permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You people have more than earned any and all distains given you..

It is not simply the owning of guns, I currently have 9. have owned at least one from the time I was 6 year old. at least when my father said it was mine..

If you people want any respect earn it.. propose some solution, anything at all. You want to keep your guns more than anything.. but never , ever do you mention any sort of alternative plan. When the word "regulation" is used, you scream about "confiscation" as if the two words were synonymous..

Howabout, talk a plan or simply shut up.. time is long past for production rather then gnashing of teeth.

The hatch has started...

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

American Vet

Several people have offered concrete solution (myself included) to address the problems; but since they do not involve more useless 'gun control' schemes, you left extremist ignore them.

Still waiting for you to tell what a 'military style assault gun/ is.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

I keep asking for a solution which does not require removal of our guns and never have I gotten an answer.. Regulation is not removal of peoples guns.. got any idea a t all?? Now you all can echo, "it is a mental problem" not a gun problem.... OK.. now give a plan on how to deal with that mental problem.. it sounds plausable,, let us hear the nut and bolts of the plan... How we gonna do it??

I you do not think we should concern ourselves with a mental case, than suggest some other plan.. I truly think k*****g the unarmed and helpless is simply not going to work..

If you truly think you need a description of a military style you will have to accept someone description.. all of you right wingers never propose a description and if you get one you simply say "the military does not have a designated assault gun" and refuse the description given no matter how detailed and often used..

I suggest you dig up a copy of the crime reduction act of the 90s and use the description that was used for limiting certain guns for about 10 years until the gun lobby owned all the republicans and refused to fund the act.. end of a good idea..

Justice101

The parents of mass shooters are rarely held responsible for the crimes of their children and gun storage laws are rare in the U.S.

https://news.yahoo.com/parents-school-shooters-rarely-held-184300125.html

Father of July 4 shooting suspect charged with 7 felonies
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/father-july-4-parade-shooting-suspect-charged-felony-95445748

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

that is a very valid point about parents.. Seem we should work on that.

Storage is another point to concentrate on.. I did not realize that until just couple weeks ago. An argument about gun storage went on for a couple days and then we got a law passed requiring it.. I better look it up and make sure I am doing it correctly.. pretty sure I am..

American Vet

BIRDMAN

You do know you can buy ammonia nitrate at the hardware store

BIRDMAN

😁

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

OK, take the guns out of the equation and we'll have firm ground upon which to seek a solution.

It can then be understood that criminal violence, with or without a gun, is an EFFECT, not the CAUSE.
IOW, the weapons used to commit such violence have absolutely no role to play in causing it.

If you can get past your irrational prejudices and political biases and accept this logic,
we may have something to talk about.

Trying to control the guns is foolish, it is the human condition we must heal,
and there is only one way that can be done.

And, right now, given the terrible condition our people and our country are in,
that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

The k*****gs will continue, the violence will escalate, more gun laws will get passed,
and the k*****g will go on, the violence will escalate, and more gun laws will get passed,
rinse and repeat.

Unless, of course . . . . .

BIRDMAN

😁

BIRDMAN

You always show pictures of Vikings are you a w***e s*********t

Candy Girl

Dear Cuda2020,
Passing stricter gun laws does not work, I am sure you are aware that the States with the strictest gun laws have not prevented a person who has no moral compass, or respect for the rule of law. I wonder how many people are aware of someone who is violent with a proven track record of hurting people and looking the other way because it did not involve them personally.

I wonder how many times a person has to threaten someone before action is taken. I have witnessed people who walk past those who are lying in the streets in a drug-induced state and give no thought as to why a person would choose this kind of life.

There used to be mental wards in every hospital back in the 1980s I know this because as a nurse I witnessed firsthand the closing of mental health hospitals with patients being discharged to live in the streets. Why did this happen, insurance companies no longer wanted to cover mental health stays due to the cost.

Gun laws do not fix the problem, get people into rehab, or off the streets, promote respect of self and being a productive member of society. There was a time when people cared about one another and offered a helping hand. Today those hands provide free drug zones, let those who choose to destroy property that is not theirs without consequences for their actions.

If you want to stop the shootings then get involved with your community, and report those who are verbally and physically assaulting people. There is a lot to be said about being "your brother's keeper".

pescado rojo

Fact: You are wrong. Places with armed prospective victims have less k*****gs. I live in one of the most heavily armed counties in the US. Sixty thousand people. 3 murders in five years and one of those was a knife fight between two i*****l a***ns. One in every eight adults in this county had a CCP BEFORE we became a constitutional carry state.

pescado rojo

I suggest you dig up some common sense and some research sk**ls. It is the left that cannot define an assault rifle. The Army defines an assault rifle as a shoulder fired weapon firing an intermediate powered cartridge and capable of selective fire.. That kind of leaves out the AR 15. They are not military rifles. No military in the damn world uses them. They are semi auto rifles that LOOK like military rifles, like there are pellet guns that LOOK like actual firearms. Assault rifles are defined by function, NOT appearance.
If you are referring to the Clintoon gun ban from 1994-2004, it had zero effect on the murder rate. The murder rate was already trending down and continued to do so at the same rate, before, during and after the ban. The description of firearms in this ridiculous ban defined an "assault weapon" mostly by cosmetics, calling sporting rifles that looked scary "assault" rifles and saying nothing about several REAL military rifles. Just one more example of Liberal lies. I remember back in the seventies when the Liberal woolly booger was "Saturday Night Specials." Their "proposed legislation" to ban "cheap handguns used in crimes" included numerous very expensive high end handguns. Tell the t***h; Liberals want to ban guns, period, and have realized they must go about it by attempting small, incremental abuses.
When a pointy headed Progressive says "no one needs an AR 15," what they mean is "I don't need one so neither does anyone else."