Oregon shootings: The map that shows all 264 mass shootings in America this year

[Sousuke 1,214]

I wouldn't mind seeing this as a one time requirement for all perspective gun owners.

The problem I see is that it would quickly be abused. You would probably have doctors in some states saying no to every person. Maybe if people were allowed to sue the doctor it might keep them neutral

Edited October 6, 2015 by Sousuke

[Teddy B 17,251]

California-centric term. It means Private Party Transfer. Its a requirement that when you want to sell your firearm (non antique), you have to meet the buyer at a FFL and transfer it with a background check.

Its not a perfect system. While FFLs originally lobbied for the law because it would bring ppl to their stores, they now put up obstacles because they don't make money off the transfers.

Makes perfectly good sense to me. I think we need to spend more time on the "who" we are giving these weapons to rather than what type of weapons they are getting. Don't get me wrong, I still believe the average gun owner has far too much firepower already, but I think the background/mental health checks are much more important.

[-relo- 105]

also impossible. america is a target rich environment. are you trying to eliminate america?

anyway if you start training and hiring armed guards for schools/churches/parks/malls etc etc as your solution it will only be a matter of time before mass shooters figure out how to become the guards (or a relatively normal person goes suicidal). the idea can't be MORE guns. more guns is only MORE opportunity for mass shootings..plus, arming everything with a heartbeat infringes on the freedom and happiness of those of us who don't want to be surrounded by guns 24/7.

impossible? its quite plausible & actually pretty simple. do you have any idea how many retired military, police, and trained civilians there are in this country? there are many schools, malls, & parks have armed security now. we will never get all the guns off the street in America. if knowing there is an armed officer or security guard in a place you are going makes you feel infringed upon, you're in the wrong country. you are surrounded by guns 24/7 in America. why would you not want someone there to protect you?

[Teddy B 17,251]

The problem I see is that it would quickly be abused. You would probably have doctors in some states saying no to every person. Maybe if people were allowed to sue the doctor it might keep them neutral

I'm sure it has the potential to be abused as does any program. Rather than suing the Dr, perhaps a loss of license for a period of time for each offense and a stiff fine would help curb that potential.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

impossible? its quite plausible & actually pretty simple. do you have any idea how many retired military, police, and trained civilians there are in this country? there are many schools, malls, & parks have armed security now. we will never get all the guns off the street in America. if knowing there is an armed officer or security guard in a place you are going makes you feel infringed upon, you're in the wrong country. you are surrounded by guns 24/7 in America. why would you not want someone there to protect you?

Why not just deploy the army or the national guard. That's a job creation programme right there...

No idea if this is true but i read in an article that an armed citizen hasn't stopped a mass shooting since 1980, and that was after the event...

[-relo- 105]

Why not just deploy the army or the national guard. That's a job creation programme right there...

No idea if this is true but i read in an article that an armed citizen hasn't stopped a mass shooting since 1980, and that was after the event...

are you looking for a serious discussion or just looking to spout gibberish?

here's 12: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

Edited October 6, 2015 by -relo-

[decocker 7,198]

impossible? its quite plausible & actually pretty simple. do you have any idea how many retired military, police, and trained civilians there are in this country? there are many schools, malls, & parks have armed security now. we will never get all the guns off the street in America. if knowing there is an armed officer or security guard in a place you are going makes you feel infringed upon, you're in the wrong country. you are surrounded by guns 24/7 in America. why would you not want someone there to protect you?

yes, it is impossible to force public and private institutions and businesses to hire an armed guard. if it is impossible to regulate guns, it's also impossible to forcefully arm everyone.

the point is not to get all the guns off the streets in america, the point is to restrict access. restricting access creates an environment where there is less of an opportunity for a gun to be misused. more guns = more opportunities for guns to be misused.

and you're right - i live in virginia, i see guns out and about all the time. actually, there might be a few here at my work right now- just hanging out, unlocked, probably loaded and waiting for five thirty to come to go hunting. i don't feel infringed upon by the presence of guns. but i would definitely feel infringed upon if businesses were forced to hire an armed guards. they could hire whomever they like (and since they're being forced, i'm sure the pay would only entice the creme de la creme of sharp shooters, lol). just because someone is retired military, police (especially) or a trained civilian - doesn't mean they won't go popping off, doesn't mean they're automatically a 'good guy with a gun'.

i don't know where you're from but i can go out and get my own gun and carry it around if i want. i don't see the point in it. good thing i was born in america to american parents and my freedom is just as valid and worthy of fulfillment as any other american gunowner. or should that change too? i don't think armed guards everywhere (grocery stores, daycares, nail salons..where would the line be drawn?) is protection. it might give a false sense of protection, but that's about it.

