Do you make your decisions based on emotional outbursts or logic?

[harmonica]

Even if they haven't they have to be intelligent enough to know if someone wants to kill they will use whatever they have access to to do it.

You're correct.

Too many gun haters live in a false reality and do not realize a killer will kill and the weapon of choice is whatever is the easiest to get for the least amount of money that will do the max amount of killing...

Remove firearms plan for truck bombs and the sad part is our society has no damn clue what to do about this problen of mass murder in this country...

we want to make it harder to kill yes??
much harder to kill with a bonb

Answer the poll honestly if you are capable. Show us your logic or be exposed for running on emotion.

Will it stop school shootings?

No.

Why?

Banning of certain firearms will not stop mass murders and they will either go for pump action shotguns or worst the Tim McVeigh route and say forget the gun because they have a truck bomb...

most murders/mass shootings are done with guns
so, because they could use a bomb [much more difficult to build and use ] we should just let the mass shootings/murder continue and do NOTHING ???!!!!

we should do nothing?? let them do the easier route--guns??

I have a better chance being killed by a driver on a cellphone than being killed by some nass shooter...

So I demand you start arresting every driver that drive with their cellphone glue to their ear because they are more dangerous than the average citizen that own a damn gun!

again --the car analogy is ridiculous --there is no comparison
try something else
hshahhahahahah
we shouldn't try to cut down mass SHOOTINGS--shootings--because we might make it more difficult for them to go to bombs???!!!??????
because there are car deaths [ which isn't even comparable ] we shouldn't try to stop mass SHOOTINGS???!!!!

because some women have red hair, because there are knives/bats/pools/we should not try to cut down mass shootings--this is like what you are saying

If banning AR-15s would have a minute effect in reducing mass shootings, you might have a point. But, it won't, and consequently, you don't have a point. First, there are too many of them already in the population, and second, there are too many substitutes with the same firepower.

I could go into a lot of aspects here ....
1. it might take time for the effect to be felt--you just don't cure polio overnight!!!
2. bans do work--the countries most comparable to the US--France, Germany, and the UK have murder rates many times lower than the US
3.grenades/C4/tanks/MGs are highly restricted--and we don't see many murders committed by those weapons

I'm not talking about just banning ARs/etc
if there was a law to buy guns for only 21 and over--it would've been much harder for this guy and the Columbine shooters---
if there was a law of no gifting, it would've been harder for the Columbine shooters--and a lot of other murderers
..there is NO infringement if you are not able to gift a gun

you can have your gun--but there is nothing in the Constitution saying you have to be able to give it to someone...be a certain age
.

no--you can't stop it entirely--but we want it to be harder for them to get these ''tools'' designed to kill very fast and effectively--yes?

!! a lot of these school shooters are very young....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You're correct.

Too many gun haters live in a false reality and do not realize a killer will kill and the weapon of choice is whatever is the easiest to get for the least amount of money that will do the max amount of killing...

Remove firearms plan for truck bombs and the sad part is our society has no damn clue what to do about this problen of mass murder in this country...

we want to make it harder to kill yes??
much harder to kill with a bonb

Will it stop school shootings?

No.

Why?

Banning of certain firearms will not stop mass murders and they will either go for pump action shotguns or worst the Tim McVeigh route and say forget the gun because they have a truck bomb...

most murders/mass shootings are done with guns
so, because they could use a bomb [much more difficult to build and use ] we should just let the mass shootings/murder continue and do NOTHING ???!!!!

we should do nothing?? let them do the easier route--guns??

I have a better chance being killed by a driver on a cellphone than being killed by some nass shooter...

So I demand you start arresting every driver that drive with their cellphone glue to their ear because they are more dangerous than the average citizen that own a damn gun!

again --the car analogy is ridiculous --there is no comparison
try something else
hshahhahahahah
we shouldn't try to cut down mass SHOOTINGS--shootings--because we might make it more difficult for them to go to bombs???!!!??????
because there are car deaths [ which isn't even comparable ] we shouldn't try to stop mass SHOOTINGS???!!!!

because some women have red hair, because there are knives/bats/pools/we should not try to cut down mass shootings--this is like what you are saying

If banning AR-15s would have a minute effect in reducing mass shootings, you might have a point. But, it won't, and consequently, you don't have a point. First, there are too many of them already in the population, and second, there are too many substitutes with the same firepower.

