Active shooter thread

[Foosters 18287]

22 minutes ago, deadshank said:

I'm not arguing a thing but merely pointing out your post about military bases is pointless.  Schools: unarmed; military bases: unarmed 

You:  We've had mass shootings at military bases.

Well, OK. 

Serious question. There were armed police at Fort Hood right? They responded and engaged the shooter, correct?

[Junior Miller 1502]

28 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to be on the wrong side of history.

It's like raaaaaaaiiiiin...on your wedding day...

[hayden_horn 11403]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

For sure. I can tell by the guns I keep and the ease at which I can get them. 

uh, yeah, that is sort of the point here.

[bad_teammate 13568]

24 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

You assert knowledge of his average-ness when you know none of the underlying factors other than the mere existence of the gun. 

Given the lack of specific circumstances, the only rational way to approach the conversation is to treat it as the default average.

Please tell me what extenuating circumstances fit this situation that would cause me to assume this person is so dramatically different. You can't, of course, because you're just trying to throw dirt in the air out of hurt feelings.

Quote

Despite that lack of knowledge, you assert a comparative judgment (you are more like to x than y) that necessarily relies on that information.  I felt like my argument was pretty clear.

It doesn't. You have not demonstrated that there is any population for whom the statistics differ significantly nor have you demonstrated that HRPuffenstuff is in that divergent population.

Let's say HR is an upper-middle-class white suburban dad. He likely lives in an extremely low crime area, which greatly reduces the likelihood of him ever defending himself or his family with the shotgun. Also, he's a man, which means he's far more likely to use a gun for his own suicide or to kill his family than a woman would.

Lots of ins, lots of outs

[deadshank 24654]

40 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Serious question. There were armed police at Fort Hood right? They responded and engaged the shooter, correct?

They sure did.  The soldiers themselves weren't armed. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

uh, yeah, that is sort of the point here.

Exactly. I’m a law abiding citizen who’s worst offense against society in 35 years is a speeding ticket and an MIP once.   I’ve never been involved in a domestic situation, robbed anyone, and am mostly mentally stable (ie: I have pghlem on ignore)    

Why should I not be able to own a firearm again, or for instance an AR-15?  

Ftr: I asked specifically about AR15 as it seems to be the boogeyman, and I wouldn’t give af if they banned them tomorrow - OTHER than the fact it would be closer to banning the ones I do use.    People refuse to acknowledge this, but you can do a bunch of damage with a shotgun.  They just aren’t black and “military inspired”.  Santa Fe for example.  So once AR’s are gone, how long until it’s the big bad scattergun that needs to go.  That’s why the “right” doesn’t want to give in, give an inch...

[bad_teammate 13568]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why should I not be able to own a firearm again, or for instance an AR-15?  

Because they do far more harm than good. They are extremely dangerous and serve little-to-no practical purpose. We have, collectively, shown a complete inability to responsibly manufacture, sell, use, own, and store them. The results of this are piles of dead kids and entire generations of Americans who think being murdered by angry boys in English class is a somewhat normal and expected possibility.

There are other reasons, too, but those are good enough to start.

[Bookman 4769]

Gun Gun control became inevitable after Aurora and Sandy Hook. I'm still surprised that nothing happened after Sandy Hook -- one would think that 20 dead kindergartners would be enough to get Congress to act, but it apparently wasn't. They don't have kids in schools. They didn't grow up with the fear. They don't know what it's like.

Americans will put a stop to this eventually. It could be 20-30 years away, but it's coming.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Bookman

[Bama Chick 28596]

When someone can give me a better answer than “They’re cool!” to the “Why can’t I own an AR-15” question, I’ll be willing to engage in a discussion.

A fucking zombie horde nor a militia is coming for you. A handgun or shotgun or rifle is adequate for any defense situation a “normal, law abiding citizen” finds themselves in.

The tingle you get in your dick from shooting up an asaload of tannerite with your big dick gun isn’t comparable to ONE dead kid much less hundreds.

[Fondren & Main 6905]

9 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

When someone can give me a better answer than “They’re cool!” to the “Why can’t I own an AR-15” question, I’ll be willing to engage in a discussion.

A fucking zombie horde nor a militia is coming for you. A handgun or shotgun or rifle is adequate for any defense situation a “normal, law abiding citizen” finds themselves in.

