Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

but that is also evading the point. No doubt, mental health is a huge issue. And willing people can find ways.

But you choose to ignore that this mentally unstable guy (with all the signs) had access to multiple guns. Same as the guy in Buffalo. And i think most anyone would agree that these guns are significantly more likely than a car, a knife, etc to create mass death and injury very quickly.

Do 35+ innocent people just going about their day end up dead if these guys didn't have such access to those particularly deadly weapons? The answer of course is no. Or at the very least, 99% less likely

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

We should be putting more security in place to stop these thing from happening. The school buildings should be secure to not allow intruders to come in. We're able to secure all types of other buildings, but not school buildings to keep people out that shouldn't be there?

---

Do you think that's the only solution? I would happily see my tax money go to more security at schools, I think Charlotte Mecklenburg police already get about 40% of the city's general fund.

But it seems like there's room for more to be done than add a couple security guards.

---

I do not think that's the only solution, but I do think its a start and its something that we can control immediately.

Folks talk about new gun control laws but in every school shooting a bunch of laws are broken so that doesn't go any good.

Folks talk about making guns harder to get but in places where it is the hardest to get guns (chicago, NYC, LA) they have the most gun crime in the country due to people illegally purchasing guns.

So where does that leave us if people who are committing these shootings aren't stopped by laws or restricting gun access legally...to me it leaves the third alternative, which is making targets where people are likely to go and commit shootings like schools more secure either through more physical security like metal detectors, or human security like police officers, and even mental health services.

That's my two cents on it anyway

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

but that is also evading the point. No doubt, mental health is a huge issue. And willing people can find ways.

But you choose to ignore that this mentally unstable guy (with all the signs) had access to multiple guns. Same as the guy in Buffalo. And i think most anyone would agree that these guns are significantly more likely than a car, a knife, etc to create mass death and injury very quickly.

Do 35+ innocent people just going about their day end up dead if these guys didn't have such access to those particularly deadly weapons? The answer of course is no. Or at the very least, 99% less likely

---

No one is ignoring the fact that ANYONE has access to guns.

The fact remains, legislation won't stop folks from getting access to guns. It hasn't so far. Unless gun production is completely banned in the USA. And that won't happen. Nor will responsible gun owners willingly turn over their guns to the government - if that becomes their attempt at gun control, by seizing folks' guns. I certainly won't give mine up.

What do you suggest, within reason, the answers are?

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

I but that is also evading the point. No doubt, mental health is a huge issue. And willing people can find ways.

But you choose to ignore that this mentally unstable guy (with all the signs) had access to multiple guns. Same as the guy in Buffalo. And i think most anyone would agree that these guns are significantly more likely than a car, a knife, etc to create mass death and injury very quickly.

Do 35+ innocent people just going about their day end up dead if these guys didn't have such access to those particularly deadly weapons? The answer of course is no. Or at the very least, 99% less likely

---

No one is ignoring the fact that ANYONE has access to guns.

The fact remains, legislation won't stop folks from getting access to guns. It hasn't so far. Unless gun production is completely banned in the USA. And that won't happen. Nor will responsible gun owners willingly turn over their guns to the government - if that becomes their attempt at gun control, by seizing folks' guns. I certainly won't give mine up.

What do you suggest, within reason, the answers are?

---

No doubt the existing proliferation is likely untenable to clean up.

Yet -- there has to be a cause / effect between the access and the volume of these types of incidents that just don't occur in other countries.

There are people with mental health issues everywhere. I don't see multiple stories of where they shoot up schools though (and lets be honest, we've had so many, we only focus on the particuarly egregious ones --- 10+ killings). If only a couple of folks get killed in a school nowadays, unless its regional, we hardly even discuss it.

But the answer is not -- just keep screaming loudly that guns aren't a problem

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

AR-15s weren't available to the public until the 90s. One thing to have a hunting rifle in your back glass, another to have a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified, illegally, to be fully automatic. From a family of avid hunters and concealed-carry certified, but still see zero reason for the general public to own an AR-15, and never will.

---

Define an AR-15 please.

And you know it's illegal to have a fully automatic machine gun right?

---

I do know that, that's why I said it was a "semi-automatic weapon" that COULD be modified ILLEGALLY and there are simple online tutorials on how to accomplish this.

