We don't want to take your guns...read H.R. 4269

open carry bro

plus it would probably prevent a bunch of violence towards women

open carry bro

plus it would probably prevent a bunch of violence towards women

Then both

is that person going to not rampage at all if he can only use one firearm instead of 1+x?  This seems a bit tenuous but I am not in the mind of a rampaging lunatic so I guess its possible.

I'd rather have my workplace shot up by a guy with one six-shooter than a belt full of one loaded gun after another.

Which brings us to another way to lower mass shooting casualties:  widespread concealed carry.  It is true that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.  It probably isn't the only way, but it is the most effective. It is also extremely dangerous for the good guy, but thats a risk that I think a lot of people are willing to accept.

Concealed carry would no doubt result in MORE not LESS shootings. Road rage shootings would skyrocket. 
The Tucson shooting in 2011 wasn't thwarted by the fact that open carry was legal. In fact, the only guy carrying in the area nearly shot the wrong person when we arrived late to the scene:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.VowcXpMrJTY

no doubt collateral damage would be an issue, but hopefully shooter down and only say, 5 kids dead instead of...

This is public knowledge now:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

The more I think about this, the more it seems designed to protect the SSI beneficiary from himself than to protect anyone else.  I could get behind this as s suicide prevention step, it should just be touted as such and not as any form of gun control.

no doubt collateral damage would be an issue, but hopefully shooter down and only say, 5 kids dead instead of...

I think the everyday shootings that would occur would outweigh any number of lives saved. And open carry wouldn't prevent most school shootings because the majority of sane teachers would refuse to bring guns to their classrooms and shooters know this.

is that person going to not rampage at all if he can only use one firearm instead of 1+x?  This seems a bit tenuous but I am not in the mind of a rampaging lunatic so I guess its possible.

I'd rather have my workplace shot up by a guy with one six-shooter than a belt full of one loaded gun after another.

And I'd rather not have either, but if someone gets a shot off in my workplace there will be return fire and plenty of it.

Which brings us to another way to lower mass shooting casualties:  widespread concealed carry.  It is true that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.  It probably isn't the only way, but it is the most effective. It is also extremely dangerous for the good guy, but thats a risk that I think a lot of people are willing to accept.

Concealed carry would no doubt result in MORE not LESS shootings. Road rage shootings would skyrocket. 
The Tucson shooting in 2011 wasn't thwarted by the fact that open carry was legal. In fact, the only guy carrying in the area nearly shot the wrong person when we arrived late to the scene:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.VowcXpMrJTY

no doubt collateral damage would be an issue, but hopefully shooter down and only say, 5 kids dead instead of...

Right.  The number of deaths in mass shootings goes down when the bad guy meets armed resistance, and that accounts for collateral damage.  I'll go look for the exact statistic since I had found it right after san bernardino, but the number was not insignificant.

I know bro, I'm just sitting here in front of the computer playing my guitar and wishing that I didn't have to think about all the shitty things that happen every now and then. Reality is, a handful of f'ed up individuals are f'n it up for sane gun owners. Hell, I'm already resigned to the thought that mil-style firearms may be not available to civilians in the near future. Some of my hardcore hunting bros are OK with that, as they are only hunters, not preppers or paranoids.

Jim Jefferies gets it right, plus he's hilarious:

Jim Jefferies gets it right, plus he's hilarious:

Not as right as these guys:

Good discussion everyone, gotta go pick up some healthy food at the market, so carry on (no gunpun intended)

Jim Jefferies gets it right, plus he's hilarious:

I find it more hilarious that in an earnest conversation one points toward a dismissive comedian that disengenuinely oversimplified alot of issues as someone who gets it right.  lol. 

People like to point toward other countries with extreme gun control laws as proof "it works." As if taking one aspect of law and unilaterally applying it accross a country with differrent attitudes, cultural issues and geographic factors is gonna be the magical be all end all solution. 

Mexico has pretty stringent gun control laws that leave only the wealthy and criminal bearing arms.  No gun crime there right?

France, stringent gun control......then a mass shooting. 

Do these not count?

I felt the conversation was in need of some comedic relief.

So France had one mass shooting, yes. But they don't have daily gun murders. We have daily gun murders and weekly mass shootings. And their mass shooting was carried out by trained, organized militants. Ours are carried out by local kids.

I just don't understand the leap from "more extensive background checking" (which I support) and "a complete ban on firearms".

What is the old saying "how do you eat an elephant?" answer one bite at a time.

In a plot that sounds like it came from Machiavelli or the Godfather, this Bill is proposed, the President announces new restrictions.  The next shooting comes along and their is an all out media frenzy to push this Bill through.  A few more shootings occur (because we have yet to address the root cause, mental health), oh we must have everyone turn in their Semi Auto's.  Sound far fetched, not to me.     

Where I live, I hear gunshots just about very night. And there is no hunting in Oakland... I can only assume it's a combination of actual crimes being committed and trigger-happy gun enthusiasts playing with the new toys they got for Christmas. Whatever it is, it's annoying at best...

I have absolutely no issue with responsible gun owners, and no issue with people hunting in a responsible manner. If universal background checks would prevent even one of these nighttime gunshots, I'd call it a win.

I support the waiting period 100%. It gives people who may have bad ideas a chance to cool their hot heads and reassess.