I figured that you weren't being literal about those suggestions being offered.I hope you understand that those three suggestions I listed were tongue-in-cheek. I was trying to hi-lite the absurdity of this argument.
While a lot of the focus after school shooting tends to be on making it harder for a mass shooter to attack schools, but we should not also forget that law-abiding citizens need an effective self-defense as well (to make it harder for the criminals to victimize someone).I was trained as an engineer -- engineers solve technical problems for a livelihood; this is as much a technical problem as it is social. To approach it from the social problem POV would be akin to collecting and sifting through clouds of flatulence for potential shooters (which Republican lawmakers aren't about to fund in ANY case). The engineering solution is to take away the one HARD ingredient in mass slayings: automatic and semi-automatic guns, pure and simple!
I won't presume that you want all guns banned, but only the semi and fully auto types so allow me to make a point about self-defense tactics and effectiveness. I'd be all for banning the semi- and fully automatics just as long as civilians were left with something effective that they can defend themselves with, something that doesn't require close contact, something that can neutralize a threat while minimizing injury to themselves (the victim). A fist fight or knife fight won't help because the victim has to be in close contact, and if it's a woman or lady, or even the weaker male, then the victim will definitely get injured, or killed even.
If the gun is slow to operate (which will be the case if it's not semi-automatic, e.g muskets?), if you miss the shot, the suspect has a chance to attack in between that ONE shot, or one shot may not be enough to stop him. That's especially the case if there are multiple criminals involved.
Last edited: