Why don’t you gundamentalists come right out and say what you’re thinking? School shootings and other forms of mass casualty events are Collateral Damage. It’s the price true patriots must be willing to pay for protection from the real danger: the lethal effects of government overreach. Can’t make an omelette unless you break a few eggs, right Dr. Billy-Bob?

@NostraDumbass

I would recommend looking into why she did it. a study was done a few years ago that showed 9 of the 10 previous "high profile" mass shootings were carried out by people on antidepressants. Or that the majority over all come from families without a father in the home. It was in the mid 90% range. I'm wanting to say 96% of those under 30 years old grew up without a father during their teenage years.

Drunk driver kills a family on their way home from the water park; Driver's fault.
Not considered:

• Alcohol’s fault
• Alcohol distillery
• Car’s fault
• Car manufacturer
• The person that gave them their driving test

Police officer shoots a criminal that had a knife; Cops fault.
Not considered:

• The gun
• The ammo
• The gun manufacturer
• The police instructor that certified him

A girl with mental issues shoots up a school; Gun’s fault.
Not considered:

• Anything at all

You guys are deep intellectual thinkers; aren't ya?

@CourtJester So you’re telling me if a drunk driver kills a family on his way home, that alcohol wouldn’t be considered as a contributing factor? I had to do a triple-take after reading that one. But…I’m the one who’s not the deep thinker, right?

P.S. Is their excessive lead in the drinking water, down there?

@NostraDumbass

Where are your cries to ban alcohol then??? Think of all of the children you could save.

@CourtJester That’s true, but I also believe in freedom of choice. More so than you in fact, since I am also pro-choice re abortion. But definitely not a Prohibitionist. Give me the power, and I absolutely would not take away your guns. Would just greatly reduce the number in circulation by making them very difficult to acquire.

@NostraDumbass
So that only certain people would be restricted from owning them and more restrictions could be added on later I would assume?

Or we could shift the focus to the root cause.

@CourtJester The fewer guns in society the safer everyone becomes. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement. Root causes of crime and violence can be dealt with simultaneously. No need to shift the focus. It’s called multitasking.

@NostraDumbass

So, you want to take the legal rights away from lawful citizens because of the actions of the criminals? How has that worked out in New York, L.A., Chicago, and Seattle?

I encourage you to do a little research to see what the citizens of Chine, Uganda, Venezuela, Cambodia, North Korea, Australia, Mexico, Russia, ect. might say about having fewer guns in society.

I'd also encourage you to see how many mass shooters are taking psychotropic medications. You'll find that nearly 99% of them are on at least one.

But hey. Small minds seek out small solutions.

@CourtJester I’m sorry, did I “trigger” you. (Pun intended).

@NostraDumbass

Not at all. Some people trust the government and others understand history. Now one has expected liberals to understand much in any field of sociological education or global history. It’s all good.

@CourtJester Here’s something you clearly don’t understand: There’s no such thing as an Absolute Right.

1. Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins.
2. Your right to smoke in a public place ends where common air is being breathed.
3. Your right to drive 60 mph exists when you’re on a freeway, but ends when you’re in a school zone.

Etc., etc.

And Americans right to live peacefully and safely in their own communities should supersede the right of gundamentalists to arm themselves to the teeth. But no one expects connedservatives to understand this. If you haven’t figured it out by now, you probably never will.

@NostraDumbass

And the fact that someone might punch you in the nose gives you no right to restrict anyone’s hand.

This is why states were given individual rights though. If you are unhappy with the rules and rights in your state, then you can move to a state or city that has decided to make their communities safer. I’d highly recommend L.A.

L.A. set the gold standard for focusing on the gun rather than mental illness and the area’s social breakdown. They’ve been the shining poster child for the nation. They do have numerous cities and states trying to mimic their standard and battling for the top spot though.

Just as New York gets more murders, California gets more homeless, then New York passes a gun law, then Illinois jumps in with some government funded social welfare system to help encourage people to rely on hand outs. Such a crazy game to play when all of the mentally I’ll will lose those nasty urges if we get rid of the guns.

I read this article which found 4 common things shooters shared. 1- a childhood trauma or being a witness to violence . 2-Anger over a recent event, resulting in feelings of suicidality 3-Being inspired by other school shooters 4-Having the means to carry out an attack.

[rd.com]

Except that semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines makes it so much easier to up the body count. So it is definitely about the weapon...

@phxbillcee No it isn't. Anyone can cause mass causalities quickly and effectively without the use of a firearm.

Firearms just like anything are a tool. Some guns are bad tools for certain things and some are good for certain things. For instance if a person has any brains they aren't going to use an AK47 for home defense. Fire 10 shots and they go through walls in the house an kill 2 people not meant to be killed. It's the wrong tool for the job. Gonna go rabbit hunting with an AK? Good luck having any meat leftover. Wrong tool. If someone wants an AK because they want one fine with me. I don't care. Just don't tell me it's for self defense or hunting because it isn't. A gun like an AK47 has at best 3 uses. 1) warfare 2) intimidation (it's an intimidating big ass gun), 3) cause a person likes to collect guns for whatever reason.

Same thing with knives. Switchblades are mostly illegal. Why? Because the only thing they're really good for is stabbing people. Sure you could use a switchblade for many uses but it's not the best type of knife for anything other than stabbing someone.

Now you want common sense gun control good luck on that cause it ain't gonna happen. It could but it won't. First everyone has to agree that in the US we have the right to own firearms. Once everyone agrees to that we can move on to regulate them. As it is there isn't going to be any effective gun control put in place because neither side of the issue trusts the other side. Common sense says a person living in Chicago doesn't have a single legitimate use for an AK47. On the other hand a person living in Montanan may have a legitimate use for an AK47 or at least at the bare minimum they have a place to actually shoot it without hurting or killing someone.

That point made gun control needs to be specific to a location and controlled by local authorities. Nationally firearms need to remain legal, even ones without legitimate uses for most people. Then let the locals decide on specific rules governing firearms.

You're of the "guns don't kill people ; people kill people." So if someone used a jackknife how many people would be killed in 20 mins vs an automatic weapon?? I'll say 1 and a few others get hurt but survive and they all jumped on the idiot with the knife. No one survived the automatic weapon.

@K9Kohle You're absolutely right. So you're in favor of stopping mass violence over stopping violence period.

@FvckY0u You wanna quote me on what I said that filled your head with misinformation? Violence is never an answer to anything.. Victims have a better survival chance facing a jack knife and not a machine gun. I'm not in favor of anyone using either to hurt anyone.

@K9Kohle Roger, so it's about giving victims of violence a better chance at survival once they've already been marked for death. I'm sure that will solve the problem.

@FvckY0u You seem able to take innocent points of view and turn them into something YOU believe. I said I'm not in favor of anyone using either to hurt anyone." then you remark some notion in your own head about people being marked for death violently. I never said anything about solving problems with any type of weapons. In fact I said the only recommendation I could see would be metal detectors at school doorways and police patrolling the area.

@K9Kohle My point is simply that gun violence isn't he issue, violence period is. If you want to take the gun violence angle rather than the violence angle that's fine. Just don't make it about people being killed then. It's not, it's about how they are killed. Obviously the gun violence argument has solved nothing and killing continues for decades despite the debate/argument. I'd say it's time to take a different approach.