I think I'm going to answer my own question I posed here. The answer to the question should be self evident and right in front of our faces. You see, back in the 1950's and even in to the 1960's, we still allowed the concept of God in our schools which gave us a sense of morality. We stressed good citizenship and a love of our country, and like JFK once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". The concept that the individual would be held acountable for their actions was in full force back. then. But somewhere along trhe way, we either lost, or had these basic principles taken away from us by various liberal individuals or groups. And thus began the downfall of our once great, and proud nation.

Many people have said the same thing over the years. 
But if you look back on where public schooling became less religious and where even the pledge of allegiance became optional, it was minority religious groups who sued and brought these changes.
Only later did many individuals decide not to identify with a religion at all.  Only later do we see the emergence of the "nones".  
These types of instruction and prayer would be just as oppressive to the kids of religious minorities today as they were then.  
And with so many "nones" out there, there is even less will to ignore that fact than there was back then.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Biden probably never knew what different calibers are.  But he's certainly forgotten if he ever knew.

What garbage!  Take the gun away, and the Uvaldi shooter wouldn't have killed anyone.  I have never seen anyone die from someone pointing their finger and shouting 'bang!!"

Stop kidding yourself with the guns don't cause death lie.  Hunting is a pretty useless thing to do if guns don't cause death.

Total Bull [BLEEP]! A firearm doesnt do anything on its own. It does not load itself, it does not aim itself, it does not transport itself, it does not fire itself. It takes a person to make a fire arm kill. The firearm is not to blame, the person making the firearm kill is what is to blame. Personal responsibility and a deliberate and intentional act by a person  is what causes death. Stop blaming inanimate objects for causing death.

You're repeating yourself. Your thinking is unstable and incorrect.  When something bad happens, more than one thing and more than one person might be to blame.

Yes, if he couldn't get a gun, the shooter may have decided to attack the school with a knife.  Would he have been able to kill as many people that way? Would the local cops have been so scared of engaging if he only had a knife?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The bi-partisan legislative committee needs to get something done or I fear nothing will happen except the continued death of more innocent people. Compromise will obviously be necessary as neither side will get everything it wants. The arguments regarding the causes of gun violence are ridiculously simplistic. Anyone who does not believe that mental health, gun availability and social media are among the main contributors to this violence are sadly beyond reasoning with. It is my hope that enough legislators on BOTH sides of the aisle are able to agree this time on REASONABLE legislation regarding mental health funding and background checks for those purchasing guns. If they can't even get this done, voters need to take action so these cowards are removed from office before more damage is done.

---

How do mass murders happen in Europe?

The Norway shooting was also a lone wolf with a rifle attacking students.  So, much the same?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Mass killings and death will always be an issue until society returns back to more traditional and conservative values. There, I [BLEEP] said it. Right now the value of life has been diminished because people are no longer treated or acknowledged as people anymore here. We're all a bunch of Cyborgs already with these phones glued to our fingertips. Some of us can't live without it. Before you know it, we won't be able to distinguish reality from virtual reality.

Everything will look and feel like it's real but you won't be able to see it clearly anymore. We're disgustingly sick and broken beyond repair at this point. It has to start at home. You have to make an effort in your children's lives. You have to be present. You have to check in with them. You have to prepare them. Stricter gun laws, gun restrictions, banning of guns, etc.

That's not going to fix this. Again, people who want to cause harm to others on a grand scale will continue to do so and they will continue to do it in a wide variety of ways as Society has already clearly shown us this with a list of ways people have done so without even buying a gun or pulling a trigger.

Bombs, vehicles, fires, knives, poison, blunt objects, etc. Pick your flavor. The more I see, the less I believe. It's horrifying. Usually things like this just don't get to me. And usually I would hold my tongue and reserve comments or judgements. I just don't know anymore. It will never be enough. Take a gun away tomorrow and a killer will just wait on a school parade to run his car through a crowd to get his message across. Take a gun away and a killer will just find a way to poison the fruit punch bowl. Take a gun away and a killer will just find a way to lock everybody inside and burn it to the ground.

The root cause of the issue is mental illness, typically brought on by victims of circumstances that most of us cannot personally speak to. How do you tell a child that was physically or sexually abused by their own parents, later, abused in school because they became so dim as a human being, that, when they start hearing voices in their head to "Kill em' all! Let God sort them out!" or "God put me here. I am his chosen one. I am the antichrist". Etc. How do you [BLEEP] FIX THAT?

