No, I did not say they kill more people. You are the one justifying these deaths by numbers of comparison. That’s what it amounts to, justification to maintain gun rights.not at all. u r demonizing guns and sayin they kill MORE people then anything! u r INCORRECT!!
more people die from heart problems and obesity. where is the outrage against forks??
U can’t have it just yer way!!
Then we failed miserably in this instance.
by all means, PLEASE for the love of anything, tell us what gun laws u think would have stopped this tragedy?T This discussion is about living people that had their lives taken, the same as those aborted, yet these might affect someone’s gun rights, and we can’t have that.
Three mass shootings in how many days now? How many this year? It’s getting worse…
But you said it would be an eye for an eye to shoot the killer.
Solutions will not come from doing nothing and leaving things as they are.
If you were there with a gun and saw this guy shooting at the children would you try to shoot him to stop it or would you wait for the police to arrive as he continues to murder all the children one by one knowing that by the time the police get there they will all be dead?
Im confused
I understand and way to dodge a simple question.
I would hope that I would have tried to stop him, even if I didn’t have a gun. Now, your hypothetical is not going to help those people in Connecticut. They’re already gone, so what’s your point? How many will have to die before it’s enough?
Isnt that what you espouse?
You made the point that shooting a man killing kids would be revenge.
Depends on how many bullets they figure he might have left as to minimize the damage. Some law enforcement officials are good at estimating these types of things.
It can if instead of saying we need more “gun free zones” we train at least some of the staff in the schools to carry guns and give them training with target practice, drill scenarios, and gun safety. Or maybe have a constant presence of at least one or two armed police officers at each of these schools at all times when children are there. Actually, I think the latter would be a good compromise that everyone can agree on. They have armed guards protecting money at banks, and children are much more valuable than money.
Nothing will work, it’s all a ‘dodge’ if it’s against someone giving up some rights. I would gladly check my guns in and out of a sheriff’s office. I would make wait times more lengthy for people to purchase guns. Someone else mentioned controlling ammo, that’s not a bad idea. But watching some on these threads LOLing like nothing significant has happened, and others claiming ‘gun rights’ over everything else is not going to help anyone in the future. Where’s the concern for these people who lost all rights yesterday?
Are you suggesting a larger government?
Over 1000 posts and that about sums it up quite well.
There are enough police officers to dedicate one or two to each school. And a police officer wouldn’t mind risking their life to save a child.Are you suggesting a larger government?
I can say, not everyone is ‘trainable’ to use a weapon. Then it’s suggesting that we placed gun control in the hands of average citizens, around CHILDREN! This guy was not much older than a child and he got his hands on his mother’s gun. In fact, he shot her in the face with one of her own guns. It takes more than just knowing how to use one. It requires one to actually pull the trigger.
As for police officers at school, how many officers die in the line of duty now? What we’re talking about settling for is an acceptable body count. Oh, if we could have limited it to ____ kids, it would have been an acceptable loss? Good thing the police were there.