Another mass shooting-Greenwood Indiana

[Pakuni]

But 2 people in the thread have made the argument for it in the thread already. 
Two people on internet message board

No meaningful effort legislatively?  Yes I agree.  But to act like its not a commonly expressed sentiment and anyone thinking in response to it is just hysterical and creating a straw man is also not entirely fair.

Ive already spoken in favor of more regulation and in admiration of the policies of a number of European countries that I would support, but I can also be honest and admit that "there is no reason for guns/should be no privately held guns" is not some rare or minimally held opinion.

Are you just trolling, Wags?
I intentionally used the phrase "serious, substantial effort" to draw a very clear line of demarcation between serious, substantial efforts and what someone says on the internet. Disappointed you couldn't catch on. More disappointed if you could catch on and wrote this reply anyhow.

[MU82]

Sad people died in an another mass shooting, the bazillionth in Gunmerica this year. Glad someone who knew how to use a gun intervened before it got even worse. Glad others weren't packing and just indiscriminately started raining bullets on the scene.

If only every man, woman and child had multiple guns, just think of how safe we'd all be.

[JWags85]

Are you just trolling, Wags?
I intentionally used the phrase "serious, substantial effort" to draw a very clear line of demarcation between serious, substantial efforts and what someone says on the internet. Disappointed you couldn't catch on. More disappointed if you could catch on and wrote this reply anyhow.

No I'm not trolling.  And I'm not talking about "oh I saw a post on Twitter" from a random egg.  I'm talking about hearing from friends, neighbors, coworkers, family, etc...  that support the notion of no guns.  That influences many people's thoughts and perspectives on sentiments cause they're not watching CSPAN.

Its unfounded, cause as we both agree, there is not "serious, substantial effort" in Congress to that end.  But to act like its some baseless fairytale they only got from a Fox News talking head or some spurious internet post isn't fair either.

I don't think its a legitimate concern and I think its not a compelling fear.  I also don't think the "21 year old female needs protection" angle is compelling either.   

But I also don't have to be trolling to find nuance in discussion and not assume everyone is arguing in bad faith cause their perspective or experience is not completely grounded in the day to day legislative process.

[lawdog77]

Well, a 2021 Harvard Study showed women accounted for half of all gun purchases between 2019 and 2021., and that new gun owners were likely to be female. Women are also more lilely to take gun safety classes as well. So the threat of protecting themselves from bigger intruders is compelling

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Well, a 2021 Harvard Study showed women accounted for half of all gun purchases between 2019 and 2021., and that new gun owners were likely to be female. Women are also more lilely to take gun safety classes as well. So the threat of protecting themselves from bigger intruders is compelling

Compelling for what?

[lawdog77]

Compelling for what?

That females are worried for their safety. Wags had stated that the need for females to protect themselves from intruders was not compelling (unless I misread).

[Uncle Rico]

First, we let women vote and then drive and then get jobs men do.  Now we let them own guns?  What's next?  Letting them control their bodies?  Not in my America

[brewcity77]

That females are worried for their safety. Wags had stated that the need for females to protect themselves from intruders was not compelling (unless I misread).

And yet it's wildly irrelevant to this topic. If you wanted to talk about female purchases of firearms, why not start that topic? All it is here is a straw man for you to deflect from the actual topic at hand or a take you made that you (apparently) cannot defend. According to the article you linked in the OP, the "good samaritan" was male. The only compelling thing about this entire thread is why you deviate completely from the topic at hand, which again, you started in the first place.

[NCMUFan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY

[Pakuni]

No I'm not trolling.  And I'm not talking about "oh I saw a post on Twitter" from a random egg.  I'm talking about hearing from friends, neighbors, coworkers, family, etc...  that support the notion of no guns.  That influences many people's thoughts and perspectives on sentiments cause they're not watching CSPAN.

Its unfounded, cause as we both agree, there is not "serious, substantial effort" in Congress to that end.  But to act like its some baseless fairytale they only got from a Fox News talking head or some spurious internet post isn't fair either.