The tingle you get in your dick from shooting up an asaload of tannerite with your big dick gun isn’t comparable to ONE dead kid much less hundreds.

Okay, so why should we ban AR-15's?  If we ban AR-15's, should we ban all semi-automatic rifles or just AR-15's?  Should we ban AK-47's too?  Okay, what about M1 Garand's?  Should those be banned too?  Should all semi-automatic rifles be banned?  What about semi-automatic shotguns?  Should those be banned too?

Should all guns be banned?

I think some kind of effort should be done on the root cause.

I often wonder what overexposure to porn and violence is doing to these kids growing up today.

[Bullneck 19582]

19 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That kid will grow up to be . . .

[Bama Chick 28596]

Every other country has kids being overexposed to porn and violence.

Only America has young white males shooting up schools on a weekly basis and unless the body count is double digits, no one gives a fuck.

Fixing the “root cause” - whatever the fuck that nebulous crap means - could take DECADES - I’m not willing to watch that many more kids die.

And I’m not going to pretend to know anything about gun types or brands or clips or mags or the usual nonsense stuff that gets thrown around to confuse the issue.

As I said, anything that is designed for mass murder of humans IE military weapons should be banned.

I’ll leave that literal definition to be sorted out by experts who are willing to work in good faith.

So y’all better hope some true gun experts are willing to come to the table otherwise the rest of us will leave y’all with a bunch of Red Riders and be fine with it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Okay, so why should we ban AR-15's?  If we ban AR-15's, should we ban all semi-automatic rifles or just AR-15's?  Should we ban AK-47's too?  Okay, what about M1 Garand's?  Should those be banned too?  Should all semi-automatic rifles be banned?  What about semi-automatic shotguns?  Should those be banned too?

Should all guns be banned?

I think some kind of effort should be done on the root cause.

I often wonder what overexposure to porn and violence is doing to these kids growing up today.

Make semiautomatic rifles as legal as fully automatic rifles.

Problem solved.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz
Also limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, Foosters said:

Serious question. There were armed police at Fort Hood right? They responded and engaged the shooter, correct?

Yes.  Fort Hood is 170,000 acres.  The part where the shooting occurred was a gun free zone.  The victims were not allowed to carry in the area he chose to attack.  Nadal ignored that law.  The armed cops came from off site and engaged after the shooting started.  It was a gun free zone though.  That's why he had time to kill so many people before the cops showed up.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[Johnny Sack 8397]

45 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Every other country has kids being overexposed to porn and violence.

Only America has young white males shooting up schools on a weekly basis and unless the body count is double digits, no one gives a fuck.

Fixing the “root cause” - whatever the fuck that nebulous crap means - could take DECADES - I’m not willing to watch that many more kids die.

And I’m not going to pretend to know anything about gun types or brands or clips or mags or the usual nonsense stuff that gets thrown around to confuse the issue.

As I said, anything that is designed for mass murder of humans IE military weapons should be banned.

I’ll leave that literal definition to be sorted out by experts who are willing to work in good faith.

So y’all better hope some true gun experts are willing to come to the table otherwise the rest of us will leave y’all with a bunch of Red Riders and be fine with it.

Weekly basis?  I guess if you go by the Everytown bullshit stats that count someone shooting out a school window in July with a BB gun.

We average about 10-15 deaths a year in school shootings of all kinds.  Not just the white males.  The black gang bangers.  The Mexicans.  The Asians.  Out of 55 million kids in school.

2019 is the safest time in the last three decades for our school children.  There is a major false impression created by the media.  And it is harming our children.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[Bama Chick 28596]

But the last two school shooters were stopped by unarmed teenagers and Parkland had an armed SRO but 17 kids were gunned down.

#anecdotesarefun

[Johnny Sack 8397]

46 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Make semiautomatic rifles as legal as fully automatic rifles.

Problem solved.

Damn, my Ruger 10-22 is done.

[bad_teammate 13568]

53 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Okay, so why should we ban AR-15's? 

They are uniquely dangerous and practically no more useful than non-automatic rifles. Their entire purpose is to more efficiently kill humans.

Quote

If we ban AR-15's, should we ban all semi-automatic rifles or just AR-15's?

We absolutely should ban semi-automatic rifles.

A reasonable compromise would be allowing only long guns with internal magazines of a capacity no greater than, say, 5 rounds and require a physical interaction (bolt, lever, etc...) between rounds firing.

