Old Sarge said:

---

Guns aren't the issue. The wing nuts are.

---

This.

I just don't understand the faith that people have in new laws that they claim would somehow prevent things like this from happening. People looking to harm others don't respect laws, we see this time after time.

As a society, we conveniently look past the numerous violent crime and murders that happen on a daily basis in this country like it's nothing...where bad people use any means to harm others regard of the laws in the place...but then we only turn on the emotion and public display of sorrow for victims when they're children in a school.

I hate that we live in a world where we have to worry about this...whether that's children or other innocent victims. Not just in schools, but anywhere. I hate that there are bad people looking to harm others at any moments notice. But I don't think leading with emotion is going to help the problem.

DisAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Better check your data. More kids are killed by auto accidents due to texting and cell phones per NTSB.

---

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

---

Lies

defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.


Take out 18 and 19 year olds, ie the gang deaths.

---

Interesting.

I would love to see data on gun deaths by individual age or small groupings of age ranges.

---

That table and data get's trotted out a lot, but they always fail to mention it includes the age groups with the most handgun deaths. Inner City Gang Violence, ie 18 and 19 year olds.

If you remove those ages the data they use to push gun control looks a lot different.

samurai_science said:

---

DisAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Better check your data. More kids are killed by auto accidents due to texting and cell phones per NTSB.

---

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

---

Lies

defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.


Take out 18 and 19 year olds, ie the gang deaths.

---

Interesting.

I would love to see data on gun deaths by individual age or small groupings of age ranges.

---

That table and data get's trotted out a lot, but they always fail to mention it includes the age groups with the most handgun deaths. Inner City Gang Violence, ie 18 and 19 year olds.

If you remove those ages the data they use to push gun control looks a lot different.

---

If you remove 13% of the population America is safer than the average European nation

Pretty sure a deranged young adult in Norway I believe killed like 5 people with a knife and bow and arrow. Point being. Bad (or sick), or both, psychopaths that want to harm and kill people will do so with or without access to guns. They will use knifes, fire, machetes, bow and arrows, pipe bombs, etc. And somehow criminals always seem to steal their way to guns - imagine that. They are not law abiding. They will get guns if they want.

You cannot regulate guns to keep this from happening...Such a stupid argument. Sorry. Rant over.

Reggiesankles said:

---

Pretty sure a deranged young adult in Norway I believe killed like 5 people with a knife and bow and arrow. Point being. Bad (or sick), or both, psychopaths that want to harm and kill people will do so with or without access to guns. They will use knifes, fire, machetes, bow and arrows, pipe bombs, etc. And somehow criminals always seem to steal their way to guns - imagine that. They are not law abiding. They will get guns if they want.

You cannot regulate guns to keep this from happening...Such a stupid argument. Sorry. Rant over.

---

I hear this a lot. I agree, evil people will be evil. But it's undeniable that they use guns for a reason. They are more effective and efficient than any other weapon. That's why they are used most often in the USA, whereas in other countries other weapons are used.

We can't completely prevent these things from happening, but we sure as hell can do anything within our power to stop these evil people from legally getting guns.

My thoughts:

• This perpetrator intended to die. As she texted to her friend, she expected to die. So it was a suicide mission. No laws or punishments would have had a deterrent effect on her.
• Among the reasons she chose that school, the primary one was that it was a SOFT TARGET. She passed over other candidates because of high security.
• Security was the only deterrent that she would have respected. Having doors she couldn't shoot through to enter, as well as having a few armed teachers inside, would likely have induced her to look elsewhere. These are easy, inexpensive fixes.
• The perpetrator had a number of mental issues she was working through, that escalated to a point that she didn't want to be here anymore, and felt nothing about taking innocents with her. Rather than working to address her issues, she was encouraged to join a marginalized group that radicalized her and desensitized her to the sanctity of life. (Hers as well as others) THIS IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS SHOOTING.
• Attacks on gun ownership will not solve the above problems. It will exacerbate them.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Based on your post, you choose to accept school shootings as a simple fact of life in America.

I do not.

I find it surprising you say that, considering you have lived abroad for such a long time in countries where school shootings are virtually nonexistent. In Australia or any European country, they would consider one school shooting completely unacceptable. In America, we consider regular school shootings an acceptable price to pay for freedom.