I could go into a lot of aspects here ....
1. it might take time for the effect to be felt--you just don't cure polio overnight!!!
2. bans do work--the countries most comparable to the US--France, Germany, and the UK have murder rates many times lower than the US
3.grenades/C4/tanks/MGs are highly restricted--and we don't see many murders committed by those weapons

I'm not talking about just banning ARs/etc
if there was a law to buy guns for only 21 and over--it would've been much harder for this guy and the Columbine shooters---
if there was a law of no gifting, it would've been harder for the Columbine shooters--and a lot of other murderers
..there is NO infringement if you are not able to gift a gun

you can have your gun--but there is nothing in the Constitution saying you have to be able to give it to someone...be a certain age
.

no--you can't stop it entirely--but we want it to be harder for them to get these ''tools'' designed to kill very fast and effectively--yes?

!! a lot of these school shooters are very young....

So a grenade wasn't used in a murder and you think that means a life saved? How do you know any killer that wanted to kill with a grenade didn't just use something else and kill anyway? How do you know a life was saved?
Are we going to start banning other weapons/tools used to kill?

This logic is severely flawed

 

[Slade3200]

we want to make it harder to kill yes??
much harder to kill with a bonb
most murders/mass shootings are done with guns
so, because they could use a bomb [much more difficult to build and use ] we should just let the mass shootings/murder continue and do NOTHING ???!!!!

we should do nothing?? let them do the easier route--guns??

I have a better chance being killed by a driver on a cellphone than being killed by some nass shooter...

So I demand you start arresting every driver that drive with their cellphone glue to their ear because they are more dangerous than the average citizen that own a damn gun!

again --the car analogy is ridiculous --there is no comparison
try something else
hshahhahahahah
we shouldn't try to cut down mass SHOOTINGS--shootings--because we might make it more difficult for them to go to bombs???!!!??????
because there are car deaths [ which isn't even comparable ] we shouldn't try to stop mass SHOOTINGS???!!!!

because some women have red hair, because there are knives/bats/pools/we should not try to cut down mass shootings--this is like what you are saying

If banning AR-15s would have a minute effect in reducing mass shootings, you might have a point. But, it won't, and consequently, you don't have a point. First, there are too many of them already in the population, and second, there are too many substitutes with the same firepower.

I could go into a lot of aspects here ....
1. it might take time for the effect to be felt--you just don't cure polio overnight!!!
2. bans do work--the countries most comparable to the US--France, Germany, and the UK have murder rates many times lower than the US
3.grenades/C4/tanks/MGs are highly restricted--and we don't see many murders committed by those weapons

I'm not talking about just banning ARs/etc
if there was a law to buy guns for only 21 and over--it would've been much harder for this guy and the Columbine shooters---
if there was a law of no gifting, it would've been harder for the Columbine shooters--and a lot of other murderers
..there is NO infringement if you are not able to gift a gun

you can have your gun--but there is nothing in the Constitution saying you have to be able to give it to someone...be a certain age
.

no--you can't stop it entirely--but we want it to be harder for them to get these ''tools'' designed to kill very fast and effectively--yes?

!! a lot of these school shooters are very young....

So a grenade wasn't used in a murder and you think that means a life saved? How do you know any killer that wanted to kill with a grenade didn't just use something else and kill anyway? How do you know a life was saved?
Are we going to start banning other weapons/tools used to kill?

This logic is severely flawed

Yes! We ban weapons that are designed for mass destruction. That’s why granades and automatic weapons and rocket launchers aren’t available at your local sporting goods store for anybody to buy. Do you really not understand the logic behind that? Nothing is going to stop violent acts but we can limit the carnage and killing power that these criminals have access to

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have a better chance being killed by a driver on a cellphone than being killed by some nass shooter...

So I demand you start arresting every driver that drive with their cellphone glue to their ear because they are more dangerous than the average citizen that own a damn gun!

again --the car analogy is ridiculous --there is no comparison
try something else
hshahhahahahah
we shouldn't try to cut down mass SHOOTINGS--shootings--because we might make it more difficult for them to go to bombs???!!!??????
because there are car deaths [ which isn't even comparable ] we shouldn't try to stop mass SHOOTINGS???!!!!

because some women have red hair, because there are knives/bats/pools/we should not try to cut down mass shootings--this is like what you are saying

If banning AR-15s would have a minute effect in reducing mass shootings, you might have a point. But, it won't, and consequently, you don't have a point. First, there are too many of them already in the population, and second, there are too many substitutes with the same firepower.

I could go into a lot of aspects here ....
1. it might take time for the effect to be felt--you just don't cure polio overnight!!!
2. bans do work--the countries most comparable to the US--France, Germany, and the UK have murder rates many times lower than the US
3.grenades/C4/tanks/MGs are highly restricted--and we don't see many murders committed by those weapons

I'm not talking about just banning ARs/etc
if there was a law to buy guns for only 21 and over--it would've been much harder for this guy and the Columbine shooters---
if there was a law of no gifting, it would've been harder for the Columbine shooters--and a lot of other murderers
..there is NO infringement if you are not able to gift a gun

you can have your gun--but there is nothing in the Constitution saying you have to be able to give it to someone...be a certain age
.

no--you can't stop it entirely--but we want it to be harder for them to get these ''tools'' designed to kill very fast and effectively--yes?

