Wrong.
Less gun deThs maybe, probably in fact.
More safety..not so much...increase in pipebombs, pressure cooker explosions, etc...
It ain’t the weapon.

That said...I for one am all for more background checks...however, that can also be abused in multiple ways.
The correlation of overall safety to the reduction of guns I believe to be low.
- IonSabres

Yeah we have a ton of issues with bombs here in Canada let me tell you..............

That's good stuff, you'll never get the ban on reporting, that's a first amendment issue, what would be better is if they got together and themselves decided to not report the name/show pictures.

You forgot one though, anyone whose gun is used, but is not the shooter, should face steep penalties, up to and including prison time. Getting people to secure their weapons would stop a lot of shootings.

Also, I hate to say it, but we need a federal law on gun purchases, it does no good for certain states to have strict laws only to be completely bypassed by buying guns from people in another state that has few, if any, laws on purchases. I'm not saying it has to match the strictest laws, but it needs to be uniform. Those states that sell to everybody need to pick up the slack.
- Wetbandit1

I'm not 100% but I'm pretty sure that crossing state lines with a firearm, legal or otherwise is a federal offense.

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try

It’s a lot harder for someone to go through the process to make a fertilizer bomb for example, than it is to just go grab a gun from Dad’s gun safe & walk out the door

Can these tragedies be completely stopped?

No, probably not

But the reason we make things illegal is to make it as hard on them as possible

And that’s what should be done here


Obviously you’re reasonable
U own a pump action shotgun, specifically to protect yourself
That’s fair

What would be overkill,
is if u owned a machine gun for “protection”

Get these weapons off the streets that can be use to kill dozens of ppl in seconds
There’s nothing about that which doesn’t make sense
No one needs to own them for any reason other than killing
- jdfitz77

Wrong, its for killing AND compensation for men with small penises

That's good stuff, you'll never get the ban on reporting, that's a first amendment issue, what would be better is if they got together and themselves decided to not report the name/show pictures.

You forgot one though, anyone whose gun is used, but is not the shooter, should face steep penalties, up to and including prison time. Getting people to secure their weapons would stop a lot of shootings.

Also, I hate to say it, but we need a federal law on gun purchases, it does no good for certain states to have strict laws only to be completely bypassed by buying guns from people in another state that has few, if any, laws on purchases. I'm not saying it has to match the strictest laws, but it needs to be uniform. Those states that sell to everybody need to pick up the slack.
- Wetbandit1

This is exactly the type of discourse that needs to happen.
Not, we want to outlaw all guns, and the ignorant...automatic weapons should be banned ( no sh!t Sherlock, they are already).
Let’s have real discussions that get to the heart of the matter, and objectively look at a vast, multilayer solution...including how to better protect the easy targets like schools...wtf-why aren’t Metal dectectors standard SOP at schools...and bullet proof glass or other detergents???Why does the discussion always begin and end with outlawing guns.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Wrong.
Less gun deThs maybe, probably in fact.
More safety..not so much...increase in pipebombs, pressure cooker explosions, etc...
It ain’t the weapon.

That said...I for one am all for more background checks...however, that can also be abused in multiple ways.
The correlation of overall safety to the reduction of guns I believe to be low.
- IonSabres

Here’s the difference

One thing is happening NOW

And what you’re suggesting, MIGHT happen in the future

I'm not 100% but I'm pretty sure that crossing state lines with a firearm, legal or otherwise is a federal offense.
- SDSabre

It certainly is, but that doesn't stop them, I'm pretty sure illegally selling them to someone carries a more severe penalty than merely getting caught with one or 10, that's why if everyone has the same law you won't see these gun highways from Florida and Tennessee. There would be no point.

If we had fewer windows and doors in schools, and armed guards at the doors, it would solve school shootings, and it wouldn't be a horrible depiction of the distopian police state we currently reside in, at all.

I feel your heart is in the right place in this issue, which is saving lives. The problem that you will run into is that people will counter that with if I own a handgun vs someone owning a rifle I'm probably dead. You can't just keep saying people are dying as a persuasive compromise, which is what you're going to have to achieve. The NRA doesn't like physco shootings anymore then the bleeding heart liberal, but when the alternative for them is the possibility of a government tyranny, which sure you and I can scoff at the notion, but think of it without this people having guns, the good people that you were talking about. Would be pretty easy for a government to seize control right? That's the argument that the 2nd amendment stands for. Like I said, I think your heart is in the right place, just come with a few more talking points then people are dying over and over.
- SDSabre

U think the weapons the public is allowed to have could “stop the gov’t from seizing control” right now if it wanted to?

