Orlando

[exploited]

They can discuss gun control. They can't discuss banning assault weapons based on an arbitrary number of features that, with the exception of magazine limits, would do absolutely nothing to change the outcome of a mass shooting. People will rightly go buy them because they know they will be grandfathered in.

[John Galt]

[John Galt]

[John Galt]

saw an item about how one gun store, when the shooter came in and asked about "body armor and lots of ammo" refused to sell him anything and reported him to authorities. sadly the authorities didn't do anything about it

so just so we're counting everything

1. fbi said ok
2. background check said ok
3. gun store said no

so that means.... background checks need to be increased

how about instead businesses should be encouraged to not do business with people they don't want to do business with? what if the other gun store owner who ended up selling the guns didn't want to sell to towelhead terrorists but was coerced into doing it by a government that stopped him from being a racist, under threat of putting him out of business? his racism could have saved lives.

[NAB]

i think the best thing is to do nothing.

[IndependentProfessor]

[spacemonkey]

[spacemonkey]

[IndependentProfessor]

Let me state my point plainly, instead of waiting for someone to fall into it.

Again, we've tried prohibition (drugs, alcohol) and they failed. We tried legalization and regulation (guns, prescription drugs) and still people die by the thousands.

Perhaps the problem isn't with the "things" themselves, but with people? Specifically, people who are drawn to those kinds of things. More specifically, people with mental illnesses of certain sorts.

[The Comrade]

Blaming mental illness as the sole factor that is important is a major cop-out.