10 dead in Santa Fe High Shooting in Santa Fe, Tx

[Ors Might]

I suppose it's less dangerous than not being cleared, but still, one slip-up could injure them or somebody else. I won't reveal the specifics for privacy, but something similar happened in my hometown with a concealed carrier incompetently destroying property, so I know the dangers firsthand. To be fair, they may not have been thoroughly evaluated; as I recall, the laws in that state are pretty lax with regards to concealed carry.

Also, concealed carry would seem to be worse for actually warding off criminals because the sight of a gun intimidates them (though it also intimidates passersby) and would potentially keep them from ever trying to kill people rather than having a short grace period.

Hey, I’m not opposed to the idea of open carry. Just seems like it’s something your side would want. Why, I’m not sure.

[Cekoviu]

I suppose it's less dangerous than not being cleared, but still, one slip-up could injure them or somebody else. I won't reveal the specifics for privacy, but something similar happened in my hometown with a concealed carrier incompetently destroying property, so I know the dangers firsthand. To be fair, they may not have been thoroughly evaluated; as I recall, the laws in that state are pretty lax with regards to concealed carry.

Perhaps a fairly thorough examination? If we’re compromising, you can understand why I’d Why the best possible outcome for my cause. We’ve been fucked over before. I honestly don’t think very many would be as open to this as I am.

I do appreciate that at the least, since I doubt WRA or Telconi would be as receptive of a compromise. However, I still think concealed carry is pretty pointless, which I outlined above. Also, developing a mental illness or becoming radicalized after receiving a license could jeopardize people. You could do yearly checkups or something, but at what point does the bureaucracy become not worth it?

[Cekoviu]

Also, concealed carry would seem to be worse for actually warding off criminals because the sight of a gun intimidates them (though it also intimidates passersby) and would potentially keep them from ever trying to kill people rather than having a short grace period.

Hey, I’m not opposed to the idea of open carry. Just seems like it’s something your side would want. Why, I’m not sure.

Makes it more obvious that you're a potential threat so people aren't caught off guard. I do see why somebody would carry a weapon, but I'm personally opposed to it most of the time, while I don't think that should translate into law.
On the other hand, there is the tiny problem of potential theft by a criminal or terrorist that occurs with open carry while not being as likely with concealed carry, so I can see arguments for both sides.

[Ors Might]

Perhaps a fairly thorough examination? If we’re compromising, you can understand why I’d Why the best possible outcome for my cause. We’ve been fucked over before. I honestly don’t think very many would be as open to this as I am.

I do appreciate that at the least, since I doubt WRA or Telconi would be as receptive of a compromise. However, I still think concealed carry is pretty pointless, which I outlined above. Also, developing a mental illness or becoming radicalized after receiving a license could jeopardize people. You could do yearly checkups or something, but at what point does the bureaucracy become not worth it?

Perhaps checkups could be discussed, though I’m not sure if I’d agree to them yearly for something as innocuous as just being able to carry it on your person. Perhaps something similar to drivers licenses? I’d want something in exchange for that, though I’m not sure what.

[Telconi]

I like this, although I really do think concealed carry is far too dangerous to be allowed except in the rarest of cases.

People with conceal carry licenses are literally more law abiding than law enforcement officers.

Anecdotal, but most CC holders I know undergo more range training than the LEOs are required to.

[Ors Might]

Hey, I’m not opposed to the idea of open carry. Just seems like it’s something your side would want. Why, I’m not sure.

Makes it more obvious that you're a potential threat so people aren't caught off guard. I do see why somebody would carry a weapon, but I'm personally opposed to it most of the time, while I don't think that should translate into law.
On the other hand, there is the tiny problem of potential theft by a criminal or terrorist that occurs with open carry while not being as likely with concealed carry, so I can see arguments for both sides.

Personally, I’m not sure if gun violence is something one should legislate away, even if you could. I’m arguing from the idea that efficient self-defense is something that everyone has a right to pursue but I don’t want the state having too much control over this. Hence my preference for education and community centered solutions.

[Washington Resistance Army]

People with conceal carry licenses are literally more law abiding than law enforcement officers.

Being legal doesn't necessarily equate to being safe.

Statistically they're about the single safest group in the country afaik.

People with conceal carry licenses are literally more law abiding than law enforcement officers.

Anecdotal, but most CC holders I know undergo more range training than the LEOs are required to.

Likewise actually.

[Cekoviu]

Being legal doesn't necessarily equate to being safe.

Statistically they're about the single safest group in the country afaik.

Apparently not the ones in my hometown.

