B-1 83 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?



EDIT FROM THE OP: Please be respectful and hear out what potential "solutions" are proposed without going into name calling and attack mode. That's gets threads killed and users banned.

---

We've been down this road so many times. I'd be more interested in a thread about ideas that would more likely mitigate these things and that conservatives can actually champion. We keep going back to "I don't know what the answer is but taking guns away isn't it". I agree....but why are we pushing hard toward other options? And not even just to counter the dems but to show we really want to work to mitigate these events.

---

On the contrary, within this very thread we most certainly have seen an agreement that mentally ill people should not be able to purchase guns, and our system needs to better recognize these individuals and disseminate the information to authorities and entities selling firearms. Who and what determines this condition is certainly debatable.

Furthermore, I'll add the concept that juvenile records for violent crimes and violent behavior should be admitted to this same database (I believe this is "Red Flag" whether we call it that, or not). Uvalde showed us this. Can these individuals still buy one off the street? Maybe so, but this is a start, or rather this could certainly be better.

The concept that "too mentally ill/incompetent to buy a gun = lock away in a mental institution" is a non starter for so many mental conditions that are non-violent.

I'll go one further…….the blasted NRA needs to get off its ass and start running ads on "protecting yourself" and "gun safety". The latter should be wrapped around PRACTICE and situational awareness.

The "ban AR-15s and similar platforms)" crowd chimed in with the usual rhetoric that always boils down to "scary looking guns" when any amount of critical thought is applied.

---

I agree with all of this. Though I think there are some here that worry that with the mental health exception, that the government is just going to label anyone they want as mentally unstable. I think we could come up with all sorts of bizarre scenarios why it won't work....but I agree we need to put forward some consistent legislation about mental health and gun ownership as a counter to the ban the guns crowd.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?



EDIT FROM THE OP: Please be respectful and hear out what potential "solutions" are proposed without going into name calling and attack mode. That's gets threads killed and users banned.

---

We've been down this road so many times. I'd be more interested in a thread about ideas that would more likely mitigate these things and that conservatives can actually champion. We keep going back to "I don't know what the answer is but taking guns away isn't it". I agree....but why are we pushing hard toward other options? And not even just to counter the dems but to show we really want to work to mitigate these events.

---

Because when you get right down to it the solutions that need to happen to eliminate crimes such as this are not palatable to the majority of the population

---

Which solutions are those? Are they something republicans have tried to champion but are shut down? And if they're not palatable by the majority of the U.S. population, but still allow us to not infringe on the 2A, I would hope we could either come up with others, or at least move forward with some compromise. The obvious ones include enforcing laws on the books and then maybe harsher sentences. I never hear other solutions on here other than trying to get more people to carry weapons. The new research on smart weapons seems promising. At least its something if we could produce weapons that could only be shot by the owner.

---

Also known as weapons that don't work when they need to.

---

Maybe in their current state. Doesn't mean its not a worth while goal. Additionally, even standard weapons without this security fail. Owners fail to maintain them, unreliable ammunition, etc.

---

I have no issue with someone that wants to carry a weapon like that should it be developed. Having the government restrict me from owning/carrying a firearm without that limitation is a hard pass.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?



EDIT FROM THE OP: Please be respectful and hear out what potential "solutions" are proposed without going into name calling and attack mode. That's gets threads killed and users banned.

---

We've been down this road so many times. I'd be more interested in a thread about ideas that would more likely mitigate these things and that conservatives can actually champion. We keep going back to "I don't know what the answer is but taking guns away isn't it". I agree....but why are we pushing hard toward other options? And not even just to counter the dems but to show we really want to work to mitigate these events.

---

Because when you get right down to it the solutions that need to happen to eliminate crimes such as this are not palatable to the majority of the population

---

Which solutions are those? Are they something republicans have tried to champion but are shut down? And if they're not palatable by the majority of the U.S. population, but still allow us to not infringe on the 2A, I would hope we could either come up with others, or at least move forward with some compromise. The obvious ones include enforcing laws on the books and then maybe harsher sentences. I never hear other solutions on here other than trying to get more people to carry weapons. The new research on smart weapons seems promising. At least its something if we could produce weapons that could only be shot by the owner.

---

Also known as weapons that don't work when they need to.

---

Maybe in their current state. Doesn't mean its not a worth while goal. Additionally, even standard weapons without this security fail. Owners fail to maintain them, unreliable ammunition, etc.

---

The idea that a firearm needs a wireless electrical signal to function is absolutely terrifying in a world where hackers exist and in a world where the government will take control of something as benign as your air conditioner and decide you need to live in a house that is 80 degrees.

Absolutely fuggin NO to this idea.

Slicer97 said:

---

Pulling it and running towards the sound of gunfire is also a great way to get ventilated by a cop rolling up on scene having no idea who is who.

If you can extricate yourself/loved ones from the area without pulling your weapon, that is what you do. Period.

---

I wish more self defense/firearm classes made people aware of this.