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Total Bull [BLEEP]! A firearm doesnt do anything on its own. It does not load itself, it does not aim itself, it does not transport itself, it does not fire itself. It takes a person to make a fire arm kill. The firearm is not to blame, the person making the firearm kill is what is to blame. Personal responsibility and a deliberate and intentional act by a person  is what causes death. Stop blaming inanimate objects for causing death.

You're repeating yourself. Your thinking is unstable and incorrect.  When something bad happens, more than one thing and more than one person might be to blame.

Yes, if he couldn't get a gun, the shooter may have decided to attack the school with a knife.  Would he have been able to kill as many people that way? Would the local cops have been so scared of engaging if he only had a knife?

Either option is the same. Knife or gun still takes a person to kill. Neither a knife or gun will kill without a person intending to use it. How many are killed doesnt change that fact. Is a kitchen knife going to jump out of its drawer and kill you when you walk into the kitchen? The responsibility for death with any type of weapon is held by the person using the (insert weapon).

---

You're repeating yourself. Your thinking is unstable and incorrect.  When something bad happens, more than one thing and more than one person might be to blame.

Yes, if he couldn't get a gun, the shooter may have decided to attack the school with a knife.  Would he have been able to kill as many people that way? Would the local cops have been so scared of engaging if he only had a knife?

Either option is the same. Knife or gun still takes a person to kill. Neither a knife or gun will kill without a person intending to use it. How many are killed doesnt change that fact. Is a kitchen knife going to jump out of its drawer and kill you when you walk into the kitchen? The responsibility for death with any type of weapon is held by the person using the (insert weapon).

Killing 19 people is 19 times worse than killing one person.  Do you disagree?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Either option is the same. Knife or gun still takes a person to kill. Neither a knife or gun will kill without a person intending to use it. How many are killed doesnt change that fact. Is a kitchen knife going to jump out of its drawer and kill you when you walk into the kitchen? The responsibility for death with any type of weapon is held by the person using the (insert weapon).

Killing 19 people is 19 times worse than killing one person.  Do you disagree?

Depends on who you ask. 

Hitler's overall death toll was marginal compared to what Stalin did and astronomically marginal compared to what Mao Zedong did from 1958 - 1962. Hitler still gets placed at #1 in the rankings though.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Killing 19 people is 19 times worse than killing one person.  Do you disagree?

Depends on who you ask. 

Hitler's overall death toll was marginal compared to what Stalin did and astronomically marginal compared to what Mao Zedong did from 1958 - 1962. Hitler still gets placed at #1 in the rankings though.

Sure, but those circumstances were vastly different. 
Many of Stalin's victims and Mao's victims died of starvation after having their food, tools, or land taken away for some government program or another.  That's bad, but not as bad as being rounded up and shoved in a gas chamber, and not as bad as starting an offensive war.
All else being equal, killing 19 is 19 times worse than killing 1.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Depends on who you ask. 

Hitler's overall death toll was marginal compared to what Stalin did and astronomically marginal compared to what Mao Zedong did from 1958 - 1962. Hitler still gets placed at #1 in the rankings though.

Sure, but those circumstances were vastly different. 
Many of Stalin's victims and Mao's victims died of starvation after having their food, tools, or land taken away for some government program or another.  That's bad, but not as bad as being rounded up and shoved in a gas chamber, and not as bad as starting an offensive war.
All else being equal, killing 19 is 19 times worse than killing 1.

Agreed.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

I think I'm going to answer my own question I posed here. The answer to the question should be self evident and right in front of our faces. You see, back in the 1950's and even in to the 1960's, we still allowed the concept of God in our schools which gave us a sense of morality. We stressed good citizenship and a love of our country, and like JFK once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". The concept that the individual would be held acountable for their actions was in full force back. then. But somewhere along trhe way, we either lost, or had these basic principles taken away from us by various liberal individuals or groups. And thus began the downfall of our once great, and proud nation.

Your argument again is flawed. What is happening is no different to pretty much every Western country on the planet, but no other country comes close to the number of mass shootings and school shootings that happen in the US.

The reason for mass shootings is the availability of guns.  If you let the same people get angry and wave their arms in the air no one dies.

If you can't see this, then it's not that you can't see it, you just don't want to.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

He has no idea, nor does he care to.  He just looked for a "statistic" on the internet that supports his argument.

Just because you have no idea what I'm talking about doesn't mean I don't.  
Stop mistaking your profound ignorance for common sense or knowledge.
And if you don't like those personal insults, don't dish em out.

Where are your statistics'?  What is your definition of "rate of gun ownership"?  

---

He has no idea, nor does he care to.  He just looked for a "statistic" on the internet that supports his argument.

Just because you have no idea what I'm talking about doesn't mean I don't.  
Stop mistaking your profound ignorance for common sense or knowledge.
And if you don't like those personal insults, don't dish em out.