---

One of my CT buddies mother was murdered at Luby's in Killeen back in 1991.

Ever since then, I've accepted that mass murder of unarmed civilians is a fact of life in the USA.

But, what I've also come to realize in the era of gun-free school zones, military bases and the like is that these shooters are cowards. Every last one of them.

Kleebold and Harris - knew JeffCo Sheriff wasn't going to confront them.
Even the Luby's shooter knew he wouldn't be confronted.

The kid who brought the gun to school at RR McNeil and (accidentally) shot two kids while I was a substitute teacher there in 1994, knew he wouldn't be confronted. The only form of on-campus security they had was a guy in a surplus mail Jeep patrolling the student parking lot and yelling at kids.

I believe the armed officer at Parkland in Florida literally ran away.

The Santa Fe shooter was confronted by the armed officer but I can't think of too many others and don't even get started on Uvalde where hundreds of LEOs did nothing.

There is no way to put morality back in the bottle. That bottle has a hole in the bottom.

A little later today, I'll write about my kids experience in Australia and my own experience in Saudi.

One example I'll offer right now is back in 2019, I did some work in Madrid, Spain, next door to a school that was known for Spanish politicians children going to school there.

That school was setup with a massive wall around the campus and armed security. It looked like driving onto a US Embassy grounds, or a military base. You were not going to be able to get into that school without some major effort.

That level of security is a massive deterrent. I'm not saying every school needs that level but, something more than the nothing which is what most schools have now.

I think that it is largely a problem with today's culture. We need to change the culture that allows them to think that mass shootings are the proper way to act.

In the recent trial of the Parkland school shooter, he really seemed to think that he would get a low sentence, possibly with no prison time. On at least one occasion, he openly talked about what he wanted to do with the rest of his life.

I watched the sentencing. Before the judge began, the shooter appeared to be thinking optimistically that he had a future. As the judge imposed life sentence after life sentence after life sentence, you could see that each life sentence was taking him down another notch. By the time the judge was about halfway through, it was clear that he was finally realizing that because of his actions, he was never getting out of prison -- that he had no future apart from prison.

Also, I seriously wonder how much of it is due to today's modern computer games. It is like they are enacting scenarios that are based, to a degree, on the computer games. It wouldn't surprise me if pretty much every school shooter is an avid gamer where they walk around with rifles shooting anyone and everyone who moves. As long as these realistic video games are available to them, they are going to keep acting them out.

A few years ago, the Secret Service issued a report on the subject and what needs to be done to counteract it. You should be able to find the report or articles about the report by searching on the web.

One thing that they made clear is that in most cases the shooters were displaying obvious and significant behaviors that were were very alarming, but those who observed those behaviors were doing little more than ignoring them.

They advocated a more intense threat analysis of individuals based on their knowledge about what they do with people who threaten the President. That can supposedly include accompanying such people during a President's visit to their city to make sure that they don't have any opportunity to get anywhere near the President.

I know of one case where one kid was acting up to the point that he had to be accompanied by a deputy sheriff to school every day. I don't know what the kid, but a deputy accompanied him to every class and everywhere he went at school until he graduated.

This recent shooting involving someone who had been out of school for several years is quite alarming. It seems clear, now, that we may need to keep monitoring such individuals years after they graduate.

Armed guards

Listen to Cruz's latest podcast episode.

Same thing he suggested after the last shooting that democrats canceled last time

eric76 said:

---

They advocated a more intense threat analysis of individuals based on their knowledge about what they do with people who threaten the President. That can supposedly include accompanying such people during a President's visit to their city to make sure that they don't have any opportunity to get anywhere near the President.

---

This happens. I worked at MHMR in the early 90s with chronically mentally ill people. One guy, a paranoid schizophrenic, disappeared for several days then reappeared claiming the secret service kidnapped him.

Turns out they did, as the president was coming to town and he was known to the secret service.

TheTruthsLastHope said:

---

StockHorseAg said:

---

Arm the teachers who are competent to carry and hire Ex Military personnel to guard the school.

Bringing back public execution might work too.

