Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

🔥🔥🔥

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if good guys are carrying guns, it just makes it easier for bad guys to bring their guns and blend in. And since the bad guys are nuts and on drugs, you really can't realistically expect them to be afraid of the good guys.

If we stop the catch and release programs for bad guys with guns and lock them away for a couple of decades or more then you are just left with good guys with guns.

Looks like one suspect is here illegally, so a secure border will help as well.

ha ha ha. clearly you have a very optimistic view of human nature. We'd have to put half the male population in jail permanently to get all the bad guys off the streets.

I think a good start would be a nationwide gun ban for anyone convicted of a crime related to domestic abuse. Not only is the weapon dangerous to the abuser's family, but domestic abuse is a very good predictor of people who will go on to commit violent crimes against the broader society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.

Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.

AR-15s don't work against drones, Bradleys, attack helicopters etc.

Obligatory:

Life is absolutely miserable for the Taliban. Why would you want to volunteer for that sort of life rather than work towards actual problem solving, democracy and peace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

This is real life, not an action movie. Getting into a shootout with a criminal is very dangerous for bystanders and your own family. The best action is to avoid confrontation at all costs. You are fantasizing about an incredibly rare hypothetical meanwhile innocent people are dying just to perpetuate your delusion of being Rambo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.

Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.

AR-15s don't work against drones, Bradleys, attack helicopters etc.

Obligatory:

Life is absolutely miserable for the Taliban. Why would you want to volunteer for that sort of life rather than work towards actual problem solving, democracy and peace?

This word- this isn’t a word we hear anymore- PEACE. We live in a country that is turning into a war zone over nothing. I want to live in PEACE, we all deserve to live in PEACE. We deserve to go to church, school, movies, and parades without a threat to our lives. Instead of focusing on bad guys and good guys, let’s talk about PEACE. How do we get that? Is it by having everyone armed to the teeth? Unlikely. I don’t want shootouts at Wal Mart even if the “good guys” win- I want PEACE.

What country in the world has PEACE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.

Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.

AR-15s don't work against drones, Bradleys, attack helicopters etc.

Obligatory:

It's always annoying to me that people actually believe a US military that at best can call on just over 2 million personnel, fewer than half of which are combat personnel, and many of whom would disappear in a true civil conflict, could even begin to attempt to pacify a country the size of the United States with 340 million people. Maybe a couple metro areas with full strength. Otherwise, just stop pretending. And that's a good thing anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

We imprison more people than most countries in the world. Cleary it isn't working.

[Anonymous]

[img]https://imgbb.com/">

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.

Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.

AR-15s don't work against drones, Bradleys, attack helicopters etc.

Obligatory:

It's always annoying to me that people actually believe a US military that at best can call on just over 2 million personnel, fewer than half of which are combat personnel, and many of whom would disappear in a true civil conflict, could even begin to attempt to pacify a country the size of the United States with 340 million people. Maybe a couple metro areas with full strength. Otherwise, just stop pretending. And that's a good thing anyway.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the overwhelming majority of Americans aren't interested in rallying behind Toothless Jethro and his Merry Band of Ridgerunners Militia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

We imprison more people than most countries in the world. Cleary it isn't working.

Yeah, people who are criminals don’t stop committing crimes because other people go to jail; they stop committing crimes because they go to jail. They actually continue in many cases to commit crimes in prison.

So you want to punish innocent people because criminals commit crimes, have always committed crimes, and will always commit crimes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

This is one of the suspects who was arrested for shooting other people, bystanders in the crowd tackled him and held him until police could take him into custody.

Why does a single law abiding American have to be judged guilty without a trial and lose their constitutional rights because this suspected juvenile shooter is (suspected of) breaking the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”