Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[gangstonc]

Countries with heavy gun regulation like Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil (until recently), El Salvador, Honduras, etc?

I could go on. Most of those countries outright ban private ownership or heavily restrict it. Many of them restrict the type of weapon, magazine size, number of firearms per person, and restrict gun sales to government stores run by the military or police.

I haven't looked recently at the gun homicide rates for those countries, but I almost guarantee you every single one of them is higher than the rate here in the United States -- or at worst -- very comparable.

Most of those countries have huge issues with illegal guns, and therefore the criminals are armed while normal civilians are not.

Some of those countries have a lot of guns in them. It's just virtually all of them are illegal or not registered. Oddly enough, I can't think of any one of those countries that has a problem with mass shooting (Brazil has had a few). Why is that?

Why aren't those countries compared to the United States? Why is it they have fewer overall numbers of guns yet have higher rates of violence and gun deaths? Why is it that even with their strict laws that criminals still have guns?

But you want to know what the major difference is between the United States and other countries? They don't have 350 million+ guns or 330 million people.

You have explicitly said you just want to try stuff until something works. Thats not how liberty and freedom work. That's the antithesis of how to properly make policy. Doing something just to do it is not a serious way to address gun violence and mass shootings.

By the way, I wrote a very detailed post to you earlier covering a number of the policy items you said you'd support. I would appreciate if you'd give it a response.

I missed it. I’ll go check it and report back.

 

[Evan]

Kory... you and I have been down the high capacity path disagreement path before and we still are on opposite sides of it. You have stated my opinion on the subject is stupid and someone with my position on that issue is not as well versed in firearms as you (even though I have been shooting firearms for nearly 50 years). I'm a left brained guy. I'm very analytical and objective. I'm an engineer by degree and vocation so analysis has been my way of life (can be a curse too). I cannot rationally see how an AR15 or AK47 that is limited to a 6 or 10 round clip is as lethal as one that utilizes a 30 round or 60 round clip. That is what I understand you are saying i.e. high capacity makes no difference in lethality. I contend the evil people that murdered at El Paso, Dayton, Orlando, Las Vegas, etc. would have taken fewer lives if their guns had smaller clips and were forced to reload more often because the number of shot fired within a certain time frame would be much fewer.

Please see my post to gangstonc. I discuss magazine size restrictions. There's a number of reasons why I believe it would not be a workable solution. The primary reason is that millions of larger magazines already exist, and 3-D printing is already fairly ubiquitous. Magazine restrictions will present very little impediment to mass shooters or criminals. The primary people it will impact are law-abiding citizens.

Just FYI, but I carry a HK P30sk. It's a pretty small gun. It's a sub-compact pistol. The standard magazine size is 10rds.

Also, just remember that law enforcement will continue to be allowed to have higher capacity magazines. They've already Atmospheric Anti-Climax numerous cops out in California for selling banned guns or magazines (and the mag restriction law is now on hold) to civilians.

Finally, let's look at the example of drugs. Drugs have been illegal in the United States nearly forever. Yet China was able to ship thousands of tons of fentanyl to thousands of people in the United States, and the vast majority of it got through. How will a magazine ban work when any criminal or mass shooter can simply hop on the internet and order a high capacity magazine, or the parts to make one, and have it on their doorstep in 2 days to a week or two? We screen a tiny percentage of trade and packages from overseas. It's why most drugs make it in -- especially when mailed.

If they can't interdict drugs (which a drug dog can easily detect), how will they interdict a plastic part or a series of parts in multiple separate packages?Drugs are way harder to smuggle in than a couple of non-descript plastic parts.

We've already seen the painstaking preparation most of these mass shooters go through to maximize the carnage. Do you find it very difficult to believe they'll have no issue hopping on the internet to order high-cap mags from overseas? Or downloading a template to 3-D print one? The magazine only has to work one time.

