sure, and it sounds great.

however, i assumed you meant that in a way that makes sense. as in the powerful fear the people so they won't rule in a way that screws them over, that they remain in control of policy through their representatives, and their freedoms are not eroded - none of which is achieved by guns, as america perfectly illustrates.

i didn't know that to you it only meant that individual, badly trained police officers fear for their lives and rather shoot people than take a risk.



ask australians maybe? by reducing the amount of available guns, you know, the very thing you claimed i had no solutions for just minutes ago - before you moved the goal post yet again...



unlike your emotional ad hominems suggest, i am very well aware of america's gun obsession 'culture', and a big fan of trying the less invasive, less offensive approaches first. if they should turn out to be ineffective, and americans evolve on the second amendment, why not (is that your big 'gotcha, you're just another gun grabber who doesn't care about our constitutional rights' moment you so obviously have been waiting for all that time)? but while you ask ME for solutions, and bitch about the downsides being pointed out (sorry that the truth hurts you so much, doesn't change it though), you have NO solutions for the problem, just a bunch of lazy talking points that don't even address them at all...

There are no solutions. There are steps to help and prepare but there are no solutions. There will always be harm and murder and mass harm and mass murder. I fully admit to no great solutions and I fully admit I accept that. I've posted things I think will help without violating rights but there are no solutions it is a problem that will always exist in one form or another. I just refuse to bow to murderers or authorities for a false sense of safety or for the exaggerations and pressure of others to sacrifice or trample on rights.

People will be harmed and people will be killed and for that I am truly empathetic for the loss and the suffering. We can do things without violating rights to help but we wont stop it no matter how much people are attached to "we have to do something" and blaming people politically for these tragedies or just wanting to help. It's understandable to want to do something but it's not the right move to act on it just to act on it and punish millions for the acts of a few

so 'no way to prevent this', but unironically.

>no way to prevent this

no way to prevent this

Ways to prevent some when we get lucky through law enforcement or family of the would be killers or just their general incompetency

But yeah those that are competent enough and motivated enough will do it. Itll be with a gun even with crackdowns or itll be a bomb or some other weapon that can cause mass harm.

by that 'logic' we'd have similar amounts of violent death rates in europe, australia, or japan for example. stats don't care about simplistic nra talking points.

of course you can't eliminate ALL of that, but you can certainly make it much harder and less 'convenient'...

Plenty of things people can do to feel as if they are helping without shitting on rights

I fully support those things and wish people nothing but success in them. Start with holding the media accountable by going after advertisers and cancelling subscriptions and memberships.

so you rather 'shit on' free speech than on your specific interpretation of the second amendment. interesting...

That's a strawman, pure and simple. Beo acknowledges that social conflict is as much a driving factor on mass shootings as anything, as are racial tensions.

You europeans are starting to get a taste of what racial tensions are like, albeit on a micro scale compared to the US's (both historically and in modern times), but you're still a largely homogenized peaceful society.

The USA has more violence than other places because we have more racial tensions, more income inequality, and more guns. but if you remove guns (as i told you before) you'll affect street crime a lot, but not mass killings. mass killings are still motivated by far more than guns.

you are just dodging around your silver bullet, which is that you have zero credible answer for how to remove guns from 1.) criminals 2.) would-be mass shooters. what you're suggesting is a 'trickle down' technique for removing guns. first the lawful ones turn them in in the hopes that in 20 years they dont make it to criminals. it's actually quite funny to even think this would do much of anything.

all of your posts boil down to a dreamer yelling "guys if we had less guns we'd have less deaths". congrats, nice 'point'. now be predictable and come back at me with zero proof you can remove guns, and a bunch of 'debunked narrative', 'moronic talking point', 'rebutted argument', 'lack of logic', and every other predictable say-nothing phrase we've all come to expect from you. full snark, light on credible arguments. stay on that leash.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 12 2019 09:52am