17 Dead in Florida. GOP does nothing.

[America Needs R'hllor]

18 so far this year.

I think all kids at school need to be taught from a very early age that they might be shot at while at school. If they ask why no one stops it, adults have to sit down and look into their eyes and say 'we don't want to.'

Because that, sadly, is the truth. It's the new reality.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Just look at Vermont. It's proof gun laws themselves change little to nothing.

No, don't look at a tiny state and take an example from it.
Just look at the entire damn world- it's proof that gun laws DO have a huge effect. Seriously, mass shootings have become your national sport, the rest of us just don't have that.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I wonder if this has to do with circumcision. European countries hardly ever circumcise their kids, especially lately, and there are virtually no mass shootings, mass stabbings etc.

by gods, have we stumbled on the secret for peace in the middle east?

*Hides automatic rifle*
NO!!! How have you discovered our secret?!?!

[America Needs R'hllor]

As a start to gun control in this country, we need to ban any and all assault (most auto and semi-auto) weapons to people in the general public. There is absolutely no reason for people to own these weapons. They are designed for one thing and one thing only .... to kill people en masse.

Its not that you get one and want to use it. You'd rather have one in the event you really need one than really needing one and be left to your own devices

I can absolutely say that I would never want to own a gun of any sort. Like countless other people, I've struggled with depression and anxiety in the past, and there have been days that I honestly believe the only reason I'm here right now is that I didn't have an easy method to do something very stupid. I'm absolutely terrified to think about what I would have done if there'd been a gun nearby.

When you have a device whose sole purpose is to destroy things, you're much more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love, even if by accident. Even in a person with no history of mental illness, a temporary episode could prove devastating.

Should people have the right to own firearms? If it's there in the constitution, I suppose so. But can we PLEASE stop enforcing this idea of a hero fantasy? Or that everyone's going to need one at some point in their lives? It's just totally disingenuous.

You may not ever need one, but what if you do? Theres no telling if or when youll face somebody who wants to hurt or kill you who's bigger and stronger than you. Wouldnt you want a way to level the playing field and give yourself a chance to live?

People have survived break-ins without guns, and people have been killed despite having one. Claiming that being armed is the only way to survive such an encounter is absurd.

Burglar has a gun, you have nothing. You die. Burglar has a gun, you have a gun. You can kill him before he kills you. You have a gun, burglar has a crowbar. He runs away

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly, amazingly, astoundingly stupid.
What, do I need a gun because I miiiiiight one day face a danger? If we're going on the paranoid way, why not stock myself with an antidote for every poison in case someone poisons me? Why not just live on a deserted island because the world is such a dark, dangerous place? Seriously, this is stupid. If you really want a gun, learn how to use one responsiblly and get a lisence. Get this into your head- satisfying your paranoia is not worth constant deaths of teenagers.
And in any case, kyc talked about assault rifles, whose sole purpose is mass murder. Why do you need this to defend yourself?! Why not just let the general public buy goddamn nukes so that they can assure destruction for anyone who threatens them?

[America Needs R'hllor]

As a start to gun control in this country, we need to ban any and all assault (most auto and semi-auto) weapons to people in the general public. There is absolutely no reason for people to own these weapons. They are designed for one thing and one thing only .... to kill people en masse.

Its not that you get one and want to use it. You'd rather have one in the event you really need one than really needing one and be left to your own devices

I can absolutely say that I would never want to own a gun of any sort. Like countless other people, I've struggled with depression and anxiety in the past, and there have been days that I honestly believe the only reason I'm here right now is that I didn't have an easy method to do something very stupid. I'm absolutely terrified to think about what I would have done if there'd been a gun nearby.

When you have a device whose sole purpose is to destroy things, you're much more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love, even if by accident. Even in a person with no history of mental illness, a temporary episode could prove devastating.

Should people have the right to own firearms? If it's there in the constitution, I suppose so. But can we PLEASE stop enforcing this idea of a hero fantasy? Or that everyone's going to need one at some point in their lives? It's just totally disingenuous.

You may not ever need one, but what if you do? Theres no telling if or when youll face somebody who wants to hurt or kill you who's bigger and stronger than you. Wouldnt you want a way to level the playing field and give yourself a chance to live?

People have survived break-ins without guns, and people have been killed despite having one. Claiming that being armed is the only way to survive such an encounter is absurd.

Burglar has a gun, you have nothing. You die. Burglar has a gun, you have a gun. You can kill him before he kills you. You have a gun, burglar has a crowbar. He runs away

Or... you can buy a home security system, and it notifies the police (or better, scares away the burglar), while giving you enough of a heads-up to hide. Revolutionary concept: there are conflicts that can be averted or mitigated without lethal weapons!