Same logic goes for criminals. But law-abiding citizens will largely comply. That means criminals and mass shooters will then have the benefit of knowing they'll out-gun any civilians they encounter. They'll have a much bigger advantage than they have today. I just don't see how that's a logical move for us to make.

Everyone wants a quick fix. There's not one when it comes to this problem. And I won't speak for Kory, but I don't think he meant that you're ignorant. He's saying that a lot of people are ignorant (lacking in knowledge) when it comes to modern firearms. Most hunters don't keep up with the latest in firearm technology. They don't have SBRs or suppressors, or a braced 5.56 pistol. They don't know what binary triggers are, and they didn't know what bump fire was until recently. It's not meant to be an insult. At least that's the way I thought he was trying to explain his frustration.

A lot of people who hunt or own a pistol for protection consider themselves to be gun guys. No offense, but that's simply because they haven't met many gun guys. Your average gun owner may know the typical AR shoots .223/5.56 ammo. But they probably don't know that much about AR10s, or 300 Blackout chambered ARs. Or 224 Valkyrie. Or 6.5 Grendel. Or 6.5 Creedmoor, .450 Socom, or 6.8mm Rem. Sure, some hunters may have used a few of those for a bolt-action, but that's not the majority.

Firearms and accessories have changed more in the past 20 years than they did in the previous 50. I think Kory's frustration is similar to mine. Most people don't understand how easy it will be to side-step a magazine size restriction law. It won't slow criminals and mass shooters down one bit. And then they'll have a decisive advantage over those of us who follow the law.

 

[ghost]

Do you really think people intent on causing mass murder will limit the number of magazines they have ? They will do what ever it takes to achieve their goal. No law can prevent evil!

I'm sure if they were limited to say a 5 round clip.. they would carry as many as they could. Functionally, they would get off fewer shots within a given time period than one that held 60. More reloads, more opportunities for those under siege to flee, more time for citizens to react or law enforcement to act. I have NO solution on how to stop the killings. I'm just trying to figure out how to reduce the casualties when these terrible events happen. I'm probably just peeing in the wind because in reality it would take drastic measures to make this happen because the number of high capacity clips is prolific. So we will be debating this ad infinitum or until the far left takes over completely and repeals the 2nd Amendment and sends their storm troopers into our homes and confiscates. I'll probably be cold in the ground if it ever comes to that but that could be a real concern for young people like yourself.

 

[Evan]

that is exactly the response I expected from you. Nope, sorry but I will always be more armed than my adversaries!

Well, at least until Trump's next EO.

 

[gangstonc]

But that's not the standard for implementing a policy or policies.

People fall for the politician's syllogisms all the time because they want to solve a disturbing problem.

I, too, want to solve the problem. I promise you I don't care any less about it than you do. But that doesn't mean that we should just try random things and hope they work. There needs to be a basis for these policies.

You admit the Assault Weapons Ban was a failure. I believe most fair-minded people are willing to concede that. Let me ask you a question, do you think a new Assault Weapons Ban is going to suddenly become effective? What do you do about the tens of millions of rifles that would be banned under such legislation? Do you take them from their owners by force?

The magazine capacity ban seems to be focused solely on mass shootings and making sure law-abiding civilians can never match the firepower of the state. Will such a ban impact gun suicides? Seems incredibly unlikely, right? And that's the bulk of gun deaths each year. Will it have an impact on most gun homicides? Again, quite unlikely.

And what to do with the tens of millions of magazines already in circulation that have a capacity of over 10 rounds? I've got at least 40-50 of those. Are you willing to make me a felon because I want to be able to protect my family from criminals who don't care about breaking our laws? 3-D printing such a magazine is already possible. Criminals and mass-shooters can easily use some of the parts from a standard magazine and simply print a higher capacity magazine.

I, on the other hand, as a law-abiding citizen, would be forced to pick between becoming a felon one day or preserving my ability to protect myself and my family against criminals or mass-shooters. I'm one of millions of Americans who'd be in a similar position. You'd be decreasing our safety and ability to defend ourselves or making us criminals. Instead of focusing on the mass-shooters themselves, it's instead focusing on millions of us that follow the law. That doesn't seem like a well-thought out proposal.

To be quite honest, and I bet Kory is thinking the same thing, that list seems like the standard claptrap that Mom's Demand, Giffords, and Brady always push anytime they sense an opportunity. Very little on that list would do anything to reduce the number of gun homicides and suicides each year. If anything, almost every single item on that list seems like it is targeted towards gun enthusiasts.

Mass shooters and criminals don't care if suppressors are on the NFA. They can make one with an oil filter in just a few minutes or hours. Know who cares? Gun enthusiasts who have to wait six months to a year to receive a stamp for a suppressor that protects their hearing. There's no such thing as a silencer. The dB reduction offered nt a suppressor simply reduces hearing damage or makes indoor ranges slightly less horrid to use. A gunshot still sounds like a gunshot.

Criminals and mass shooters don't care if mag capacity is limited. They'll buy larger ones on the black market or make their own as I mentioned earlier. Laws on the 3-D printing of firearm parts will not affect them either. They're criminals or mass shooters with nothing to lose. Law-abiding citizens, particularly enthusiasts, are the ones that will be impacted.

And trying to limit CCW laws? There are reams of research on this issue. No criminal or mass shooter cares about having a CCW. But law-abiding citizens do. CCW holders are much less likely to commit a crime. Even less likely than the average police officer. Again, how is that meant to deter suicides, gum homicides, or stop a mass shooting? It's not. It's targeted at law-abiding citizens and gun enthusiasts.

I could provide a similar critique of almost every item on that list. Please don't fall for the typical syllogism used by politicians and gun control groups that want to end the 2nd amendment. They claim that's not their goal. So why is it that their policies do little to reduce gun crime or suicides or prevent mass shootings? Why is that list almost exclusively tailored to criminalizing gun enthusiasts?

You know what else that list is meant to do? It's meant to let politicians off the hook. Such restrictive gun control will be strongly opposed by most gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment. It has no chance to become law. What it is designed to do is let politicians stand up and claim "we tried, but the evil NRA and those stone-hearted gun nuts don't want to save your children."

It's a very difficult problem to address, and politicians have neither the time nor the backbone to actually figure out the best solutions. The public wants a quick and easy fix, so they propose one knowing it will fail. The end result is that some of those politicians and gun control groups will then fundraise and campaign off of the very legislation they knew had zero chance of passing or impacting the problem itself. I'm not just being cynical. I've watched that cycle happen multiple times. Some of those people are probably sincere and just supremely ignorant or uninformed. Isn't that telling enough? That the most charitable interpretation of their strategy is that they're either ignorant or don't know why they're talking about?

Gun owners are parents, spouses, and sons/daughters just like everyone else. We care just as much about mass shootings as everyone else. We disagree, however, with the policies that some groups or pols are selling as a quick and easy fix to the mass shootings plaguing our country.

The El Paso shooter was targeting Hispanics. He killed young kids. As a parent with young kids that happen to be Hispanic, don't you think I of all people would support something if I thought it would work?

I think a number of people would be willing to give up their firearms if the politicians and groups supporting such legislation could make an ironclad guarantee that their policies would prevent the vast majority of mass shootings and reduce gun homicides and suicides to a small fraction of their current level. But they can't make that guarantee can they? They can't guarantee the safety and security of me and my family or even come close. In our country, the police don't even have a legal responsibility or Constitutional duty to intervene to save me or my family if someone is trying to harm us.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

I'm on your side, believe it or not. I'm serious about addressing this problem. We simply disagree about what potential solutions exist to combat this issue.

I agree with what you are saying. I’m not saying we disagree with potential solutions. I’m just saying I’m willing to have the govt try ALMOST ANYTHING for at least a short amount of time. I know that puts me in a strange position that not many people share.

