"But Chicago, Chicago, Chicago!"

[Pavlov]

So the guy was just open carrying while shopping?

I thought that was OK.


You guys need to pick a lane.

[spurraider21]

Defending yourself isn't being ing Rambo. Don't be a pussy. You cower and get shot in the head like all those people or you fight back. I would fight back. I might die. I might die either way. I am a military vet, I don't give a what he says. The cop in Florida who did nothing was criticized for not doing anything, but he wasn't in harms way yet somehow he's supposed to walk in and engage the guy with the rifle. However someone in the thick of it needs to cower and die because well, don't want to risk getting killed. You won't limit events because you won't know the ones you've prevented. Limiting casualties is the only solution and even then, I am the primary casualty I am trying to prevent.

Don't bifurcate the situation to never armed vs always armed. If you want to protect yourself and you are concerned about this kind of thing, you'll do what's required. Otherwise you'll hope you don't become one of the unlucky ones and experience an event, and hope someone does something about it.

The reason police stations and gun shows aren't attacked is because the shooter wants max casualties with minimum personal risk. Every time another gun free zone is created where people are packed in like sardines, it's feeding time for the crazies. Churches, schools, theaters, bars, stores (not all stores are gun free zones, but the odds are most people in one aren't carrying and I've not seen any armed protection for anything but the money drop).

It's odd, we put 2 cops at banks but none where our most precious resources are. It makes you wonder if human life is really that important. That's why I said protect yourself first. If you don't want to, that's your choice. You won't talk me into being a victim.

could say the same about casualties tbh

[midnightpulp]

Indeed good. I think you miss the point, though. Firefighters (who are typically upstanding citizens) are the kind of people I don't mind having guns. The mass shooting debate, for me, isn't about gun grabbing, but about figuring out solutions to keep firearms away from mentally unstable individuals. The Dayton shooter might set a precedent insofar as your record being scrubbed clean when you turn 18. Guy had rape and kill lists in HS and had the police called on him for that, but yet, didn't show up in a background check. That doesn't make sense to me. Your psychological problems don't magically go away when you turn 18.

[Chris]

Indeed good. I think you miss the point, though. Firefighters (who are typically upstanding citizens) are the kind of people I don't mind having guns. The mass shooting debate, for me, isn't about gun grabbing, but about figuring out solutions to keep firearms away from mentally unstable individuals. The Dayton shooter might set a precedent insofar as your record being scrubbed clean when you turn 18. Guy had rape and kill lists in HS and had the police called on him for that, but yet, didn't show up in a background check. That doesn't make sense to me. Your psychological problems don't magically go away when you turn 18.

Gun for me, but not for you is a dangerous precedent to set. Our forefather's envisioned this, and God bless them for it.

[Chris]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.

[Pavlov]

Gun for me, but not for you is a dangerous precedent to set. Our forefather's envisioned this, and God bless them for it.

How many guns do you have?

[Pavlov]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.

The number of households with guns is lower.

Fewer households with guns = less gun violence

[koriwhat]

How many guns do you have?

anyone can still be an advocate of the 2nd amendment and guns in general without owning one so what exactly is your point?

[Pavlov]

anyone can still be an advocate of the 2nd amendment and guns in general without owning one so what exactly is your point?

Just asking, tough guy.

How many guns do you have, Rambo?

[Xevious]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.

Donald Trump, Dan Crenshaw, and now Mitch McConnell seem to disagree with you.

[koriwhat]

Just asking, tough guy.

How many guns do you have, Rambo?

who asked me this yesterday? i thought it was you but i guess not. 0 was the answer i gave yesterday and it's the same answer today and yes i strongly support our rights given to us by our cons ution. i really don't care if you do or don't pav.

[DMC]

Tough guy backs the down.

Good boy.

that reaction to being left alone.

[DMC]

could say the same about casualties tbh

This is true. You never know what you prevent. You only have years worth of data and the cause isn't always discernible.

[spurraider21]

This is true. You never know what you prevent. You only have years worth of data and the cause isn't always discernible.

But that’s why i was confused by your comment.

You said we won’t limit events because we never know what we prevented, and so limiting casualties is the only solution. But now you’re admitting that we also can’t limit casualties because you never know which casualties we prevented. So how do you know that one approach is wrong and the other is right if they have the same limitation?

[Pavlov]

that reaction to being left alone.

You're staying backed down.


Good boy.

You will never speak of this again.

[midnightpulp]

Gun for me, but not for you is a dangerous precedent to set. Our forefather's envisioned this, and God bless them for it.

The cons ution doesn't say what age is considered an adult (26th amendment does cite 18 years old as the minimum voting age).

Do you think it's wise to allow developing brains under adolescent hormonal assault free purchase of firearms? Or the mentally ill/unstable. Would you be comfortable sharing the road with Parkinson's sufferers? (a condition that would impair their competency in driving a car). Gun for responsible/competent, no gun for irresponsible/incompetent is the better way to frame it.

[DMC]

But that’s why i was confused by your comment.