I had a home security system once.  It was during a time where my oldest son was into the drug scene and had questionable associations.  We had several alerts on this system where police responded while my wife and I were out.

Because we had "excessive alerts", our local municipality fined me $100.  I appealed this to a 7 member board.  Two (2) board members listened, the other five (5) wanted my money.  The money grubbers lambasted me for not having a "key person"; a neighbor that would have a key to my house that could turn off the alarm.  (I'm not kidding; this is what it was.)  There was no concern for the fact that folks may well have been breaking into my home, and that the alarm had frightened them away.  (Daytime burglaries in my neighborhood are not uncommon; it's when folks are not home, and burglars can hide in plain sight.)

So I can have a gun, carrying concealed, that will give me some protection, particularly if I come home to an intruder, or I can have a home security system and pay fines to my local municipality because police respond to it and they consider it excessive. 

Ok, you shouldn't be fined for it. You're right. It doesn't change the simple fact that the "self defence" argument for letting everyone have guns without proper training and screening is not a good argument, to say the least. I also think that security systems is not a good argument against it, because it costs a lot of money and not everyone can afford it. That's why we have law-enforcement: to protect us. The simple thing is that even with strong gun control like in the rest of the western world, if you're a decent person who really wants a gun you can easily get it via a process that tries to make sure you really are responsible enough to own it and know how to properly use it.

[America Needs R'hllor]

As a start to gun control in this country, we need to ban any and all assault (most auto and semi-auto) weapons to people in the general public. There is absolutely no reason for people to own these weapons. They are designed for one thing and one thing only .... to kill people en masse.

Its not that you get one and want to use it. You'd rather have one in the event you really need one than really needing one and be left to your own devices

I can absolutely say that I would never want to own a gun of any sort. Like countless other people, I've struggled with depression and anxiety in the past, and there have been days that I honestly believe the only reason I'm here right now is that I didn't have an easy method to do something very stupid. I'm absolutely terrified to think about what I would have done if there'd been a gun nearby.

When you have a device whose sole purpose is to destroy things, you're much more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love, even if by accident. Even in a person with no history of mental illness, a temporary episode could prove devastating.

Should people have the right to own firearms? If it's there in the constitution, I suppose so. But can we PLEASE stop enforcing this idea of a hero fantasy? Or that everyone's going to need one at some point in their lives? It's just totally disingenuous.

You may not ever need one, but what if you do? Theres no telling if or when youll face somebody who wants to hurt or kill you who's bigger and stronger than you. Wouldnt you want a way to level the playing field and give yourself a chance to live?

People have survived break-ins without guns, and people have been killed despite having one. Claiming that being armed is the only way to survive such an encounter is absurd.

Burglar has a gun, you have nothing. You die. Burglar has a gun, you have a gun. You can kill him before he kills you. You have a gun, burglar has a crowbar. He runs away

Or... you can buy a home security system, and it notifies the police (or better, scares away the burglar), while giving you enough of a heads-up to hide. Revolutionary concept: there are conflicts that can be averted or mitigated without lethal weapons!

I had a home security system once.  It was during a time where my oldest son was into the drug scene and had questionable associations.  We had several alerts on this system where police responded while my wife and I were out.

Because we had "excessive alerts", our local municipality fined me $100.  I appealed this to a 7 member board.  Two (2) board members listened, the other five (5) wanted my money.  The money grubbers lambasted me for not having a "key person"; a neighbor that would have a key to my house that could turn off the alarm.  (I'm not kidding; this is what it was.)  There was no concern for the fact that folks may well have been breaking into my home, and that the alarm had frightened them away.  (Daytime burglaries in my neighborhood are not uncommon; it's when folks are not home, and burglars can hide in plain sight.)

So I can have a gun, carrying concealed, that will give me some protection, particularly if I come home to an intruder, or I can have a home security system and pay fines to my local municipality because police respond to it and they consider it excessive.  

Ok, you shouldn't be fined for it. You're right. It doesn't change the simple fact that the "self defence" argument for letting everyone have guns without proper training and screening is not a good argument, to say the least. I also think that security systems is not a good argument against it, because it costs a lot of money and not everyone can afford it. That's why we have law-enforcement: to protect us. The simple thing is that even with strong gun control like in the rest of the western world, if you're a decent person who really wants a gun you can easily get it via a process that tries to make sure you really are responsible enough to own it and know how to properly use it.

But I WAS fined for it.  That local ordinance is still in effect.