[Licana]

Also, concealed carry would seem to be worse for actually warding off criminals because the sight of a gun intimidates them (though it also intimidates passersby) and would potentially keep them from ever trying to kill people rather than having a short grace period.

The implicit threat of concealed carry is preferable, in my mind. After all, if almost any law-abiding citizen is allowed to carry that weapon on their person without advertising it, then everyone is a potential threat to a criminal's life.

[Telconi]

Perhaps a fairly thorough examination? If we’re compromising, you can understand why I’d Why the best possible outcome for my cause. We’ve been fucked over before. I honestly don’t think very many would be as open to this as I am.

I do appreciate that at the least, since I doubt WRA or Telconi would be as receptive of a compromise. However, I still think concealed carry is pretty pointless, which I outlined above. Also, developing a mental illness or becoming radicalized after receiving a license could jeopardize people. You could do yearly checkups or something, but at what point does the bureaucracy become not worth it?

The bureaucracy becomes not worth it right about at "Examination"

[Gun Manufacturers]

The anti-gun side keeps saying the pro-gun side needs to compromise. What are you offering us? The repeal of Hughes? Free access to NICS? Pizza?

Do bagels work?

No.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

We are.

We want to separate the crazy front the sane and give the sane there rightful guns.

Unfortunately, no one is a mind reader so the next best thing is a psychiatrist.

We aren't even targeting you, we have been targeting the shooters all this time.

Perhaps you aren't targeting me, but the party you belong to very much is, gun control laws have cost me THOUSANDS of dollars, and an immeasurable reduction of rights. And for what? Have I killed anyone? Have I caused any harm to anyone by owning an AR-15 without a stupid plastic flappy?

You haven't. But we are worried about the people who will.

Because this will happen again if nothing is done. I said this last time, and when this happens again I will say it again.

Lives are at stake, we need to try anything to get people to stop doing this.


The optimal solution would be get rid of the two party system and elect people who want to respect the 2nd amendment while making sure that the crazy people don't get guns.


However, sense that won't happen we have to play the hand we are dealt with. The party I support ultimately wants something to be done about this. And something to stop this from happening again is better then what the other party is offering.

This will happen again if gun rights activists shut down any attempt at compromise. You want Assault Weapons? Fine. You want less taxes on them? Fine. You want an .50 machine gun? Fine. You want a tank? I don't see why anyone would want one and I am worried that It would lead to "killdozer" but you know what? Fuck it, fine. Get a fucking battalion of Tanks for all I care. Get an AA gun for all I give a shit.

Just for the love of god, DO SOMETHING ABOUT CRAZY PEOPLE GETTING GUNS.


THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN IF GUN CONTROL LAWS LIKE THE ONE I KEEP SUGGESTING AREN'T EVEN TRIED.

[Tobleste]

Now that I think about it, denying any compromise beacuse some people want to ban guns and use that as a way of shooting down gun control that doesn't ban guns doesn't make much sense.

That's not the Idea I proposed, why should my idea get shot down beacuse some moron wants to ban guns?

Because the people who shoot your idea down just want an excuse to do it. If 70 million liberals all agreed on modest gun control that slightly changed things and reduced gun violence and didn't confiscate or ban any type of gun and they all promised to become gun owner's and pinky sweared to never say the word "ban" ever again, it would still be dismissed as extreme because it's a slight change the other side believes would inconvenience them.

There aren't 2 sides trying to reduce gun violence. There's one side that wants to reduce gun violence and would like to use gun control to do it and one side that wants to maximise gun access and would like gun violence to stop but isn't going to actually make any effort to do so because they're too busy trying to maximise gun access. Wondering why republicans dismiss gun control and only offer thoughts and prayers after shootings is like asking why Facebook and Twitter aren't trying to promote active lifestyles that get people away from computers. It isn't their job.

[Ors Might]

Now that I think about it, denying any compromise beacuse some people want to ban guns and use that as a way of shooting down gun control that doesn't ban guns doesn't make much sense.

That's not the Idea I proposed, why should my idea get shot down beacuse some moron wants to ban guns?

Because the people who shoot your idea down just want an excuse to do it. If 70 million liberals all agreed on modest gun control that slightly changed things and reduced gun violence and didn't confiscate or ban any type of gun and they all promised to become gun owner's and pinky sweared to never say the word "ban" ever again, it would still be dismissed as extreme because it's a slight change the other side believes would inconvenience them.

