To stop mass shootings what needs to be done

[Blake]

If all you do is bash your country, why not improve your life and move elsewhere?

Because there are other options than moving. You don't understand false dilemmas. You don't know how to debate.

[DMC]

Because there are other options than moving. You don't understand false dilemmas. You don't know how to debate.

Again, "if all you do..." was the precondition. "Other options" seems to ignore that. This is why I said you aren't worthy of debating, since you ignore basic rules of conversation in favor of snark.

[Blake]

Again, "if all you do..." was the precondition. "Other options" seems to ignore that. This is why I said you aren't worthy of debating, since you ignore basic rules of conversation in favor of snark.

Lol DMC's precondition rules.

Your "precondition" is irrelevant. Other options are still viable. The debate stops there if you don't get that.

You really suck at this.

[DMC]

Lol DMC's precondition rules.

Your "precondition" is irrelevant. Other options are still viable. The debate stops there if you don't get that.

You really suck at this.

Me: If all you're going to do is about it, why not live elsewhere?
You: There are other options

There are no other options if all you're going to do is about it, and it's well established no one here is going to do anything but about it.

Blake cannot handle basic English

[DMC]

DMC: "If a man has no arms or legs, why wouldn't he use a wheelchair?"
Blake: "He could have arms and legs and not need one, so other options.. your preconditions are irrelevant"

[Blake]

Me: If all you're going to do is about it, why not live elsewhere?
You: There are other options

There are no other options if all you're going to do is about it, and it's well established no one here is going to do anything but about it.

Blake cannot handle basic English

Lol DMC can't think of any other options. He's mentally limited like that.

[Blake]

Me: If all you're going to do is about it

Also a false claim.

But even if true, again there are other options besides moving.

You're such an idiot

[ChumpDumper]

This is the USA Trump s like DMC want. He craves the violence.

[baseline bum]

I mean, do you think the Japanese want to commit mass murder they just lack the tools?

Japan has terrorists too. Just harder to commit a terrorist act in Japan since you need to make poison gas or use a car to ram people down, it's not easy mode like in the US.

[Thread]

This is the USA Trump s like DMC want. He craves the violence.

Absolutely, as you craved it when it was President Trump on the line. Anything bad was good. Now you know.

Serves ya right to suffer.
Your regrets are your own.
I've no sympathy for you.

[Thread]

Japan has terrorists too. Just harder to commit a terrorist act in Japan since you need to make poison gas or use a car to ram people down, it's not easy mode like in the US.

Though Japan managed just fine 12.7.1941. Then ed around and found out..."Again." - Harry S.

[DMX7]

Eliminating guns in the US at this point is a fantasy. That horse is out of the barn. All you can do now is crack down on civil liberties Chinese style.

Let's start with the base assumption that you can't eliminate all gun deaths under any reasonable cir stances and that the goal is to substantially reduce the number of mass shooting. Hopefully, we can agree on something close to that.

So with that said, no one here is proposing a total elimination of guns in the US -- that can't be done politically or practically. However, we can substantially reduce the number of shootings without becoming a police state. Here are three simple things that are reasonable and would at least make a meaningful difference to save lives.

1.) Universal Background Checks
2.) 21 Year Age Minimum to Purchase Any Gun (except activate duty military)
3.) Assault Weapons Ban (new sales only)

Even here, we acknowledge that weapons can be obtained illegally but making it as difficult as possible to obtain them discourages their use which is still far better than what we have today.

[ElNono]

I'm not even talking about guns. I am talking about how they structure and run their government and handle their population. Maybe if we nuked ourselves a couple of times we could become a more passive society.

We're specifically talking about what they do with gun-regulation. Nobody here proposed to turn wholesale into Japanese culture.

[ElNono]

It's not just a distraction. That's your hand-wavium dismissal of demographic and geographical differences that matter. If you really give 2 s about the reasons two nations have different results, you have to look at all the ingredients. Dismissing them because they don't fit the direction of the narrative isn't science.

No it is not, it's pure distraction. The inability to curb mass murder in a civil, democratic society is a very pointed US problem.

It's not that other countries don't or didn't have that same problem, due to whatever factors. Where the US specifically falters is in actually addressing the problem with a solution that measurably works.

[Spurminator]

Let's start with the base assumption that you can't eliminate all gun deaths under any reasonable cir stances and that the goal is to substantially reduce the number of mass shooting. Hopefully, we can agree on something close to that.

So with that said, no one here is proposing a total elimination of guns in the US -- that can't be done politically or practically. However, we can substantially reduce the number of shootings without becoming a police state. Here are three simple things that are reasonable and would at least make a meaningful difference to save lives.