Quote

Should all guns be banned?

Probably, yeah, but I would prefer we make compromises before we get there.

Quote

I think some kind of effort should be done on the root cause.

Ah yes, the "we must cure the human soul" gambit. lol

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

But the last two school shooters were stopped by unarmed teenagers and Parkland had an armed SRO but 17 kids were gunned down.

#anecdotesarefun

All gun free areas.

School employees who have undergone the FBI background check similar to what you undergo for licensing in Texas should be allowed to carry in schools.  Just like they do in 19% of our Texas school districts.  None of which has ever had a mass shooting.  Just like they do in museums, parks, grocery stores, churches, the mall, restaurants, public streets, grocery stores, 7-11's -- all places millions of licensed carriers go each day and manage not to shoot up the joint because someone cuts them in line or cuts them off on the freeway,

Stop with these stupid fucking gun free zones. 

[HRSchenker 2341]

 

 

 

 

 

4

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

When someone can give me a better answer than “They’re cool!” to the “Why can’t I own an AR-15” question, I’ll be willing to engage in a discussion.

A fucking zombie horde nor a militia is coming for you. A handgun or shotgun or rifle is adequate for any defense situation a “normal, law abiding citizen” finds themselves in.

The tingle you get in your dick from shooting up an asaload of tannerite with your big dick gun isn’t comparable to ONE dead kid much less hundreds.

I don't understand the bolded statements as a whole. What is the difference between an AR15, a handgun, and a shotgun in your mind?

[henrygandorf 29229]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Weekly basis?  I guess if you go by the Everytown bullshit stats that count someone shooting out a school window in July with a BB gun.

We average about 10-15 deaths a year in school shootings of all kinds.  Not just the white males.  The black gang bangers.  The Mexicans.  The Asians.  Out of 55 million kids in school.

2019 is the safest time in the last three decades for our school children.  There is a major false impression created by the media.  And it is harming our children.

so we're living in a safe time?  for schoolchildren?  how about club goers in orlando?  or music fans in vegas?  the last few years been safe for them?  or people going to churches and synagogues?  haven't there been 25 (or 35?) school shootings this school year (since the fall)?  isn't that number rising from year to year since columbine?  

i'm actually asking, i haven't seen a chart.  all i know from reading your post is that i can't trust the media.

[henrygandorf 29229]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Because they do far more harm than good. They are extremely dangerous and serve little-to-no practical purpose. We have, collectively, shown a complete inability to responsibly manufacture, sell, use, own, and store them. The results of this are piles of dead kids and entire generations of Americans who think being murdered by angry boys in English class is a somewhat normal and expected possibility.

There are other reasons, too, but those are good enough to start.

isn't this kind of an argument to get rid of all guns outside of police and military?

[fattyflattie 4640]

46 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And I’m not going to pretend to know anything about gun types or brands or clips or mags or the usual nonsense stuff that gets thrown around to confuse the issue.

You should learn, so that you are not ignorant on the subject.  Arguing from your feels isn't the most productive strategy.

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Make semiautomatic rifles as legal as fully automatic rifles.

Problem solved.

I'm fine with that.  I know several people who have pre-ban full autos.  They are worth a fuckload of $$$$.  And still available to many with stamps/trusts, what do you know.  

 

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

A handgun or shotgun or rifle is adequate for any defense situation a “normal, law abiding citizen” finds themselves in.

IIRC, a shotgun was used in Santa Fe, where a shitload of kids were killed. 

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

They are extremely dangerous and serve little-to-no practical purpose. We have, collectively, shown a complete inability to responsibly manufacture, sell, use, own, and store them.

So out of several hundreds of thousands (millions?) of AR's in safes across the US,  10(?) a year are used for mass murder, yet we've "shown a complete inability to responsibly manufacture, sell, use, own, and store them"?  GTFO with that nonsense.  Hyperbole much?

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

so we're living in a safe time?  for schoolchildren?  how about club goers in orlando?  or music fans in vegas?  the last few years been safe for them?  or people going to churches and synagogues?  haven't there been 25 (or 35?) school shootings this school year (since the fall)?  isn't that number rising from year to year since columbine?  

i'm actually asking, i haven't seen a chart.  all i know from reading your post is that i can't trust the media.