The US is unique in its structure and love of firearms. That puts us in a new position that hasn’t been studied. I feel experimentation will be key.

 

[Evan]

I agree with what you are saying. I’m not saying we disagree with potential solutions. I’m just saying I’m willing to have the govt try ALMOST ANYTHING for at least a short amount of time. I know that puts me in a strange position that not many people share.

The US is unique in its structure and love of firearms. That puts us in a new position that hasn’t been studied. I feel experimentation will be key.

So I'll ask, then. Would you be OK with experimenting with restrictions on the 1st amendment and suspending the 4th amendment if it will help stop a mass shooter or reduce gun violence from criminals?

Maybe we could censor violent video games and movies for 10 years, and ban the reporting of "if it bleeds it leads" type of stories for a similar amount of time. Would you be OK with that?

We could also suspend most 4th amendment rights for the next decade or so and see if it helps. Maybe you can't have a smartphone or access to the internet unless you agree to allow federal law enforcement to monitor all your conversations and messages with artifical intelligence programs. Would you be willing to accept that?

Or, perhaps, the President should be empowered to review and approve all licenses for media outlets. If he thinks they're inciting people to violence he can pull their license for a decade. You trust the President to make those decisions, right?

I sort of feel like experimenting with restricting Constitutional rights is a good way to lose our Republic very quickly

 

[KoD]

Regarding the gun debate, this is a reason I lean to the left side of the spectrum. Not because of assault weapon bans or various gun restrictions... The only way to prevent gun violence is to prevent people from doing it. We're not going to do that by banning assault rifles and there's little that can be done to reduce single target handgun homicide. Sure, maybe these mass shootings could have 15 dead instead of 25 with ammunition limits or round capacity limitations. But truly the best way to stop the senseless violence is to elevate the standard of living in our society. There's no way to stop gun violence in our gun saturated country but we could at least figure out how to best support the potential perpetuators so that they don't go on that killing spree in the first place. Reducing poverty, bettering rural (or even urban) education system and making sure people have opportunity to learn about and escape their twisted reality. It's so so so much easier said than done. If we're to reduce gun violence then we need to focus on the root of the issue. Not the guns & not bandaid legislation, but the livelihood of American citizens.

 

[ghost]

Please see my post to gangstonc. I discuss magazine size restrictions. There's a number of reasons why I believe it would not be a workable solution. The primary reason is that millions of larger magazines already exist, and 3-D printing is already fairly ubiquitous. Magazine restrictions will present very little impediment to mass shooters or criminals. The primary people it will impact are law-abiding citizens.

Just FYI, but I carry a HK P30sk. It's a pretty small gun. It's a sub-compact pistol. The standard magazine size is 10rds.

Also, just remember that law enforcement will continue to be allowed to have higher capacity magazines. They've already Atmospheric Anti-Climax numerous cops out in California for selling banned guns or magazines (and the mag restriction law is now on hold) to civilians.

Finally, let's look at the example of drugs. Drugs have been illegal in the United States nearly forever. Yet China was able to ship thousands of tons of fentanyl to thousands of people in the United States, and the vast majority of it got through. How will a magazine ban work when any criminal or mass shooter can simply hop on the internet and order a high capacity magazine, or the parts to make one, and have it on their doorstep in 2 days to a week or two? We screen a tiny percentage of trade and packages from overseas. It's why most drugs make it in -- especially when mailed.

If they can't interdict drugs (which a drug dog can easily detect), how will they interdict a plastic part or a series of parts in multiple separate packages?Drugs are way harder to smuggle in than a couple of non-descript plastic parts.

We've already seen the painstaking preparation most of these mass shooters go through to maximize the carnage. Do you find it very difficult to believe they'll have no issue hopping on the internet to order high-cap mags from overseas? Or downloading a template to 3-D print one? The magazine only has to work one time.

