is sacred, and cannot be changed or violated or ignored, even for the sake of preventing little children from being so ripped to shreds by a gunman that their bodies had to be identified by DNA testing.

2: As a gun owner, I would not feel like I'm being punished if we started treating gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right. We should regulate it the same way we do driver's licenses... pass a written test, pass a firing test, get your license, go in for renewal every five years or so. I'm fully willing to jump through some hoops in order to save even one innocent life. Any "Statesman" should feel the same way.

3: First, teachers and other public school employees by and large do not want to bear the dire responsibility that comes with having a gun at school. Then there's the issue of the type of guns: how effective is one handgun going to be against someone carrying two AR-15s loaded with high capacity magazines? May as well use a water pistol. But even more importantly, do we want our children to grow up inside a fortified prison with gun-toting adults everywhere they look? Think about the long term effects of that. I still vividly remember the duck and cover drills we had at school in the 50s at the height of the cold War.

4b: We do examine those aspects for every mass shooter. The trouble is that we aren't scrutinizing them until after they've done their killing. And as for psychoactive drugs, many reasonable, law-abiding people use anti-depressants. I do myself. They keep me from getting so blue that I can barely function. They do not make me want to kill anyone.

4c: Nor relevant to most of us. Talk to the architects and builders.

5: When did I ever?

Does that meet with your expectations?

 

If you think all life is precious everywhere but in the womb, you would not be wrong.

 

Let's start with a 'thought experiment'.

Assume there are no guns or bullets in the United States of America.

How many deaths by gunshot would then occur?

Now consider that members of the population are permitted to have guns and bullets. As the number of guns and bullets in the hands of citizens increases from zero, will the number of deaths from gunshot remain at zero?

Will there be a correlation between the increase in the number of guns and bullets in the hands of citizens and the number of deaths from gunshot?

Both liberals and conservatives are cordially invited to answer.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n un-shot.

 

No one advocating for enhanced gun control expects gun violence to stop. Under the circumstances, the best that can be hoped for is lower incidences of gun violence.

 

For the same reasons, we do not allow dynamite, nitroglycerin, anthrax, and uranium yellow cakes to be sold freely to the public.

 

Until #5, I thought you were being sincere. That one killed all of that and reveals your real agenda.

 

Guarantee you that when gun violence goes down the sick bastards will find new ways to carry out their sick
Deeds. So indeed gun violence may go down ( guns don’t commit violence, the person with finger on trigger does) but arsons, stabbing , bombing, head smashing with baseball bat and other type of crime will go up accordingly. So what’s the point? Is this just about violating citizens rights? Does that make libs feel better, knowing you take away a right but in the end didn’t accomplish anything?

Bath school killing was 44 kids and adults killed. 1927 no guns.

 

Think of the many more people who would now be dead if fully automatic modern weapons were cheap and easy to get.
do you think the mass shooters would have killed more than they did if fully automatic weapons were easy and cheap get?
I think it is logical to say that because fully automatic weapons are very expensive, there are a number hurdles to clear in order to obtain them, that if they were cheap and easy to obtain the mass shooters would use them and more deaths would have resulted.
Therefore,
Gun legislation, if it is federal and thus across all states, if it is fair, reasonable, and wise, can work and do save lives.

Uh, no.

Question has an unsubstantiated premise. However, feel free to substantiate the premise.

Who are you suggesting to be using these guns to protect people? Your question is vague, please elaborate.

Question has an unsubstantiated premise. However, feel free to substantiate the premise.

Question has an unsubstantiated premise. However, feel free to substantiate the premise.

Question has an unsubstantiated premise. However, feel free to substantiate the premise.

Question is vague, please elaborate.

And please, don't accuse me of dodging any questions. You can't ask a question to whom the person you pose the question disagrees with the premise. You can try, but only a fool wouldn't object to a false or assumed premise. On all the questions I ask you to substantiate your premise, you can assume that I don't necessarily agree with the premise, though I'll consider any evidence you can provide to demonstrate it's veracity. If you can do that, and I find your substantiation merit worthy, I'd be happy to consider the question.

 

Position noted.

1b for you is N/A due to your answer to 1a. I will assume that you agree with my positions on 2 and 3 since you skipped them.

It cannot be changed/violated/ignored. It is very clear that the right shall not be infringed. There is an inherent right to self defense.

Appeal to emotion. Did you know that simple security measures and armed people within the school could go a long way? Gun free zones are no good.

These shooters have either gone through all of those same hoops before deciding to shoot people up or else they simply ignore that stuff, grab a gun, and shoot people up. Such regulations don't do any good other than to make life a pain in the ass for innocent civilians simply wishing to have effective means to protect themselves from harm. --- People used to bring their guns to school for gun clubs and there weren't nearly the amount of school shootings back then as there are now.

