Eggcellent

Love the false equivalency at the end there. Really, words and guns are fundamentally the exact same things, so it makes total sense. If you think about it like a Galaxy Brain.

That's a cool example of a story where someone stopped a shooter with a personal handgun because of lax gun laws. Leaving aside the fact that you completely left out any rebuttal of the idea of mental health screening (which again would mitigate the absolute number of shootings) let's take a look at another, extremely high profile case. Or two.

In Uvalde Texas (Texas is a state with extremely lax gun laws in case you weren't aware) a shooter entered a school and murdered 19 kids and two teachers. He did that despite the fact that there were armed, armored, and highly trained police there within minutes. Then, all 350+ cops (legal gun owners/carriers all) refused to enter to confront one man with a gun in the name of OfFiCeR SaFeTy. Not only that, but those same cops prevented other people, including parents of the kids being killed, from entering the school to confront the shooter with their own personal guns.

Not sure if you're old enough to remember Columbine, in April 1999 - twenty-three years before Uvalde. These two guys (who I pause to editorialize might have been caught beforehand with mental health screening) killed several students. Cops and SWAT (again, all carrying guns) surrounded the school in about fifteen minutes. Despite hearing gunshots continue for another 30 minutes after that, they also thought it was ToO DaNgEroUs aNd ScArY for them with their MP5s and body armor to confront two literal teenagers. They made no effort to enter the school for almost three hours - not even when students sheltering in a classroom taped handmade signs to the windows begging for help for their wounded, bleeding teacher (the teacher died before help arrived)

The cops sat on their tacticool gear for two hours after hearing the last of the gunshots at Columbine. Two fucking hours in their head-to-toe body armor doing fuck all. The reason they didn't hear any more gunshots during those two hours was because the shooters had killed themselves. So the punchline here is cops let people bleed to death and sit in absolutely traumatizing fear for their lives for two fucking hours because they were too scared to confront. And here I remind you that this was twenty four years ago - they haven't improved their tactics in a quarter fucking century.

So why the absolute fuck should citizens be hoping to just happen to be in the presence of someone carrying a gun who might stop the shooter, rather than counting on mental health screening? Especially because those armed citizens often shoot innocent bystanders at the scene of a shooting just because of the chaos of it all.

Don't respond to this comment unless you're going to address the idea of mental health screening. Stop talking about GuN FrEe ZoNeS being the problem because I'm definitely not advocating for that solution, and I thought I made that pretty clear in my very first response to you.

Wow. While I'm thrilled that you've mastered testicular hygiene, it's a really weird thing to flex on the internet 😆 Do you often talk about your balls with strangers?

Also, as is extremely obvious with the current SCOTUS, they're not exactly an infallible body of infinite wisdom and perfect rulings. So your argument from authority can fuck right off.

I'm aware of cases wherein a lawfully carrying person has stopped a shooter. Big deal. Doesn't mean that regulations such as requiring mental health screening and continuing education/qualification tests are unreasonable. It seems a lot of these shooters have purchased their guns legally, so it seems like a mental health/competency screening program would stop a lot of the shootings without a need for what amounts to vigilante justice.

Notice how I said "a lot of" shootings, and not "all shootings." I include this bit only because I know you're already mentally typing out "BuT iF yOu MaKe GuNs iLLeGaL OnLy CriMiNaLs WiLL gEt ThEm!!!!11!1" Again, I'm aware of this problem. Shootings exist in countries that have much stricter gun laws than the US - but on a scale of one every few years rather than one every day in the US. Ergo, gun regulation prevents most but not all shootings.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting really tired of seeing our flags flying at half mast.

I'm totally in support of stricter gun laws, but right now what you're saying simply isn't true. I have a MA LTC but not an FFL and it's perfectly legal for my to transport, or even carry on my person, my personal handgun(s) to/in other states. Not all other states; CT for example is very strict about non-residents carrying guns. Whereas NH or VT (I believe) it would be perfectly fine to go up for a range day with a buddy.

It's pretty popular for people in MA to also get a Utah gun license, because something like 35 states will recognize your right to carry a gun as long as you're licensed in both of those states. I personally don't carry my gun very often outside of going to the range so I don't have a Utah license, but when I took my LTC course the instructor made it a point to mention that was an option.

MA resident, born and raised. I like guns, I own guns, and I'm totally in support of strict/stricter gun regulation. Gun ownership as a hobby and strict regulations for public safety are not mutually exclusive, Galaxy Brain. In fact, Well Regulated is literally among the first words of that constitutional amendment you're referencing. Funny how you lot always seem to gloss over that part 🤔

You guys talking about about Known Pedophile Matt Gaetz?

There are literally half a dozens of them

How many attendants?