Same logic goes for criminals. But law-abiding citizens will largely comply. That means criminals and mass shooters will then have the benefit of knowing they'll out-gun any civilians they encounter. They'll have a much bigger advantage than they have today. I just don't see how that's a logical move for us to make.

Everyone wants a quick fix. There's not one when it comes to this problem. And I won't speak for Kory, but I don't think he meant that you're ignorant. He's saying that a lot of people are ignorant (lacking in knowledge) when it comes to modern firearms. Most hunters don't keep up with the latest in firearm technology. They don't have SBRs or suppressors, or a braced 5.56 pistol. They don't know what binary triggers are, and they didn't know what bump fire was until recently. It's not meant to be an insult. At least that's the way I thought he was trying to explain his frustration.

A lot of people who hunt or own a pistol for protection consider themselves to be gun guys. No offense, but that's simply because they haven't met many gun guys. Your average gun owner may know the typical AR shoots .223/5.56 ammo. But they probably don't know that much about AR10s, or 300 Blackout chambered ARs. Or 224 Valkyrie. Or 6.5 Grendel. Or 6.5 Creedmoor, .450 Socom, or 6.8mm Rem. Sure, some hunters may have used a few of those for a bolt-action, but that's not the majority.

Firearms and accessories have changed more in the past 20 years than they did in the previous 50. I think Kory's frustration is similar to mine. Most people don't understand how easy it will be to side-step a magazine size restriction law. It won't slow criminals and mass shooters down one bit. And then they'll have a decisive advantage over those of us who follow the law.

You make some very good points that I agree with. In my last post to Kory I stated I had no solution on how to stop the killings and was only trying to come up with a way to reduce the carnage when they occurred. I also stated that I realized it would take extremely drastic measures and I was probably urinating in the wind. I also agree with you that if somehow the U.S. was able to reduce capacity by law and everyone turned in (or sold back to the govt) everything over 5 or 10 rounds... evil men intent on mass killings would find a way via overseas or 3D printing to get what they wanted. BUT it would make it more difficult for them and more expensive. Gun guys like you and Kory might know sidesteps and quick fixes to work around restricted capacity.. but it could slow down someone who isn't as knowledgeable and adept. I'm concerned if things go on as they are now without some changes, one day in the future, the 2nd Amendment will be done away with completely.

 

[gangstonc]

So I'll ask, then. Would you be OK with experimenting with restrictions on the 1st amendment and suspending the 4th amendment if it will help stop a mass shooter or reduce gun violence from criminals?

Maybe we could censor violent video games and movies for 10 years, and ban the reporting of "if it bleeds it leads" type of stories for a similar amount of time. Would you be OK with that?

We could also suspend most 4th amendment rights for the next decade or so and see if it helps. Maybe you can't have a smartphone or access to the internet unless you agree to allow federal law enforcement to monitor all your conversations and messages with artifical intelligence programs. Would you be willing to accept that?

Or, perhaps, the President should be empowered to review and approve all licenses for media outlets. If he thinks they're inciting people to violence he can pull their license for a decade. You trust the President to make those decisions, right?

I sort of feel like experimenting with restricting Constitutional rights is a good way to lose our Republic very quickly

I completely understand what you are saying. But I think we can have gun control without restricting the spirit of the constitution.

The time for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical govt with weapons is long passed.

 

[Evan]

Regarding the gun debate, this is a reason I lean to the left side of the spectrum. Not because of assault weapon bans or various gun restrictions... The only way to prevent gun violence is to prevent people from doing it. We're not going to do that by banning assault rifles and there's little that can be done to reduce single target handgun homicide. Sure, maybe these mass shootings could have 15 dead instead of 25 with ammunition limits or round capacity limitations. But truly the best way to stop the senseless violence is to elevate the standard of living in our society. There's no way to stop gun violence in our gun saturated country but we could at least figure out how to best support the potential perpetuators so that they don't go on that killing spree in the first place. Reducing poverty, bettering rural (or even urban) education system and making sure people have opportunity to learn about and escape their twisted reality. It's so so so much easier said than done. If we're to reduce gun violence then we need to focus on the root of the issue. Not the guns & not bandaid legislation, but the livelihood of American citizens.

