What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

One side will always be happy as long as there is no gun control and they get to control women's bodies. Sadly, a room full of Mexican kids getting shot is not going to move the needle for that ilk of people. 

 

What gun control do you want? Background checks on all gun purchases? Already a law. 

 

And "control women's bodies" - you mean abortion? Because most pro-life people don't care if a woman gets butt implants or a tattoo. It's 100% about abortion. Just be honest and stop saying "women's bodies". 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

It's not a football game dude. Winning and losing isn't a part of this. 

We debate, politicians vote, one side wins. You guys have created a gun friendly society that is allowing this to happen 

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

How to keep guns out of the wrong hands is the problem.  Until then would need one locked school entrance  that can remote open from office with camera on someone wanting to enter . Other places still need a guard with body armor and armor piercing rounds.

Does 9mm have armor-piercing rounds?

The 9х19mm pistol-fired armor-piercing cartridge 7N31 is designed to destroy enemy manpower, wearing body armor, in the open, behind light covers, and inside vehicles. It is fired by the 9mm GSh-18 pistol

 

I work at a high school of around 800 kids (5A school in Oklahoma, 6A is the largest). We have a hard point entrance. Always locked. The doors to the art building, gym and cafeteria? Always locked. Never unlocked. Not even now as school is out and admin is working. There are hundreds of cameras. If you get into the front door, there is a secondary LOCKED door. The front office has to let you in at all points. 

 

We used to have a SRO in the front, officer from my town. We are getting a new one next year as well as a security guard at the gate again. The high school my girls went to (same town), it's even harder to get into. 

 

There are ways to try and prevent these things as they play out. It won't stop all of them, but the DO stop them and have every year. 

Just now, Tiberius said:

We debate, politicians vote, one side wins. You guys have created a gun friendly society that is allowing this to happen 

 

Until you throw out ideas, no need for you to participate in this IMO. 

[LeviF]

Democrats control the House, Senate, and Executive. They haven't had an opportunity to lean in to gun control like this since Obama's first term. 

 

Yet all we hear is finger-wagging at Republicans and some tryhard rhetoric to tie it to the issue of abortion. Why is that?

[ALF]

Also have local police at school entrance at start of day. Then keep all doors locked. Will cost a lot less then fulltime resource officer.

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I work at a high school of around 800 kids (5A school in Oklahoma, 6A is the largest). We have a hard point entrance. Always locked. The doors to the art building, gym and cafeteria? Always locked. Never unlocked. Not even now as school is out and admin is working. There are hundreds of cameras. If you get into the front door, there is a secondary LOCKED door. The front office has to let you in at all points. 

 

We used to have a SRO in the front, officer from my town. We are getting a new one next year as well as a security guard at the gate again. The high school my girls went to (same town), it's even harder to get into. 

 

There are ways to try and prevent these things as they play out. It won't stop all of them, but the DO stop them and have every year. 

 

Until you throw out ideas, no need for you to participate in this IMO. 

My idea is that you guys have won and created this situation. USA is  gun heaven 

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

My idea is that you guys have won and created this situation. USA is  gun heaven 

 

Again, you're talking about our Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill or Rights. 

[ALF]

2 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Democrats control the House, Senate, and Executive. They haven't had an opportunity to lean in to gun control like this since Obama's first term. 

 

Yet all we hear is finger-wagging at Republicans and some tryhard rhetoric to tie it to the issue of abortion. Why is that?

 

Well it does take 60 Senate votes to pass a non budget law.

[LeviF]

4 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

Well it does take 60 Senate votes to pass a non budget law.

 

Schumer already tried the nuclear option once this year.

[ArdmoreRyno]

WORLD WIDE - Worst school massacres in world history. 

 

The top 10 are all in other countries. Bath School in 1927 is 13th on the list. 15th on the list is VA Tech... school shooting, worst in US history, carried out with a .22 pistol and 9mm pistol. No AR-15 in sight. 

 

 We can stop pretending it's just the United States. Evil will find a way. If that's using a knife, a truck, a bomb, etc. 

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Democrats control the House, Senate, and Executive. They haven't had an opportunity to lean in to gun control like this since Obama's first term. 

 

To do what? Even the smallest measures will be defeated. Nothing will clean up the ocean of weapons out there. This is the new normal. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

32 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Who cares about ideas that will go no where? Your side wins no matter what. The slaughter will continue! 

