Clearly, there's a personal protection inequity in East Texas. How can we live with ourselves unless we provide the means to practice Second Amendment rights to all persons, regardless of their ability to pay. Free handguns for all!
The safety of our poorest depends on it.

dstieger wrote:

I think I might call them predators instead of perpetrators. I would like to think mental health intervention is an answer, but I doubt it is in the majority of the killings.

Speyside wrote:

IIRC, that's what Frank said

dstieger wrote:

How's that been working out for us? We've been trying the "don't read this stuff" approach for a long time now... How do you feel about the results?

Personally, not really confident in the "ignore it and it'll go away" approach - the "it" in that sentence being the ideology of these perpetrators... Ignoring it is no form of deterrent... Publicly destroying it with logic might be...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

despite posting about gun control above a certain level (as yet discussed) in another thread, I don't see it or much else as a totally preventive action...

perhaps this is an exaggerated era in our history when we learn that there is a risk to freedom.


this is my post from the threepeat thread:
gun ownership is legal, protected, and here to stay...
and I am a liberal who believes in that right.

I am also a (somewhat) normal person struggling to understand why some limitations on guns of mass destruction can not be the subject of gun control legislation discussions.

guns to protect life, family and property, or for sport, or for hunting do not necessarily have to include guns that can kill dozens of people in seconds. I don't have a plan on what should be limited, but the guns being used to massacre many by lunatics is a good place for the conversation to start.

frankj1 wrote:

No gun law has ever saved a life.

ZRX1200 wrote:

I’m not a liberal, not a conservative either I suppose, but I feel somewhat the same as you here Frankie.
But there’s a problem..............or the potential for a problem..............the slippery slope phenomena.
Once certain rifles get banned, there will be a two pronged effect.
One the one side, there will be those that want to expand the confiscation of certain firearms while at the same time others will oppose it vigorously, opening up black markets, a new market for modified rifles which technically are still “legal” which the owner can then easily modify, etc.

I think the ultimate net effect will be zero...........maybe less than zero...
I just don’t think it’s worth the effort.
What’s happening is fuqin horrible.............we need to look at other solutions that might have a chance.

KingoftheCove wrote:

You're literally saying that because each of these crazies has such a different set of screwed up ideologies that it's irrelevant what those ideologies are in terms of preventing future attacks...

And then out the other side of your mouth, you're adamant that he be labeled a white supremacist so that you can link him to the ideologies of past shooters and the current president...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

we shouldn't read the written crap that these loons write, nor should we publish it...it taps into their need for attention, and copycats will see that their writings have been published to millions of people in various media, further validating this MO as a way to gain notoriety by blasting a large number of innocent people so their self-important written thoughts could be exposed to the world....

delta1 wrote: