There is no solution that will solve all problems 100%.  They don't exist.  They never did.  What we can do is implement the best action and endlessly strive to improve on it.

With that being said I think there are people out there (activists and political hypocrites) that will not be satisfied until all guns are eliminated from law abiding citizens.

And hereby lies the problem.

In my opinion these people know that armed citizens can and will deter future mass shootings and even crime in general.  I believe they know that.

But their "agenda" does not allow it.  And like I said, thereby lies the problem.

And another thing that people refuse to acknowledge is this cruel reality:  Killings, murders, and crime will occur.  No matter what.

The Nature of Man.  Like mosquitoes and pests, we can control but we cannot eliminate.

Look up what is happening in San Francisco when these guys won't get punished for shoplifting.

The same people who want to take our guns away are the ones who decided to let murderers roam free

1) For some yes, every gun control idea is a step towards a logical end of zero firearms. But for others this is not the case. I've known many people who could be characterized as on the left and want some gun control but who do not want anything near complete bans.

2) I see what you are getting at but that is not where I was going. What I meant was that if I was going to shoot up a classroom I would always target the teacher before I targeted any students. Security first then any adult staff then children would be the most logical attack hierarchy.

3) gun laws very widely from state to state so it's hard to make any blanket statements about gun laws, that's what I was getting at. Here in Hawaii we definitely have enough of our gun rights restricted where is Texas has it much less restricted. So in other words your statement could be both true or false depending on the jurisdiction in question.

Red flags are just an idea for a legal framework. Again it depends on the jurisdiction, with each one implementing the idea a little differently. Hear the specifics matter and whether it would be effective and whether it be constitutional in terms of protecting the rights of the accused. Again you can't make a blanket statement about red flag laws.

Again like I said I do support training teachers and allowing them to carry if they want to Cary firearms.

1) Let me rephrase, common in majority of the left since it's not 100%. Concepts are hard.

2) True if the shooter is targeting the teacher in the class, but what about the one next door who can come in to help stop it. Or wait until the shooter goes into their class and is they have gun drawn and pointing at the door.  There was a 1 sided example of this done on Nightline or some other news agency. They had armed students in a college class and they were taken out by the gunman (paint was used). But what this 1 sided story left out was the class next door who will be ready as soon as they hear gun fire (aiming at the door). The element of surprise is a key factor, which is why the armed students in the class failed.  Even though they knew someone was coming thru the door.

3) How is this true and false?  My blanket statement was to go back 30 years and can  you honestly say that no state passed no/less gun laws?  The gun free zone with the weight of the law was just 1 example that I know of in TX, because I planned a trip there and had to look them up.

With Red Flag, so far all the ones put in place are violating a persons rights.  Which is why the blanket statement is being used.  Can you provide a form of it that would not violate 1's rights. Then maybe I will adjust the blanket statement.

.

1) Let me rephrase, common in majority of the left since it's not 100%. Concepts are hard.

2) True if the shooter is targeting the teacher in the class, but what about the one next door who can come in to help stop it. Or wait until the shooter goes into their class and is they have gun drawn and pointing at the door.  There was a 1 sided example of this done on Nightline or some other news agency. They had armed students in a college class and they were taken out by the gunman (paint was used). But what this 1 sided story left out was the class next door who will be ready as soon as they hear gun fire (aiming at the door). The element of surprise is a key factor, which is why the armed students in the class failed.  Even though they knew someone was coming thru the door.

3) How is this true and false?  My blanket statement was to go back 30 years and can  you honestly say that no state passed no/less gun laws?  The gun free zone with the weight of the law was just 1 example that I know of in TX, because I planned a trip there and had to look them up.

With Red Flag, so far all the ones put in place are violating a persons rights.  Which is why the blanket statement is being used.  Can you provide a form of it that would not violate 1's rights. Then maybe I will adjust the blanket statement.

1). After I replied I went and did some looking at poll data. I was unable to find any poll data that showed how many people want complete bans on firearms. I found people on the left were more likely to favor background checks and other increased forms of gun control, but no data to suggest that the majority of democrats want all guns banned. You and a few others have stated the majority of them want guns banned but I can't find any data supporting that position. Not saying it doesn't exist just trying to establish whether that statement is factually supported or not.

2) as I said I think arming teachers could help. It brings new complications of course but it could help to stop an active shooter. I just don't think it is THE answer, it is just a piece in a puzzle, one part in a more comprehensive solution.

3) sorry am I not sure where you are going with that. IIRC some states have seen a reduction in gun laws such as going to constitutional carry and such.

