What to do about the mass shootings in the US

[Frigidweirdo]

Your anti-gun wish came true today. The number of guns at that Mall were "dramatically reduced" because an anti-2A law allowed the Mall to ban guns - while having NO duty to protect anyone. There was only ONE person with guns there - his. That is your wish - dramatically reducing the number of guns. It happened by a "Gun Free Zone" sign.

We know EXACTLY what the result of what you want is - because it happened again today. Your way you want in your message got another 49 people shot.

He was VERY insistent he would NOT attack any location where anyone was armed. Very specific about that. He would only attack a location that operated under your values and rules. Your side was not only on his side, your anti 2A made it happen, where otherwise it would not have.

It's a poor argument, and one that is made many times by people desperate to deflect.

Gun stats show that the US has the highest rate of murder in the first world. Nothing you can do can stop that being the case. Whether places prevent guns or not, gun murders are still going to happen.

The BBC has THREE of its top news stories (It's British just to emphasis this even more) that are about different gun shootings in the US right now.

Mass killings, well, hardly happen in Europe. People are safer.

 

[marke]

We need proper leadership to begin a national dialogue that does not devolve into crazed threats that the Constitution is being trampled or simplistic thinking that simply banning weapons will cure the problem.

We need leaders who will state that the problem is a disgraceful blemish on our country and values.

We need leaders who will decry the fact that young people are being politicized and isolated on some internet sites, being literally brain washed to hate, and to kill to attain notoriety.

I'm not seeing anyone step up yet.

The bottom line is that we need sensible proposals that have even the slightest chance of working. Most modern proposals are not workable in the wildest stretch of the imagination.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Single-payer healthcare plans, like island vacation mansions, are very expensive and very hard on taxpayers trying to foot the bill for such extravagance.

The UK's NHS costs LESS than what the US Federal Govt currently spends on healthcare.

Expensive huh?

 

[Beowulf]

It's a poor argument, and one that is made many times by people desperate to deflect.

Gun stats show that the US has the highest rate of murder in the first world. Nothing you can do can stop that being the case. Whether places prevent guns or not, gun murders are still going to happen.

The BBC has THREE of its top news stories (It's British just to emphasis this even more) that are about different gun shootings in the US right now.

Mass killings, well, hardly happen in Europe. People are safer.

Why would you want to make a 102 lb woman unable to defend herself from three 205 lb men?

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Why would we vilify a tool that allows a 102 lb woman to defend herself from three 250 lb men?

Three men with guns, against one woman with a gun. Who's going to win?

Bear in mind that Alaska, guns galore, has the HIGHEST rape rate in the US, five times higher than NY

 

[haymarket]

Good luck getting the 2A repealed (or ignored).

Don't need to.

 

[haymarket]

Perhaps, or maybe cigarette smoking is losing popularity due to better education in schools which warn of the health risks, and the increased taxes on cigarettes. Shunning people as if they're lepers will only make them more angry, and willing to act out. I believe that a significant number of these shooters are probably maladjusted and feel shunned already.

We do shun cigarette smokers as modern lepers with no smoking rules and zones and prohibitions.

We also need mental health programs to take of the angry people you talk of.

 

[truthatallcost]

That is bull crap there Truth, you were the one who brought up religion, which is nonsense. As stated, we are a majority non-religious country but that does not make our country very violent or ready to commit massacres.

Is your country plagued by racial, religious, and political division like mine is? No. Enjoy it while it lasts Peter.

 

[haymarket]

Build the wall :mrgreen:

That does not turn us into an island unless we build a wall all around it and end all forms of immigration and visitation.

 

[marke]

The UK's NHS costs LESS than what the US Federal Govt currently spends on healthcare.

Expensive huh?

What does UK's NHS have to do with the fact that the US can hardly come up with the trillions of dollars it needs to provide such free healthcare? Just because the UK has the money does not mean the US has the money.

 

[Beowulf]

Three men with guns, against one woman with a gun. Who's going to win?

None of them would have guns when guns are outlawed. And the 102 lb woman would be very sad in this scenario. Thanks, gun grabbers.

 

[haymarket]

You want to stigmatize the woman who wants to defend herself. That sound kind of mean-spirited.

Never said that. I agreed people would be able to defend yourself. But a gun should be like your sex organ - I don't want to see it. I don''t want to know about it. I don't want to hear movies about it. I don't want to hear songs about it. Keep it to yourself.

 

[JMR]

The bottom line is that we need sensible proposals that have even the slightest chance of working. Most modern proposals are not workable in the wildest stretch of the imagination.

Until hard liners become willing to discuss the possibility that their position is wrong, nothing will move. Too much money, too much political clout invested in not seeking a solution.

