I'm proud to own guns.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

On the flip side that just means that all those guns getting into the hands of bad guys are endangering that many extra children which is kind of the opposite to what I think the point you're trying to make is.

There aren't extra children. There are just those within range of the shooter. Those children or other people are the ones saved by the person with the gun who takes out the shooter. Besides, guns are not the problem. It's the bad guys, not the guns.

Woody

 

[Rez Exelon]

There aren't extra children. There are just those within range of the shooter. Those children or other people are the ones saved by the person with the gun who takes out the shooter. Besides, guns are not the problem. It's the bad guys, not the guns.

Woody

Ahhhh....so we should find ways to prevent the bad guys from getting guns then.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ahhhh....so we should find ways to prevent the bad guys from getting guns then.

Yup. Permanently lock those up who are not executed.

Woody

 

[Rez Exelon]

Yup. Permanently lock those up who are not executed.

Woody

Okay, so that sounds like a solution AFTER people have been killed in the shooting. What, pray tell, is the solution to PREVENT the shooting? You know, the part that will PREVENT kids from being endangered in the first place. Surely prevention is worth it if it saves even one child right?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Okay, so that sounds like a solution AFTER people have been killed in the shooting. What, pray tell, is the solution to PREVENT the shooting? You know, the part that will PREVENT kids from being endangered in the first place. Surely prevention is worth it if it saves even one child right?

Yes, after a shooter is tried and convicted - or killed in the act - the shooter won't be able to do more harm. That is prevention. As for when someone first decides to commit murder, the best remedy is fast and decisive defense. It doesn't matter if if the attack is guns, knives, candle sticks, grenades, vehicles, fists, feet, teeth or voodoo.

A secure environment surely helps, but nothing is better than situational awareness and decisive, effective defense. In the frame of this thread, that means guns in the hands of people. Disarming people only makes them more vulnerable.

Woody

 

[Sgt Dog]

Okay, so that sounds like a solution AFTER people have been killed in the shooting. What, pray tell, is the solution to PREVENT the shooting? You know, the part that will PREVENT kids from being endangered in the first place. Surely prevention is worth it if it saves even one child right?

So exactly what is your point? Besides looking for argument. You keep banging away at the keyboard but you are not as clear as you seem to demand of others.

 

[Rez Exelon]

So exactly what is your point? Besides looking for argument. You keep banging away at the keyboard but you are not as clear as you seem to demand of others.

What's not clear? I mean, I'd like to break it down using crayons but the board doesn't support that.

The concept as posted in this thread is a bullcrap concept. "I have a gun because it might keep a kid safe". Sure.. it might. But how many times have kids been killed by unsecured guns? Even in this thread there's a lot of "but my kids would never...." which everyone says... up to and including the interviews where kids get hurt or killed.

My initial ask was that there are some stats about how many kids get killed by guns. Sure, they are probably not comprehensive and detailed as they could be (that's a whole other side issue) so are there corresponding statistics about how many times a gun has protected a kids. How many bystanders have kept kids safe for instance?

I don't think the numbers are going to line up. I think the best way to keep kids safe is that guns are less accessible to the bad guys. What happens to a bad dude AFTER the shooting doesn't do anything anymore than thoughts and prayers do. I would bet that any mass shooter is prepared to die in a fight going into it, so big deal if they get life or executed, they've already taken down targets. Would it be a message to the next person? No --- that's almost an invite that they'll die with even MORE notoriety.

Personally, I think the best way to keep kids safe is to have an honest discussion about why kids keep getting killed in our country and then an honest discussion about how to fix it. Right now, and for most of my life, neither Dems nor Reps have been capable of that discussion, which I find sad.

As to whether having a gun stops anything --- I mean the KC parade was one of the latest high profile cases. A million people there at a parade in a state with basically no restrictions on carry. And who was the one the stopped the shooting? An unarmed dad. The narrative of more guns = safer isn't always as honest as people make it.

 

[bushmaster06]

Ahhhh....so we should find ways to prevent the bad guys from getting guns then.

How do you do that when our own government arms some of those bad guys? Or that same government declines to go after hood rats with their full auto Glocks?

 

[bushmaster06]

What's not clear? I mean, I'd like to break it down using crayons but the board doesn't support that.

The concept as posted in this thread is a bullcrap concept. "I have a gun because it might keep a kid safe". Sure.. it might. But how many times have kids been killed by unsecured guns? Even in this thread there's a lot of "but my kids would never...." which everyone says... up to and including the interviews where kids get hurt or killed.

My initial ask was that there are some stats about how many kids get killed by guns. Sure, they are probably not comprehensive and detailed as they could be (that's a whole other side issue) so are there corresponding statistics about how many times a gun has protected a kids. How many bystanders have kept kids safe for instance?

I don't think the numbers are going to line up. I think the best way to keep kids safe is that guns are less accessible to the bad guys. What happens to a bad dude AFTER the shooting doesn't do anything anymore than thoughts and prayers do. I would bet that any mass shooter is prepared to die in a fight going into it, so big deal if they get life or executed, they've already taken down targets. Would it be a message to the next person? No --- that's almost an invite that they'll die with even MORE notoriety.

Personally, I think the best way to keep kids safe is to have an honest discussion about why kids keep getting killed in our country and then an honest discussion about how to fix it. Right now, and for most of my life, neither Dems nor Reps have been capable of that discussion, which I find sad.

As to whether having a gun stops anything --- I mean the KC parade was one of the latest high profile cases. A million people there at a parade in a state with basically no restrictions on carry. And who was the one the stopped the shooting? An unarmed dad. The narrative of more guns = safer isn't always as honest as people make it.

How do you want to measure armed people keeping kids safe, before or after shooting starts? If before, does the tens of thousands of armed police officers on campuses every day count? I mean, they're an armed deterrent, so I think that should count.

How many kids get killed in the ghetto or by gangbangers, either as bystanders or while taking part in hoodrat ****? You mention the shooting in KC which was a personal beef between hoodrats. It's almost like a small part of the population commits the vast majority of crime. So what do our overlords do? Institute policies like no cash bail and catch and release so they can go back out to commit more crimes and hurt more people.

 

[Rez Exelon]

How do you want to measure armed people keeping kids safe, before or after shooting starts? If before, does the tens of thousands of armed police officers on campuses every day count? I mean, they're an armed deterrent, so I think that should count.

How many kids get killed in the ghetto or by gangbangers, either as bystanders or while taking part in hoodrat ****? You mention the shooting in KC which was a personal beef between hoodrats. It's almost like a small part of the population commits the vast majority of crime. So what do our overlords do? Institute policies like no cash bail and catch and release so they can go back out to commit more crimes and hurt more people.

Do you really want to know or do you want to just start something so you can toss these replies out trying to feel superior? That's a real question you can feel free to think about because I get the sense we wouldn't see eye to eye on this.