- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
My point is that there is more than one solution to this problem. Just as arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm is not the solution, so is DIS-arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm not the solution. The answer lies somewhere in-between, but as long as the discussion comes down to "Come and take it!!" vs "Get rid of all guns" and nothing between, there never will be a good solution.
Or we should make them as difficult to get as an abortion in Texas.We should take away peoples guns and lock them up in the same place we lock anyone up that ever attents a protest. You know, because we feel like it's perfectly acceptable to ignore constitutional rights if a few people misuse them in the process of committing violence....
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.My point is that there is more than one solution to this problem. Just as arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm is not the solution, so is DIS-arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm not the solution. The answer lies somewhere in-between, but as long as the discussion comes down to "Come and take it!!" vs "Get rid of all guns" and nothing between, there never will be a good solution.
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.
I don't want the wrong people to have guns either, the problem is the definition of the "wrong" people. Also, I thought automatic weapons were illegal.
I dont read these freaks "manifesto's" as a matter of policy. I dont care why they did what they did. **** them.
We should outlaw SUV's.
Or we should make them as difficult to get as an abortion in Texas.
Or we should make them as difficult to get as an abortion in Texas.
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.
I agree they're messed up, but the number of mass killings has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Don't you think it's important that we examine why, as a matter of prevention?
Actually, a handgun is faster to deploy than an automatic weapon. Fewer steps, lighter and you have a much better chance of getting the first shot off (the most critical point in any armed conflict). A decently trained individual with a handgun can put a round "down range" in about 2 seconds, the same person would take about twice that long with an AR. It's why law enforcement in this country PREFERS handguns over automatic rifles. Also, in most cases, the presence of multiple handguns FAR out weighs any advantage that someone carrying an AR would have. Anyone with any tactical training at all would tell that more weapons in the hands of the good guys is the best way to stop the bad guys. BALANCE!!
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.
There not illegal, just expensive.
Unless they are muslim.
Actually, a handgun is faster to deploy than an automatic weapon. Fewer steps, lighter and you have a much better chance of getting the first shot off (the most critical point in any armed conflict). A decently trained individual with a handgun can put a round "down range" in about 2 seconds, the same person would take about twice that long with an AR. It's why law enforcement in this country PREFERS handguns over automatic rifles. Also, in most cases, the presence of multiple handguns FAR out weighs any advantage that someone carrying an AR would have. Anyone with any tactical training at all would tell that more weapons in the hands of the good guys is the best way to stop the bad guys. BALANCE!!
True. Additionally these shootings rarely take place over great distances which is where the real benefit of a long arm, and drawbacks of a handgun are seen. Even so, those that stop these shooters with pistols have taken some very long shots and achieved hits with pistols.
Chicago had a busy weekend too...
3 Killed, 19 Wounded In Weekend Shootings Across Chicago « CBS Chicago
Concealability is another primary factor, I would expect. Walk into a bank with a rifle and everyone is paying attention to you. Element of surprise ruined.
Don't see Obubble addressing this. Of course, #BlackLivesMatter only when Whites are the shooters in the world of Obubble and Sharpton.
Virtually every mass shooter was on a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor for mental health problems.
We already know why-mental illness. Its not like its not investigated thoroughly in each episode. I think there is a morbid curiosity here, and I don't like the amount of coverage they get. I dont go to their facebook accounts, read their manifestos, etc. I have no doubt some are attracted to the idea of the attention-thats how these freaks roll.
Also, I reject the notion that mass shootings are on the rise, in fact they are on the decline and still exceedingly rare-they just get the most coverage and so it seems that way. See this AP report...
Associated Press Story: Believe It or Not Mass Killings Are Not on the Rise, They Are on the Decline | TheBlaze.com
There has always been mental illness in our society, but not this many massacres so back-to-back. What do you think the deeper explanation is? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?