For red flag laws I think there would be disagreement as to whether a person's rights are necessarily being violated. It all depends on the nature of how it is done. Is there evidence for action? Is there a burden of proof? Is there due process protections and speedy processes? If all of these are present then rights are protected but if they are absent then rights are not protected. I think Hawaii's law has a few problems but with a few changes it could come into line as being constitutional. Most specifically reducing the period to where a person gets their day in court to 48 hours.

I pointed out earlier how retraining orders encroach more on an individual's rights than red flag laws. Do you leave TROs are unconstitutional?

The same people who want to take our guns away are the ones who decided to let murderers roam free

True, and it supports my point.

It doesn’t matter how smart you are unless you stop and think.

#thomassowell

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

A very good point.
You can have two very smart people in a heated argument and  they will never get anywhere because they are in an excited state. Sometimes they may even have a lot of common ground but they can't stop to realize it.

I think more people should think before they open their trap.

Myself included.

You claim I am the one who deals in absolutes yet you are the one who is saying they can't be reasoned with.... Oh the irony!

It is important to recognize that they are not a monolithic group. If you treat them as all the same, all just gun grabbers then any interaction is already painted negatively, starting with negative assumptions. None of that leads to open minds.

I have talked with people on the left on this issue and discussions with people on other topics who are on the opposite ends. That's why I know what doesn't work. Your attitude creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

Try reading ALL MY WORDS, not just the ones you need to make a stupid argument.

"You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.

Talking to them..."

"Them" refers to "many on the far Left."  Are you unable to comprehend plain English?  Or just too obtuse to give anyone an honest response?

Me give it to them? I am trying to stop people like you from taking the whole ship down with you.

Of course some of the arguments they could come up with could be used to take all firearms but it is a myth that those on the left all want to take all of our guns. You are just demonizing the other side with positions like that, not making any friends against the moderates.

Bullcrap!

I guess you believe everyone in Congress who wants to take guns is as overt and vocal as Feinstein.  Their desire to ban and confiscate all guns except for military and police is NOT a myth.

Wake up and accept what these people are telling you ...

They dont want to take your guns. Source, local anti 2a march in waikiki today.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Isn't what the laws in Hawaii already do?

They dont want to take your guns. Source, local anti 2a march in waikiki today.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Seems like the sheep are close to getting what they want.

Hope when the wolves come to get them they understand that the wolves might still be armed and the sheepdogs are defenseless with no way to help.

But maybe that's what the sheep want anyway.  They are known to be stupid animals.

What goes around comes around.

1 person talked to was at the Pearl Harbor shooting. U know, the one where a service member on guard duty went crazy. The ones who the left say are the only ones who should have assault rifles.

Anyways when asked if he would have liked to have a gun too during the shooting, he stopped talking and walked away.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Bullcrap!

I guess you believe everyone in Congress who wants to take guns is as overt and vocal as Feinstein.  Their desire to ban and confiscate all guns except for military and police is NOT a myth.

Wake up and accept what these people are telling you ...

Can you prove it? Aside from a few anecdotal senators of course? You are making the claim, you are well aware of the burden of proof so please present the data showing the vast majority of democrats want to ban all guns.

Try reading ALL MY WORDS, not just the ones you need to make a stupid argument.

"You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.

Talking to them..."

"Them" refers to "many on the far Left."  Are you unable to comprehend plain English?  Or just too obtuse to give anyone an honest response?

I have talked with many on the far left. All but a very few were able to have a calm productive conversation.

I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter. It doesn't surprise me that you think it never works because they way you talk to people you disagree with hampers open dialogue. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think more people should think before they open their trap.

Myself included.

Same here, but I am getting better at it as I get older

While there are vids of a bunch of liberals stating a wanting to  take all guns away (not all libs), its common sense really. Right now, ban the assault rifle. The object that has less than 400 deaths a year. Less than because the FBI and CDC stats combine all (bolt action) rifles used in murders.

While handguns are 6000. So logic dictates handguns should be next due to the way higher number. And by then, it will be too late. Theyre already freaking out over 400 annual deaths and rarely if not at all report on annual pistol deaths. In fact ask anyone protesting against the 2a if they know a ballpark figure about the above. I have yet to meet 1 person who knows the stats.

This is a clear long term plan the DNC has.if they did cold turkey, then a huge up roar would take place. But chip away a little by little. Start with the scary assault rilfe that has less justification to be taken away.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Kinda like the frog sitting in water that is slowly being heated up.  Frog doesn't notice and still doesn't even when it dies.