So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Rustic]

Gun laws do nothing but empower the criminal element. It isn't about guns in the hands of law biding citizens, it is about the depravity of society and the lefts inability to recognize their policies have and will continue to fail. For if they were successful crime statistics would be down, they have their free three square meals, public housing, medical, education, phone, financial compensation for simply existing in the US, yet they resort to crime to obtain more. Interesting in that the one component missing from the equation is mental health, identification and treatment. So pass a law that applies to those that obey the law and ignore the rest of the equation, typical liberal experiment destined to fail. So what will the response be when the criminally insane resort to IED's, knives, fire, cars.......?

Progressives should lead by example, wait... they do.
See: our failed country.
Silly me

 

[M14 Shooter]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

Found another mirror?

Asks she who virtually has the market cornered.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They have tough gun laws in Europe and very few gun crimes. Obviously gun laws do work.

If Clayton were here, and he had any intellectual honesty, he'd take note of your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy..

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would make me feel better if you could craft an argument that made sense.

Says she than can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[HenryBHough]

Since all mass shootings seem to involve perpetrators than it should be abundantly clear that America needs perpetrator control!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

 

[Mudda]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

Nor does it mention words.
Thus, banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words.

 

[Mudda]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

Nor does it mention words.
Thus, banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words.

Go for it if you think that will help in some manner. Please explain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

Nor does it mention words.
Thus, banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words.

Go for it if you think that will help in some manner. Please explain.

Please explain what?
That banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words?
As you said: the constitution never mentions "words"; this means they can be banned, just like ammunition.

 

[2aguy]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

It doesn't mention computers, telephones, iPads, internet……...

 

[RWNJ]

They have tough gun laws in Europe and very few gun crimes. Obviously gun laws do work.

What they don't have is a counter productive second amendment keeping the spigot open.

You're not paying attention, Spanky. I said gun laws have no effect on crime. They may have fewer gun crimes, but the overall number of crimes remains unchanged. But you go right on blaming the gun. That's what stupid people do. BTW. Would it make you feel any better if a murderer pushed someone out the window instead of shooting them?

It would make me feel better if you could craft an argument that made sense. Watch out for them drive-by pushing. LOL

It would help if you could provide statistics that refute what I said. Since you can't, you are left with nothing but insults. Typical liberal response. Here's the data from the CDC that backs up my statement. What do you have? Probably nothing. Because you're an idiot liberal troll.

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

We will worry about the pushing of people out of windows when Adam Lanza can wax 26 people by doing it.

Cornholio
Bombs do just fine in the Mideast...

And they're easy to make. Believe it or not, you can make a devastating bomb, that can kill hundreds, with powdered polyethylene. That's plastic, for those who are educationally challenged.

 

[Pogo]

Guns are not the problem. It is a proven fact that gun laws have no effect on crime. Even if you confiscated every gun in America, it would have no effect on the number of people killed.

Agreed. No basic argument on the effects of gun laws, although you're not addressing the actual topic.

All it would do is force criminals to find other ways to kill. A knife will kill you just as easily as a gun. Many people could kill with a club, or even their bare hands. There are, after all, a thousand ways to die. There is only one reason that people are murdered. It is the result of human intent. Until you address that, which is the direct result of our Godless society, nothing will change.

Argument here.

You've again broadened this topic from what it starts out as (mass shootings) to "crime in general". That's deflection. And insofar as the actual scope of the original topic you've further taken the false premise that mass shootings are about "murder". They're really not. They're about carnage. The sensory feedback of hapless victims running for cover, screaming and bleeding to death. That's a power trip, not an act of targeted homicide.

Only a firearm bestows the power to deliver that kind of carnage from a remote base, the same way a TV remote delivers the ability to change channels with minimal effort. The mass shooter isn't out to kill people per se --- he's (and it's always a he, big hint) out to indulge his own sick sensory scenario. It's an entirely self-centered act. Unlike murder where the victim is unique (personal), the mass shooter's victims are no more meaningful than bumpers in a pinball game -- IMpersonal.

That's what it's about -- the sensory feedback of a perverted power trip. And until we start understanding that, we continue to play whack-a-mole.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It is a proven fact that gun laws have no effect on crime.

I disagree.

Since we have started making laws declaring this school or that post office or the other shopping mall to be a "gun free zone", mass murderers have gone to those places almost exclusively to murder innocents and get lurid headlines after the cops finally get there and kill them.

Our gun laws have had a definite effect on crime: they have made it easier.

So, what is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

Most of them still won't bother, but a few will.

And so, when some nut job is considering shooting up the local strip mall, school, or post office, he'll know that there's probably a few armed folks in the crowd. And he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect to get bullets from an unknown direction (or two) which will prevent him from racking up the huge body counts he wants for lurid headlines after he's gone. And so many of those nut jobs will decide not to commit their mass murders in the first place, if they know there are no longer any "gun free zones" where he can blast away for minutes on end until the cops get there. Mass murders will be reduced or prevented without a shot being fired. The best possible solution.

And one that liberal fanatics like little candycorn are dead set against.

Their goal is not to reduce or prevent mass shootings. It's to control the people around them.

 

[HenryBHough]

Would it not simplify things if we had a law specifying those things The Democrat Party allows to be sold?

 

[Mudda]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

It doesn't mention computers, telephones, iPads, internet……...

You're already banned from owning all kinds of arms and ammo anyways, like tanks and tank shells, ground to air missile, nukes, mines... what's a bunch of bullets more?

 

[Mudda]

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

Nor does it mention words.
Thus, banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words.

Go for it if you think that will help in some manner. Please explain.

Please explain what?
That banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words?
As you said: the constitution never mentions "words"; this means they can be banned, just like ammunition.

Words are already banned like n1gger. Or yelling FIRE! in a crowded space... But for the purpose of this thread, I think that banning bullets would be more effective. Don't you think?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

It doesn't mention computers, telephones, iPads, internet……...

You're already banned from owning all kinds of arms and ammo anyways, like tanks and tank shells, ground to air missile, nukes, mines... what's a bunch of bullets more?

Why do you think "ban ammunition because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution" is a clever and novel argument?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

Nor does it mention words.
Thus, banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words.

Go for it if you think that will help in some manner. Please explain.

Please explain what?
That banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words?
As you said: the constitution never mentions "words"; this means they can be banned, just like ammunition.

Words are already banned like n1gger. Or yelling FIRE! in a crowded space... But for the purpose of this thread, I think that banning bullets would be more effective. Don't you think?

Words in general are banned? Really? Where?

 

[Mudda]

.. that you have no response to. Loser.

Banning ammunition is every bit as as constitutional as banning words..

Sorry, but the constitution never mentions "ammunition". Double loser.

It doesn't mention computers, telephones, iPads, internet……...

You're already banned from owning all kinds of arms and ammo anyways, like tanks and tank shells, ground to air missile, nukes, mines... what's a bunch of bullets more?

Why do you think "ban ammunition because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution" is a clever and novel argument?

I don't know if it's clever and novel, but it would be worth a try.