Yes.  We are much safer from gun violence than we were 10, 20, or 30 years ago.  And school children are far safer from being murdered in school than they were 25 years ago.  These are straight facts.  They do not match perception from today's helicopter parents who won't let their kids play in the front yard or ride their bike to a friend's house even though the odds of their kids getting kidnapped or getting run over are like 70% lower than they were 30 years ago.

 

 

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You should learn, so that you are not ignorant on the subject.  Arguing from your feels isn't the most productive strategy.

I'm fine with that.  I know several people who have pre-ban full autos.  They are worth a fuckload of $$$$.  And still available to many with stamps/trusts, what do you know.  

 

IIRC, a shotgun was used in Santa Fe, where a shitload of kids were killed. 

 

So out of several hundreds of thousands (millions?) of AR's in safes across the US,  10(?) a year are used for mass murder, yet we've "shown a complete inability to responsibly manufacture, sell, use, own, and store them"?  GTFO with that nonsense.  Hyperbole much?

 

Arguing with the feels is their entire strategy.

See the last dumbass AWB ban.  It was fucking stupid and did not do jack shit.

[bad_teammate 13568]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

So out of several hundreds of thousands (millions?) of AR's in safes across the US,  10(?) a year are used for mass murder, yet we've "shown a complete inability to responsibly manufacture, sell, use, own, and store them"? 

Yes. The proper number of mass killings with these weapons is zero.

Because they serve no real practical purpose, and because their removal from society would prevent the deaths of many schoolchildren, we should get rid of them.

I respect that there are some genuine uses for firearms as a tool (pest control, hunting, and sport). All of those reasonable uses would be possible with a low-capacity, physical-interaction long gun.

We don't need any semi-automatic weapons. We don't need any handguns. The only purpose of these things is to more efficiently kill humans. Too much of that is happening.

[henrygandorf 29229]

why do none of those charts track school shootings?

and why do they all seem to end in 2010?

[bad_teammate 13568]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

isn't this kind of an argument to get rid of all guns outside of police and military?

Sure. I'm looking for compromise, but the gun nuts are incapable of thinking about compromise.

[HRSchenker 2341]

 

 

 

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

We don't need any semi-automatic weapons. We don't need any handguns. The only purpose of these things is to more efficiently kill humans. Too much of that is happening.

You might be correct but the decision on whether or not we need those has already been decided for us. Would you support the repeal of the second amendment?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

why do none of those charts track school shootings?

and why do they all seem to end in 2010?

They don't all stop in 2010

Here is an article on school shootings with the data you want\.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

[henrygandorf 29229]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure. I'm looking for compromise, but the gun nuts are incapable of thinking about compromise.

i'm also incapable of thinking about a compromise.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm fine with that.  I know several people who have pre-ban full autos.  They are worth a fuckload of $$$$.  And still available to many with stamps/trusts, what do you know.  

Right?!?  I don’t understand why a savvy politician doesn’t frame it like this:

”We don’t need to outlaw semiautomatic rifles, we just need to make them as challenging to obtain as fully automatic rifles.”

This would for all practical purposes ban semiautomatic rifles while simultaneously significantly increase the value of most gun owners’ assets.

Seems like a win win. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Johnny Sack 8397]

 

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

5 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

You might be correct but the decision on whether or not we need those has already been decided for us. Would you support the repeal of the second amendment?

We already ban firearms and weapons of many kinds without needing to repeal the second. All we need to do is broaden the scope of the classifications. An obvious route is to immediately classify all semi-automatic weapons Title II. The NFA has already survived the Supreme Court (US v Miller, et al).

Before the NFA, critics were also smugly saying, "Good luck with that, you'll have to repeal the 2nd."

Maybe it loses in court, maybe not, but your lot acts far more confident about that than is deserved. Again, because you're dominated by your personal and emotional attachment to your toys and the stories they allow you to tell yourself about your manhood and strength.

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm also incapable of thinking about a compromise.

Fair enough. Your position is better than mine and way better than the gun nuts'.

[ChickenSandwich 9986]

If we ban aR 15s will kids stop shooting up schools?  One gun fixes the problem?  

Only a matter of time till one figures out a huge fire or explosive device will be just as if not more effective  

Hell a kid with a knife could kill plenty before anyone knows what is happening. A gun shot is instant awareness. 

More focus on mental health and mandatory yearly screenings for all students. Identify red flags and don’t be stopped by political correctness. 