!! a lot of these school shooters are very young....

So a grenade wasn't used in a murder and you think that means a life saved? How do you know any killer that wanted to kill with a grenade didn't just use something else and kill anyway? How do you know a life was saved?
Are we going to start banning other weapons/tools used to kill?

This logic is severely flawed

Yes! We ban weapons that are designed for mass destruction. That’s why granades and automatic weapons and rocket launchers aren’t available at your local sporting goods store for anybody to buy. Do you really not understand the logic behind that? Nothing is going to stop violent acts but we can limit the carnage and killing power that these criminals have access to

Sure I understand that you seem a bit confused. The AR is not a weapon of mass destruction lol. It can only be fired as fast as any other semi automatic weapon without it being altered.

 

[hjmick]

I don't know, let me ask my wife...

 

[whitehall]

The root cause of "emotional outbursts" is based on media coverage. If the media was honest and unbiased and refrained from basing stories on emotion or political agenda there would be no need to ask about emotional outbursts.

 

[OldLady]

Answer the poll honestly if you are capable. Show us your logic or be exposed for running on emotion.

Emotion is as much a part of our brains as logic. 17 people get mowed down for the crime of going to school and the response from L.E. looks like the Keystone Cops. EMOTION? You bet your ass. It's happened too many time and too little has been done. Choose your solution and get to work.

 

[basquebromance]

the problem with multiple images of distant suffering is not their multiplicity, but their psychological and moral distance. repetition just increases the sense of their remoteness from our lives. these are not our children, we have no bond with them, we can never experience their presence, all we know about them is that they exist for that dislocated 30 seconds during which the camera is focused on them.

 

[FA_Q2]

The claim that banning a weapon such as an AR 15 will reduce body count is based on nothing more than knee jerk emotional reaction. There are numerous weapons that will do as much if not more harm. A few handguns in an enclosed setting like a classroom or shotguns mentioned earlier would easily do as much damage as an AR 15. The main advantage for a long gun, accuracy at range, is pointless when placing all your targets at a 15' distance. I would prefer a handgun myself in any situation like that - they are much easier and faster to use in close quarters.

It is not the AR15 that is the problem here - it is a cultural breakdown and the inability to identify the nutcases and take care of them BEFORE they become mass killers that is the problem here.

You are cherry picking situations. Of course you can find scenarios to fit your narrative, but then you also have to acknowledge the other scenarios where weapons like the AR-15 are much more lethal and dangerous, right?

Long range as I directly pointed out. Situations that do not apply to damn near every single major shooting event. The only case where a long rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting and no matter what laws we put in place there is literally nothing you can do about a situation like that. A determined individual with both the resources and the patience to pull what he did off simply is not going to be stopped with laws against the tools.

 

[harmonica]

we want to make it harder to kill yes??
much harder to kill with a bonb
most murders/mass shootings are done with guns
so, because they could use a bomb [much more difficult to build and use ] we should just let the mass shootings/murder continue and do NOTHING ???!!!!

we should do nothing?? let them do the easier route--guns??

I have a better chance being killed by a driver on a cellphone than being killed by some nass shooter...

So I demand you start arresting every driver that drive with their cellphone glue to their ear because they are more dangerous than the average citizen that own a damn gun!

again --the car analogy is ridiculous --there is no comparison
try something else
hshahhahahahah
we shouldn't try to cut down mass SHOOTINGS--shootings--because we might make it more difficult for them to go to bombs???!!!??????
because there are car deaths [ which isn't even comparable ] we shouldn't try to stop mass SHOOTINGS???!!!!

because some women have red hair, because there are knives/bats/pools/we should not try to cut down mass shootings--this is like what you are saying

If banning AR-15s would have a minute effect in reducing mass shootings, you might have a point. But, it won't, and consequently, you don't have a point. First, there are too many of them already in the population, and second, there are too many substitutes with the same firepower.

I could go into a lot of aspects here ....
1. it might take time for the effect to be felt--you just don't cure polio overnight!!!
2. bans do work--the countries most comparable to the US--France, Germany, and the UK have murder rates many times lower than the US
3.grenades/C4/tanks/MGs are highly restricted--and we don't see many murders committed by those weapons

I'm not talking about just banning ARs/etc
if there was a law to buy guns for only 21 and over--it would've been much harder for this guy and the Columbine shooters---
if there was a law of no gifting, it would've been harder for the Columbine shooters--and a lot of other murderers
..there is NO infringement if you are not able to gift a gun

you can have your gun--but there is nothing in the Constitution saying you have to be able to give it to someone...be a certain age
.

no--you can't stop it entirely--but we want it to be harder for them to get these ''tools'' designed to kill very fast and effectively--yes?

