It would be nice if we went to the source of the problem instead of the tools used. There will ALLWAYS be different tools used, cars, planes, bombs, knives, guns, automatics, semi-auto, pistols, razorblades, rocks, hammers, trucks, my God does anybody really CARE what the problem is?

You mean like the basic disregard for human life engendered by our now Godless, abortionist society?

I'm pretty sure nobody in here would admit that that's the root cause even if the believed it to be true. Sadly.

"What THAT means is that anyone who snaps, or gets depressed, or angry, or mad about something, almost certainly does not have ready access to a gun. So the opportunity for them to grab their firearm and start shooting just doesn't exist."

Except when they "snap, or get depressed, or angry, or mad about something" after they own a legally obtained rifle/firearm. Or steal one. Or get one on the black market.

It would be nice if we went to the source of the problem instead of the tools used. There will ALLWAYS be different tools used, cars, planes, bombs, knives, guns, automatics, semi-auto, pistols, razorblades, rocks, hammers, trucks, my God does anybody really CARE what the problem is?

You mean like the basic disregard for human life engendered by our now Godless, abortionist society?

I'm pretty sure nobody in here would admit that that's the root cause even if the believed it to be true. Sadly.

Comparing 2 countries where one has 300+ more million people is meaningless.

Comparing 2 countries where one has 300+ more million people is meaningless.

anyway, the Chinese are 1.3 billions.
not many mass killing there.

So, the city of Toronto has a population of 2.8 million, which makes it the 4th largest city in North America, after LA, New York and Chicago. Gun shootings (mass or otherwise) in Toronto are a fraction of those cities. You can't compare those ?

London Uk has a population of over 8 million, roughly equivalent to New York. Gun shootings a fraction of New York. You can't compare those ?

But, whatever. You don't see guns as a problem, so - live with the shootings.

The winters are 10 months long up there, nobody's outside long enough to be targeted. The only mass gatherings of a sort are hockey games and nobody's crazy enough to attack hockey fans.

The only mass gatherings of a sort are hockey games and nobody's crazy enough to attack hockey fans.

There you go, let's have totalitarianism!

Sweeeeeet!

We already do, and you're proof of it. Every one of your posts proves Orwell not only a prolific author but aLso a great prophet....

It's the old saying: if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem starts looking like a nail.

For a religious fanatic who believes that his Faith (tm) is the only one that matters, then our lack of faith is the cause of everything bad.

Abortions? It's because we're godless.

Shootings? godless again.

Black liberal presidents? godless to the max. There are actually lots of people who will argue that Obama wasn't a Christian even though he said he was. But you know, Kenya, Indonesia, Hussein, and all of that. Obviously a muslim.

Hurricanes and earthquake? All because we're godless, naturally.

Homosexuality? Do you even have to ask?

No need to talk about solutions to problems--the only thing we need to do is to accept JC as our savior.

Talk about destroying america.

Explain, if tou can.

The fact remains crazy murdering fuckers will murder regardless of how many gun laws you pass.

Take away the guns, and it's bombs, cars, planes, germs, poisons, on and on...the possibilities are boundless.

You understand that it's not about stopping an individual from murdering, right? What it's about is making it less easy for individuals to kill a lot of people at one time.

Not doing anything at all is the best, easiest plan. Even though it isn't a plan the majority of the American public support.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "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. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

I'm not a gun grabber. Check recent polls for information about the American public and what they think about gun control.
There are a ton of them and they all say the same things:
common sense background checks, waiting periods, and so on.

You asked for plans. I gave you three - plus the fourth, which is what's going to happen.

Don't fret, friend Pete. No one's going to come and emasculate you.