I couldn't agree more, and I really don't think it's a left-wing position. Every single one of us should want to reduce poverty, improve education, and work to reduce the pain and despair that many criminals and mass shooters feel. We currently have a society that judges most people's worth solely by the value of their possessions or talent instead of their intrinsic value as a human being. I definitely think that's part of why this is happening.

gangstonc, ghost, I'll respond to you guys in the morning. Appreciate your thoughts and comments. I believe we all want the same thing. The past few days have sickened me. I'll never forget when school shootings started to be a thing. I remember the West Paducah and Jonesboro shootings, and Columbine is indelibly etched into my mind. I actually spoke on the local news about Columbine when I was 16 years old. I sometimes wonder what kind of world will my children inherit, because the one we have is already so broken.

 

[Kory]

There are a couple reasons why gun control exerts such a visceral response from myself. First, I know no one on this board agrees with this particular stance, but some of the more radical anti-gun folk who call gun owners/NRA members “murderers” or they have “blood on their hands” or they “don’t care about the dead children.” You see them holding signs at rallies, shouting these catch phrases. A gun owner is no more complicit in a murder by another gun owner as a person who buys alcohol is responsible for another drunk driver.

Second, I grew up in New Orleans. No, I’m not trying to sound like I’m some inner city gangbanger. Without getting too personal an extremely vivid memory comes to mind: a family member had to use a firearm for immediate personal and family safety when a threat was presented. There are a couple other stories of this. I had family that lived in some not so great neighborhoods prior to Hurricane Katrina. When you have NOPD response times for EMERGENCIES over 5 MINUTES, good luck. Self preservation takes hold. Add in top, judges after Parkland stating police have no obligation to protect you. Wait, what? So does? Oh right, YOURSELF.

Also, how many of y’all have been through a disaster like Hurricane Katrina? I’m talking national guard riding through neighborhoods. Black hawk and chinook helicopters overhead all hours of the night and day. MREs dropped out of the back of military vehicles. Oh, and complete curfew and martial law. When you have absolute collapse of law and order, which has happened LAST DECADE in a MAJOR AMERICAN city, you want all of the ammo and standard capacity magazines that hold 30+ rounds. Ask anyone who arrived back to New Orleans after Katrina why they want any means necessary to protect themselves. A flint lock pistol and Annie Oakley revolver ain’t gonna cut it. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Call me “fringe” if I just want to protect my family and myself. I’ll wear that badge with honor. And continue to explain to me what someone “does” and “doesn’t” need. I’m still laughing at the stupidity of “be a better shot.”

 

[gangstonc]

There are a couple reasons why gun control exerts such a visceral response from myself. First, I know no one on this board agrees with this particular stance, but some of the more radical anti-gun folk who call gun owners/NRA members “murderers” or they have “blood on their hands” or they “don’t care about the dead children.” You see them holding signs at rallies, shouting these catch phrases. A gun owner is no more complicit in a murder by another gun owner as a person who buys alcohol is responsible for another drunk driver.

Second, I grew up in New Orleans. No, I’m not trying to sound like I’m some inner city gangbanger. Without getting too personal an extremely vivid memory comes to mind: a family member had to use a firearm for immediate personal and family safety when a threat was presented. There are a couple other stories of this. I had family that lived in some not so great neighborhoods prior to Hurricane Katrina. When you have NOPD response times for EMERGENCIES over 5 MINUTES, good luck. Self preservation takes hold. Add in top, judges after Parkland stating police have no obligation to protect you. Wait, what? So does? Oh right, YOURSELF.