That’s ridiculous


Also,
the government doesn’t need to “control” us in that fashion
They already do so Monitarily
(1% vs 99%)

They’ve already got the $$$
No need to institute Martial Law to take over
And if they did,
there’s nothing any of us can do to stop it anyways

So then I’m sure u have a solution to stop all these mass shootings

Obviously it’s not YOU who is the problem

But your argument is that we can’t keep these weapons out of criminals hands

Well then why is anything illegal?
Maybe ppl should be allowed to own a rocket launcher?
Obviously that’s an exaggeration
But hopefully u get my point

U don’t NEED to own a weapon designed or modified that can kill a large number of ppl in seconds
You just don’t
That isn’t your “right”
- jdfitz77

Police and metal detectors in schools would prevent a lot of these atrocities, but the weiners in charge of our schools think it will traumatize the kids to even see guns in schools. I had a Police Officer deliver my 6th grade D.A.R.E. speech with a firearm on his hip, didn't bother me at all.

And there is NO way to stop criminals from getting firearms at this point. There are 300 million in the US alone. Try as much as you want, you will never get them all. The black market for guns will remain. The only people effected will be the honest, law abiding citizens who surrender them.

I will surrender nothing. I will submit to no testing. You want anything from me, bring a LOT of friends, is what I'd say. Victory or Valhalla!

Wrong, its for killing AND compensation for men with small penises
- Mentalorgasm5

Well then i guess they can just go back to buying sports cars
Lol

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try

It’s a lot harder for someone to go through the process to make a fertilizer bomb for example, than it is to just go grab a gun from Dad’s gun safe & walk out the door

Can these tragedies be completely stopped?

No, probably not

But the reason we make things illegal is to make it as hard on them as possible

And that’s what should be done here


Obviously you’re reasonable
U own a pump action shotgun, specifically to protect yourself
That’s fair

What would be overkill,
is if u owned a machine gun for “protection”

Get these weapons off the streets that can be use to kill dozens of ppl in seconds
There’s nothing about that which doesn’t make sense
No one needs to own them for any reason other than killing
- jdfitz77

When the criminals give theirs up and it can be verified at a 99.9% rate...I’ll consider turning in my one gun. Consider it only.

BTW - I am now seriously thinking about buying multiple handguns and going through training to carry a concealed weapon.
With just the wife and I here shortly, that would be the time for me to start to ammo-up. Just don’t trust the crazies out there.

Police and metal detectors in schools would prevent a lot of these atrocities, but the weiners in charge of our schools think it will traumatize the kids to even see guns in schools. I had a Police Officer deliver my 6th grade D.A.R.E. speech with a firearm on his hip, didn't bother me at all.

And there is NO way to stop criminals from getting firearms at this point. There are 300 million in the US alone. Try as much as you want, you will never get them all. The black market for guns will remain. The only people effected will be the honest, law abiding citizens who surrender them.

I will surrender nothing. I will submit to no testing. You want anything from me, bring a LOT of friends, is what I'd say. Victory or Valhalla!
- RhinoFan

This idea is disturbing to me on so many levels

This is exactly the type of discourse that needs to happen.
Not, we want to outlaw all guns, and the ignorant...automatic weapons should be banned ( no sh!t Sherlock, they are already).
Let’s have real discussions that get to the heart of the matter, and objectively look at a vast, multilayer solution...including how to better protect the easy targets like schools...wtf-why aren’t Metal dectectors standard SOP at schools...and bullet proof glass or other detergents???Why does the discussion always begin and end with outlawing guns.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
- IonSabres

Again...
focusing on the crazies

That would be like if i came on here saying how my redneck friend thinks he should be allowed to own a tank & nuclear weapons to dissuade the govt from ever “sailing control” of his property
(Yes, this dude really believes that)

U think the weapons the public is allowed to have could “stop the gov’t from seizing control” right now if it wanted to?

That’s ridiculous


Also,
the government doesn’t need to “control” us in that fashion
They already do so Monitarily
(1% vs 99%)

They’ve already got the $$$
No need to institute Martial Law to take over
And if they did,
there’s nothing any of us can do to stop it anyways
- jdfitz77

Probably right that it wouldn't stop them. But would at least put a sizeable dent in population that you currently control and the one your trying to gain even more control of. Can't govern what isn't alive.

Police and metal detectors in schools would prevent a lot of these atrocities, but the weiners in charge of our schools think it will traumatize the kids to even see guns in schools. I had a Police Officer deliver my 6th grade D.A.R.E. speech with a firearm on his hip, didn't bother me at all.

And there is NO way to stop criminals from getting firearms at this point. There are 300 million in the US alone. Try as much as you want, you will never get them all. The black market for guns will remain. The only people effected will be the honest, law abiding citizens who surrender them.

I will surrender nothing. I will submit to no testing. You want anything from me, bring a LOT of friends, is what I'd say. Victory or Valhalla!
- RhinoFan

Enjoy your unreasonable mindset
Don’t know what else to tell ya
I guess your selfish needs outweigh what’s best for society to you
Good luck with that

Yeah we have a ton of issues with bombs here in Canada let me tell you..............
- BINGO!

