As I understand it, he only stopped him from getting away and being prosecuted.
It was just tested last week in NYC. No gun used. It was tested in London earlier this year. Guns are pretty much banned there.
If you don’t address the problem then your solution won’t work.
the person he was mad at wasn’t in church.
Why would I argue with what you said, when it’s so novel and brilliant? Have you called the New York Times yet?
So he shot 46 other people, with an average of 10 rounds / person. That would be like running over 46 people in a vehicle, backing up, & going over them again twice more. :dubious:
Then what’s your solution to the problem?
I’m not sure I understand your point?
Didn’t he drive away and then kill himself? I think he probably finished what he came to do and then left.
UIntrue. They are highly regulated.
Define the problem which means addressing the behavior.
Just off the top of my head: bring back the mental health institutions we’ve shut down. Better health care in prisons. Reduce the violence in our entertainment industry. Encourage poor people to delay having children so there is a better chance of a stable family environment. Teach poor children the lessons they should have learned from their parents who lack the basic life skills to raise children.
highly regulated=basically banned. I’m not going to get into a semantic argument over UK Firearms laws. They are severely limited in use for personal protection.
“Banned” has a meaning. You used it wrongly. Get over it.
Basically banned has a meaning too. I’m not sure why your panties are bunching up on this. I though my meaning clear. They UK has limited guns down to the police officer level.
O.K.
I think the news media should stop saying " This is the worst mass shooting in history " b/c more people are killed in the next mass shooting . There are people that feel like they never been notice and been treated unfairly by society . They want to people to remeber their name and the easiest way to do it commit a mass shooting bigger than the last one . I never say the shooter name b/c I don’t want to keep their name alive . We should worried about why people keep missing
all the RED flags about mass shooters , like why didn’t the military do their job in telling the proper authorities that that TX mass shooter had a domestic violence conviction and how long did were the police about the threating emails the TX shooter was sending to his grandmother in law.
Most police officers in Britain do not actually carry firearms on the beat. Constabularies have designated individuals who can be authorized to go a-gunning, but most bobbies carry a stick and a can of spray.
And there are civilian firearms. People can have guns for shooting things like foxes, badgers, the King’s harts and so forth. Mostly not in the cities, though.
Do you agree that regulation of firearms can be effective in reducing the number of guns in circulation? You seem to draw a line here from the regulations enforced and therefore guns being severely limited in use.
An idea that just came to me: Jesus says to Peter in Gethsemane that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Would that not also apply to the more modern gun?
Obviously, this is only an argument I could use on Christians, which came to me because this is a church. But I wonder if there is Scripture that counter this.
(I am assuming by the other posts in this threadthat this no longer counts as a breaking thread. Apologies if I’m wrong.)
The massacre in Texas is no longer on the front page of my local paper.