Guns have always been around, yet school shootings have only been a recent phenomenon. Ergo, the problem ISN'T the guns... it is something else.

Nobody is saying to force them to do so. Conservatives are not liberals, ya know...

You'd be surprised regarding the effectiveness... and can the "good guys" not get and use AR-15's also? --- And why would there be a bunch of adults openly brandishing weapons in front of the children?? You paint a very vivid and unrealistic picture... The people with the guns could easily carry them in a concealed manner; the children wouldn't even know that the guns were there.

The trouble is that many of these people have red flags all over them well before they do anything, even announcing their intentions well in advance, yet the FBI, police, and others do absolutely nothing to stop it, even purposely let it play out, then they scream GUN CONTROL when all is said and done. The existence of guns isn't the issue.

Not really.

 

In other words some people don't follow rules so we should do nothing. Ok lets do away with speed limits.

People have solved this problem in other places. There is hope we can.

I have a question why do some people feel that the feeling of being "punished" outweighs the feeling of a parent who has to bury a child?

 

Yep you have a right to self defense, guess what you don't a gun to do that.

 

No, I skipped nothing.

"Shall not be infringed" no longer has the same meaning as it did when the 2nd was written.

Any amendment can be repealed/replaced given enough political will. If the 18th Amendment had not been replaced by the 21st, alcohol would still be illegal. It may be a big ask, but it can be done, once enough voters get tired of children being massacred.

I think the emotions of our children are important in these cases. The surviving kids will never lead lives free of nightmares and uncomfortable memories. Making them go to a locked down school with a prison atmosphere and gun-toting adults will scar them emotionally, and will not necessarily relieve the problem of mass shooters at school. There's always a way in or out, and do we want to rely on teachers, or even trained guards, to always shoot straight, even in a deadly, possibly chaotic situation? Because with the kind of firepower these shooters are free to purchase in America, one shot is all anyone is likely to get.

If you think the past was idyllic, please go back there.

Gee, so sorry, we must temporarily inconvenience capable adults for the sake of keeping children safe. The horror! </sarcasm>

As I said, the gun owners that I know would not kick up a bit of fuss over guns being treated as a privilege instead of a right.

Such as what? Do you really believe that? We need controls now, where they were not needed 250 years ago.

Already answered that. So, if not teachers and other staff, will you eat the extra taxes likely to be assessed in order to pay for trained guards? Not to mention their guns, which ain't cheap. Liberals aren't the only ones who like to spend taxpayer money.

Major horse pucky. Do police and armed guards no longer use holsters on their belts? And are children not adept at seeing through such things, or ferreting out such information?

Have you asked the parents? Or do you just assume that they'll agree to such a thing?

Oh good grief. After going to all this trouble, creating this thread and responding to participants at length, you don't think guns are the issue? Seriously?

 

do you want people having easy access to machine guns? I do not..... I feel the same about ar-15's

but I support the 2nd and everyone's right to bear arms, do you? even ex-felons that have done their time?

so someone has to wait a year to complete an ar-15 purchase, so what?

 

bullying in schools is something else that needs to be addressed as that is often the cause behind these mass shooters actions.... being bullied, often for years on end

 

Judging from 1a and b this is going to be presumptuous and one sided.

Your saying that because there are laws against murder but mass murders still happen that all that can be done is being done? AND anyone that believes otherwise is insane?

Do you mean "countrymen"? Here's the presumptuous part; who's blaming innocent gun owners for gun violence????

I don't oppose protecting "schools and children" by using firearms, who does, can you expand on that?

I don't, I believe people shoot and kill people, not guns.

The NRA lobbied, successfully, to stop all Federal Funding for research on gun violence.

I think we are coming to a crossroads where we either legislate to try and stop gun violence or put up airport like security in public places, ESPECIALLY around schools.

I don't have that right, but I do have the right to petition my representatives to enact laws that will address "gun violence". AND, in the meantime, protest or otherwise make my voice heard on gun violence issues.

What gives you the right to make so many presumptions about ... anybody ... especially Americans that want something done about the violence we've been subjected to for over a generation now?

 

Second Amendment



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...
The 2A has little to do with guns. Almost nothing at all actually.

 

Reminder to all: Schools are not the only place where mass shootings occur.

 

As someone who was viciously bullied for years, I don't disagree, but I never shot anyone. I think there's much more to it than just being bullied.

 

oh, I agree, it's not just one thing....

 

I can relate. I think it’s when those bullied have no support system. Then again, I have little empathy due to the bullying and believe our court system is far too lenient. We shouid be executing people in far greater numbers and quicker, when crimes are cut and dry. For example, Parkland shooting. There is no question who did it. He’s guilty. He should have been executed in a few weeks, not wasting tax dollars keeping him alive for probably the rest of his life.

 

do you think this is right or wrong. the part about children in school really hits home for me. what about you?