Someone asked what was different from the 70s to now, and one major difference is that 18 year olds in the 70s didn't have access to AR-15s that they could learn to modify to automatic weapons at home. Several of the most high-profile mass shooting have been these type of weapons. I'm not saying ban guns, I just have a really hard time understanding the REASON anyone, let alone an 18 year old, would need a semi-automatic weapon with 30 rounds. My father and brother both own them, and they've ONLY used them at a gun range, so I see no legitimate reason for them to have them other than to say they do and because they can legally.

---

Just because your brother and father only go to the gun range doesn't mean that's what everyone uses their's for. I have an AR-10 (basically the same rifle except chambered in a .308) that I just to hunt hogs with.

---

I don't think the issue is that AR owners don't ever use their guns for something other than either murdering humans or target practice at the range; the issue is that you could hunt hogs essentially as effectively with other rifles that aren't as easily modified to be utilized to efficiently kill a bunch of people.

Regardless, like hokie has said I don't think the lowest hanging fruit is raising the bar substantially in order to get specific types of guns (although I don't think restricting AR's is without merit). Like others have said, I believe a minority of mass gun killings occur with an AR.

Well-crafted red flag laws have to happen though. There is no cogent argument against them.

---

Depends on the red flag laws....a pissed off ex being able to call the cops and have them remove guns from someone's house, or a mad neighbor calling the cops, maybe even someone who's about to rob a house and decides to call the cops to tell them that that person is a danger. The problem with the red flag laws is that no one there is willing to lay out how the items that I listed will be handled? People lose their rights all the time and we don't blink an eye. If my wife gets a bruise on her arm and is mad at me about something, she can call the cops and tell them that I hit her and then i'm in jail for 72 hours with no questions asked....same thing will happen with red flag laws unless there is a way that we can make sure that things like that are prevented, then i'm against red flag laws. Honestly, i don't trust the politicians that are making the laws to not screw it up and tread all over my rights.

None of the thoughts on adding new laws doesn't take into account that the FBI comes out and says that they are familiar with all of these people, but never actually do anything to stop them.

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

Chem, does it make you feel like you are doing something by getting on your soapbox about guns? Other than trolling, what does that accomplish? Perhaps you should stop and propose something.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What do you suggest, within reason, the answers are?

---

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

but that is also evading the point. No doubt, mental health is a huge issue. And willing people can find ways.

But you choose to ignore that this mentally unstable guy (with all the signs) had access to multiple guns. Same as the guy in Buffalo. And i think most anyone would agree that these guns are significantly more likely than a car, a knife, etc to create mass death and injury very quickly.

Do 35+ innocent people just going about their day end up dead if these guys didn't have such access to those particularly deadly weapons? The answer of course is no. Or at the very least, 99% less likely

---

No one is ignoring the fact that ANYONE has access to guns.

The fact remains, legislation won't stop folks from getting access to guns. It hasn't so far. Unless gun production is completely banned in the USA. And that won't happen. Nor will responsible gun owners willingly turn over their guns to the government - if that becomes their attempt at gun control, by seizing folks' guns. I certainly won't give mine up.

What do you suggest, within reason, the answers are?

---

I think people ignore this and i'm not sure why. There are 393 million guns in this country and an estimated 12 billion rounds of ammo made every year.

You aren't going to take people's guns, you aren't going to be able to keep people from getting them through illegal means if they want them, and that 393 million doesn't include illegal guns that have been brought into this country. You aren't going to get the ammo out of people's hands, and even if you strop production your won't be able to keep people from making their own.

Is the government going from door to door and trying to confiscate guns/ammo? If they do you'll have a Waco in every county and trust me when I tell you that who ever is trying to confiscate these weapons will run out of people long before all the guns are gone.

I do know that this question wasn't posed to me but I am going to answer it "What do you suggest, within reason, the answers are?"

• better security at high probability targets such as schools
• more mental health professionals who are focused on helping kids, not making them more confused
• better training for teachers to recognize when someone is potentially a risk to themselves or someone else
• better communication with parents and teachers or other resources there to help kids
• better parents in general

The point was made earlier in this thread that even though access was easier to guns 30-40 years ago, we seem to have many more shootings now. I think a large part of the issue is the breakdown of the family unit.

just my 2 cents...

I know that guns are part of the problem. I also know they are neither the root cause, nor sole cause of what is happening.

I don't know why other countries don't (thankfully) have what is becoming a common incident of mass shooting. Frankly, I'm more concerned about what's going on here.

As I said previously, this is a multi-pronged problem that needs work from a lot of directions - not just those screaming "gun reform".

PackFansXL said:

---

Chem, does it make you feel like you are doing something by getting on your soapbox about guns? Other than trolling, what does that accomplish? Perhaps you should stop and propose something.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What do you suggest, within reason, the answers are?

