Read this and go vote

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/02/mass-shootings-colorado-springs-san-bernardino-editorials-debates/76698044/

link edited by macsak

Vote? I don't see a poll or anything to vote on

Vote? I don't see a poll or anything to vote on

on the right side of the page, there is a "quick poll"
strongly disagree is at 50% and climbing

on the right side of the page, there is a "quick poll"
strongly disagree is at 50% and climbing

51% when I voted.

Still at 51% strongly disagree.

was 48% earlier

He was off to such a good start!  I was smiling and nodding right up until the moment he started proposing the same ineffectual ideas. 

He was off to such a good start!  I was smiling and nodding right up until the moment he started proposing the same ineffectual ideas.

What's messed up is, he admits these measures would not have stopped any of these shootings, but "somehow" these measure will make it harder for the bad guys to build up their  arsenals.

No elaboration on how the arsenal build-up becomes harder after the new measures are adopted.  He jumps from implementation to result with no analysis or explanation tying them together!

on the right side of the page, there is a "quick poll"
strongly disagree is at 50% and climbing

got it now it's not visible on a mobile device I had to use a proper computer

52/27, in favor of proclaiming this article as garbage.

He was off to such a good start!  I was smiling and nodding right up until the moment he started proposing the same ineffectual ideas. 

I find it interesting that the author himself seems to contradict himself.

Would these steps have headed off the tragedies in California and Colorado? Probably not. But at least they'd make it more difficult for the radicalized and the deranged to accumulate their deadly arsenals. That alone makes them worth doing.

If it would not have prevented the two shootings by folks who were clearly "...radicalized and...deranged.." from getting guns, why does he think such proposals would stop other radicalized and deranged individuals from obtaining guns? Not to mention that California is a gun banner's wet dream with almost every "common sense" gun control law ever proposed....

"Would these steps have headed off the tragedies in California and Colorado? Probably not. But at least they'd make it more difficult for the radicalized and the deranged to accumulate their deadly arsenals. That alone makes them worth doing."

I just don't believe the absurdity of this closing statement.

So, the answer is to make it more difficult for good citizens to have weapons, disarm them, so it is 'harder' for criminals to arm? (Notice it's "harder" not disarmed criminals)

Pretty much, be a sitting duck and catch boolits so I don't have to feel uncomfortable. ... 

:vomit:

I find it interesting that the author himself seems to contradict himself.

If it would not have prevented the two shootings by folks who were clearly "...radicalized and...deranged.." from getting guns, why does he think such proposals would stop other radicalized and deranged individuals from obtaining guns? Not to mention that California is a gun banner's wet dream with almost every "common sense" gun control law ever proposed....

Perhaps he is theorizing that even though it wouldn't stop them, it might make them less effective? Just a guess, but if that is what he is getting at clearly he needs to explain it more clearly.

Perhaps he is theorizing that even though it wouldn't stop them, it might make them less effective? Just a guess, but if that is what he is getting at clearly he needs to explain it more clearly.

Greg...is that you?

Perhaps he is theorizing that even though it wouldn't stop them, it might make them less effective? Just a guess, but if that is what he is getting at clearly he needs to explain it more clearly.

The Gun-Grabber Whisperer!

So lucky to have you here to tell us what they all meant to say!