---

This also isn't feasible or realistic solution. Arm every school in America with ex military seems like a bad movie plot. Where would the money even come from. As it stands now schools with less favorable demographics to the national average receive little to no funding from state funds that should be shared equally and fairly.

---

Take all the money you were going to spend trying to confiscate 400 million privately owned weapons and use that to fund armed officers in every school instead.

eric76 said:

---

I know of one case where one kid was acting up to the point that he had to be accompanied by a deputy sheriff to school every day. I don't know what the kid, but a deputy accompanied him to every class and everywhere he went at school until he graduated.

---

The shooting before this one was a kid who was required to be searched every damn day. No police on campus, so admin searched him. He shot 2 of them. Some kids don't need to be on a regular campus.

barbacoa taco said:

---

I hear this a lot. I agree, evil people will be evil. But it's undeniable that they use guns for a reason. They are more effective and efficient than any other weapon. That's why they are used most often in the USA, whereas in other countries other weapons are used.

We can't completely prevent these things from happening, but we sure as hell can do anything within our power to stop these evil people from legally getting guns.

---

Do you think if evil people who want to kill - and will do so at the expense of essentially a suicide mission - couldn't legally buy a weapon they would just say shucks, can't kill kids now, I'll just go on and lead a normal life? No. They would go steal weapons or buy them illegally like 99% of weapons used in Chicago, Seattle, LA, Portland and NY - to name a few.

Criminals will get guns. Period. They then almost always go after soft targets. Period. We should provide better security at schools. Yes, it's a cost. But it's one I'm more than willing to pay more taxes to help with. Mind boggling that some school districts won't blink at building $50+ million football stadiums but don't want to fund a couple of armed and trained guards at their respective schools.

DisAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Better check your data. More kids are killed by auto accidents due to texting and cell phones per NTSB.

---

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

---

Lies

defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.


Take out 18 and 19 year olds, ie the gang deaths.

---

Interesting.

I would love to see data on gun deaths by individual age or small groupings of age ranges.

---

Also, 18 and 19 year olds are adults.

Let's talk cost to fund armed guards. There are approximately 135,000 public and private schools in the US. Some are big high schools and would need more guards vs small elementaries that need fewer. For the sake of argument, average of 3 guards per school. At an annual cost of $50,000 per guard, that's $150,000 per school, multiplied by the number of schools gives us $20,250,000,000 per year.

The Dept of Ed annual budget this year is $68,000,000,000. Biden's "budget" has proposed increasing that to $88,000,000,000. So, for the cost of Joe's proposed increased in the DOEd budget, we could fund all schools' security.

Or even better, eliminate the DOEd altogether.

I think coward is the wrong way to describe these school shooters. Yes, they look for soft targets but I'm not sure many of them expect to survive. They want to act out their rage on other people before dying, though. So the motive seems to be to kill as many as possible, which well armed campuses/secure campuses do not allow.

The Debt said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

DisAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Better check your data. More kids are killed by auto accidents due to texting and cell phones per NTSB.

---

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

---

Lies

defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.


Take out 18 and 19 year olds, ie the gang deaths.

---

Interesting.

I would love to see data on gun deaths by individual age or small groupings of age ranges.

---

That table and data get's trotted out a lot, but they always fail to mention it includes the age groups with the most handgun deaths. Inner City Gang Violence, ie 18 and 19 year olds.

If you remove those ages the data they use to push gun control looks a lot different.

---

If you remove 13% of the population America is safer than the average European nation

---

I see your laughing emoji but the fact is, nobody cares if the 13% shoot it up in Chicago every week.
It's when suburban school kids get shot that everybody all of a sudden cares.

If people really cared, they'd make changes at the local level to defend against the problem. Nothing is 100% but what we see over and over with these cowards is that the slightest bit of resistance is enough to deter the bad actors.

samurai_science said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

DatTallArchitect said:

---

There are schools districts that have armed faculty/staff, taken down "gun-free zone" signs and put up signage stating that some faculty/staff are carrying concealed. These districts are not having issues with shootings. The cowards doing these attacks are looking for easy targets where they will not have to engage in combat until they have killed many innocent people. Gun-free zones are one of the worst concepts ever.

---

Arming teachers sounds good in theory but it's also an unrealistic fantasy to think it's a feasible solution.