Why are folks so concerned about me, a law-abiding citizen, owning a firearm?  Folks here whine constantly about how them getting an abortion isn't my business, so why is my "choice" in this matter YOUR business?  That's a legit question, is it not?

To the moderator who complained about references to abortion here:  a great many responses to this tragedy in this thread go to the issue of gun control.  This goes to the issue of Constitutional Rights, and the issue of choice.  Those pro-choicers on abortion seem to wish to deny me a choice on something that doesn't affect them directly.

Everyone loves and reverences "The Constitution" when it supports their arguments against public policy (Democrats in the W era, Republicans in the Obama era).  To this, I would suggest that the Constitution doesn't apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; it applies ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  This is the difference between the Rule of Law and something far less.

I'm not concerned about you owning a gun. Hell, I'm not concerned about any U.S. resident owning a gun because I don't live there. But is it so hard to understand that pro-gun control people are not concerned by the fact that decent citizens like you can buy guns, but by the fact that non-decent citizens can do that, and use it to shoot down teenagers in schools or take guns with them when they go to do even petty crimes?
It's extremely simple- by giving you a "choice" the U.S. government gives this choice to potential criminals, and then you have dozens of school shootings every year and teenagers get murdered. By giving women a choice in the issue of abortion... the govenment just lets them control whether they give birth or not? It doesn't hurt anyone (and no, we shouldn't get into the usual abortion argument. You may believe fetuses are persons if you want). This is why, for example, we have law enforcement and intelligence agencies which sometimes hurt the freedom of everyone- not because of law-abiding citizens, but because of the small but loud minority who will commit crimes if not for these agencies.

[America Needs R'hllor]

And in any case, kyc talked about assault rifles, whose sole purpose is mass murder.

I'd like to clarify that I was talking more generally about an obsession about guns in general—i.e. the claim that everybody will need one at some point to defend themselves. I wasn't talking specifically about assault rifles, because to me, the argument that private citizens don't need them is so obvious that I rarely even think about it. But considering how circular even any single facet of the gun debate turns out to be, it turns out that's fantastically optimistic.

So let me state my beliefs on this for general reference: The belief that EVERYONE needs to own a gun is dangerous. The belief that ANYONE needs to own an AR-15 is ludicrous.

Oh, seems like I got that part wrong by reading into the entire exchange. In any case, I agree with these points, it's just that the reply of "You'd rather have one in the event you really need one" about ProudModerate's post on assault rifles left me completely dumbfounded, because, as you said, it's extremely ludicrous that you'd need one of these mass murder weapons to defend your property.

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

Or maybe don't let dozens of teenagers die every year because of your paranoia.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are plenty of non-automatic rifles that would let you hunt without being also efficient at killing lots of people?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

Why are you more afraid of the fake burgular you made to scare yourself in your head than the real massacres being carried out on a bi-annual basis?

And to be sure, in an actual shooting situation, adding to the number of guns being fired is just about the worst idea. You can be a "good guy with a gun," but you're still unloading real bullets that can still hit real people. That's what's so harmful about the hero fantasy: pretending that you could instantaneously become a gunslinging savior, when it's much more likely that you'll just add to the chaos and danger.

Ftr, actually having trained and armed decent people is useful. Having former or current soldiers on the streets saved countless of lives in terror attacks in Israel. That's why, you know, you need training to get a lisence.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument. The fact that guns are used far more on non-shooting activities doesn't mean that they aren't an issue. They are used for shootings, that's a fact. There are almost no shootings in countries with gun control, that's another fact.

Still trying to figure out how banning semi-automatic rifles would end school shootings...

Sure, banning them won't be enough, but did you ever think of the innovative idea of doing several things to counter a problem?

[America Needs R'hllor]

If we ban semis, that means everyone. Cops too. Only the military. It's amazing how many liberals, who call themselves anti police brutality, want these killing machines to stay in the hands of cops, while the black guy next door who just wants to protect his family is disarmed.

Yeah, we need measures against Police brutality. But can you not see the difference between a policeman who's supposed to defend the law and id trained in the use of such weapons and a random person who has no idea and is in no official duty? Seriously, what even is this argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, that's good. But there is no reason that random, untrained people should own a semi, it only has potential for harm. So why not do what you suggested, and ban semis?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

Well for starters, I'm not a cultural conservative. But nice try.

And what I am saying is looking at facts. The vast majority of these guns you hate aren't used for a purpose that involves killing humans, especially in America. So to blame them for mass shootings because they were used in a small handful of events is just plain silly and ignores the truth. If you take away this particular "type" of gun, you do nothing to stop someone who has decided they wanted to harm a large number of people from actually doing it. They'll just find another way. And then we are back to square one again because you're ignoring the real issue.

