San Bernadine Shooting

[redback]

^ I'm gonna start sending you invoices just for coming to this rubbish site

[Bouncer]

Der wuts dat mean? Cant you just speak plain English? Uneducated folk like me don't no wut point you making der.

[lipripper]

What's that got to do with anything? I'm not comparing Canada and the US. I'm comparing the tenor of the debate - one sounds like a discussion of global and national issues by reasoned adults, and the other sounds like a ridiculous schoolground squabble between a bunch of elementary school kids. The fact that that most poweful country in the world is the one having the playground discussion is all the more sad.

funny, because if it don't fit an approved of narrative..it fall into this category of discussion...that is exactly why its like that. people are refusing another persons perspective for theirs as right..

Out of all this discussion as you say..no one can answer a simple question of why should law abiding citizens who are no threat to society allow their rights to be diminished for the sake of those who choose not to follow the law? What is the logic and benefit to law abiding citizens(im considering most of the population to be law abiding) in this when its known that law breakers..criminals terrorists mass shooters what ever category you choose to use..will not follow said laws. I'm really sorry but I haven't seen this answered..but ignored here. Its ignored because it don't fit a certain point of view. Yet we are to be considered
uneducated simpletons because others refuse to use a common sense approach to answer said question. really?

[Chadd77]

However, if we reexamine our gun laws and see if there are ways to prevent the other guys, the mentally unstable guys, the school shooters, the disgruntled worker who goes out and buys a gun and brings it in to work, etc., could we prevent some of those guys from getting guns in the first place? I am not talking about 100% effective laws. That's never going to be there. But if we can cut the bottom 30% from the distribution, the guys who would never have, if there were more effective screening, been able to acquire a firearm, that's still 1/3 less violence of these sorts. Wouldn't that be a worthwhile goal?

I think everyone agrees with this statement but how do you flag a disgruntled worker in a screening process? Or someone who is mentally unstable?