!! a lot of these school shooters are very young....

So a grenade wasn't used in a murder and you think that means a life saved? How do you know any killer that wanted to kill with a grenade didn't just use something else and kill anyway? How do you know a life was saved?
Are we going to start banning other weapons/tools used to kill?

This logic is severely flawed

round and round we go ---

murders are mostly done with guns--not cars or bombs
other tools are not used in murders as much--the main ''tool'' used is the gun
the MAJORITY of murders are caused by guns--you are saying ''because they COULD use something else, we shouldn't control the weapon they they ARE using ??!!

they are NOT using cars and bombs to murder that much--maybe 1%!!!!??!!!

...if they start using cars/bombs to kill, we can adjust/etc--but it's very difficult to murder that many with a vehicle---everything has to be right
...sure someone killed a bunch in France with a vehicle--but everything was right--a bunch of people on a roadway
1.it's a lot harder to tote a tractor trailer around......
2.you can see a tractor trailer from a greater distance than an AR 15
you can get out of the way of a tractor trailer a LOT easier than a round fired from ''gun''
--around 3000 feet per second vs what?--80mph??
3. don't you need a CDL?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have a better chance being killed by a driver on a cellphone than being killed by some nass shooter...

So I demand you start arresting every driver that drive with their cellphone glue to their ear because they are more dangerous than the average citizen that own a damn gun!

again --the car analogy is ridiculous --there is no comparison
try something else
hshahhahahahah
we shouldn't try to cut down mass SHOOTINGS--shootings--because we might make it more difficult for them to go to bombs???!!!??????
because there are car deaths [ which isn't even comparable ] we shouldn't try to stop mass SHOOTINGS???!!!!

because some women have red hair, because there are knives/bats/pools/we should not try to cut down mass shootings--this is like what you are saying

If banning AR-15s would have a minute effect in reducing mass shootings, you might have a point. But, it won't, and consequently, you don't have a point. First, there are too many of them already in the population, and second, there are too many substitutes with the same firepower.

I could go into a lot of aspects here ....
1. it might take time for the effect to be felt--you just don't cure polio overnight!!!
2. bans do work--the countries most comparable to the US--France, Germany, and the UK have murder rates many times lower than the US
3.grenades/C4/tanks/MGs are highly restricted--and we don't see many murders committed by those weapons

I'm not talking about just banning ARs/etc
if there was a law to buy guns for only 21 and over--it would've been much harder for this guy and the Columbine shooters---
if there was a law of no gifting, it would've been harder for the Columbine shooters--and a lot of other murderers
..there is NO infringement if you are not able to gift a gun

you can have your gun--but there is nothing in the Constitution saying you have to be able to give it to someone...be a certain age
.

no--you can't stop it entirely--but we want it to be harder for them to get these ''tools'' designed to kill very fast and effectively--yes?

!! a lot of these school shooters are very young....

So a grenade wasn't used in a murder and you think that means a life saved? How do you know any killer that wanted to kill with a grenade didn't just use something else and kill anyway? How do you know a life was saved?
Are we going to start banning other weapons/tools used to kill?

This logic is severely flawed

round and round we go ---

murders are mostly done with guns--not cars or bombs
other tools are not used in murders as much--the main ''tool'' used is the gun
the MAJORITY of murders are caused by guns--you are saying ''because they COULD use something else, we shouldn't control the weapon they they ARE using ??!!

they are NOT using cars and bombs to murder that much--maybe 1%!!!!??!!!

...if they start using cars/bombs to kill, we can adjust/etc--but it's very difficult to murder that many with a vehicle---everything has to be right
...sure someone killed a bunch in France with a vehicle--but everything was right--a bunch of people on a roadway
1.it's a lot harder to tote a tractor trailer around......
2.you can see a tractor trailer from a greater distance than an AR 15
you can get out of the way of a tractor trailer a LOT easier than a round fired from ''gun''
--around 3000 feet per second vs what?--80mph??
3. don't you need a CDL?

You are the second person to mention cars & bombs and attribute it to me. Ridiculous

My point all along is they will just use a different weapon be it a pistol, shotgun etc..

Banning the AR solves literally NOTHING. All it does is change available weapons. Unless you intend to confiscate & ban all weapons just stop with this nonsense.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And even if I had brought up bombs or cars it's no less relevant than you morons bringing up rocket launchers & tanks.