Can future mass shootings be prevented? This is not a political question (Page 5): Exactly so.

Navigator

son of witless wrote:

What you have are soft targets. Crazy people will find them. The only thing you can do is harden up the targets with security. I believe the Las Vegas shooter had other targets in mind before that shooting. Nobody knows why he abandoned his earlier plans, but perhaps some security issue deterred him.

Shooters are predators. A predator always looks for his easiest target. Rarely does a crazy person walk into a gun club or a police station and start shooting. They are crazy, not stupid.

Exactly so.

Navigator

Lonewolf wrote:

A good man with a bolt action rifle could have k**led far more then the Vegas shooter

Nope.

Navigator

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

What a fine idea, Pete! Then, no law abiding person will have SA weapons. Would you mind telling me how that will solve the problem?

I would add that just as alcohol prohibition enriched the mob and drug prohibition continues to enrich a wide variety of gangs, the prohibition of semi-automatics would enrich the gangs and continue to supply the criminal element and madmen with wh**ever they needed. When your intent is to k**l multiple individuals the prospect of paying even a $100,000 fine for the possession of a semi-automatic weapon is no deterrent at all.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

son of witless wrote:

So then a ban would have to include more weapons to be effective ? Kind of like what Australia did ? They did not stop with assault guns. That is one of the reasons gun rights advocates will not budge.

We had an “assault” weapons ban under Clinton. It had virtually no affect. This is just a start at complete gun confiscation.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Exactly. The cartels would absolutely love these laws.

Navigator wrote:

I would add that just as alcohol prohibition enriched the mob and drug prohibition continues to enrich a wide variety of gangs, the prohibition of semi-automatics would enrich the gangs and continue to supply the criminal element and madmen with wh**ever they needed. When your intent is to k**l multiple individuals the prospect of paying even a $100,000 fine for the possession of a semi-automatic weapon is no deterrent at all.

bylm1-Bernie

Navigator wrote:

I would add that just as alcohol prohibition enriched the mob and drug prohibition continues to enrich a wide variety of gangs, the prohibition of semi-automatics would enrich the gangs and continue to supply the criminal element and madmen with wh**ever they needed. When your intent is to k**l multiple individuals the prospect of paying even a $100,000 fine for the possession of a semi-automatic weapon is no deterrent at all.

Of course you are right, Nav, but the l*****ts will never see the wisdom in this. They don't want to.

Seth

JFlorio wrote:

We had an “assault” weapons ban under Clinton. It had virtually no affect. This is just a start at complete gun confiscation.

That's how the left operates, "boiling frog" style.

Remember back in the 1970s when we all thought it was amusing when they changed job titles from stewardess to flight attendant, somethingwonan or somethinggirl to somethingperson, Miss to Ms.? American to something - American?

They slowly, stealthily, gradually morphed that seemingly harmless stuff into hard hitting identity politics as a means of dividing, hell, polarizing the American people.

They'll do the same thing with firearms if we let them... Today you can't own one of these, tomorrow one of those, the next day you can only buy so many rounds of ammunition for this and so many for that.

A couple of weeks down the road, you can't own one of the those, either, and if you want to keep this one, you need these six documents, those two notarized and you need to put up a $25,000 bond. Six months farther on...

The more they get away with, the more they'll take away, until they've reached their goal of a completely disarmed citizenry (except, of course, for the mass shooters and predatory criminal types, who'll rejoice in knowing that none of their potential victims will be armed).

That's the left, that's today's Democrats... Creeping around, sneaking, gradually, patiently eroding our liberties...

Hadenough

Rose42 wrote:

Factnotfiction to address your question I don’t think they can be prevented. Not because of access to guns but because someone who is determined to k**l people is going to find a way. If there were no guns available there are other means. I once saw a video of a man with a knife who stabbed 6 officers in under 30 seconds. I think 5 died. Other countries have had mass k*****gs with knives.

Social media doesn’t help. It feeds wh**ever madness aome people have inside them.

Rose42,

I agree with you 100%. Mass murders can’t be stopped, murderers will find a way to accomplish their goal.
Quick convictions and swift punishment might slow them down. There is no need for appeal after appeal and delaying the sentencing. Every mass murderer or potential murderer needs to know if you take a life yours will be taken quickly, not 5, 10, 15 years or longer claiming insanity or remorse as a reason for appeal. The media needs to quit blaming someone else for the wrong doing of the perpetrator.
They are tragic incidents, but when the media saturates us day after day with coverage it gives copy cat nuts more courage to repeat.
I’m sure I’ll catch some grief from the anti death sentence people.
My thoughts.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

JFlorio wrote:

Wow. Neither did I. I’ll try again.
https://theconversation.com/regulating-people-not-just-guns-might-explain-australias-decline-in-mass-shootings-44770

Australians come from a different mindset than Americans have about guns and self-defense. We see it as a god-given birthright. Guns have played a much larger role in our history. Australia is not as populated as the U.S. and they have not fought a civil war as we have.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

dtucker300 wrote:

Australians come from a different mindset than Americans have about guns and self-defense. We see it as a god-given birthright. Guns have played a much larger role in our history. Australia is not as populated as the U.S. and they have not fought a civil war as we have.

I agree. The fact is there are mass murders everywhere.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

JFlorio wrote:

I agree. The fact is there are mass murders everywhere.

Especially political leaders. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc.

Hey! Did you ever notice they were all c*******ts/socialist/f*****t types?

debeda

maryjane wrote:

In many ways, our country, as a society, is very d... (show quote)

By Jive, I think you've got it, Maryjane!! Sick society breeds sick actions

debeda

JFlorio wrote:

We had an “assault” weapons ban under Clinton. It had virtually no affect. This is just a start at complete gun confiscation.

AGREED

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

JFlorio wrote:

We had an “assault” weapons ban under Clinton. It had virtually no affect. This is just a start at complete gun confiscation.

Diane Feinstein doesn't even know what an assault weapon is. She thinks it is anything that looks scary. One of the biggest gun-grabbers in the Senate, yet, she has a concealed carry permit that most citizens can never obtain in CA. Hypocrite.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

JFlorio wrote:

I agree. The fact is there are mass murders everywhere.

This one will chill your blood
July, 2011, Oslo and island of Utoya, Norway.