---

---

---

lol. Yes, lets not get upset when 20 students are killed. Save that for the important things.

I have proposed something --- quit sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "its not guns" (not you specifically, talking about the general convo, though clearly that discussion point has been made here multiple times already)


But to me, that approach is disingenuous at best, and results in the breakdown of meaningful conversations from occurring.
Also does not mean we cant have concurrent conversations about how to address the mental health issues and underwhelming resources available to address.

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

Steve we see with suicide and homicide rates that what you're saying simply isn't true.

When you have fewer guns and therefore make it harder to inflict lethal damage on yourself or others, you have fewer suicide and homicides. Making it harder to hurt yourself or others doesn't mean you won't try, but the lethality of guns dictates that a very high proportion of attempts to kill yourself or others with a gun are successful, which isn't true for other means.

Research shows that countries with fewer guns have lower homicide rates. Even US states with fewer guns have fewer homicides; in a landmark 2002 study, analysis of data from 1988 to 1997 showed that states with "high" gun ownership had three times the rate of homicide than states with few guns. A decade later, a 2013 study found that every percentage point increase in gun ownership corresponded to a 0.9% higher risk of gun homicide. Countries and states that legally limit overall gun ownership simply have fewer gun deaths.

Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk

We may all disagree on what to do about gun deaths, but we have got to stop sugarcoating the reality that gun prevalence causes more suicides and homicides. It does. That's not disputable.

That may be a tradeoff you're willing to make but be honest about being unwilling to limit access to guns as a means to reduce suicides and homicides.

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

I know that guns are part of the problem. I also know they are neither the root cause, nor sole cause of what is happening.

I don't know why other countries don't (thankfully) have what is becoming a common incident of mass shooting. Frankly, I'm more concerned about what's going on here.

As I said previously, this is a multi-pronged problem that needs work from a lot of directions - not just those screaming "gun reform".

---

But see at least you acknowledge guns are part of the issue -- there are many who won't go that far, which contributes to the complete disconnect in this country.

I get caring more abotu what happens here....but I also believe in evaluating how others do things better. And it seems silly to say, but, other countries keep their school age kids (and/or grocery shoppers, or office workers) safer than we do here....continually. So maybe, there is something to learn there?

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

but that is also evading the point. No doubt, mental health is a huge issue. And willing people can find ways.

But you choose to ignore that this mentally unstable guy (with all the signs) had access to multiple guns. Same as the guy in Buffalo. And i think most anyone would agree that these guns are significantly more likely than a car, a knife, etc to create mass death and injury very quickly.

Do 35+ innocent people just going about their day end up dead if these guys didn't have such access to those particularly deadly weapons? The answer of course is no. Or at the very least, 99% less likely

---

Evidently you didn't read any of my other posts. I've said change the age requirements, institute red flag restraints for people with troubling issues, and hold those responsible for giving these people access to guns.

I haven't evaded anything. I addressed another comment that WAS evading a big part of the issue.

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

Steve we see with suicide and homicide rates that what you're saying simply isn't true.

When you have fewer guns and therefore make it harder to inflict lethal damage on yourself or others, you have fewer suicide and homicides. Making it harder to hurt yourself or others doesn't mean you won't try, but the lethality of guns dictates that a very high proportion of attempts to kill yourself or others with a gun are successful, which isn't true for other means.

Research shows that countries with fewer guns have lower homicide rates. Even US states with fewer guns have fewer homicides; in a landmark 2002 study, analysis of data from 1988 to 1997 showed that states with "high" gun ownership had three times the rate of homicide than states with few guns. A decade later, a 2013 study found that every percentage point increase in gun ownership corresponded to a 0.9% higher risk of gun homicide. Countries and states that legally limit overall gun ownership simply have fewer gun deaths.

Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk

We may all disagree on what to do about gun deaths, but we have got to stop sugarcoating the reality that gun prevalence causes more suicides and homicides. It does. That's not disputable.

That may be a tradeoff you're willing to make but be honest about being unwilling to limit access to guns as a means to reduce suicides and homicides.

---

Okay, by that logic let's get rid of tall buildings and high bridges, knives and razor blades, anything that can be used to make a bomb, nails that are used in pipe bombs, all drugs and poisons that are considered lethal, and anything else that people can use to harm others or themselves. Let's assume all of these people killing themselves and others are mentally stable and just having a bad day. Got it!

