Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Uh, yeah. Never said I did.

Oh but they do. You just decide to mistakenly speak for them all when you get emotional.

What is it you think every gun owner should do to prove they don't want innocent people killed? What?

But of course. Everyone who owns a gun is a very disgusting person, just like everyone who drinks is a very disgusting person because they don't care about innocent people being killed by drunk drivers. And in time, every drinker loses concern for the innocent. Suuuure they do . . .

But you're not the author of legitimacy!

You don't make the rules.

Calm down, if you get this upset about being disagreed with you clearly shouldn't have a gun.

I'm grateful not to live under the tyranny of the 2nd ammendment.

Our children are safe from the NRA.

Nope. The person who is upset is always the person who can't hold a coherent conversation. For example, you were asked what you think every gun owner should do to prove they don't want innocent people killed. But you forgot the question. It's like you're not really here . . .

You said that everyone who owns a gun is a very disgusting person. In reply, I walked you down that slippery slope of reasoning by suggesting to you that everyone who drinks is a very disgusting person because they don't care about innocent people being killed by drunk drivers or the people abused by problem drinkers. In response, you ignored the point and suggested that I've become unhinged by virtue of my asking you to explain your extreme statement.

You have an epidemic of mass shootings, particularly school shootings.

It's at the rate if two a week and you're fine with that.

You don't care about all the innocent people killed by your pathetic need to have a gun.

That says all I need to know about tbe morality of gun owners and your loathsome second ammendment.

Yeah sure, I'll try one more time.

What is it you think every gun owner should do to prove they don't want innocent people killed?

What?

Also, if everyone who owns a gun is a very disgusting person, is everyone who drinks just as disgusting since they don't care about innocent people being killed by drunk drivers?

You can try to frame the argument on your terms as much as you want, but at the end of the day your pathetic need to have a gun is more important than the lives of hundreds of children murdered by thec2nd ammendment.

That's what you are, and you can pretend otherwise, but it's what you are.

As everyone can see, you have no intention of answering one question, while you have every intention of arguing with your emotions and nothing else.

Wouldn't it sound stupid if I said that alcohol kills innocent people, and that anyone who picks up a drink is therefore guilty of believing that a drink is more important than the lives of children? Yeah, that would sound stupid. And that's how you sound. You can pretend otherwise, but it would definitely sound stupid.

People can see for themselves.

You have no respect for the lives of others, you deliberately tell lies and disinformation about the Covid virus because you enjoy the power of life and death.

Your obsession with murder weapons is part of that disfunctional narcissism.

If that were true, you, or someone like you, would address that in the proper thread. Presently, no one, including yourself has been able to explain contradictory statements coming from all your trusted medical "experts."

You cannot answer even one question here. Emotion is no substitute for an honest answer to a question. In fact, emotion is used as a way to avoid hard questions. So, if you didn't have your emotions to fall back on, how would you answer my questions?

House passes bill banning certain semi-automatic guns
(AP)

Glenn's points on this page, and his questions, have been quite legitimate.

That said, the 2nd ammendment does seem to drive extremism in its support, where every other sensible country just accepts that regulation works. And it is my view that the lack of regulation contributes significantly to the ongoing mass shootings.

It is mass psychology and accessibility!

Of course it does. More to the point, it is the lack of response from people in law enforcement who are to blame for some shootings. In that respect, Nickolas Cruz and the FBI comes to mind.

I don't buy in blame - it is one of the most corrosive, useless concepts on this earth.

The only person responsible for the shootings - is the shooters. Law enforcement lack of response contributes to the total casualties (which has to be looked it, but is separate to who is responsible for shootings), but that doesn't remove responsibility from the shooter.

Are they outgunned on the occassions they don't go forward?

If you don't hold the negligent party responsible for not following protocol that would have saved lives, you're just stuck on the gun.

The FBI fucked up. They even admitted it.

You and I are talking about two related but different things. Yours is a subset of mine, without you apparently realising it.

You can hold agencies responsible for decisions that contributed to worse outcomes - in order to improve outcomes in the future. But they aren't to blame for the deaths. Only one person holds that responsibility - the killer who pulled the trigger. No one else forced him to do that.

Let me put it this way:

1. Who killed the people? (the killer, and no one else)
- what contributed to their decision to kill?
- what enabled their decision to kill?
2. If the <agency> had:
- decided and done <X>, would the outcome have been different?
- had <Y> resourses, would the outcome have been different?
- had <Z> training, would the outcome have been different?
3. Could other Agencies have contributed?
- if so, what communications systems would enable the contribution?
- if there are privacy issues, how do we overcome them?
- do the other Agencies need inter-agency exercises to facilitate cooperation?
4. Are there ways to identify and de-radicalise these shooters?
etc
etc
etc

Moving away from blame, towards understanding Responsibility and Contributing circumstances prevent people from blaming and thinking no further
- they're at fault, I don't have to think further about this
- it's their fault, I don't have to problem solve
- they're to blame (so don't have to look at integrated solutions)
- etc
....towards looking at the factors that contributed, and dealing with the problem in a holistic matter. After all, if you have the same contributing factors, you will eventually get the same or similar outcomes from other people (not just with the person you blamed)
.

Man currently being treated in hospital after being shot by armed police.

He was seen on Greenwich Bridge, London in possession of a handgun.

There are no other casualties.

Canada temporarily bans handgun import until passage of gun control law
(reuters)