Does "Beto" O'Rourke Or ANY American Leftist Know The Last Time The US Government Tried To Take Away People's "Weapons Of War"?

@jimmypopp The problem is no "law" will keep people, least of all criminals, from getting guns. They won't be deterred by breaking a gun law as they are getting it to break the law anyway.

IF there was causal link between guns and gun violence then surely gun shows in America would be the most deadly places on earth. Instead are among the safest.Also, why were there no school or other mass shootings of civilians in the 1920-30's when Americans could legally own Thompson sub machine guns, one of the most effective killing weapons ever created and the weapon of choice of Al Capone and other gangsters?

That's because there is no causal link between guns and gun violence.

@Abrienda That Australian choose NZ because it was possible for him to get the weapons he desired there, whereas it wasn't in Australia. No one deserves what he did.

@jimmypopp The USA is not an island. And do you believe he could not have found the weapon in Australia if he wanted to commit the crime in Australia?

How do you read into what I wrote that anyone "deserved" what he did?

In any event you are, if I may say, missing my larger point. The USA is not Australia nor NZ so you are comparing apples and oranges.

@Abrienda OK, how would you stop the continuing murders of innocents? You must agree that doing nothing is not an option. How would you tackle the problem within the boundaries that you set yourself?

@jimmypopp You read my comment about such shootings never occurring when Americans had real sub machine guns, yes? if you accept there is no causal link between gun OWNERSHIP and gun violence then the problem must be a sick and degenerate society. If that is the case and I think it is, then owning guns is even MORE important for your protection, no?

@jimmypopp You might also draw some conclusions about the fact there are no mass shootings at banks, military bases, gun shows, hunting parties and so on...why is that, if simply the gun is the reason for mass shootings?

@Abrienda I'm no expert (and I'm enjoying playing devils advocate here) but I would wager that when Tommy guns were legally available, actual gun ownership in cities was much lower.

You are advocating an arms race.

@jimmypopp How does that refute my point that when Americans sick and well could get submachine guns there were still no mass shootings?

Clearly back then if someone WANTED TO they could have, but didn't. What does that tell you?

No I am advocating protecting yourself and your family which is my and no doubt your first priority. If you want to call that an arms race, okay. its not a very sophisticated description of my position, however.

@Abrienda How do you stop the people committing murders carrying weapons into the situations where they do so?

Even if you were armed, I would guess that by the time you could protect yourself, it would mostly be too late. An awful situation to be in.

@jimmypopp Since the society is collapsing armed guards are the obvious solution. Committing people with serious mental problems is another. Take a look at any of the videos showing California or Oregon. There are people loose who simply should not be. You are also not accounting for two other factors - the number of WOMEN who survived attacks because they had a gun but are never widely reported widely, and the fact that every mass shooter has a long record of mental or anti-social behavior.


You think it is therefore just to take away a single woman's right town a weapon in rural USA just because some mental case in a city commits a crime?

@Abrienda I was asking if you thought there should be more thorough checks. And if certain types of weapon should be banned. Ladies don't carry semi autos with big mags in their handbags.

@Abrienda there is a big difference between rural and urban. I grew up in the country and hunted.

@jimmypopp Thanks for that information. I'll be sure to write that down. Meanwhile... and? How does that effect a woman's right to defend herself with any legal weapon she wants, like a so-called "assault rifle" which are routinely used for hunting in the USA?

BTW...ever read about any mass shootings in Saudi Arabia?

@Abrienda please don't be sarcastic. There is no easy or right answer, if there was, it would have happened.

I don't see Saudi Arabia in the news much, only for bombing Yemen. Have there been?

@jimmypopp I wont be sarcastic if YOU will not be condescending...as you were when you wrote "There's a big difference between rural and urban." I think I knew that before you clued me in...you deserved the reply you got for patronizing me that way.


The answer is there are no mass shootings in KSA even though every man and I mean EVERY man owns not just a gun but an AK-47 which is the weapon of choice. And it doesn't matter WHERE they live. Yet though I despise the society its cohesion and strength are intact and thus you don't see the chaos you see in the USA with mass shootings...further evidence that there is no causal link between guns and mass shooting but is between that and societal collapse.

I have provided you example after example of this which you cannot refute but only shift to another point or suggest I am advocating an "arms race" which is really a silly thing for a man of your intelligence and breeding to say to me.

@Abrienda You are not wavering off your point, and drawing on examples from history and other countries. I am asking about one country and how to stop mass shootings there. Those other situations are not related to the unique situation and problems in the USA today. These are ordinary, innocent people like you and I that are the victims.

@jimmypopp I believe it was you who mentioned Australia and NZ.

My mentioning KSA is exactly spot - on, as you would say in the UK. In societies where social cohesion exists there are no mass shootings, as was the case in the USA where there were none even when every possible weapon to enable a mass shooting was available.

And you contradict yourself. When I mention a woman protecting herself in rural areas, you inform me there is a big difference between city and country.
Fine ... THEN when I mention that tommy guns were available to people and were mostly in the hands of CRIMINALS in big cities but there were no mass shootings, you reply there were "probably" less guns in cities back then...unlike the country where, BTW, there were also no mass shootings at that time?

If you don't see an inherent contradiction in all that, I do. There's a difference between being a devils advocate and simply contrary.

@Abrienda You are right. We are both going off topic. Point taken. Shall we call a truce on this one?

@jimmypopp I am still on topic.

But there's no need for a truce since I was never angry with you.

@Abrienda likewise. This is such a complex issue.

@jimmypopp Not for me. 😉

@Abrienda it isn't black and white. It has many hues. It out was easy, it would be solved and there would be no more mass shootings.

@jimmypopp Thank you again for telling how to think about things. Is it my age or my sex or both that make you feel you can be so disrespectful and condescending?

It is certainly not an approach that seems to be working well. Perhaps you should rethink it.

@jimmypopp I will quote you the great Ronnie Reagan -

"Most solutions are simple. Just few of them are easy."

@Abrienda I don't mean to be disrespectful. Or opinions don't align. You explain your out of view, I explain mine. Age and sex have nothing to do with it. Another distraction by you.