And what are the real issues? Does America have a larger population of madmen? Are Americans somehow genetically prompted to go and use guns for mass shootings? Why is this a big problem only in your country, if not because the rest of us have gun control?
And I'm aware that banning a particular type of gun won't solve the problem. I'm for many different measures of gun control, such as the ones Joey listed. My argument for banning assault rifles is just that this is a military weapon not meant for civilians, and there is no reason to require that when there are handguns\non-automatic hunting rifles. It only causes additional danger and makes no sense.
And btw, I'm not for "putting more people in prison" or taking away guns from people. Those who already own guns... well, there's nothing the government can do. I very much do not like the thought of police or, god forbid, military breaking into the homes of people and taking away their guns. That's nonsense. All I want is stricter gun control, and that doesn't put people in prison.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You have a guy who gave VERY CLEAR warning signs that he was going to do something like this, and nothing was done to stop it. The same can be said for many other mass shootings and terrorist attacks. But sure, let's blame the gun when it's clearly the fault of the shooter and the incompetent folks who could have stopped this long before getting to the gun part.

And as for your "assault rifles are more dangerous than hunting rifles" bit I'll just quote the explanation that proved you wrong in another thread:

You still haven't come up with a valid reason as to why gun control wouldn't work in the USA when it has worked literally everywhere else in the world where it has been implemented.

You have a situation where people are being killed on a regular basis; not just a very obvious cause, but a very obvious solution as to how to save lives, and yet you look all over the place to try and find a reason as to why guns aren't an insurmountable and unavoidable part of the problem.

Plenty of countries have equally awful records in detection/treatment/prevention when it comes to identifying individuals at risk of causing these sorts of instances - but none of them experience mass shooting with anything like the degree the US does. I mean, this is Occam's razor at it's most basic - if it looks like fish and smells like a fish, it very probably is one.

THIS. You keep deflecting to "you're wrong on this type of gun" or "oh, the FBI was incompetent in this particular instance" but blatantly ignoring the huge elephant in the room- you have so many shootings in your country, and your country only. I honestly always try to see and respect views opposite to mine, but I really can't find any excuse for you here. It's as if you're fine with letting teenagers die, just because you want to stubbornly hold onto your hundreds-of-years obsession with some ancient right to carry items designed to kill things.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You have a guy who gave VERY CLEAR warning signs that he was going to do something like this, and nothing was done to stop it. The same can be said for many other mass shootings and terrorist attacks. But sure, let's blame the gun when it's clearly the fault of the shooter and the incompetent folks who could have stopped this long before getting to the gun part.

And as for your "assault rifles are more dangerous than hunting rifles" bit I'll just quote the explanation that proved you wrong in another thread:

You still haven't come up with a valid reason as to why gun control wouldn't work in the USA when it has worked literally everywhere else in the world where it has been implemented.

You have a situation where people are being killed on a regular basis; not just a very obvious cause, but a very obvious solution as to how to save lives, and yet you look all over the place to try and find a reason as to why guns aren't an insurmountable and unavoidable part of the problem.

Plenty of countries have equally awful records in detection/treatment/prevention when it comes to identifying individuals at risk of causing these sorts of instances - but none of them experience mass shooting with anything like the degree the US does. I mean, this is Occam's razor at it's most basic - if it looks like fish and smells like a fish, it very probably is one.

THIS. You keep deflecting to "you're wrong on this type of gun" or "oh, the FBI was incompetent in this particular instance" but blatantly ignoring the huge elephant in the room- you have so many shootings in your country, and your country only. I honestly always try to see and respect views opposite to mine, but I really can't find any excuse for you here. It's as if you're fine with letting teenagers die, just because you want to stubbornly hold onto your hundreds-of-years obsession with some ancient right to carry items designed to kill things.

No one said we were fine with letting teenagers die.

We just don't like terrible, unrealistic approaches based on emotions that solve nothing.

Ok, but how is an approach that worked literally everyone unrealistic and based on emotions? If anything, the American Gun Culture approach is based on emotions and beliefs.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Has his story been posted here yet?

Peter Wang, Florida school shooting victim: Brave teen seen holding door open for others during shooting

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plus there's a thread on r/military requesting a full military burial for him.

Rest in power, Peter.

He sounds like he was an amazing human being RIP.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I think if Trump offers an award to any of the heroes here they'll reject it and wait for the next Democrat to come into office.

God you're a hack. When only one party is trying to prevent more gun violence, of course they're going to be more partial to it.

He called them "heroes" and didn't say that it's necessarily bad. Plus, I understand from his posts that he supports gun control. That's not hackish at all.