There aren't 2 sides trying to reduce gun violence. There's one side that wants to reduce gun violence and would like to use gun control to do it and one side that wants to maximise gun access and would like gun violence to stop but isn't going to actually make any effort to do so because they're too busy trying to maximise gun access. Wondering why republicans dismiss gun control and only offer thoughts and prayers after shootings is like asking why Facebook and Twitter aren't trying to promote active lifestyles that get people away from computers. It isn't their job.

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Because the people who shoot your idea down just want an excuse to do it. If 70 million liberals all agreed on modest gun control that slightly changed things and reduced gun violence and didn't confiscate or ban any type of gun and they all promised to become gun owner's and pinky sweared to never say the word "ban" ever again, it would still be dismissed as extreme because it's a slight change the other side believes would inconvenience them.

There aren't 2 sides trying to reduce gun violence. There's one side that wants to reduce gun violence and would like to use gun control to do it and one side that wants to maximise gun access and would like gun violence to stop but isn't going to actually make any effort to do so because they're too busy trying to maximise gun access. Wondering why republicans dismiss gun control and only offer thoughts and prayers after shootings is like asking why Facebook and Twitter aren't trying to promote active lifestyles that get people away from computers. It isn't their job.

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Less dead people for one.

And everything I said in that post above.

[Vassenor]

Because the people who shoot your idea down just want an excuse to do it. If 70 million liberals all agreed on modest gun control that slightly changed things and reduced gun violence and didn't confiscate or ban any type of gun and they all promised to become gun owner's and pinky sweared to never say the word "ban" ever again, it would still be dismissed as extreme because it's a slight change the other side believes would inconvenience them.

There aren't 2 sides trying to reduce gun violence. There's one side that wants to reduce gun violence and would like to use gun control to do it and one side that wants to maximise gun access and would like gun violence to stop but isn't going to actually make any effort to do so because they're too busy trying to maximise gun access. Wondering why republicans dismiss gun control and only offer thoughts and prayers after shootings is like asking why Facebook and Twitter aren't trying to promote active lifestyles that get people away from computers. It isn't their job.

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Conversely, what have pro-gun activists ever done to earn our trust? At what point have they honoured any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

[Uxupox]

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Less dead people for one.

And everything I said in that post above.

doesn't work for puerto rico and mind you it's an american territory with absolute demented gun control (takes up wards of 2 years just to even be able to legally own one 9 mm glock).

[Petrolheadia]

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Less dead people for one.

And everything I said in that post above.

As the French saying goes, "Be realists - demand the impossible."

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Less dead people for one.

And everything I said in that post above.

doesn't work for puerto rico and mind you it's an american territory with absolute demented gun control (takes up wards of 2 years just to even be able to legally own one 9 mm glock).

Make puerto rico a state then.

[Uxupox]

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Conversely, what have pro-gun activists ever done to earn our trust? At what point have they honoured any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

when have you anti-gun activists honored their compromises? give em an inch and they will take your whole damn house.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This debate is a Möbius strip beacuse you demand it.

I'll be honest, I don't care if you guys get all the guns in the world.

Just put in some safe guard in place to prevent morons like the Santa Fe shooter from getting a gun in the first place.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Conversely, what have pro-gun activists ever done to earn our trust?

Holy shit, you're the ones asking something from us, not vice versa.

[Gig em Aggies]

This debate is a Möbius strip beacuse you demand it.

I'll be honest, I don't care if you guys get all the guns in the world.

Just put in some safe guard in place to prevent morons like the Santa Fe shooter from getting a gun in the first place.

I don't know if this has been touched on yet but the Santa Fe shooter stole his dads guns if he couldn't get it from him then he would have stolen them from elsewhere.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This debate is a Möbius strip beacuse you demand it.

I'll be honest, I don't care if you guys get all the guns in the world.

Just put in some safe guard in place to prevent morons like the Santa Fe shooter from getting a gun in the first place.

I don't know if this has been touched on yet but the Santa Fe shooter stole his dads guns if he couldn't get it from him then he would have stolen them from elsewhere.

Was his gun stored properly?

[Ors Might]

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Less dead people for one.

And everything I said in that post above.

I don’t mean you specifically. If the majority of gun control activists were as willing as you to give us something, we might see some reform. Unfortunately California’s laws still exist and are just one reason why trust is hard.

Here’s part of why we dismiss everything your side suggests. Compromise requires trust. What the fuck have pro gun control activists ever done to ever earn our trust? At what point have they honered any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

Conversely, what have pro-gun activists ever done to earn our trust? At what point have they honoured any of their compromises? Hell, what would we get out a compromise?

For one, we agreed to your nonsense laws in the first place. Then when it turned out that your laws were ineffective, you wanted to implement more. We agreed and this process repeated until you lost our support.