Tpoppa

We have a shitty person, that was set on doing shitty things to an unsuspecting crowd of innocent people. Would this conversation be any different if instead of shooting, he drove that car with 50lbs of tannerite into that crowd? Any idea what that much tannerite would do?

No matter which side of the gun control debate you land on it's REALLY EASY to cherry pick the statistics that support your opinion. People get really emotional about certain numbers, but in reality the overall statistics do not point in any clear direction. Mexico has tougher gun regulations then Australia, yet gun violence is many times higher. Why? Is it a societal reason? Banning things in America hasn't always worked out so awesome. See prohibition and the war on drugs. Also, the Brady Bill was in effect for 10 years, it's impact to homicide rates was not statistically meaningful.

Prohibition - We make alcohol illegal. Violent gangs get rich selling alcohol. Alcohol is widely available. Already overcrowded prisons get even more overcrowded. War on Drugs - We make drugs illegal. Violent gangs get rich selling drugs. Drugs are widely available. Already overcrowded prisons get even more overcrowded. Tell me how it would be any different if guns were made illegal? How would it be enforced? What would happen to the 300 million guns in the US today...many of which are untraceable? How would we prevent the flow of guns across our borders, perhaps build a wall to keep illegal things out?

I tend to agree with this. My gut tells me that the deepening divide in political climate in our county is a contributing factor & is going to lead to more extreme type behavior. Unfortunately, I think the gun control argument is just going to deepen that divide even more. Every time the gun control debate gains momentum, the one thing you can count on is more guns will be produced and sold. For sake of argument, lets say all legal access to guns, or certain types of guns was banned (which seems to be what Tonik is thinking but lacks the balls to say). Those guns will still be available to those that choose to break the laws...just as heroin, cocaine, etc are available today. Law abiding citizens, however, would be the ones without access. I could leave my house right now and have heroin or cocaine in my hands by lunchtime. How would controlling access to guns be any different?

Yikes. Maybe plan B was to drive into the crowd

Let's review. I referenced overall homicide rates. You said specifically "mass shootings." I asked a reasonalbe question. Jim, I do believe you are talking in circles, while presenting no useful information whatsoever. So I'll ask for a 3rd time...what exactly are you suggesting? I am open to seeing what you have to say, but if you can't articulate your ideas, then stop wasting my time.

Ok, and how are you trying to do that? And out of curiosity, why are mass shootings (which are a very small percentage of homicides) any more important than innocent people getting killed in other ways?

Umm, remember the Brady Bill? That was in effect for what, a decade? It was also shown statistically to have no impact on homicide rates.

Jim & Jim, If there's something you feel should happen just say what it is. I'm open to hearing different points of view. If you are suggesting some gun control measure that could have an impact...what is it?

Incorrect, but thanks for trying.

Are you suggesting something or just bitching?

What is my way? I don't support restricting rights of hundreds of millions of people based on actions on the most despicable elements of society. Thats not how we base rights in America. I don't support restricting 1st amendment rights based on despicable elements like WBC or Jimmy Kimmel. I don't support restricting 2nd amendment rights based on actions of some shitbags that want to kill Innocents. Rights aren't and should not be based on the lowest element of society.

Are you trying to suggest something? In my FB feed, I see some people are fearful and suggesting restricting rights via some kind of gun control measure.

How's that Jim? Not sure what answer you're looking for.

Without knowing the shooter's motive or reasoning, that's a very difficult question to answer. It's like asking how to prepare for a random car crash on a highway.

I've read a handful of things about this guy that could explain a motive, but none worth repeating here. Sources that pop up after a tragedy are often unreliable.

I tend to agree with this. I'm not sure what "more" means just yet, but assembling a bunch of guns and ammo near a big concert seems very calculated. It seems like more than he just "snapped."

That chart appears to be representing the numbers as percentages. They don't add up to 100%, but I wouldn't think they should as murders are committed with victims & offenders that aren't white or black or the race is unknown. I agree the numbers don't seem to tie back to the FBI stats. How those numbers were determined is not obvious.

Well, I already covered that in the Larry Elder video. This was just a bit a perspective, because you know...racism...it's everywhere apparently. And not just a tool the media & the left use to try to manipulate people into being pissed off and voting for democrats ... and what about that racist Trump?

Just a bit of perspective...

I think they're are decent for the price.

Tell me more

The chain conversations were also kind of pricey. The only ones I ever saw were made by EBR...so not sure if those can still be had. Not sure if there were other companies making them.

Most private employers have rules about conduct. 1st amendment rights have nothing to do with those rules even though many people incorrectly interpret them that way. Your employer can fire you for things you say or do at work. They can also fire you for things you post on social media outside of work hours. They key to the 1st Amendment is "Congress shall make no law." Trump saying sonuvabiches should be fired, or employers actually firing you for things you say or do is in no way threatening 1st Amendment rights. 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.