Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2100164)

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.

Originally Posted by Lottoguy (Post 2100100)

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?

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2099933)

It is painful to read how uneducated some are when it comes to guns. A new AR platform ban is a joke. Below is 2 pictures of the SAME firearm. One has a wood stock and the other is scary black. They both shoot the same round. They both can change their magazine capacity. They are equally effective at doing their job. So what is an AR.......a normal gun in a costume!

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2100001)

Please3 explain this rationale.

Guns make us safe. More gun make us safer, Gun free zones are worthless because makes it easier to kill us.

Trump will be there, so it is too hard to keep him safe unless we ban guns. What could be safer for Trump than a room full of ardent supporters packing?

The hypocrisy is blatant. Everyday in every way we are told we need more guns to make us safer, but Trump needs more guns to keep him safer from his own supporters?

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2100164)

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.

Originally Posted by jdulej (Post 2100010)

You're sort of making the original poster's point. A room full of people with guns means you've got something to worry about. A room full of people without guns, means you have a lot less to worry about. The NRA tries to spin it the other way round.

For me, I'd much rather be in a store or school or a church (not that you could drag me into one of those) full of people without guns.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2100026)

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)

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100186)

I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

Originally Posted by jdulej (Post 2100045)

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

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100186)

I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

Originally Posted by PugMom (Post 2100191)

it's such a good & simple idea that just may work! but we have to discuss private sales then. how would/should we handle that? thx!

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100186)

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2100216)

:ohdear::ohdear:

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2100216)

:ohdear::ohdear:

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2100216)

:ohdear::ohdear:

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".