You said we won’t limit events because we never know what we prevented, and so limiting casualties is the only solution. But now you’re admitting that we also can’t limit casualties because you never know which casualties we prevented. So how do you know that one approach is wrong and the other is right if they have the same limitation?

I mean from an "inside the unfolding event" perspective. In those instances, you are already involved in a mass shooting attempt. There's no guess work involved. You put one in the shooter's head, you likely prevented more casualties. You have to presume that to be the case since you cannot know for certain what you prevented, but that amount of uncertainty in that situation is acceptable. However, if you don't know who is going to be a shooter or when or where, you don't know if you prevented it with certain legislation. You would need mounds of data and even then we can all draw different conclusions for cause/effect. Only a full out ban and confiscation would get close to the 1st example.

[spurraider21]

I mean from an "inside the unfolding event" perspective. In those instances, you are already involved in a mass shooting attempt. There's no guess work involved. You put one in the shooter's head, you likely prevented more casualties. You have to presume that to be the case since you cannot know for certain what you prevented, but that amount of uncertainty in that situation is acceptable. However, if you don't know who is going to be a shooter or when or where, you don't know if you prevented it with certain legislation. You would need mounds of data and even then we can all draw different conclusions for cause/effect. Only a full out ban and confiscation would get close to the 1st example.

No tbh. You always end up back in this well

[Chucho]

The cons ution doesn't say what age is considered an adult (26th amendment does cite 18 years old as the minimum voting age).

Do you think it's wise to allow developing brains under adolescent hormonal assault free purchase of firearms? Or the mentally ill/unstable. Would you be comfortable sharing the road with Parkinson's sufferers? (a condition that would impair their competency in driving a car). Gun for responsible/competent, no gun for irresponsible/incompetent is the better way to frame it.

That's a good argument for children coerced into sexual confusion and transgenderism, but hey, its allowed and encouraged despite the inability for a developing brain to understand any of the life altering issues being fed to them.

[DMC]

No tbh. You always end up back in this well

It's a fact. Unless you remove a key ingredient from the recipe, you cannot ensure that you changed the outcome. You cannot legislate thoughts or motives, you can only legislate means.

[ElNono]

It's a fact. Unless you remove a key ingredient from the recipe, you cannot ensure that you changed the outcome. You cannot legislate thoughts or motives, you can only legislate means.

Removing a key ingredient from the recipe might well be a fact, that it would necessarily require a full out ban or confiscation is not.

Sure, you can't legislate thoughts or motives, but you can certainly reduce the surface tension by removing some components that are more likely to apply pressure. We already do that, for example, by denying gun ownership rights to felons.

That removes the key ingredient from statistically significant groups. It won't cure the disease, but it improves the quality of life.

[DMC]

Removing a key ingredient from the recipe might well be a fact, that it would necessarily require a full out ban or confiscation is not.

Sure, you can't legislate thoughts or motives, but you can certainly reduce the surface tension by removing some components that are more likely to apply pressure. We already do that, for example, by denying gun ownership rights to felons.

That removes the key ingredient from statistically significant groups. It won't cure the disease, but it improves the quality of life.

Doing that will not ensure anything. It will only give you hope that things will change, because you have to assume the cause then assume you've remedied it. If you really want to stop the killings, you have to remove the means to do so. Banning guns means nothing with the number in circulation, unchecked and unregistered. You'd have to confiscate them and do house to house searches and offer stiff penalties including death to anyone caught with one. It's harsh as , but if you want to ensure the killings stop, that's what you'd have to do. Then you'd only need to be concerned with the backlash, but not mass shootings.

[Pavlov]

DMC presents his false "all or nothing" dichotomy so he can avoid actually thinking of a possible solution.

[Isitjustme?]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.

[ElNono]

Doing that will not ensure anything. It will only give you hope that things will change, because you have to assume the cause then assume you've remedied it. If you really want to stop the killings, you have to remove the means to do so. Banning guns means nothing with the number in circulation, unchecked and unregistered. You'd have to confiscate them and do house to house searches and offer stiff penalties including death to anyone caught with one. It's harsh as , but if you want to ensure the killings stop, that's what you'd have to do. Then you'd only need to be concerned with the backlash, but not mass shootings.

Nobody I know is arguing for no more gun deaths ever, or assurances of anything. That doesn't mean that incremental measures to improve the situation and reduce, at the very least, statistical significant cases cannot be made.

What good is a background check when you purchase a weapon if 5 years later that same person goes through depression or a nasty divorce? Why can't we screen people either at those life changing events or periodically?

They're statistically part of groups that are more likely to kill themselves or others, so why not keep a closer look at them? Like I said, we do the same with felons, another statistical significant group.

Is it going to stop all the killings? Unlikely. Is it going to save some lives? Likely. Is it going to inconvenience a minority of people? Probably.

This is like not having a definitive cure for Cancer. It doesn't mean we stopped looking for incremental treatments, like drugs or chemo, that sometimes might put the cancer in remission, or sometimes just improves the quality of life. They're worthwhile pursuits that might put at least a dent into a bad situation.