---

He has no idea, nor does he care to.  He just looked for a "statistic" on the internet that supports his argument.

Just because you have no idea what I'm talking about doesn't mean I don't.  
Stop mistaking your profound ignorance for common sense or knowledge.
And if you don't like those personal insults, don't dish em out.

---

He has no idea, nor does he care to.  He just looked for a "statistic" on the internet that supports his argument.

Just because you have no idea what I'm talking about doesn't mean I don't.  
Stop mistaking your profound ignorance for common sense or knowledge.
And if you don't like those personal insults, don't dish em out.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

The rate of gun ownership is the number of households that own at least one gun divided by the total number of households. Not complicated. It's around 20% in the US and around 10% in Norway or Finland.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think I'm going to answer my own question I posed here. The answer to the question should be self evident and right in front of our faces. You see, back in the 1950's and even in to the 1960's, we still allowed the concept of God in our schools which gave us a sense of morality. We stressed good citizenship and a love of our country, and like JFK once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". The concept that the individual would be held acountable for their actions was in full force back. then. But somewhere along trhe way, we either lost, or had these basic principles taken away from us by various liberal individuals or groups. And thus began the downfall of our once great, and proud nation.

Your argument again is flawed. What is happening is no different to pretty much every Western country on the planet, but no other country comes close to the number of mass shootings and school shootings that happen in the US.

The reason for mass shootings is the availability of guns.  If you let the same people get angry and wave their arms in the air no one dies.

If you can't see this, then it's not that you can't see it, you just don't want to.

Are you intentionally avoiding my question? I asked about mass murders in Europe to show that this type of tragedy doesn't go away just because you take away the guns. If you take Europe as a whole (which compares similarly to the US demographically), you see there are many different tragedies spread across their countries, and most of them are stabbings, vehicular slaughter, and, in rarer cases, bombs. I know you want to find a solution but taking away guns from the civilian population will result in more overall deaths. Just like taking policing out of the inner city did. Knee jerk reactions are not the way to manage a country. We keep putting Band-Aids on our problems.  

Here's an interesting video that looks at the psychological problem with these killers:

Gun Violence Explained Clearly - YouTube

He shows correlation between online/social media and depression/suicides in teenagers.

---

Some of the people (if not a significant portion) that are for arming Ukrainian citizens are the same ones espousing much stricter controls here if not outright bans. Logic is not the left’s friend but in other news water is wet.

---

Some of the people (if not a significant portion) that are for arming Ukrainian citizens are the same ones espousing much stricter controls here if not outright bans.  Logic is not the left’s friend but in other news water is wet.

There is no contradiction.
These people believe that the police and military should have weapons that private citizens are not allowed to have.
We all believe that, generally, except FSG of course, we just disagree on the details.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is the problem, Mikey. WE all don't believe that. You and others may believe in having some limited use of firearms, but the trends are pretty clear that the goal for the global elites is to remove firearms from the general populace.

---

This is the problem, Mikey. WE all don't believe that. You and others may believe in having some limited use of firearms, but the trends are pretty clear that the goal for the global elites is to remove firearms from the general populace.

And that is the biggest problem with the government. You give them an inch and then they are taking guns away from everyone.

I think the libertarian stance on making most things legal is crazy but I prefer that to the corrupt government taking rights away.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

The rate of gun ownership is the number of households that own at least one gun divided by the total number of households. Not complicated.  It's around 20% in the US and around 10% in Norway or Finland.

If you understood statistics, you might realize it's somewhat more complicated than you appreciate.  US households are 20 percent larger than those in Finland and 10 percent larger than Norway.  Why should the size of the household become a factor potentially skewing the results?  A true scientific study seeks to eliminate variables. 
Even more significantly, under your formula, a second (or more) household member owning a gun doesn't affect the "rate of ownership".   Wouldn't a better definition of "gun ownership" be the percentage of adults who actually own a gun?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Some of the people (if not a significant portion) that are for arming Ukrainian citizens are the same ones espousing much stricter controls here if not outright bans.  Logic is not the left’s friend but in other news water is wet.

There is no contradiction.
These people believe that the police and military should have weapons that private citizens are not allowed to have.
We all believe that, generally, except FSG of course, we just disagree on the details.

There is a fairly obvious contradiction.  You can’t logically be against AR-15s being available for purchase at home then also be for handing out billions to Ukraine knowing they’ll be using it to hand out AR-15s or their equivalent or more likely something several steps up from that to the general population.  Unless, that is, you are a leftist ideologue where the ends always justify the means.

---