First, they didn't sign up to be put on the front lines. We can't just tell a bunch of teachers, most of whom are untrained in combat, that the onus is on them to protect kids from school shootings.

Second, let's say we do arm them. We have NO IDEA how they're going to react in high stress situations. The vast majority of people, much less people who have shot guns, have not been in high stress situations where they need to use a gun to defend themselves. There are so many things that can go wrong and I can easily see the situation being worse, not better, with teachers being armed.

---

well for one thing nobody is saying to force teachers to carry, much less all of them. Let those who so choose and are credentialed to volunteer. Their are many teacher who carry outside of school, to not allow them to do so in there work environment is ridiculous.


On you're second part. Well, we all saw how the "trained" police force did in Uvalde. That should be the end of that argument.

ETA: also have to think about in rural areas where outside response time from police force can be longer than if in a city. The more good guys near a school with guns (teachers) the better and more effective.

---

You can't account for anything, we don't know how soldiers are going to react until they have to.

Over 300 hundred school districts allow armed staff......time for the rest to follow.


"The requirements for the guardian program are decided by individual school boards, and, according to Theresa Gage with the Texas Association of School Boards, 389 districts allow the guardian program".

---

The "we can't ask teachers to do this" argument is such a lame one.

There are teachers and admins at every school out there who want to do it and would the moment their board allowed it.

Our school district has multiple at each school under the Guardian program. Neighboring school district has Guardian program as well.

How do I know? I have a teacher and a coach as neighbors that are in the programs for their respective schools. No one asked them to sign up, they did it the moment their districts authorized it.

Have Superman collect all the guns in the world like he did with the nuclear weapons and send them into the sun.

Sarge 91 said:

---

Let's talk cost to fund armed guards. There are approximately 135,000 public and private schools in the US. Some are big high schools and would need more guards vs small elementaries that need fewer. For the sake of argument, average of 3 guards per school. At an annual cost of $50,000 per guard, that's $150,000 per school, multiplied by the number of schools gives us $20,250,000,000 per year.

The Dept of Ed annual budget this year is $68,000,000,000. Biden's "budget" has proposed increasing that to $88,000,000,000. So, for the cost of Joe's proposed increased in the DOEd budget, we could fund all schools' security.

Or even better, eliminate the DOEd altogether.

---

The money Congress has embezzled, I mean sent to Ukraine, could have paid for this multiple times over already.

Reggiesankles said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

I hear this a lot. I agree, evil people will be evil. But it's undeniable that they use guns for a reason. They are more effective and efficient than any other weapon. That's why they are used most often in the USA, whereas in other countries other weapons are used.

We can't completely prevent these things from happening, but we sure as hell can do anything within our power to stop these evil people from legally getting guns.

---

Do you think if evil people who want to kill - and will do so at the expense of essentially a suicide mission - couldn't legally buy a weapon they would just say shucks, can't kill kids now, I'll just go on and lead a normal life? No. They would go steal weapons or buy them illegally like 99% of weapons used in Chicago, Seattle, LA, Portland and NY - to name a few.

Criminals will get guns. Period. They then almost always go after soft targets. Period. We should provide better security at schools. Yes, it's a cost. But it's one I'm more than willing to pay more taxes to help with. Mind boggling that some school districts won't blink at building $50+ million football stadiums but don't want to fund a couple of armed and trained guards at their respective schools.

---

I'm fine with trained armed guards at every school. And it's a worthwhile expense.

But I'm not as convinced as you are that all of these shooters will get their guns illegally and still carry out their crimes. Because the fact is, they almost always get their guns legally because it's the easiest option. I dont think these shooters are that smart, honestly. That ****head in Uvalde probably did not have the connections nor the intelligence to secure his guns off the black market. Plus why make it easier for them? "Hey we know you'll just get these guns illegally to kill a bunch of kids so here's a legal AR-15 for you. Happy shooting!"

Saying "they'll get guns illegally so let's make it as easy as possible for them to get guns legally" is such a defeatist attitude.

It wouldn't be hard to find veterans at your local VA that aren't at 100% and offer them a job that increases their monthly payout.