Quote:

---

I have proposed something --- quit sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "its not guns" (not you specifically, talking about the general convo, though clearly that discussion point has been made here multiple times already)

---

Sorry, I missed it. What was your solution?

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

You're stunning blindness to the massive censorship underway......and on the precipice of having a MINISTER OF TRUTH".

Vaccine mandates too? Mask wearing? Tyranny slips right up on some..........

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

its but that is also evading the point. No doubt, mental health is a huge issue. And willing people can find ways.

But you choose to ignore that this mentally unstable guy (with all the signs) had access to multiple guns. Same as the guy in Buffalo. And i think most anyone would agree that these guns are significantly more likely than a car, a knife, etc to create mass death and injury very quickly.

Do 35+ innocent people just going about their day end up dead if these guys didn't have such access to those particularly deadly weapons? The answer of course is no. Or at the very least, 99% less likely

---

Evidently you didn't read any of my other posts. I've said change the age requirements, institute red flag restraints for people with troubling issues, and hold those responsible for giving these people access to guns.

I haven't evaded anything. I addressed another comment that WAS evading a big part of the issue.

---

you are correct, i had not seen your previous posts. fair enough. I just think its too easy for the gun group to say "its not the guns"

Its going to have to be a packaged solution. No way you take away all guns, but perhaps restrict some types, and then couple it with improvements in mental health

Don't give ONE INCH to the anti-gun Left if you want to keep your 2nd Amendment rights. Their strategy is one of incremental erosion of the right to own firearms, until years later it is essentially destroyed.

For example, if you cave and think it is "reasonable" to ban AR-15 type rifles, then in 5 or 10 more years they will be calling to ban all handguns. Then 10 years after that, they will will be calling to ban private ownership of even own bolt-action rifles or shotguns, and only allow you to use it with a special permit, renting it from a gun club with the rifles locked up at the gun club (as done in many European nations).

Don't fall for this "reasonable" gun restrictions argument -- with regard to "red flag" laws, banning "high-capacity" magazines, and everything else. It's all part of a larger strategy of the Communist Left to substantively and incrementally destroy gun ownership rights.

And the whole time, these Leftists will lie to your face and try to gaslight you and say "no one is coming for your guns".

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

---

We can all agree on that point. Unfortunately that isn't where our politicians are.

Take Beto ORorke today for instance...

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

---

We can all agree on that point. Unfortunately that isn't where our politicians are.

Take Beto ORorke today for instance...

---

it's like I've said before empty barrels make the most noise.

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

---

We can all agree on that point. Unfortunately that isn't where our politicians are.

Take Beto ORorke today for instance...

---

it's like I've said before empty barrels make the most noise.

---

What a great saying...

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

---

hokie, what do you think of the Red Flag Laws in New York?

People are also ignoring the very first question they should be asking themselves.

Why is there a "need" to take action and further restrict gun rights? Because of this one mass shooting in Texas? Just ignore the thousands that are murdered in Chicago and all the other big Democrat-run cities every year that already have gun control (probably dozens just this past weekend)? But because the communist Lamestream media is salivating to take away our gun rights and highly publicizes this Texas shooting with wall-to-wall coverage, we "must take action NOW"? What's so special about the Texas shooting, and not the dozens shot and murdered over the weekend in Chicago and all the other cities?

Here's the bottom line. There is NOT a need to act now. Zero. Nada. You are just letting yourselves be emotionally manipulated by the commie Lamestream media, and led around by the nose like an animal. Think for yourself for once, and stop marching to the drum of the far Left Establishment media.

The United States still has a relatively low level of crime. There is NOT a "crisis" of "gun violence" that requires us to "act now". It's all an emotionally manipulated, emotionally driven move to "take action" over a faux "crisis" that does not require it.

And no matter what the level of crime is, it NEVER can justify eroding and destroying the Second Amendment.

Firearms have moved to the #1 cause of death amongst Children and Adolescents, so yes there is something to be said about it.



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

statefan91 said:

---

Firearms have moved to the #1 cause of death amongst Children and Adolescents, so yes there is something to be said about it.



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

---

There are over 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States now every year. Why is the communist Lamestream media not talking that? They barely mention this.

If gun violence is a "crisis", then the drug overdose problem is FIVE TIMES MORE of a crisis.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20211117.htm

Quote:

---

Drug Overdose Deaths in the U.S. Top 100,000 Annually

For Immediate Release: November 17, 2021

Provisional data from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics indicate that there were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States during 12-month period ending in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before.

---

And around 30,000 deaths every year from automobile accidents.

