How do we reduce the number of mass shootings?

Nov 2018
3,830
1,878
Inner Space
#91
The point is, while you want to argue numbers, and only YOUR numbers matter, we have preventable mass shootings in the United States. So, do you want to argue numbers or propose a solution to a problem? Or maybe you aren't seeing the problem???
The very few "prevented" mass shootings by firearms do not offset the vast number of mass shootings made possible by the easy availability of firearms in the US and there are risks associated with private firearms that are never factored in by the gun gullible proponents.
 
Jul 2008
18,572
12,308
Virginia Beach, VA
#92
The point is, while you want to argue numbers, and only YOUR numbers matter, we have preventable mass shootings in the United States. So, do you want to argue numbers or propose a solution to a problem? Or maybe you aren't seeing the problem???
YOU are the one that posted the article that the problem is not as bad as we think because of “the numbers”. I’m just pointing out that the math in your post is flawed.
 
Mar 2018
752
148
Grayson
#93
The very few "prevented" mass shootings by firearms do not offset the vast number of mass shootings made possible by the easy availability of firearms in the US and there are risks associated with private firearms that are never factored in by the gun gullible proponents.
Anti-gun people have a problem with the truth. The truth is, without guns people kill people. So the left tries to play a game of semantics. It has been scientifically proven, over and over and over again, that gun laws do not reduce the numbers of people killed.

Using my ideas, it eliminates most mass shootings that are done by the mentally ill. As for our fascination with destroying our country with an amalgamation of races, cultures, creeds, political viewpoints, sexual orientations, religions, sociological viewpoints, etc. no amount of gun control will stop political jihadists.

When political jihadists act, they will will use home made explosives if guns are not available. If you check those places where that happens, you will see that more people die on average. For example 262 terrorist attacks killed 595 people in 2018 in Pakistan. In July of 2018 there were 149 people killed and 186 injured in a single bombing in Pakistan.

The question arises, is this about saving lives or is it about gun control? The fact that proposals are on the table to slow down not only firearm violence without gun control, but to reduce the number of dysfunctional households and nobody acts on them is pretty well self evident of what the truth is. I can only lament the fact that pro-gun people do not rise to the occasion and put the proposals on the table. Even if they did not stop the number of gun control proposals, it would force the far left to discuss the issue and figure out what the real objective is here.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Nov 2018
3,830
1,878
Inner Space
#95
Anti-gun people have a problem with the truth. The truth is, without guns people kill people. So the left tries to play a game of semantics. It has been scientifically proven, over and over and over again, that gun laws do not reduce the numbers of people killed.
You should try to document that with acceptable social science research.


Using my ideas, it eliminates most mass shootings that are done by the mentally ill.
I am not sure what your "idea" is, but I doubt that you know much about mental illness OR mass shootings.

As for our fascination with destroying our country with an amalgamation of races, cultures, creeds, political viewpoints, sexual orientations, religions, sociological viewpoints, etc. no amount of gun control will stop political jihadists.
Presumably you are trying to support the use of firearm violence to prevent the "Great Replacement"???

When political jihadists act, they will will use home made explosives if guns are not available. If you check those places where that happens, you will see that more people die on average. For example 262 terrorist attacks killed 595 people in 2018 in Pakistan. In July of 2018 there were 149 people killed and 186 injured in a single bombing in Pakistan.
So your argument is that firearm mass murder is safer and better for society than the use of explosives?
I wonder why we do not see much murder with fully auto weapons in the US...could it be that they are tightly regulated?

The question arises, is this about saving lives or is it about gun control? The fact that proposals are on the table to slow down not only firearm violence without gun control, but to reduce the number of dysfunctional households and nobody acts on them is pretty well self evident of what the truth is. I can only lament the fact that pro-gun people do not rise to the occasion and put the proposals on the table. Even if they did not stop the number of gun control proposals, it would force the far left to discuss the issue and figure out what the real objective is here.
I certainly agree that gun promoters should be clear that they want to increase the prevalence and availability of firearms. Perhaps we should follow Sasha Cohen's suggestion for Kinder Guardians--- train and provide arms to 8-9 years to protect younger children in kindergarten.

