How to stop most school shootings 101 - Banning assault weapons does not solve the problem entirely

not free wrote:

Everything you just stated cost millions, banning AR-15 is free! wrote:

1) More cops in school. Cost millions.

2) More mental health screening. Cost millions.

3) More thorough background check. Cost millions.

4) Longer mandatory sentencing. Cost millions.

5) Banning AR-15. No cost to tax payers.

I'm not even against banning AR-15s and similar types of weapons, but what you just wrote is moronic. Banning AR-15s is "free" in the same way that banning drugs is free (i.e. it isn't free at all). Enforcing the ban would cost money, and collecting up all the existing AR-15s would be massively expensive.

Enforcing? Enforcing, just means pull men over for speeding. An AR-15 is in the trunk. The weapon is collected. Did I mention going house to house? Reading what is not there is seeing what is not there. Signs of a paranoid person.

Everything you just stated cost millions, banning AR-15 is free! wrote:

not free wrote:

I'm not even against banning AR-15s and similar types of weapons, but what you just wrote is moronic. Banning AR-15s is "free" in the same way that banning drugs is free (i.e. it isn't free at all). Enforcing the ban would cost money, and collecting up all the existing AR-15s would be massively expensive.

Enforcing? Enforcing, just means pull men over for speeding. An AR-15 is in the trunk. The weapon is collected. Did I mention going house to house? Reading what is not there is seeing what is not there. Signs of a paranoid person.

So you're talking about a ban where we don't actually stop people from possessing the guns? What good will that do?

The CMU shooting that took place yesterday was done by someone who stole his father’s gun. And his father happened to be a police officer...

So if a police officer can’t keep his gun away from his own son, why do liberals think more laws will keep guns away from criminals?

Furthermore, it’s hilarious how teenagers that are still confused by their gender, eat Tide pods & live at home with their parents, yet think they can lecture grown adults (who have jobs, pay taxes, & support their families) on why the government should take our guns away.

how is that a ban? wrote:

Everything you just stated cost millions, banning AR-15 is free! wrote:

Enforcing? Enforcing, just means pull men over for speeding. An AR-15 is in the trunk. The weapon is collected. Did I mention going house to house? Reading what is not there is seeing what is not there. Signs of a paranoid person.

So you're talking about a ban where we don't actually stop people from possessing the guns? What good will that do?

Review the Assault Weapon Ban of the 1990s. The AR-15 lunatic killings decreased. In theory, future shooters can buy used AR-15s at gun shows. In theory, 50 year olds can use the AR-15 they've had for twenty-five years. In reality, would be shooters go out and buy new AR-15s shortly before they want to shoot. An AR-15 ban will help. We have ten years of data which proves my point from the 1990s.

Never forget. The Texas church shooting was stopped by an NRA member with an AR-15.

While robbery, burglary & other laws target criminals, not the law-abiding, because you’d never think of committing those crimes. Gun laws work in the opposite direction. They largely target the law-abiding while criminals ignore them as they easily obtain weapons on the street and they don't fill out any paperwork.

Whataboutism FTW!!! wrote:

STSBO wrote:

Well, except that everyone eats food, sleeps and drinks water whereas not everyone takes powerful psychotropic drugs. Minor detail, I know.

Now, in your future posts, try not to demonstrate that you are a moron.

More fine whataboutism logic from right wing Trump supporters!

Your inability to present an argument is duly noted.

To the OP: Of course no one action will ENTIRELY eliminate shootings. In fact given the number of guns in the USA even attacking the problem of gun violence from multiple angles will not ENTIRELY eliminate shootings. Stop with the all or none thinking OP. The goal is to reduce the number of the shootings AND the number of victims in these shootings. In this regard, banning AR15s and high capacity magazines makes total sense as one of the measures that reasonable people agree should be implemented.

how is that a ban? wrote:

Everything you just stated cost millions, banning AR-15 is free! wrote:

Enforcing? Enforcing, just means pull men over for speeding. An AR-15 is in the trunk. The weapon is collected. Did I mention going house to house? Reading what is not there is seeing what is not there. Signs of a paranoid person.

So you're talking about a ban where we don't actually stop people from possessing the guns? What good will that do?

The above post truly reflects the misconceptions on the right among gun nuts. Most people arguing for an AR15 ban are not saying or envisioning the ATF raiding homes to take these guns. Reasonable people understand that legislation and societal change takes time and that when you pass a new piece of legislation aimed at addressing an issue the effects are 1) not instantaneous 2) the effects of such legislation often takes years to be appreciated 3) #1 and #2 being facts are not good arguments for not inacting legislation.

So, yes any ban on assault weapons today would not remove all assault weapons immediately. There would be no raids on individual homes. There would likely be a generous buy back program followed by many years where people would be randomly busted for having these weapons. But, over a 20 year period most weapons would be eliminated from private ownership. This is not an instant gratification type situation—it’s not a sprint it’s an ultra marathon.

Yup......

Such raids are already happening in California.

Lib logic wrote:

Never forget. The Texas church shooting was stopped by an NRA member with an AR-15.

That's a lie. Actually a church member grabbed his gun and the killer took off.

Sh#tty parents. These kids all have stupid parents who raise poorly adjusted kids that feel the world owes them something. Always making excuses for them when they f'ed up from K-to whatever grade.

People picking on them when their kid's behaviors were brought front and center, teachers, administrators, etc. Refusal to get help for their kids that demonstrate problems well before any mass shooting takes place. Why in the world are the parents of these kids not held liable in these events?

Nobody wants to legislate parenting though....they vote.

Ban all the guns. You've still got an idiot kid who can't function in society.

We know Cruz was not living with his biological parents at time of shooting. Cruz is 19 year old I believe. There are disturbed kids from broken homes in every country. In other countries, actually most developed countries, assault weapons are very difficult to obtain. If a broken young man is mad and brings a hammer to school, law enforcement will not be too afraid to act. Psychologists will not be able to weed future killers out of society without ruining millions of men who are simply going through a bad batch. Most of these men have psychological diagnosis no worse than Moderate Depression. Get the weapons of the street. Dealing with unarmed disturbed individuals is a lot easier than dealing with highly armed disturbed individuals.

Lib logic wrote:

The CMU shooting that took place yesterday was done by someone who stole his father’s gun. And his father happened to be a police officer...

So if a police officer can’t keep his gun away from his own son, why do liberals think more laws will keep guns away from criminals?

Furthermore, it’s hilarious how teenagers that are still confused by their gender, eat Tide pods & live at home with their parents, yet think they can lecture grown adults (who have jobs, pay taxes, & support their families) on why the government should take our guns away.

Now here's a nitwit. Laws allowing less access may not eliminate all shooting....mass or otherwise....so let's not attempt to mitigate the situation by including limiting some access as part of an overall plan to curb what we are seeing today across the country on nearly a daily basis.

Amazing.

OP- 9/10! This thread is super long. You get a one point deduction only because everyone knows nothing will solve this problem “entirely”—that was a bit too obvious.

I'll trade ya a lil bit of 2nd Amendment for a lil bit of your 1st Amendment down the line.