I'm trying hard not to put words in your mouth here, but it sounds like you're saying that a) even though there is no political/legislative movement to ban private gun ownership, b) no major gun control advocacy group (Brady, Giffords, March for Our Lives, Moms Demand Action, etc.) is pushing for a ban on private gun ownership and c) any attempt to ban all private gun ownership would clearly be unlawful barring a constitutional amendment, you think it's still a totally reasonable concern because you know people who think there should be no guns.
I mean, OK, I guess?

I occasionally read posts on Scoop from people who want the school to bring back its football program. I guess that means it's rational to believe it's going to happen.

[MU82]

Well, a 2021 Harvard Study showed women accounted for half of all gun purchases between 2019 and 2021., and that new gun owners were likely to be female. Women are also more lilely to take gun safety classes as well. So the threat of protecting themselves from bigger intruders is compelling

A compelling argument to take all guns away from men and give them to women?

[MUBurrow]

A compelling argument to take all guns away from men and give them to women?

[warriorchick]

A compelling argument to take all guns away from men and give them to women?

Seems to me that the issue isn't guns, it's men

[Pakuni]

Seems to me that the issue isn't guns, it's men

Why the teal?

[lawdog77]

Seems to me that the issue isn't guns, it's men

Truer words have never been spoken.

[warriorchick]

Why the teal?

To cut down on the apesh!t reactions.

[MU82]

I just hope these mass shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park and Greenwood don't hurt Marquette's enrollment.

[lawdog77]

And yet it's wildly irrelevant to this topic. If you wanted to talk about female purchases of firearms, why not start that topic? All it is here is a straw man for you to deflect from the actual topic at hand or a take you made that you (apparently) cannot defend. According to the article you linked in the OP, the "good samaritan" was male. The only compelling thing about this entire thread is why you deviate completely from the topic at hand, which again, you started in the first place.

Boy, you're easily triggered. Try to follow: Burrow states good guys with guns=OK for people to needlessly lose lives=to me that means all guns are bad. I countered with taking away all guns is a bad idea, such as self defense, and I gave an example. Others countered that giving people guns is more likely to injure themselves than criminals. So that is the topic at hand.

[brewcity77]

Boy, you're easily triggered. Try to follow: Burrow states good guys with guns=OK for people to needlessly lose lives=to me that means all guns are bad. I countered with taking away all guns is a bad idea, such as self defense, and I gave an example. Others countered that giving people guns is more likely to injure themselves than criminals. So that is the topic at hand.

You bring up an irrelevant straw man and now that's the topic? Lol.

[jesmu84]

Well, we don't have the details yet about the killer. How'd he get the rifle etc, but the Good Samaratin was legally carrying a handgun, so skip over that part, I guess. I would think you could see the nuance Pakuni.

I'm not sure on the semantics involved, but weapons are not permitted at this mall. So, a law-abiding citizen should not have had one.

[Uncle Rico]

I'm not sure on the semantics involved, but weapons are not permitted at this mall. So, a law-abiding citizen should not have had one.

Lock him up

[Pakuni]

Lock him up

We don't need gun control, we need to enforce the laws on the books.

[Dickthedribbler]

In the OP Lawdog 77 merely provided a link to the story and correctly pointed out that, had someone with a concealed carry permit not intervened, the carnage could have been worse. That's all he said.

Yet the very next post started yapping about "dumb gun laws" and the like. And others tried to see who could offer more hyperbole than the last guy. So just who hijacked the thread and who is creating strawmen.?

For all you whiners and bitchers, the Second Amendment has been around for 200+ years. Deal with it.

[Uncle Rico]

In the OP Lawdog 77 merely provided a link to the story and correctly pointed out that, had someone with a concealed carry permit not intervened, the carnage could have been worse. That's all he said.

Yet the very next post started yapping about "dumb gun laws" and the like. And others tried to see who could offer more hyperbole than the last guy. So just who hijacked the thread and who is creating strawmen.?

For all you whiners and bitchers, the Second Amendment has been around for 200+ years. Deal with it.

And mass shootings where innocent people will be killed will be around, too.  Deal with it, I guess.

[Dickthedribbler]

And mass shootings where innocent people will be killed will be around, too.  Deal with it, I guess.

I am dealing with it. I'm advocating that anyone who commits ANY Felony while armed, receive a life sentence with no possibility for parole.