Answer this: who seriously suggested that for control of drunk driving or tobacco deaths we should have more drinking and smoking?
Yet, that is the argument by you gun goofy folks-- we need more firearms to reduce firearm violence.
 
Dec 2018
1,206
696
Unionville Indiana
#96
A deterrent to mass shootings would be to impose the death penalty nationwide, have armed guards in places prone for mass shooting. And should the mass shooter survive the incident, let the victims families torture the mass shooter before sending them to the firing squad. Simple enough?
What about required anger management courses? Rage and fury are popping-up with greater and greater frequency, since 2009, online and in-person especially among the arm-chair warrior types.
 
Mar 2018
752
148
Grayson
#97
You should try to document that with acceptable social science research.



I am not sure what your "idea" is, but I doubt that you know much about mental illness OR mass shootings.


Presumably you are trying to support the use of firearm violence to prevent the "Great Replacement"???


So your argument is that firearm mass murder is safer and better for society than the use of explosives?
I wonder why we do not see much murder with fully auto weapons in the US...could it be that they are tightly regulated?



I certainly agree that gun promoters should be clear that they want to increase the prevalence and availability of firearms. Perhaps we should follow Sasha Cohen's suggestion for Kinder Guardians--- train and provide arms to 8-9 years to protect younger children in kindergarten.

Answer this: who seriously suggested that for control of drunk driving or tobacco deaths we should have more drinking and smoking?
Yet, that is the argument by you gun goofy folks-- we need more firearms to reduce firearm violence.
Sorry Biff. I don't read multi-quotes much less respond to them. If you have AN issue, I will gladly respond, but nobody reads multi-quotes and fewer people read the responses.
 
Mar 2018
752
148
Grayson
#98
What about required anger management courses? Rage and fury are popping-up with greater and greater frequency, since 2009, online and in-person especially among the arm-chair warrior types.
In my proposal, anger management would be one of many courses that would be taught to the unruly child as well as the parents if it were deemed that they needed parenting classes.
 
Nov 2018
3,830
1,878
Inner Space
#99
Sorry Biff. I don't read multi-quotes much less respond to them. If you have AN issue, I will gladly respond, but nobody reads multi-quotes and fewer people read the responses.
You might just start with the first one, answer that and then go the the second and continue on sequentially. Not really that difficult for most people. Of course, since you do not think that fact carries much weight, I can understand your reluctance to actually explain your opinions.
 
Jul 2008
18,572
12,308
Virginia Beach, VA
Anti-gun people have a problem with the truth. The truth is, without guns people kill people. So the left tries to play a game of semantics. It has been scientifically proven, over and over and over again, that gun laws do not reduce the numbers of people killed.

Using my ideas, it eliminates most mass shootings that are done by the mentally ill. As for our fascination with destroying our country with an amalgamation of races, cultures, creeds, political viewpoints, sexual orientations, religions, sociological viewpoints, etc. no amount of gun control will stop political jihadists.

When political jihadists act, they will will use home made explosives if guns are not available. If you check those places where that happens, you will see that more people die on average. For example 262 terrorist attacks killed 595 people in 2018 in Pakistan. In July of 2018 there were 149 people killed and 186 injured in a single bombing in Pakistan.

The question arises, is this about saving lives or is it about gun control? The fact that proposals are on the table to slow down not only firearm violence without gun control, but to reduce the number of dysfunctional households and nobody acts on them is pretty well self evident of what the truth is. I can only lament the fact that pro-gun people do not rise to the occasion and put the proposals on the table. Even if they did not stop the number of gun control proposals, it would force the far left to discuss the issue and figure out what the real objective is here.
We are not talking about stopping all killing. We are talking about reducing the uniquely Anerican problem of mass shootings.
 

Similar Discussions