Also, how many of y’all have been through a disaster like Hurricane Katrina? I’m talking national guard riding through neighborhoods. Black hawk and chinook helicopters overhead all hours of the night and day. MREs dropped out of the back of military vehicles. Oh, and complete curfew and martial law. When you have absolute collapse of law and order, which has happened LAST DECADE in a MAJOR AMERICAN city, you want all of the ammo and standard capacity magazines that hold 30+ rounds. Ask anyone who arrived back to New Orleans after Katrina why they want any means necessary to protect themselves. A flint lock pistol and Annie Oakley revolver ain’t gonna cut it. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Call me “fringe” if I just want to protect my family and myself. I’ll wear that badge with honor. And continue to explain to me what someone “does” and “doesn’t” need. I’m still laughing at the stupidity of “be a better shot.”

I want to be clear. I did intend to use the word “fringe” as an insult. Only wanted to say you are more tied to guns than most. I personally don’t have a problem with your position in the least. It matches the constitution as it is written.

My willingness to experiment to find a solution is very unorthodox. I understand that.

 

[Matt]

I'm sure if they were limited to say a 5 round clip.. they would carry as many as they could. Functionally, they would get off fewer shots within a given time period than one that held 60. More reloads, more opportunities for those under siege to flee, more time for citizens to react or law enforcement to act. I have NO solution on how to stop the killings. I'm just trying to figure out how to reduce the casualties when these terrible events happen. I'm probably just peeing in the wind because in reality it would take drastic measures to make this happen because the number of high capacity clips is prolific. So we will be debating this ad infinitum or until the far left takes over completely and repeals the 2nd Amendment and sends their storm troopers into our homes and confiscates. I'll probably be cold in the ground if it ever comes to that but that could be a real concern for young people like yourself.

It is against the law to take murder a person. Should not that be enough to "limit" and prevent these events ? Why do we need more laws ?

 

[Kory]

It is against the law to take murder a person. Should not that be enough to "limit" and prevent these events ? Why do we need more laws ?

Bandaid fixes. That’s all I’ve seen proposed.

 

[Matt]

Bandaid fixes. That’s all I’ve seen proposed.

No law or laws can eliminate evil.

 

[Kory]

Wanted gun control. Committed mass shooting with said guns he wanted banned. Terrorism is use of violence to further a political agenda. Sounds like a case could be made he was indeed one.

 

[gangstonc]

Wanted gun control. Committed mass shooting with said guns he wanted banned. Terrorism is use of violence to further a political agenda. Sounds like a case could be made he was indeed one.

Absolutely.

 

[KoD]

No law or laws can eliminate evil.

Nobody here expects anything to be 100% effective. It's a discussion about solutions and I don't understand why you have to be the protagonist and solely defensive. What do you think might work?

 

[Matt]

Nobody here expects anything to be 100% effective. It's a discussion about solutions and I don't understand why you have to be the protagonist and solely defensive. What do you think might work?

I'm not being the protagonist. I stated a fact. In most of these shootings there are/were warnings signs. Some how people fail to speak up when they have suspicions about these people. Obviously better mental health and beefed up security. Are metal detectors necessary in most locations ? I don't know. It would be expensive. I graduated high school in 1978. Some of the guys were into hunting and had guns in the racks of their pick ups. We had the occasional fight but not once did a student that got his but whipped ever go to his truck, get his gun and shoot up the place. Something in our society has changed. What ?

 

[Kory]

I'm not being the protagonist. I stated a fact. In most of these shootings there are/were warnings signs. Some how people fail to speak up when they have suspicions about these people. Obviously better mental health and beefed up security. Are metal detectors necessary in most locations ? I don't know. It would be expensive. I graduated high school in 1978. Some of the guys were into hunting and had guns in the racks of their pick ups. We had the occasional fight but not once did a student that got his but whipped ever go to his truck, get his gun and shoot up the place. Something in our society has changed. What ?

Internet and easy radicalization.