1.) Universal Background Checks
2.) 21 Year Age Minimum to Purchase Any Gun (except activate duty military)
3.) Assault Weapons Ban (new sales only)

Even here, we acknowledge that weapons can be obtained illegally but making it as difficult as possible to obtain them discourages their use which is still far better than what we have today.

Making it difficult also makes it prohibitively expensive for people like the HP shooter. But trust me, you won't get a good faith argument on anything you proposed, it'll just be some vague "that will never happen because Democrats" retort and endless circular logic.

[DMX7]

Making it difficult also makes it prohibitively expensive for people like the HP shooter. But trust me, you won't get a good faith argument on anything you proposed, it'll just be some vague "that will never happen because Democrats" retort and endless circular logic.

The worst argument is the "slipper slope" argument which says that if we do literally anything related to gun control then we'll be one small step away from banning all guns and having federal agents go door to door confiscating all guns.

[DMC]

We're specifically talking about what they do with gun-regulation. Nobody here proposed to turn wholesale into Japanese culture.

Thus my point - if you want Japan level results you need Japan level ingredients. Just regulating guns doesn't resolve the issue to that level. Maybe don't use starkly different countries as a comparison if you don't want starkly different conditions.

[DMC]

Japan has terrorists too. Just harder to commit a terrorist act in Japan since you need to make poison gas or use a car to ram people down, it's not easy mode like in the US.

How often do they ram cars into crowds or bomb buildings?

There's no real code of honor in the US. In fact, the concept of honor is laughed at now.

[DMC]

Let's start with the base assumption that you can't eliminate all gun deaths under any reasonable cir stances and that the goal is to substantially reduce the number of mass shooting. Hopefully, we can agree on something close to that.

So with that said, no one here is proposing a total elimination of guns in the US -- that can't be done politically or practically. However, we can substantially reduce the number of shootings without becoming a police state. Here are three simple things that are reasonable and would at least make a meaningful difference to save lives.

1.) Universal Background Checks
2.) 21 Year Age Minimum to Purchase Any Gun (except activate duty military)
3.) Assault Weapons Ban (new sales only)

Even here, we acknowledge that weapons can be obtained illegally but making it as difficult as possible to obtain them discourages their use which is still far better than what we have today.

Shooter had a background check. Passed
Shooter was over 21
Shooter didn't need a new AR to do the killing, there are millions owned by private citizens

So when none of that curbs the shootings, what next? Go there instead.

[Blake]

Shooter had a background check. Passed
Shooter was over 21
Shooter didn't need a new AR to do the killing, there are millions owned by private citizens

So when none of that curbs the shootings, what next? Go there instead.

The "millions owned by private citizens" is such a stupid argument.

wHy nOt gO fOr a BiLLioN? WhaT dEh diFferEnce?

[CosmicCowboy]

Let's start with the base assumption that you can't eliminate all gun deaths under any reasonable cir stances and that the goal is to substantially reduce the number of mass shooting. Hopefully, we can agree on something close to that.

So with that said, no one here is proposing a total elimination of guns in the US -- that can't be done politically or practically. However, we can substantially reduce the number of shootings without becoming a police state. Here are three simple things that are reasonable and would at least make a meaningful difference to save lives.

1.) Universal Background Checks
2.) 21 Year Age Minimum to Purchase Any Gun (except activate duty military)
3.) Assault Weapons Ban (new sales only)

Even here, we acknowledge that weapons can be obtained illegally but making it as difficult as possible to obtain them discourages their use which is still far better than what we have today.

Sadly, you could do all three of those and in my opinion it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Those ed up shooters
would still do it. Right or wrong, the guns, the magazines, etc. are already out there.

[Spurminator]

Sadly, you could do all three of those and in my opinion it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Those ed up shooters
would still do it. Right or wrong, the guns, the magazines, etc. are already out there.

Yes and their value/price would skyrocket if new sales/manufacturing was banned, thus limiting access and putting more of them in the hands of collectors.

[DMX7]

Shooter had a background check. Passed
Shooter was over 21
Shooter didn't need a new AR to do the killing, there are millions owned by private citizens

So when none of that curbs the shootings, what next? Go there instead.

The kid who did the Uvalde school shooting purchased his AR the day he turned 18 legally.

And I just made the point that the goal is to meaningfully reduce mass shooting, not eliminate them all which is impossible.

[Blake]

Sadly, you could do all three of those and in my opinion it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Those ed up shooters
would still do it. Right or wrong, the guns, the magazines, etc. are already out there.

Spoken like a true NRA member

[CosmicCowboy]

Just checked Texas Gun Trader and there are 22 pages of used AR15s for sale