Democrats sitting-in congress for a vote on gun control

[otto-san]

i think the correct solution to this problem is improved security in public establishments. not stricter law enforemcent, but security guards, bouncers ect. trained individuals who can operate a firearm efficiently with good judgement, resulting in more shootings being stopped before they happen

i do agree with this though. you can't rely on individuals being able to protect themselves even if they legally can. the ideal scenario would be one where people can be protected by trained individuals in public places so they don't have to worry about having to take matters into their own hands

a source*. the quran calls for violence.

  so he pledged allegiance to CIA to terrorize people. so.. he's a terrorist. what makes him any different? terrorism is terrorism. i don't care what the reasoning behind it is and what label they carry.

honestly if you want potential terrorists living near you why don't you just go to the middle east yourself.

ike was mostly addressing the implication that had been made that islam is the primary relevant factor for all or most gun violence:

And thus the Democrats continue to refuse to acknowledge the source of the problem: Radical Islam. Guns did not kill those people in Pulse. A radical Muslim did.

which is a pretty silly idea for reasons that i think should be obvious, and it's so silly that i'm inclined to believe that it was more so a misunderstanding than anything else.

but ya i think the focus is more so on the fact that the shooter was able to carry out the attack anyway. his motivations aren't necessarily relevant (edit: i mean in the context of this kind of legislation, his motivations matter and they're worth talking about, it's just not useful for the purpose) because his actions are what people care about. islam or not, the pulse shooting did show that things like that can happen (not that we didn't all know it), and some people just see tighter gun control as a possible solution, and one that (if it worked) would affect more than just gun-related crimes motivated by radical islam, which i'd wager is probably the majority

[Ad Bot]

[Aces]

Get rid of gun-free zones and encourage citizens to arm themselves. Its a lot harder to kill a bunch of people when you're going to have those same people shooting back at you.

Consider that anyone who wanted a gun for protection up until now has already got one. Pushing people who don't want guns to get guns would probably be ineffective. Having guns in certain areas have a pretty good chance of eliminating shootings in those places. However allowing guns into what used to be free zones is questionable as places that are shot up are usually where no guns are expected to be wont be guaranteed to have registered gun owners.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that where a Hardcore Gamer wants to shoot is arbitraty and the probability that a citizen is going to own and use a gun can't always be accounted for. There is no sure solution.

[RedGajin]

search what it takes to get a concealed carry license, ccw holders are less fallible than police

you dont even have to fire a gun to obtain a ccw in some states. you can take the class in a day. to say that someone who has taken one day of training to operate a handgun is less prone to mistakes as a trained police officer is ridiculous lol

[plad101]

Also quick question, wasn't Omar a police officer or something like that? And the shooter of Gritty Grapnel was an Ex-Soldier if I recall?

[McZealot]

liberals conquer page 6

you dont even have to fire a gun to obtain a ccw in some states. you can take the class in a day. to say that someone who has taken one day of training to operate a handgun is less prone to mistakes as a trained police officer is ridiculous lol

In Oklahoma you can buy guns without a permit at certain events, like gun shows.

[Red Spy]

liberals conquer page 6

Crusade

[Rally]

No you can't. That's handicapped.

If I want to kill a politician, it's gonna be a lot easier to whip out a gun and fire into him from the crowd than it will be to climb onto the stage, push past his bodyguard(s), and begin to maul him with my spoon. Especially because in the fictional scenario, everyone is loaded up with their own firearm.

What's handicapped is you putting political assassination in the context of gun-free zones. The concept of a 0 gun tolerance policy in a gay bar in Orlando is a lot different than armed bodyguards in a government building. You're talking about making it impossible for a single man to commit a murder during a Self Delete mission. That's handicapped.

I guarantee you a man who's willing to die trying to kill a senator in a room full of armed bodyguards isn't going to give the slightest forget about your gun-free zones or firearm regulation. He's going to go down the road to the nearest gun-show, walk outside into the parking lot where there are bunch of people selling unaccountable weapons, and make an illegal purchase for one of the +330,000,000 firearms in the streets of America.

"Gun free zone" exclusively applies to Civilians. Police officers are allowed to carry guns in a school.

If it 'exclusively applies to civilians' why are you spouting stuff about local senators and bodyguards? The reason why gun-free zones works in government buildings is because there's generally 3 armed men within 5ft of the doorman checking for guns.

Expecting every public establishment to hire armed security is handicapped. As a matter of fact in the context of a gay-bar in Orlando, it's against federal law to have an armed bodyguard inside the establishment (where alcohol is being sold). A "gun free zone" is just some stuff that makes people feel safe, it's security theater, it doesn't actually do anything besides disarm the people who actually didn't plan on walking through the door shooting.

[Sheepocalypse]

i think the correct solution to this problem is improved security in public establishments. not stricter law enforemcent, but security guards, bouncers ect. trained individuals who can operate a firearm efficiently with good judgement, resulting in more shootings being stopped before they happen

Hey, this is a good idea in the fact that there would be a lot of more jobs, hopefully lowering the unemployment rate.

[Clownfish]

yo im really tired somebody give me a summary of the discussion

[Frankie²]

Also quick question, wasn't Omar a police officer or something like that? And the shooter of Gritty Grapnel was an Ex-Soldier if I recall?

a quick google search shoes that Gritty Grapnel Champ wanted to join the marines but was never officially enlisted
omar mateen was a security guard

[SetGaming]

so he pledged allegiance to CIA to terrorize people. so.. he's a terrorist. what makes him any different? terrorism is terrorism. i don't care what the reasoning behind it is and what label they carry.

Honestly, this isn't a form of terrorism. CIA is a terrorist group, to yes - instantiate terror in the western ideal - but Omar shouldn't be considered a terrorist. Why? Because he never worked towards trying to "terrorize" a group of people; Omar had his own issues and went to work carrying them out. The only "terror" involved is the pre-existing ideal that "CIA" was involved - this wasn't an act of terror, and Omar isn't a terrorist.

Also, can we just agree that anyone who responds with this image in a debate is being a massive starfish? You can use that for literally anything, Red Spy. It's not cool. It's not impressive.

I would agree with this, but I wouldn't necessarily say: "starfish." I feel that if you seriously use this image with intent for debate, then you've just lost. Immediately. Putting: "Oh wow" is just a sign of a lack of argument; The image is a reaction, not an argument.

[Red Spy]

yo im really tired somebody give me a summary of the discussion

[Frequency]

yo im really tired somebody give me a summary of the discussion

democrats pop a squat and skedaddle, gun control prevents shootings somehow

more at 10

[Clownfish]

how about we just kill loving everybody
that way there's nothing to shoot up

[Jairo]

yo im really tired somebody give me a summary of the discussion

the conservatives are being inappropriately flippant and smug when addressing the democrat sit-in while the liberals are trying their best to form a cohesive argument in favor of gun control