Why not require a test, a license and a waiting period to get a gun? Require at least the same degree of bureaucracy that is needed to get a drivers license.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little confused at why this is in the politics forum.

Because the solution to this problem is political. And the shooters were very likely ginned up by politicos and charlatans exercising rightwing conspiracy speech.

Or people could not shoot other people.

Nobody has to shoot up a crowd of innocent people. Individuals can choose to follow laws and not harm other people. That’s a great solution: don’t harm other people.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

So your position is that people are always going to harm/kill other people? Humans don’t have the capacity to stop themselves from shooting other innocent people?

I don’t shoot innocent people, do you?

I don’t have the slightest desire to shoot anyone.

Sure. What’s your solution for making sure people who DO want to shoot someone don’t get their hands on weapons?

We have many laws to prevent that; people don’t follow those laws.

What’s your solution to stop people who don’t follow our laws?

There are many more laws and actions that could stem the contagion. But then again, the GOP doesn't care about sch things on any level. They want the chaos, no matter the price.

We have laws against rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, child abuse, assault, etc, and those crimes are committed every day. The GOP doesn’t make people break the law.

Imagine that certain companies sold devices that helped you rape more people or kidnap more people. Now imagine that organizations dedicated to maximizing the profits of these companies directed so much money to GOP elected officials that any legislation meant to decrease the number of rapes and kidnappings caused by these devices was completely out of the question, despite the fact that a majority of voters favor such legislation.

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but it also has one of the highest murder rates. This is because criminals don’t obey the law, and therefore gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens who are left helpless to defend themselves.

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Your argument is not based in reality. Guns are not tools of rape or murder, they are not evil or harmful. They don’t fire themselves at innocent people. They don’t kill innocent people or don’t hurt anyone, at all. You could be locked in a room with hundreds of handguns and AR15s and thousands of rounds of ammo and you would not be harmed by a single gun. It’s criminals who use guns against already existing laws that kill people, shoot people, harm people. Being hysterically opposed to guns because they are guns is not rational.

The 14th amendment says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. Under the “individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

So even though you think gun are “tools” to kill people, and the solution is to pass laws to restrict the right of people to own guns, it’s not possible.

Umm..they are tools--very, very effective ones.

So you keep your gun and your hammer in the same drawer? You have a box in your garage that contains screwdrivers, wrenches, measuring tape, and handguns?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little confused at why this is in the politics forum.

Because the solution to this problem is political. And the shooters were very likely ginned up by politicos and charlatans exercising rightwing conspiracy speech.

Or people could not shoot other people.

Nobody has to shoot up a crowd of innocent people. Individuals can choose to follow laws and not harm other people. That’s a great solution: don’t harm other people.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

So your position is that people are always going to harm/kill other people? Humans don’t have the capacity to stop themselves from shooting other innocent people?

I don’t shoot innocent people, do you?

I don’t have the slightest desire to shoot anyone.

Sure. What’s your solution for making sure people who DO want to shoot someone don’t get their hands on weapons?

We have many laws to prevent that; people don’t follow those laws.

What’s your solution to stop people who don’t follow our laws?

There are many more laws and actions that could stem the contagion. But then again, the GOP doesn't care about sch things on any level. They want the chaos, no matter the price.

We have laws against rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, child abuse, assault, etc, and those crimes are committed every day. The GOP doesn’t make people break the law.

Imagine that certain companies sold devices that helped you rape more people or kidnap more people. Now imagine that organizations dedicated to maximizing the profits of these companies directed so much money to GOP elected officials that any legislation meant to decrease the number of rapes and kidnappings caused by these devices was completely out of the question, despite the fact that a majority of voters favor such legislation.

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but it also has one of the highest murder rates. This is because criminals don’t obey the law, and therefore gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens who are left helpless to defend themselves.

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Your argument is not based in reality. Guns are not tools of rape or murder, they are not evil or harmful. They don’t fire themselves at innocent people. They don’t kill innocent people or don’t hurt anyone, at all. You could be locked in a room with hundreds of handguns and AR15s and thousands of rounds of ammo and you would not be harmed by a single gun. It’s criminals who use guns against already existing laws that kill people, shoot people, harm people. Being hysterically opposed to guns because they are guns is not rational.

The 14th amendment says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. Under the “individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

So even though you think gun are “tools” to kill people, and the solution is to pass laws to restrict the right of people to own guns, it’s not possible.

