[Taltarzac725]

Noticed that the Uvalde mass murderer had an obscene amount of ammunition on him. Without bullets any rifle is just a club.

Many gun enthusiasts I know reload their spent cartridges. Instead Of Buying New Ammunition, These Gun Enthusiasts Recycle | Texas Standard

[Lottoguy]

Your wrong about "nothing will change". It is changing and for the worse. Vote them out!

[Lottoguy]

Locking school doors could be asking for more trouble. What if a fire starts? Nut jobs are saying "harden the schools and have one entrance and one exit". What happens if there is a fire?

[bob47]

Originally Posted by jdulej

Not quite sure who you were addressing this to, but I'll toss in my 2 cents. IMO, there is one (and only one) reason why someone commits any sort of violent crime - because they are mentally unstable.

Why not, as a start, require anyone who wants to buy a gun to prove they are mentally stable. 99.9% would pass and go on their way with their shiny new killing machine. The .1 failures are just out of luck.

We don't seem to have any issues adding more and more restrictions to people's right to vote, this does not seem to add that much of a burden to the vast majority gun owner wannabes

One problem is, somebody may be mentally stable today (if that can even be determined) but after some crisis in the future, they become unstable. And they already own a gun capable of killing 10s of people very quickly.

Perhaps there really are multiple sides to this problem that need to be addressed and one of them is the destructive capability of the weapons people are allowed to own.

[Ken Nelson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

This is how it is done!

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Maybe that neighborhood is in Chicago.

Great city Chicago you get the casualty report in the morning with the days weather

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

See it is hard to solve something when you are looking in the wrong places. Mental health is a red herring being pushed by the parties with a vested interest. I can post links to dozens of studies by top psychologists in the world (but I wont because I have been given a vacation for posting too many links - spamming they called it). And they all come to the same conclusion - summarized by this:

Are All Mass Shooters Mentally Ill?

Here is the link, but I know most wont bother to read it, since it might disturb peoples world view. If you are interested in truth and not propaganda as so many claim - the take a look.

"They discovered that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness. They also found that mass shooters in the United States were more likely to have legal histories, use recreational drugs, abuse alcohol, and have histories of non-psychotic psychiatric or neurologic symptoms."

Let me repeat that, 8% of mass shooters have mental health problems associated with the shooting.

According to John Hopkins Medicine , 26% of Americans 18 and older have some form of diagnosable mental health.

Repeat that - 8% of shooters are mentally ill, 26% of the general population are mentally ill. Hmm.

So, there is an interesting anomaly here - MORE people that are NOT mass murders have some form of mental illness than the mass shooter. The shooters would seem to be "healthier". (that would be a false comparison, for those paying attention - since there are very few shooters so the sample size is very small.)

Mental Health Disorder Statistics | Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to other sources, 20% of the worlds population has mental health issues.

So, PLEASE, since you claim mental health explains mass shootings and school murders, PLEASE explain why the US is the ONLY country experiencing regular school shooting. Great Britain hasn't had one since 1996 with they banned most guns. Coincidence?

PLEASE explain WHY there are not MORE shootings since the general population has 3 times as much mental illness as the shooter population?

There, Did I repeat it enough times?

I won't wait for an answer, since EVERY single person I have asked, failed to respond with an answer. Typically if they answer at all they just deflect with "things are different here - yeah they are different. We have 400 million guns on circulation. And in this particular case virtually no requirements to buy a gun except a government ID, be 18, and breathing. (Oh and a pocket full of money)

I think you have done a good job of demonstrating the lack of insight of our mental health experts have on human behavior

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Ken Nelson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

This is how it is done!

Great idea! And a good investment. $400K is reasonable for protecting children.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ElLegal

So how many guns do you think the government should “allow” citizens to own?

Problem is mental illness.

But again if people couldn’t get their hands on guns, And they were hellbent on harming others, not having a gun wouldn’t get in their way.
🥃🥃

The shooter at Robb Elementry did NOT shoot or kill anyone when he was 17 years old or younger. It was only when he turned 18 and magically could buy MAN-KILLING guns that HE turned into a mass murderer.
..........That is the logic that I base MY OPINION on - that to solve the mass murder problem - you have to do SOMETHING about the GUNS problem. The US is awash in excessive GUNS, which has led to excessive GUN violence. Excessive as compared to other countries. And if this GUN problem is not solved, then more GUNS will be purchased and that will equal MORE MASS MURDERS.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Yeah.....no. There were a couple of prior posts in this thread that explained why the gun ban was put in place for the upcoming convention when others made similar incorrect statements.