Edited October 6, 2015 by decocker

[-relo- 105]

yes, it is impossible to force public and private institutions and businesses to hire an armed guard. if it is impossible to regulate guns, it's also impossible to forcefully arm everyone.

the point is not to get all the guns off the streets in america, the point is to restrict access. restricting access creates an environment where there is less of an opportunity for a gun to be misused. more guns = more opportunities for guns to be misused.

and you're right - i live in virginia, i see guns out and about all the time. actually, there might be a few here at my work right now- just hanging out, unlocked, probably loaded and waiting for five thirty to come to go hunting. i don't feel infringed upon by the presence of guns. but i would definitely feel infringed upon if businesses were forced to hire an armed guards. they could hire whomever they like (and since they're being forced, i'm sure the pay would only entice the creme de la creme of sharp shooters, lol). just because someone is retired military, police (especially) or a trained civilian - doesn't mean they won't go popping off, doesn't mean they're automatically a 'good guy with a gun'.

i don't know where you're from but i can go out and get my own gun and carry it around if i want. i don't see the point in it. good thing i was born in america to american parents and my freedom is just as valid and worthy of fulfillment as any other american gunowner. or should that change too? i don't think armed guards everywhere (grocery stores, daycares, nail salons..where would the line be drawn?) is protection. it might give a false sense of protection, but that's about it.

please read what has been written. no one said forcefully arm the populous. if a business or private institution wants to promote a gun free zone, they should be forced to provide security. you have noticed the number of mass shooting that happen in gun free zones. right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

are you looking for a serious discussion or just looking to spout gibberish?

here's 12: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

Well gibberish would be nonsenical words that don't make semantic sense. Not agreeing with an idea doesnt make it gibberish. Rather it says that you arent interested in a discussing ideas you don't agree with because you don't have much patience or can't control your temper.

Moving on, how is suggesting that the army or national guard be deployed on american streets less of a 'serious' idea than a less well-defined idea about armed guards being deployed in public places.

And yes, if you are looking to read between the lines - no I don't take your idea seriously.

[decocker 7,198]

please read what has been written. no one said forcefully arm the populous. if a business or private institution wants to promote a gun free zone, they should be forced to provide security. you have noticed the number of mass shooting that happen in gun free zones. right?

eliminate target rich environments or require them to have armed guards on duty. is the best bet at this point.

maybe when i read something like "eliminate target rich environments or require them to have armed guards on duty" what i hear is FORCEFULLY ARM

probably works a lot like how you hear "all guns confiscated the POTUS, you have until sundown to turn them in" when someone utters 'gun control'

[-relo- 105]

Well gibberish would be nonsenical words that don't make semantic sense. Not agreeing with an idea doesnt make it gibberish. Rather it says that you arent interested in a discussing ideas you don't agree with because you don't have much patience or can't control your temper.

Moving on, how is suggesting that the army or national guard be deployed on american streets less of a 'serious' idea than a less well-defined idea about armed guards being deployed in public places.

And yes, if you are looking to read between the lines - no I don't take your idea seriously.

yes, I know you're not taking anything anyone that disagrees with you says seriously.

Why not just deploy the army or the national guard. That's a job creation programme right there...

lace that bad boy up & walk it out. it fits.

gib·ber·ish

ˈjib(ə)riSH/

noun

noun: gibberish

unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.

"he talks gibberish"

synonyms: nonsense, garbage, balderdash, blather, rubbish;

[-relo- 105]

maybe when i read something like "eliminate target rich environments or require them to have armed guards on duty" what i hear is FORCEFULLY ARM

probably works a lot like how you hear "all guns confiscated the POTUS, you have until sundown to turn them in" when someone utters 'gun control'

guns are legal in the US. If a place of business wants to limit that, they need to provide security for people complying with their wishes. the mass shooters that keep attacking in gun free zones, don't seem to be willing to comply with their wishes.

Edited October 6, 2015 by -relo-

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes, I know you're not taking anything anyone that disagrees with you says seriously.

Why not just deploy the army or the national guard. That's a job creation programme right there...

lace that bad boy up & walk it out. it fits.

gib·ber·ish

ˈjib(ə)riSH/

noun

noun: gibberish

unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.

"he talks gibberish"

synonyms: nonsense, garbage, balderdash, blather, rubbish;

An example of gibberish might be:

"On a sunny evening God walks his flying banana"

I suggested deploying the armed forces on American streets to protect the public from gun firing criminals and madmen.

You don't agree with it, sure. But its not gibberish.

[decocker 7,198]

guns are legal in the US. If a place of business wants to limit that, they need to provide security for people complying their wishes. the mass shooters that keep attacking in gun free zones, don't seem to be willing to comply with their wishes.

it's been established that if someone wants to break the law and shoot people, they're going to break the law and shoot people. all the more reason to limit their ability to get their a gun, not make more guns available. that would be the opposite of a logical response.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it's been established that if someone wants to break the law and shoot people, they're going to break the law and shoot people. all the more reason to limit their ability to get their a gun, not make more guns available. that would be the opposite of a logical response.

The US has gotten itself into a nonsensical position on this issue. What should logically be done, can't be done so all of the remaining solutions are increasingly ridiculous.