The Gun debate sandbox

Genuine question raised by your Willy Wonka poster. The shooter in this massacre was no criminal. Had only a speeding ticket in his past and bought his guns and ammo legally. Not a criminal.

I mean, it seems clear that having guns in our community simply means we will have gun violence in our community to some degree.

One of the very reasons more werent KILLED was his poor calibur choices.That MAY have very well been a factor in the plus column believe it or not. He could have used several other way more damaging rounds that are commonly sold.

Crimper, the point is that his PLANNED ACT was CRIMINAL. So there fore could have just as easily aquired ILLEGAL black market guns. Or he could have used a lesser capacity gun with more magazines on him and done the exact same- he could have doen that with someones deer hunting 30-06. He could have done that with just semi auto pistols and magazines for those, or he could have done that with a hundred different poisons/explosives etc etc. the POINT is he WAS going to do that- and NO LAWS current nor future would have prevented it. One of the very reasons more werent KILLED was his poor calibur choices.That MAY have very well been a factor in the plus column believe it or not. He could have used several other way more damaging rounds that are commonly sold.


NO LAWS EVER PREVENTED:

the Mansons, Bundy, Dahmer, Columbine, IHOP, Chicago, hundreds of thousands of gang members now here, crazy people.

So, um, you folks that want to ban all drugs in the US, umm, have you thought exactly how you would accomplish this? Like a voluntary turn-in to the police, or the national guard, or ?
Or, what, a mandatory surrender of drugs on threat of death or imprisonment for those of us who would never ever comply? It would certainly be necessary to call up all police, the national guard, the reserves, even the regular army perhaps, to enforce some kind of draconian tactics like--registration/confiscation. Assuming even that those organizations would assist in the first place.That would criminalize most of the US population.
Personally, I think that would end up being even more a violation of civil rights than anything that has ever happened--and would take heavy handed tactics that would probably result in many more deaths of innocents than any theatre massacre...and who among you would stand up for that? Would you be in favor of house-to-house searches of your friends and neighbors, buses full of "suspects" being carted off to ?? "camps"? Are you gonna be turning in your friends and neighbors and co-workers?
And as long as you were taking away 2nd amendment rights, why not suspend habeas corpus, muzzle the press, and appoint someone in charge, to avoid having to actually vote and risk losing an election that would overturn such a bad decision as ---confiscation or registration.

Why can't they just carry guns to school? I mean, there might be one kid with a gun so they should all carry them, and the teachers too.

25 two- and four-year schools across the country now allow the carrying of firearms on their premises (i.e., campus grounds, classrooms, dormitories, etc.). These schools can be found in Colorado, Utah, Virginia and Michigan.

edit" as to Nortons comments, we had enough COMMON SENSE gun laws by the early 1900s to function perfectly well, had it NOT been for lawyers and politicians Do you not agree?

Why can't they just carry guns to school? I mean, there might be one kid with a gun so they should all carry them, and the teachers too.

25 two- and four-year schools across the country now allow the carrying of firearms on their premises (i.e., campus grounds, classrooms, dormitories, etc.). These schools can be found in Colorado, Utah, Virginia and Michigan.

reedom isnt free. Never has been.