Beef Up gun storage laws and consequences. 

[HRSchenker 2341]

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Maybe it loses in court, maybe not, but your lot acts far more confident about that than is deserved. Again, because you're dominated by your personal and emotional attachment to your toys and the stories they allow you to tell yourself about your manhood and strength.

 

You're not going to win us over by making this an issue about "manhood and strength". What do you say to female gun owners who believe like me?

[henrygandorf 29229]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Fair enough. Your position is better than mine and way better than the gun nuts'.

i already stated i wasn't the right guy to have a rational discussion about this.

when schools and synagogues are getting shot up, why do we have to meet them halfway?

are we proposing measures like inexpensive college, healthcare for some, and climate negotiation?

in 25 years the nfl may not exist.  cocaine and heroin were once totally legal too.  people get used to stuff.

[ChickenSandwich 9986]

If all guns were banned, how would we stop the flow of illegal firearms entering through our non existent boarders?  We can’t stop a felon from being deported 5 separate times but we will be able to stop firearms from crossing?  

And there would be little reason not to, as they would be incredibly valuable on the black market. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[HRSchenker 2341]

By the way, I'm sure the response is going to be "we don't want to win you over, we want to defeat you and your agenda". Fair enough. Stop complaining about our unwillingness to compromise.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

When was the last time a fully automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting in America? 

[henrygandorf 29229]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

If all guns were banned, how would we stop the flow of illegal firearms entering through our non existent boarders?  We can’t stop a felon from being deported 5 separate times but we will be able to stop firearms from crossing?  

And there would be little reason not to, as they would be incredibly valuable on the black market. 

i'm not in charge, but in a theoretical "gun-free" society, i would imagine the penalties for being caught with a gun would be pretty fucking severe.

[henrygandorf 29229]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When was the last time a fully automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting in America? 

i know i keep asking for stats and graphs, but aren't most guns used in these shootings legally owned/purchased and not on some newly banned list?  aren't they owned by people who jumped through whatever waiting period or hoops or whatever the fuck?  this isn't breaking bad.  the serial numbers aren't filed off.  gun laws don't seem to be the issue here.

[bad_teammate 13568]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

when schools and synagogues are getting shot up, why do we have to meet them halfway?

The closest thing I'd have to a non-compromise position with regard to guns absolutely needing to be allowed would be pest control for farmers/ranchers/etc...

A physical-interaction, low-capacity long gun will do that job very well. A pump rifle will kill a wild hog pretty good.

I think requiring all gun-owners to demonstrate need, take safety classes, and renew licensing would be reasonable.

Suburban dads? Fuck off. We don't need any of this shit. Just get a baseball bat and go to the fucking gym twice a week.

5 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

By the way, I'm sure the response is going to be "we don't want to win you over, we want to defeat you and your agenda". Fair enough. Stop complaining about our unwillingness to compromise.

I am literally a gun owner who would, ideally, like to continue to have some of his guns.

I have a beautiful Citori and I would be very sad to give her up.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Exactly. I’m a law abiding citizen who’s worst offense against society in 35 years is a speeding ticket and an MIP once.   I’ve never been involved in a domestic situation, robbed anyone, and am mostly mentally stable (ie: I have pghlem on ignore)    

Why should I not be able to own a firearm again, or for instance an AR-15?  

Ftr: I asked specifically about AR15 as it seems to be the boogeyman, and I wouldn’t give af if they banned them tomorrow - OTHER than the fact it would be closer to banning the ones I do use.    People refuse to acknowledge this, but you can do a bunch of damage with a shotgun.  They just aren’t black and “military inspired”.  Santa Fe for example.  So once AR’s are gone, how long until it’s the big bad scattergun that needs to go.  That’s why the “right” doesn’t want to give in, give an inch...

You, my friend, are a threat to liberty.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The closest thing I'd have to a non-compromise position with regard to guns absolutely needing to be allowed would be pest control for farmers/ranchers/etc...

A physical-interaction, low-capacity long gun will do that job very well. A pump rifle will kill a wild hog pretty good.

I think requiring all gun-owners to demonstrate need, take safety classes, and renew licensing would be reasonable.

Suburban dads? Fuck off. We don't need any of this shit. Just get a baseball bat and go to the fucking gym twice a week.

I am literally a gun owner who would, ideally, like to continue to have some of his guns.