Umm..they are tools--very, very effective ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little confused at why this is in the politics forum.

Because the solution to this problem is political. And the shooters were very likely ginned up by politicos and charlatans exercising rightwing conspiracy speech.

Or people could not shoot other people.

Nobody has to shoot up a crowd of innocent people. Individuals can choose to follow laws and not harm other people. That’s a great solution: don’t harm other people.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

So your position is that people are always going to harm/kill other people? Humans don’t have the capacity to stop themselves from shooting other innocent people?

I don’t shoot innocent people, do you?

I don’t have the slightest desire to shoot anyone.

Sure. What’s your solution for making sure people who DO want to shoot someone don’t get their hands on weapons?

We have many laws to prevent that; people don’t follow those laws.

What’s your solution to stop people who don’t follow our laws?

There are many more laws and actions that could stem the contagion. But then again, the GOP doesn't care about sch things on any level. They want the chaos, no matter the price.

We have laws against rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, child abuse, assault, etc, and those crimes are committed every day. The GOP doesn’t make people break the law.

Imagine that certain companies sold devices that helped you rape more people or kidnap more people. Now imagine that organizations dedicated to maximizing the profits of these companies directed so much money to GOP elected officials that any legislation meant to decrease the number of rapes and kidnappings caused by these devices was completely out of the question, despite the fact that a majority of voters favor such legislation.

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but it also has one of the highest murder rates. This is because criminals don’t obey the law, and therefore gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens who are left helpless to defend themselves.

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Your argument is not based in reality. Guns are not tools of rape or murder, they are not evil or harmful. They don’t fire themselves at innocent people. They don’t kill innocent people or don’t hurt anyone, at all. You could be locked in a room with hundreds of handguns and AR15s and thousands of rounds of ammo and you would not be harmed by a single gun. It’s criminals who use guns against already existing laws that kill people, shoot people, harm people. Being hysterically opposed to guns because they are guns is not rational.

The 14th amendment says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. Under the “individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

So even though you think gun are “tools” to kill people, and the solution is to pass laws to restrict the right of people to own guns, it’s not possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

So take guns away from the criminals, not law abiding citizens.

There can be 3 billion guns in circulation, lthe responsible and law abiding gun owners aren’t using guns to kill or harm anyone. They are already following the law.

Why are criminals using guns currently to do these things? There are already hundreds of laws that prohibit criminal behavior. Why will criminals follow the new laws you all want to pass?

At what point are you willfully ignoring the fact that criminals aren’t going to follow any law passed, so what is the real reason you want to take my guns?

If there are 3 billion guns in circulation anyone who wants one will always be able to get a gun.

And people are allowed to have guns.

There is nothing wrong with people owning guns.

The problem is criminals who don’t follow laws using guns to commit crime.

Possession of guns is completely legal and our constitution protects our right to own guns.

You will have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

The problem is making it so easy for any idiot to get a gun. A lot of dumbasses get guns because other dumbasses have guns, and it is so easy for them to get them because of all the people like you who oppose reasonable gun control.

Idiots and dumbasses are allowed to own guns, have children, drive cars, be president of the United States, etc.

People who use guns to kill other people and commit crimes are called criminals. There are already enough laws that put criminals who use guns to commit crime in prison.

You want to pass laws to take guns away from non-criminals. That’s not constitutional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

So take guns away from the criminals, not law abiding citizens.

There can be 3 billion guns in circulation, lthe responsible and law abiding gun owners aren’t using guns to kill or harm anyone. They are already following the law.

Why are criminals using guns currently to do these things? There are already hundreds of laws that prohibit criminal behavior. Why will criminals follow the new laws you all want to pass?

At what point are you willfully ignoring the fact that criminals aren’t going to follow any law passed, so what is the real reason you want to take my guns?

If there are 3 billion guns in circulation anyone who wants one will always be able to get a gun.

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

The problem is making it so easy for any idiot to get a gun. A lot of dumbasses get guns because other dumbasses have guns, and it is so easy for them to get them because of all the people like you who oppose reasonable gun control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

So take guns away from the criminals, not law abiding citizens.

There can be 3 billion guns in circulation, lthe responsible and law abiding gun owners aren’t using guns to kill or harm anyone. They are already following the law.