The Secret Service is there to protect whoever they're charged with protecting. If the threat is removed (no firearms allowed) then they don't need the Secret Service there. If they need the Secret Service there, it's because it's that presumption of safety doesn't exist.

If everyone was allowed to carry at the Convention, they wouldn't need the secret service, would they?

Because ALL OF THOSE GOOD GUYS would be protecting each other from that one bad guy.

But if the secret service is needed afterall, then the above sentence is untrue.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

Locking school doors could be asking for more trouble. What if a fire starts? Nut jobs are saying "harden the schools and have one entrance and one exit". What happens if there is a fire?

What happens if it's someone who is IN the building creating the problem? Remember - guns don't kill people. Could be some kid got into the archery equipment and is shooting folks with a crossbow. Could be they got ahold of exacto knives from the arts department and is throwing them at random students. Could be some kid got into the janitor closet and is spraying everyone in the hallway with bleach.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by Ken Nelson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

This is how it is done!

Excellent video, thanks for showing it. We are becoming immune to this strange new world we live it, but the cost is a drop in the bucket and should be installed in all public places. There is more than enough money in this country for this type of protection. Maybe some of our millionaire politicians would like to chip in

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The shooter at Robb Elementry did NOT shoot or kill anyone when he was 17 years old or younger. It was only when he turned 18 and magically could buy MAN-KILLING guns that HE turned into a mass murderer.
..........That is the logic that I base MY OPINION on - that to solve the mass murder problem - you have to do SOMETHING about the GUNS problem. The US is awash in excessive GUNS, which has led to excessive GUN violence. Excessive as compared to other countries. And if this GUN problem is not solved, then more GUNS will be purchased and that will equal MORE MASS MURDERS.

So, you are saying that if we limit the amount of guns owned to say one gun per person, we will eliminate mass killing? How about one rifle and one pistol per person? Is that too much? Maybe one 22 cal and one 30 cal rifle and maybe one 9mm and one 38cal pistol? Then since the more cars on the road, the more accidents that happen, we will allow only one car per household? Or maybe one car and one motorcycle?



Just a point about ages of shooters: Statista says:
"Between 1970 and June 16, 2020, 175 school shootings were perpetrated by 17-year-olds. 16-year-olds perpetrated the second highest number of school shootings, with 163 shootings." Just adding to your age related statement. I don't think that age is that relevant to mental health. Although, I haven't heard much in respect to senior citizens perpetrating mass murders in public schools. Of course, I really haven't researched that age group.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

Excellent video, thanks for showing it. We are becoming immune to this strange new world we live it, but the cost is a drop in the bucket and should be installed in all public places. There is more than enough money in this country for this type of protection. Maybe some of our millionaire politicians would like to chip in

Good idea about the last suggestion.....

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Actually, no. I did not "make" the original poster's point. There are exceptions to almost any situation. I am sure that most everyone in an NRA meeting feels secure knowing others are carrying. Our government via the SS has a different outlook on the situation. Protection of the asset is a different matter entirely. Ask them for their reasoning or RULES.

Personally, I have no problem with CCW individuals carrying in a church. In the past few years, there have been several church shootings. One was stopped by a man (NRA member?) with a gun. I understand some folks are in great fear of guns and worry that they may go off by themselves and harm humans. Those folks probably should not have a gun, or should take a gun safety course just to know how they work. It says a lot about someone that had to let everyone know that they would not ever be seen in a church. There's more threat of being zapped by the Holy Spirit in church than being shot in one by a gun totin' miscreant.

The irony is lost on some of you.

Regardless of which entity is doing the actual ordering of the ban -

The ban is imposed on a forum where a guy is going to speak about his opinion that there should be no bans. And he'll be able to make this statement, from the safety of the only people who are allowed to not abide by that ban, because their job is to protect him personally.

I'm not for banning guns. I'm pro 2A. I'm also pro-non-hypocrisy. The guy who is going to speak, should not be there at all, if the rules are applying ONLY to his personal taxpayer-provided bodyguards.