BuckSwope

Won't be effective at doing what? Myself and others are saying that unfortunately because of where they are and how they act, this is the best way to clear them out. The precision strikes without invasion will make it far more likely that the result is civilian deaths but not much touching Hamas. What they are doing will be more effective at taking Hamas out (but the unfortunate part is that it's AS WELL as citizens. ). I get where you are going and agree to a point. The problem for us is their decisions are not in a vacuum and we are directly tied to them. That's where I don't agree with Strike's flippant post above - we should care because it's soon going to affect us and our soldiers. Could we have pushed them to get humanitarian aid to the people or go about it differently on that front? Possibly, but we also can't say they don't have a valid point that this would allow Hamas an avenue to escape as well (or they would end up with the supplies and the citizens still suffer).

Then you can understand how your solution wouldn't be effective. Or did you mean they should at least start there?

You understand how elaborate the tunnel system is they use and how they hide in hospitals and schools, right?

All gunz!

Again, no. Read what you quote. Just admit you assumed my position and wanted a 2A rant. It happens.

Yep, you missed my point but got in the conversation anyway. What I was talking about was the type of crap like "they will just use a knife". That's why I was specific in the next part when I posted "when X is not a gun".

See, this is also where you start to spiral the conversation and should be specific. The VAST majority of "mass shootings" are more domestic/crime/inner city type shootings, so if your goal is to reduce mass shooting numbers and deaths, shouldn't that be the starting point of a discussion? But that is very different than the type of shooting people usually have in mind when they say they want to stop them - like this one. Those are also the deaths that are in large part tied to handguns. What people are trying to tell you is that: 1. These are extremely rare 2. banning one type of gun of 100s isn't going to make a significant dent in the numbers of these types of shootings for reasons talked about.

I didn't even bring up the 2A in that post, and it's intent is debated as well. What is your point, or more accurately - what do you think my point was?

Thanks for demonstrating my point. We've already gone down this road, and I lump you in with that side of the equation. Never any specifics or solutions, just "fix people" or it's "mental illness". Also, IMO, you guys always sidestepping that the efficiency of guns also plays a role makes you look as dumb as some of these guys talking about guns and gun bans. Anybody who types "they will just use X" (where X is not a gun) should probably also be crossed off the list of people wanting to have a serious discussion.

I was going to suggest it to @GutterBoy as well since he listens to podcasts - Revisionist History just had a series on guns that brought up some great points, and at least one of the episodes was talking through some of this stuff. In there they were talking to surgeons saying how and why handguns were more deadly - a lot to do with being able to get closer, head shots more likely, a rifle tends to knock people down making a follow up shot less deadly, etc.. They also talk about just how nonsensical these suggest AR bans are because they really are just specific pieces, not the platform, and it still leaves 100s of guns still out there just as deadly and perfectly legal.

Not one solution, but they do mainly only want to talk mental illness. But like I said, they aren't educated about it and don't seem to want to. (but of course demand the other side of the debate knows everything about guns to even talk to them. )

Correct, I just wish most of those same people would take the time to learn about mental illness. They like to throw that around about as much as the left does "assualt rifle", but most of the time they can't talk about stats or differences in the shooters. Both sides seem to have a boogeyman they don't understand or want to learn more about, but of course are convinced it's the one solution to the problem.

Good info, thanks. This is largely my point that people are throwing out solutions that are not even legal or constitutional. Just like there is a high bar to disqualify from having a gun as you describe, there is a high bar needed to commit somebody involuntarily.

I think most can agree on that. What then? He was military and worked with guns - police should have gone to his house and removed them this summer when he was in care? Maine doesn't have red flags, so could ge have turned around and bought more legally? Never should have been let out and held institutionalized against his will (if that's what happened?) Just asking questions, but most threads I think about there is a roadblock of some sort to the solution.

A lot harder by definition when you are walking around largely by yourself. Now, if you replace guns with knives and bats in this guys hand, I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about 20+ deaths.. Guns are part of the equation.

Correct, that's why I said the solution is to not have it get to that point, not say the problem is too few people are armed. It's also why I brought up the armor, because now these copy cats are using that, and you seem to want citizens to start shooting at them. Next is the solution to have the citizens walk around in armor as well?

Did this one have armor as well? Even if not this one probably wins in a shootout vs Joe Citizen too knowing his training and background. Sorry, I don't agree the answer is to have a shootout in public, it shouldn't get to that point to begin with. As a country we don't seem too motivated to stop it from getting to that point.

A lot, mainly Middle School. Small town, my uncle was a cop, and he murdered someone on the job. It died down after a few years and the trial and more details came out.

Does this apply to diversity days or pride days too?

Correct. Just not on Halloween.

Of course not, the movie would probably offend someone or the snacks would be a no-no. Plus, they should just be reading and doing math anyway.

I'm surprised they haven't already. Columbus was a mass murderer, Thanksgiving brings up native trauma, Christmas is too religious, valentines day probably excludes queer too much, Easter is religious, etc. Not sure what's left that doesn't offend some snowflake.

Of course it's stupid. It's odd that the answer seems to be exclude everyone instead of figuring out ways to include a few left out. I'm sure for some of these decisions, it comes down more to not wanting to deal with a couple crazy Karen moms.

Good. School is just for reading and writing, correct?

My guess is you called squis a tranny lover or something like that.