I can't imagine that anyone on this message board, or Americans in general, are rooting for more mass shootings.  So when it comes to mass shootings there are no sides.  The problem is that when one of these events happens with all too often regularity, the conversation immediately turns to a political crusade full of the usual talking points about white supremacy ideology and the need to suppress and weed it out or the need for more stringent gun control laws.  In this case we can scratch off the first one but I'm almost certain somebody, somewhere out there will attempt to make that case.  And as for gun control as long as the solution is always focused on infringing on the rights law abiding citizens to legally defend themselves its just a non-starter. 

 

And that's because most gun owners and many non-gun owners conclude the purpose of activists demanding more stringent gun laws is not to stop these shootings but instead to use them as an excuse to address their long-standing desire to disarm the private citizen.  Which they believe will leave them living in the same type of shooting gallery environment that exists in cities like New York and Chicago which nobody in charge in those jurisdictions appear eager to address.  And at the mercy of public officials who through the pandemic have demonstrated though their zeal for authoritarian control that they can't be trusted.   

 

A good start might be identifying and getting the nuts off the streets reversing the policies of letting them run loose. 

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Again, you're talking about our Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill or Rights. 

No, 2nd amendment doesn't stop gun regulation. 

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

To do what? Even the smallest measures will be defeated. Nothing will clean up the ocean of weapons out there. This is the new normal. 

 

If there's no solution, then quit with the finger wagging and control what you can. Maybe start with re-opening the asylums, idk.

[Tiberius]

Just now, All_Pro_Bills said:

I can't imagine that anyone on this message board, or Americans in general, are rooting for more mass shootings.  So when it comes to mass shootings there are no sides.  The problem is that when one of these events happens with all too often regularity, the conversation immediately turns to a political crusade full of the usual talking points about white supremacy ideology and the need to suppress and weed it out or the need for more stringent gun control laws.  In this case we can scratch off the first one but I'm almost certain somebody, somewhere out there will attempt to make that case.  And as for gun control as long as the solution is always focused on infringing on the rights law abiding citizens to legally defend themselves its just a non-starter. 

 

And that's because most gun owners and many non-gun owners conclude the purpose of activists demanding more stringent gun laws is not to stop these shootings but instead to use them as an excuse to address their long-standing desire to disarm the private citizen.  Which they believe will leave them living in the same type of shooting gallery environment that exists in cities like New York and Chicago which nobody in charge in those jurisdictions appear eager to address.  And at the mercy of public officials who through the pandemic have demonstrated though their zeal for authoritarian control that they can't be trusted.   

 

A good start might be identifying and getting the nuts off the streets reversing the policies of letting them run loose. 

If you create a situation where this happens every other day and don't do anything to stop it, then there really isn't much different from "wanting it to happen" to not caring enough to stop it. 

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I can't imagine that anyone on this message board, or Americans in general, are rooting for more mass shootings.  So when it comes to mass shootings there are no sides.  The problem is that when one of these events happens with all too often regularity, the conversation immediately turns to a political crusade full of the usual talking points about white supremacy ideology and the need to suppress and weed it out or the need for more stringent gun control laws.  In this case we can scratch off the first one but I'm almost certain somebody, somewhere out there will attempt to make that case.  And as for gun control as long as the solution is always focused on infringing on the rights law abiding citizens to legally defend themselves its just a non-starter. 

 

 

None of the leftist response needs to make sense because every tragedy is just another cudgel to use to beat your opponent. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, LeviF said:

 

If there's no solution, then quit with the finger wagging and control what you can. Maybe start with re-opening the asylums, idk.

It is my First Amendment right to wag my finger. 

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

Well it does take 60 Senate votes to pass a non budget law.

Good leaders negotiate to get things done. Unfortunately we elect based on popularity

(and lately color and genital status) not based on ability to lead.  Apparently gone are the days of Reagan and Tip O’Neill. 

[ArdmoreRyno]

44 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

And there it is. It's not hard to figure this ***** out.   You must present a valid and current permit to purchase ammo.  It's been awhile since we bought ammo and it reminded me. Here in CA you needed to go through a background check but it appears it was struck down by a Federal Judge.  I think that is a bit excessive because if you shoot a lot your could be buying ammo weekly.  However a middle ground is as mentioned above.  You need to present a current gun permit that needs to be renewed (with background checks) every year or other year to purchase ammo.  Also.  You want to buy body armor?  Background check.  Good ***** lord.  So someone buys body armor and there are no red flags? 

 

He was not wearing body armor. CNN just reported it. 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

He was not wearing body armor. CNN just reported it. 

Ok. Thanks.