Sorry, but don’t take it personally...you are probably a very fine individual...and I’m into my 2Bourbon...
Canadians are all (frank)ed up.
All that matters is hockey, and your entire country’s population could fit into New Jersey for Christ sake.
Canada is a micron on a pimple of a nat on a elephants ass.

But, you do produce some mighty fine hockey players!!!

Probably right that it wouldn't stop them. But would at least put a sizeable dent in population that you currently control and the one your trying to gain even more control of. Can't govern what isn't alive.
- SDSabre

Basing common sense laws off a theory about as likely as a zombie apocalypse is nuts dude

This idea is disturbing to me on so many levels
- jcragcrumple

It would save lives. What is disturbing about that?

This is exactly the type of discourse that needs to happen.
Not, we want to outlaw all guns, and the ignorant...automatic weapons should be banned ( no sh!t Sherlock, they are already).
Let’s have real discussions that get to the heart of the matter, and objectively look at a vast, multilayer solution...including how to better protect the easy targets like schools...wtf-why aren’t Metal dectectors standard SOP at schools...and bullet proof glass or other detergents???Why does the discussion always begin and end with outlawing guns.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
- IonSabres

That's not entirely true. It's real expensive to buy them, but they are far from illegal. Especially antique/relic guns. The first M-16s from Vietnam are now part of that. I think it's 50 years from date of manufacture. You need a special license and a poopload of money, but they're not totally illegal.

But I digress.

As far as the metal detectors and other deterrents. Money, mainly. That poop costs money, and you have to constantly calibrate metal detectors, and you have to pay someone to operate it which is more money that most districts don't have. And bullet resistant glass wouldn't work everywhere, it would have to be pretty damn thick to stop, let's say a .30-06 which would be the most powerful round that you'd really have to concern yourself with, and even that's a step up. .308 would be the most likely higher than .223 that would be used, they wouldn't be able to open, as that would defeat the purpose, and not every school has A/C which would make for absolutely miserable classes.

Sorry, but don’t take it personally...you are probably a very fine individual...and I’m into my 2Bourbon...
Canadians are all (frank)ed up.
All that matters is hockey, and your entire country’s population could fit into New Jersey for Christ sake.
Canada is a micron on a pimple of a nat on a elephants ass.

But, you do produce some mighty fine hockey players!!!
- IonSabres

It’s not just Canada
These mass shootings happen here in overwhelming numbers

Other countries have done things to basically stop it from happening there

It only makes sense that we should too

Here’s the difference

One thing is happening NOW

And what you’re suggesting, WILL happen in the future
- jdfitz77

Corrected.

This idea is disturbing to me on so many levels
- jcragcrumple

There were ~10 off duty cops in my HS, and they were all openly carrying. And I went to HS in the burbs 15 years ago. They blend in to the background.

Anyone wanna talk hockey?

That's good stuff, you'll never get the ban on reporting, that's a first amendment issue, what would be better is if they got together and themselves decided to not report the name/show pictures.

You forgot one though, anyone whose gun is used, but is not the shooter, should face steep penalties, up to and including prison time. Getting people to secure their weapons would stop a lot of shootings.

Also, I hate to say it, but we need a federal law on gun purchases, it does no good for certain states to have strict laws only to be completely bypassed by buying guns from people in another state that has few, if any, laws on purchases. I'm not saying it has to match the strictest laws, but it needs to be uniform. Those states that sell to everybody need to pick up the slack.
- Wetbandit1

You can pass restrictions on speech if the government can show it is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. A colorable argument could be made that preventing further school shootings is a "compelling government interest." That law would have to be VERY carefully worded, but as much as everyone (left and right) hates the media right now, there might be some support for it.

In theory you can already bring a civil claim for negligence if someone's weapon is stored in a negligent manner so that it is made available for use in a school shooting. I don't know that criminalizing it is gonna get much traction.

And all of the suggestions I had would have to be federal law...that way they get the benefit of the Supremacy Clause (i.e. they will trump any state law that conflicts with them).

When the criminals give theirs up and it can be verified at a 99.9% rate...I’ll consider turning in my one gun. Consider it only.

BTW - I am now seriously thinking about buying multiple handguns and going through training to carry a concealed weapon.
With just the wife and I here shortly, that would be the time for me to start to ammo-up. Just don’t trust the crazies out there.
- IonSabres

So you’re gonna carry an AR 15 with you for protection from criminals?

Of course u aren’t

And no one is saying that u can’t own a hand gun for protection
That’s reasonable

Semi automatic weapons that can be modified are not reasonable, not necessary, and it’s rodoc to try & claim that you NEED them for protection or hunting
It’s just not true