Why are criminals using guns currently to do these things? There are already hundreds of laws that prohibit criminal behavior. Why will criminals follow the new laws you all want to pass?

At what point are you willfully ignoring the fact that criminals aren’t going to follow any law passed, so what is the real reason you want to take my guns?

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.

AR-15s work against the operators and drivers of drones, Bradleys, attack helicopters. You see, Bradleys and attack helicopters need fuel to operate. When the stop, people have to put fuel in them so they can work. Lots of bad things can happen when people are putting fuel in vehicles; lots of bad things can happen when the people who operate those vehicles are driving home, or walking around otherwise. Lots of bad things can happen to the families of people who operate Bradleys and attack helicopters. Lots of bad things can happen to the people who repair and maintain Bradleys and attack helicopters.

You are threatening to kill Americans using the United States Military. I am a Veteran, my spouse is a Veteran, and one of our children is active duty.

American Military members aren’t going to kill thousands of their fellow Americans because you are a control freak and a commie and don’t like guns. American Military members have guns and will not surrender them. They fought for all our rights and freedoms. So why would they give up their rights and freedoms?

Next: you think that Americans are going to sit back and allow anyone to take their guns? No. And people who you think you can force to take guns away from Americans don’t live in Bradleys or helicopters. They have to live in their communities and they would be absolute targets and so would their families.

Suggesting that the Military kills Americans and takes away their freedoms is so abhorrent and disgusting.

You think that it will be easy and painless for the takers, you are wrong.

It’s ridiculous to contemplate this scenario and write about Americans killing Americans, because that scenario should NEVER happen. But many people seem to have a craving and a special interest in that scenario occurring. You and everyone in America should hope it does not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a headline that said a police officer commented it wasn’t a planned attack.

My guess is someone stepped on the shooter’s Jordans or otherwise disrespected him (inadvertently bumped him…in a crowd), words were exchanged, then shots were fired.

Impulse control. Sooooo many people lack impulse control. It’s literally why assaults happen.

And it’s precisely why people should not be allowed to walk around with guns.

I mean, duh.

So I was correct:

Someone was disrespected/irritated and lacked basic impulse control. A propensity for violence resulted in a senseless death and multiple traumatic injuries.

Enough already.

Everyone must at a minimum recognize that violence isn’t acceptable. Period.

People who say things like this really annoy him. Have you ever read a history book? Do you not recognize we are just a mammal? do you really think scoldings by you will solve that problem that humans are a violent, emotional, unpredicable animal?

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a headline that said a police officer commented it wasn’t a planned attack.

My guess is someone stepped on the shooter’s Jordans or otherwise disrespected him (inadvertently bumped him…in a crowd), words were exchanged, then shots were fired.

Impulse control. Sooooo many people lack impulse control. It’s literally why assaults happen.

And it’s precisely why people should not be allowed to walk around with guns.

I mean, duh.

So I was correct:

Someone was disrespected/irritated and lacked basic impulse control. A propensity for violence resulted in a senseless death and multiple traumatic injuries.

Enough already.

Everyone must at a minimum recognize that violence isn’t acceptable. Period.

Let’s pass some more laws and make violence illegal!

Anonymous wrote:There are 400 mill guns in circulation in this countries. It's the availability of guns--it's always the guns.

So out of 400 million guns in circulation, the only shooting at the KC Superbowl parade occurred because two juveniles ( who were breaking current laws by carry guns) and an illegal alien (who was breaking multiple laws by being present in the US and carrying a gun illegally) were the only people who used guns in a way that killed and harmed innocent people?

There were hundreds/thousands of law abiding gun owners at the parade and not a single one shot anyone.

But your solution is to take guns away from the gun owners who didn’t show up to the Super Bowl parade and shoot a single person? How does that fix the problem?

Anonymous wrote:Saw a headline that said a police officer commented it wasn’t a planned attack.

My guess is someone stepped on the shooter’s Jordans or otherwise disrespected him (inadvertently bumped him…in a crowd), words were exchanged, then shots were fired.

Impulse control. Sooooo many people lack impulse control. It’s literally why assaults happen.

And it’s precisely why people should not be allowed to walk around with guns.

I mean, duh.

So I was correct:

Someone was disrespected/irritated and lacked basic impulse control. A propensity for violence resulted in a senseless death and multiple traumatic injuries.

Enough already.

Everyone must at a minimum recognize that violence isn’t acceptable. Period.