88planoAg said:

---

I think coward is the wrong way to describe these school shooters. Yes, they look for soft targets but I'm not sure many of them expect to survive. They want to act out their rage on other people before dying, though. So the motive seems to be to kill as many as possible, which well armed campuses/secure campuses do not allow.

---

If their motive was to kill as many as possible, there are much better ways to achieve that goal.

• Sports Stadium
• School Bus
• Cafeteria

A lot of the shooters do appear to be going for murder / suicide.
Although it looks like a lot of the shooters don't decide on the suicide part until after they've committed the murders.

barbacoa taco said:

---

DatTallArchitect said:

---

There are schools districts that have armed faculty/staff, taken down "gun-free zone" signs and put up signage stating that some faculty/staff are carrying concealed. These districts are not having issues with shootings. The cowards doing these attacks are looking for easy targets where they will not have to engage in combat until they have killed many innocent people. Gun-free zones are one of the worst concepts ever.

---

Arming teachers sounds good in theory but it's also an unrealistic fantasy to think it's a feasible solution.

First, they didn't sign up to be put on the front lines. We can't just tell a bunch of teachers, most of whom are untrained in combat, that the onus is on them to protect kids from school shootings.

Second, let's say we do arm them. We have NO IDEA how they're going to react in high stress situations. The vast majority of people, much less people who have shot guns, have not been in high stress situations where they need to use a gun to defend themselves. There are so many things that can go wrong and I can easily see the situation being worse, not better, with teachers being armed.

---

Look up the Texas School Guardian Program.

samurai_science said:

---

DisAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Better check your data. More kids are killed by auto accidents due to texting and cell phones per NTSB.

---

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

---

Lies

defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.


Take out 18 and 19 year olds, ie the gang deaths.

---

Interesting.

I would love to see data on gun deaths by individual age or small groupings of age ranges.

---

Also, 18 and 19 year olds are adults.

---

Complete agree.

Also, I will chime in. Gun Free Zones are antithetical to solving the problem. Hiring highly paid AND highly trained (see Uvalde) as resource officers is a good solution.

We need to stop embracing this culture of having a mental illness as being inclusive and should be embraced. Instead, start working on ways to begin identifying and treating (therapy, psychology, not going straight to the drug solution) these folks with mental illness.

It appears this pastor was helping this person with their gender dysphoria but ended up paying the price. Pastors should undoubtedly be our spiritual guides and counselors, but I am pretty sure they are not trained to deal with severe mental illness. I am not blaming him, but honestly, what choice do we have since no one in the medical community wants to call a spade a spade and say, "Hey, there is something wrong with you. You are not a man. You are a woman. Let's talk about it and work on some therapy or treatments."

The pastor was merely trying to fill a void we have in our mental health system, along with our severely flawed culture right now.

Our culture is so morally corrupt right now, though, feeling like it is a losing battle.

TefIon Don said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

DatTallArchitect said:

---

There are schools districts that have armed faculty/staff, taken down "gun-free zone" signs and put up signage stating that some faculty/staff are carrying concealed. These districts are not having issues with shootings. The cowards doing these attacks are looking for easy targets where they will not have to engage in combat until they have killed many innocent people. Gun-free zones are one of the worst concepts ever.

---

Arming teachers sounds good in theory but it's also an unrealistic fantasy to think it's a feasible solution.

First, they didn't sign up to be put on the front lines. We can't just tell a bunch of teachers, most of whom are untrained in combat, that the onus is on them to protect kids from school shootings.

Second, let's say we do arm them. We have NO IDEA how they're going to react in high stress situations. The vast majority of people, much less people who have shot guns, have not been in high stress situations where they need to use a gun to defend themselves. There are so many things that can go wrong and I can easily see the situation being worse, not better, with teachers being armed.

---

Look up the Texas School Guardian Program.

---

Correct, we already do it. So it's not a fantasy, and plenty of staff at school districts who can't carry, still carry when they are NOT AT WORK.

They carry at plenty of places, but a magical barrier of feelings prevents them from carrying at some schools.




"The requirements for the guardian program are decided by individual school boards, and, according to Theresa Gage with the Texas Association of School Boards, 389 districts allow the guardian program".

Does this include gang violence deaths?

Finn said:

---

Does this include gang violence deaths?