 

[Beowulf]

Never said that. I agreed people would be able to defend yourself. But a gun should be like your sex organ - I don't want to see it. I don''t want to know about it. I don't want to hear movies about it. I don't want to hear songs about it. Keep it to yourself.

Your weird fetishes aside, you're not suggesting that your fellow man should not be allowed to carry firearms?

 

[haymarket]

There is no indication whatsoever that disarming law-abiding Americans by the tens of millions will stop gun violence. None whatsoever. If lawmakers want to stop gun violence then let them come up with reasonable suggestions instead of Constitution-smashing commie poppycock.

I can give you lots of reasonable suggestions from registering all guns to mandatory background checks on all gun acquisitions, to banning of assault weapons, to limits on magazine size and it still might take years to work a reduction in gun violence.

We will never stop gun violence and we cannot prevent yesterdays tragedy. So don't expect any gun control ides to do either.

 

[haymarket]

Why would we vilify a tool that allows a 102 lb woman to defend herself from three 250 lb men?

Because it is part of harming our society in many other incidents.

 

[haymarket]

Guns must be vilified? Is that going to stop thugs from killing people or doing violence to others? No, not even close. Gangsters will always be able to get guns and ammo on the black market like they have been doing for decades. Multiple gun laws have been passed and broken by thugs who don't give a flip about laws.

No, the answer is not to disarm all formerly free Americans just because leftists with bad understandings think disarming law-abiding Americans will somehow miraculously stop the violence. Let's put away the fantasies and fairy tales and try to come up with something that might at least have a tiny chance of working.

But you oppose the reasonable things that might work together to decrease gun violence.

 

[Beowulf]

Because it is part of harming our society in many other incidents.

So the 102 lb woman just has to suck it up?

 

[haymarket]

So the 102 lb woman just has to suck it up?

Where do you dream up this crap?

 

[charliebrown]

It really sucks. we have a physically, mentally and spiritually distressed society. Because we can not solve those problems, we will need to remove all of the guns from every citizen in this country.

I happen to agree with the original leaders of this country and their ability to reflect on history and realize most human atrocities have and continue to be perpetrated by government on the people and that is why they created the second amendment.

At this time in history, in this society, we are so mentally distressed in so many ways, that it is time for government to step in and control all of our lives because so many of us cannot do it individually.

 

[marke]

There was at one time a ban on assault weapons but is expired. I think we need to do that ban again. Although that will not completely solve the problem it would be a help

What makes you think an assault weapons ban would reduce the number of shootings or the numbers of victims? How do you prove something like that? Were not assault weapons used to commit violence during the assault weapons ban? Does that fact mean nothing to gun grabbing leftist who don't want Americans to own guns?

 

[Beowulf]

Where do you dream up this crap?

I asked you. Do you want to prevent a 102 lb woman from having the firearms necessary to defend herself from three 205 lb attackers. Did you forget?

 

[marke]

I can give you lots of reasonable suggestions from registering all guns to mandatory background checks on all gun acquisitions, to banning of assault weapons, to limits on magazine size and it still might take years to work a reduction in gun violence.

We will never stop gun violence and we cannot prevent yesterdays tragedy. So don't expect any gun control ides to do either.

You list several proposals, some of which have already been tried without success and you hide the fact that such proposals have not had the desired effects by claiming it may take decades for those proposals to start working? What if those proposals don't start working after decades? Will the leftists apologize by saying, "Oh well, our bad and too bad Americans had to give up their guns for nothing?"

 

[Frigidweirdo]

What does UK's NHS have to do with the fact that the US can hardly come up with the trillions of dollars it needs to provide such free healthcare? Just because the UK has the money does not mean the US has the money.

What does the UK have to do with it? The point is that single payer healthcare can work. That the US govt wastes so much money shows there's an issue with what the US government is doing.

Single payer allows you to do away with many of the destructive forces in healthcare. The first and foremost being GREED. Insurance companies take 7%. Hospitals inflate prices, lie to patients to keep them in hospitals, prescribe the most expensive drugs. Doctors are being bribed by pharma companies which know they can charge ridiculous amounts, whereas in the UK they can't, because the NHS is working to REDUCE COSTS, not increase them.

 

[truthatallcost]

We do shun cigarette smokers as modern lepers with no smoking rules and zones and prohibitions.

We also need mental health programs to take of the angry people you talk of.

We used to institutionalize the mentally ill, but it became a one size fits all solution that ensnared autistic, mentally handicapped, alcoholic, and homosexual people as well. And great abuses occurred within those institutions. I voted for 'Institutionalize the violent and mentally ill', because in California we don't even do a good job at keeping violent homeless people off the streets, much less a nutter with an assault rifle and a grudge.