I have a beautiful Citori and I would be very sad to give her up.

I believe in freedom of the press...as long it's what i sanction...

[Bookman 4769]

52 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And school children are far safer from being murdered in school than they were 25 years ago.

Do you have any authority for this? I graduated from high school 25 years ago and I can't recall ever hearing about any school children being murdered in school.

[henrygandorf 29229]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The closest thing I'd have to a non-compromise position with regard to guns absolutely needing to be allowed would be pest control for farmers/ranchers/etc...

A physical-interaction, low-capacity long gun will do that job very well. A pump rifle will kill a wild hog pretty good.

I think requiring all gun-owners to demonstrate need, take safety classes, and renew licensing would be reasonable.

Suburban dads? Fuck off. We don't need any of this shit. Just get a baseball bat and go to the fucking gym twice a week.

yeah, i don't know a thing about your first note, but trust it's legit.  i would also assume there's some sort of alternative that could be reached (assuming my theoretical fantasyland gambit got greenlit).

as far as the suburban dads, yeah.  i know plenty of these guys, plenty of good friends, and none can really come up with a reason they actually need a fucking gun, especially one they keep in their car or in their house not in a safe.  the most common responses are either 2nd amendment based (the most retarded argument in history) or "i need to protect myself against other people with guns" which obviously becomes moot in a non-gun society.

 

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am literally a gun owner who would, ideally, like to continue to have some of his guns.

I have a beautiful Citori and I would be very sad to give her up.

i don't know what a citori is, but i understand collectors.  i'm fine with all these guns being legal and collectible, just outlaw every type of ammunition.  problem solved.

[ChickenSandwich 9986]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm not in charge, but in a theoretical "gun-free" society, i would imagine the penalties for being caught with a gun would be pretty fucking severe.

And I think a lot of Texans would risk it to keep a gun in their home. They wouldn’t be going to the range but many would keep one regardless of penalty. 

Like Texans living in NY

[Gladeite 376]

I don't think gun laws are going to make a difference.  I am a gun owner, hunter, travel a lot, and have quite a bit of security experience.  This is a human problem.  Human beings are doing this all over the world.  In the U.S., we have round the clock news coverage and instant information via the internet.  These same types of killings or worse are happening frequently in Russia, China, India, Brazil and especially Africa, where the human life is pretty damn inexpensive.   It just does not dominate the news cycle in other parts of the world like it does here.

 I have AR type rifles and shoot them occasionally. .  If they were banned tomorrow, I would not care in the least.  They are not necessary for any type of shooting, but there are millions of them in the U.S. that are safely carried or stored every day without anyone being in mortal danger.  I am guessing, but less than 5 are used each year in a mass type killing here.  5 is too many, but I'm not sure gun control is the answer.  In a small country, yes it can be done.  In a country of 350 million, impossible.   A gun ban is not going to happen.  Gun control is trying to work and failing miserably.  There are just too many guns too many millions of rounds of ammo, and supplies from all over the world.   As a small example, semi-auto weapons are banned in many countries in Africa.  It is quite easy to by an AK-47 for $25 in a major city.  There are thousands of them laying around from internal and regional struggles.  China stamps them out of metal plate for a few dollars each.(As a side note, the natives prefer the .303 from World War I.  Bolt action, uses less ammo and more accurate.) 

It is a fact that schools are a soft target.  Easy to penetrate, not much resistance and multiple targets.   Comparing them to Fort Hood is silly.  Any military installation is a hard target from the exterior.   No idiot is going to be able to storm a military base and carry out a mass killing in the U.S.   Hasan was in the military and killed within a no firearms zone.  It was an attack from within and is an exception in the world of mass shootings. 

You can make it difficult to enter schools by limiting access, metal detectors, early warning sentries and other hard measures. It is expensive but the only realistic possibility.  Another way is to profile every white male, 14-20 years old, from a broken home, socially awkward, wears black clothes and spends an excessive amount of time playing first person shooter games.  This is not realistic, possible, lawful or worthy of discussion.   

Having a security guard on site does not guarantee safety.  How well is he trained?  How will he respond to the 0.0007% chance that there will be a violent encounter?  Will he panic?

It is imperative that our children are safe and secure.  Since we are not going to get rid of guns and can't seem to profile troubled youths who may mean harm to others,(even though there are plenty of warning signs), I see the only answer as harder perimeters.