Both of those are far more than the ~19,000 gun homicide deaths (many of which are suicides).

So I don't know how that breaks down to those under 18, but I have a hard time believing that more under 18 year olds are dying from gun homicide than drug overdoses.

I was just talking about Children and Adolescents so can't really speak to your stats.

Drug overdoses are a huge issue. Isn't that part of the reason the government has been trying to hold the Sackler's / Oxy manufacturers liable? It's not like it's being ignored. We're allowed to be concerned about more than one thing.

I would be in favor of looking at policies in other countries to see if they have things that could be adopted and hopefully enforced here, as long as no one's rights were infringed upon.

As I said, there are many parts to this problem. Guns, but more so the idiots firing them, are only one part. I personally feel that the mental health issue is paramount to guns.

Like Steve said, discipline and the lack thereof... the complete family unit...

not to forget religious beliefs for those who practice it, the list is long and every item that can be put on it is a part of the problem.

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Bell Tower Grey said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

You said "Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed."

---

Since you are on your horse, let me clarify my statement by writing it this way:

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be PERHAPS EFFECTIVELY addressed."

You're welcome.

---

You may have me mistaken with someone else, I'm not on a horse nor did I say thanks for anything you've posted. I was just asking why taking things on concurrently wasn't the goal.

Do you currently vote for politicians that will focus on how we deal with Mental Health issues? Is that somewhere on your radar when considering candidates?

---

I believe the point he is trying to make, that you're evading, is that a person that wants to hurt people is going to find a way to do it no matter what tool he can get his hands on. Example: the SUV in Waukesha. The cause is not the gun. If you don't fix the cause, the tool is irrelevant.

---

its but that is also evading the point. No doubt, mental health is a huge issue. And willing people can find ways.

But you choose to ignore that this mentally unstable guy (with all the signs) had access to multiple guns. Same as the guy in Buffalo. And i think most anyone would agree that these guns are significantly more likely than a car, a knife, etc to create mass death and injury very quickly.

Do 35+ innocent people just going about their day end up dead if these guys didn't have such access to those particularly deadly weapons? The answer of course is no. Or at the very least, 99% less likely

---

Evidently you didn't read any of my other posts. I've said change the age requirements, institute red flag restraints for people with troubling issues, and hold those responsible for giving these people access to guns.

I haven't evaded anything. I addressed another comment that WAS evading a big part of the issue.

---

you are correct, i had not seen your previous posts. fair enough. I just think its too easy for the gun group to say "its not the guns"

Its going to have to be a packaged solution. No way you take away all guns, but perhaps restrict some types, and then couple it with improvements in mental health

---

I'm not sure if the world is going to end today. Something absolutely amazing happened!!!!

PackFansXL said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

---

hokie, what do you think of the Red Flag Laws in New York?

---

I think it's decently crafted in that there is a burden of proof as well as multiple avenues to lift the emergency protection order.

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

---

We can all agree on that point. Unfortunately that isn't where our politicians are.

Take Beto ORorke today for instance...

---

Agreed --- his political grandstanding is part of the issue, no doubt. And in this case and timing, frankly offensive.

We need people talking about talking, not about absolutes. This is not an "absolute" issue...

Packchem91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Give me a law that doesn't have the potential of treading on my rights and an enforcement agency that can show that they aren't incompetent and i'll support a red flag law. The problem is that you can't do that

---

That's a worthless litmus test because no laws stand up to that type of scrutiny.

Virtually every law of consequence has the potential to tread on your rights if it's not well-crafted, and every enforcement agency is imperfect in their enforcement.

People's fascination with law and order stops at the door when it comes to reasonable gun laws. Then it's all freedom, all the time.

---

That isn't true - For instance I would support investigating people who have been reported as a potential threats without actually confiscating their guns if they have any.

Problem is that people who typically want red flag laws seem to believe in a "take the guns first" approach...that I don't support

---

We agree that "Take the guns first," ask questions later wouldn't be an example of a well-crafted red flag law (or even remotely politically viable).

---

I agree 100%. The key is having the follow through on well crafted law and not something that looks for political points first.

---

We can all agree on that point. Unfortunately that isn't where our politicians are.

Take Beto ORorke today for instance...

---

Agreed --- his political grandstanding is part of the issue, no doubt. And in this case and timing, frankly offensive.

We need people talking about talking, not about absolutes. This is not an "absolute" issue...

---

Very True

I think not . Well-crafted gun laws led to today's Australian tyranny and concentration camps. No thank you to that.