---

It does include 18 and 19 year old's, who are adults.

So that invalidates the point that person was trying to make, and yes it includes inner city gang violence by 18 and 19 year old's. They know this, yet they still use this study to push gun control....



"defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age."

There are no overnight solutions.... but here is a start for long term:

Remove EVERY Democrat policy initiative over the last 55 years around race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Require all schools with more than 20 children to have at least 1 armed security or administrator on site.
Promote strong nuclear families, faith in Christ and repentance.
Ban the normalization and promotion of mental illness including gender dysphoria. Empower the State to work with Christian clergy on providing Biblical counseling to those afflicted.

GeorgiAg said:

---

If they ban and confiscate all guns, the thugs and the crazies will just stab you.

Quote:

---

The number of knife or sharp instrument offences recorded by the police in London rose to approximately 11,122 in 2021/22, compared with 10,150, which had the fewest number of knife crimes in a reporting year since 2015/16, when there were 9,752 offences.

---

https://www.statista.com/statistics/864736/knife-crime-in-london/

---

Here in America, they will still shoot you. That will be the new money maker, smuggling weapons in from south of the border.

GeorgiAg said:

---

If they ban and confiscate all guns, the thugs and the crazies will just stab you.

Quote:

---

The number of knife or sharp instrument offences recorded by the police in London rose to approximately 11,122 in 2021/22, compared with 10,150, which had the fewest number of knife crimes in a reporting year since 2015/16, when there were 9,752 offences.

---

https://www.statista.com/statistics/864736/knife-crime-in-london/

---

Well, banning and confiscation will never happen. So we have to think of more realistic solutions, like strengthening our laws to make it more difficult for the wrong people to legally acquire guns.

TheTruthsLastHope said:

---

BTHOB-98 said:

---

Some teachers training the same way as air marshals. There has to be an immediate response. to much damage can be done with a 10 to 15 minute response time from police. and that's a response time that is quick.

---

I think OP was looking for "real, feasible" solutions. Suggesting training public school teachers like law enforcement or federal law enforcement agents is a non starter. For one there are physical requirements for being law enforcement that isn't in place for public school teachers.

---

I see a LOT fat cops carrying weapons. What physical requirements are you talking about?

TheTruthsLastHope said:

---

BTHOB-98 said:

---

Some teachers training the same way as air marshals. There has to be an immediate response. to much damage can be done with a 10 to 15 minute response time from police. and that's a response time that is quick.

---

I think OP was looking for "real, feasible" solutions. Suggesting training public school teachers like law enforcement or federal law enforcement agents is a non starter. For one there are physical requirements for being law enforcement that isn't in place for public school teachers.

---

What are you talking about, we already have armed RSO's, teachers, and staff?


"The requirements for the guardian program are decided by individual school boards, and, according to Theresa Gage with the Texas Association of School Boards, 389 districts allow the guardian program".

barbacoa taco said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

If they ban and confiscate all guns, the thugs and the crazies will just stab you.

Quote:

---

The number of knife or sharp instrument offences recorded by the police in London rose to approximately 11,122 in 2021/22, compared with 10,150, which had the fewest number of knife crimes in a reporting year since 2015/16, when there were 9,752 offences.

---

https://www.statista.com/statistics/864736/knife-crime-in-london/

---

Well, banning and confiscation will never happen. So we have to think of more realistic solutions, like strengthening our laws to make it more difficult for the wrong people to legally acquire guns.

---

How? Who are the "wrong" people? How do you keep track of them?

There is only one way, and it's non starter because it leads to confiscation when it does not work. This has been repeated throughout history.

DisAg said:

---

1991sir said:

---

Let's just say they do ban the second amendment… do we think this stops? Are the bad guys going to turn all their guns in?

---

That is not the point. We don't want this to happen.

We cannot just throw up our hands and say, "not our problem." Nor can we use this as logic. We need our lawmakers who treasure the 2a to develop concrete solutions.

I know democrats will fight this at every turn, but it allows us to have an answer (once we have one) to this problem. We can say, "this would not have happened if you allowed us to pass this bill."

---

Government only makes issues worse.

We need parents to parent and people to take responsibility. We need fathers in homes and a return to morality.