And that if we can's stop every shooting, we shouldn't take steps that will reduce their frequency and severity?

Bye.

If better gun control stopped "1/2 the people" from dieing it would be worth it. So tell me again, why would anyone be opposed to the vast majority of common sense legislation that has been proposed regarding things like safe-storage, ensuring those buying guns undergo background checks, assault weapons bans etc ???

Maybe you should stop fighting people who support gun control and start fighting the NRA nuts holding us hostage.

...but you're ready to support an assault weapons ban? Am I correct on that? Please go let your Gungeon friends know of your change of heart to support the fine work of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and other pro-gun control groups ASAP.

in the hell is that against anything in the list?

Also, the assault weapon ban is a fucking rifle. My 30.06 from High School is as deadly as a Bushmaster.

I am FINE with limiting clip sizes. On the record!

I do not have any issue with owning guns. Guilty.

My point it this shit will always happen, unless you ban all guns!

Which is impossible, thus making your entire argument in this thread to be nonsensical. You do understand that that many other nations in this world don't have our horrendous gun violence, yes? Clearly, it's time for you to stick a sock in it and just make a monthly donation to the Brady Campaign. You seem unwilling to process this issue in a meaningful fashion. Unfortunately, that seems to be epidemic in this entire debate. Go outside, walk to the park, and feed the ducks.

issue or a society issue?

You make no fucking sense!

Why do other countries not shoot each other?

You do know Heroin is illegal correct? So is crack. Can you still find it?

Your simple minded idea that banning guns will solve this is a joke!

But even "if 1/2 the people died it is worth it."

Though i do think many of them are off the table (not number 6). Semi-automatic weapons are partially protected by the 2nd (pistols are semi-automatic handguns) and the 5 round magazine thing has a high chance of failing constituional muster.

As I tell most people, you probably aren't going to get a Hungerford/Dunblane/Port Arthur legislative reaction to this- and if you push too hard you risk not getting anything done. IMHO small steps are better. If you think magazine size is an issue, how about a ban on magazines over 20 rounds (I use 20 rounds because the standard magazine clip in most pistols is between 15-20). What about a system where mental health professionals can inform NICS (the background check system) if they feel someone is too mentally unstable to own a gun (you would also need to have an appeals process as well)

Many if not most people would avoid going to mental health professionals if they thought they might end up on some 'list'. No one wants their rights taken away. This would cause some who have minor mental issues to avoid help and then the minor may lead to major issues.

Never put more than two people together in a single location.
Shop online instead of the mall.
Watch movies at home instead of in the theater.
Attend school on the Internet instead of in a school building.
Bar your doors.
Shutter you windows.
Stay inside your house.
Never let your kids outside to play.
Become a nation of hermits, physically isolated from each other.
Shut down the cities and spread the population thinly across the whole country.

And oh, by the way, that also solves the terrorism problem. There will be no more terrorist targets!

Hey, this could work!

2. The only way to stop having people run over by drunk drivers is to ban alcohol. Or perhaps banning driving while drunk.

3. The only way to stop school violence is to ban knives at school.

4. The only way to stop bullying at school is to ban bullying.

5. The only way to stop race discrimination is to ban racism.


Tried (1) for the last 50 years. Obviously there's no drug abuse in the US. The greater the Nazi attitude, the more we police every minute of a person's life, the better for them. I live in anticipation of having the campus police and search dogs appear for a random check of my classroom. The day's certainly coming.

We tried (2). Didn't work. Gave up. We still ban drunk driving. Doesn't stop vehicular manslaughter. Perhaps if we had a guard check every driver? Ooh, back to Nazi (sensu latu, mind you).

(3) works to some extent. But school violence isn't stopped. (In fact, I recently told a kid with a knife to go to the principal's office. It was banned. And yet there it was, in my classroom.) Metal detectors and searches certainly help.

We keep saying (4) will work. What works isn't banning it, but being a Nazi in the classroom.

We keep saying that (5) hasn't worked hardly at all, but it's reduced in some areas of public life.

My point: A speech act (a "ban&quot is far from being the same elimination of the problem (killings). You're not going to eliminate it by uttering some words and writing them down. The elimination is going to involve the restriction of some cherished rights by others, and the question is really, "Whose rights are we going to trample in the process?"

Currently pretty much everybody has some rights they deem inviolate. Seldom do they deem others' rights inviolate.

we would already be having serious discussions about gun control.

have prevented this disaster. Not encouraging law abiding citizens to own assault weapons, would have prevented some of the carnage. And, not keeping guns around mentally ill kids, is another not so novel idea.

We needn't be all or nothing in our thinking. We can as a society work to help prevent/lessen gun murders and death. We'll never end them.

not the only problem.

Nothing else will address gun violence adequately. TRUST ME on this.

I have no interest in owning guns, but I also have no interest in banning them outright. You ARE aware that the right to own guns is a constitutional right, correct?

People need to remember that along with rights come responsibilities - they are inseparable. Time to make failure to uphold one's gun RESPONSIBILITIES a crime punishable by harsh penalties up to and including death.

killing others. Are you saying that laws against murder do no good???



More gun nuttery FAIL.

Absolutely necessary to enforce a real ban.

Nor would they want to.

There is that Tom Tomorrow toon...yup

Oh and just gave to the Brady Campaign.

Good bye.

to either confiscate every gun, or every mentally disturbed individual would be enormous, and ineffective.

Not to mention the gross violations of liberty that would be required. You can have that in a police state, but I don't want that kind of a government to exist here.

Remember Virginia Tech? Do 5 out of 10 people around you?

Give it 3 months.

...are the government vans going to start coming around,
searching all the houses,
and picking up all the guns?


Do you have ANY idea (besides Political Suicide for the Democratic Party)
WHAT would happen is something so INSANE were attempted?

AFAIC, anyone who makes a suggestion THIS detached from REALITY
should be disqualified from Gun Ownership.

I think the largest US school body count to date wasn't committed with a gun.

I don't see wiping out the problem entirely as realistic regardless of what you do with guns, but I do see value in limiting certain types of guns and not just because of school shootings but because guns and especially certain types of guns make mass killings quite easy even for the layman. Even most of the hard core gun nuts I've spoken to aren't in favor of letting just anyone have access to fully automatic weapons. The only real difference with other types is the sustained rate of fire. Even if it's possible, it's hard to imagine someone committing mass murder with a muzzle loading rifle. I'm not suggesting that's where we should go, but there should be a reasonable limit on the sustained rate of fire that an untrained person can achieve with what we are currently selling.

Those who want to make arguments around knives and bombs and all the other shit are really being quite disingenuous, IMO.