Fred,
There is no "solution". We'll never solve the problem of murder or mass murder because murder is about as old as mankind itself. Taking guns away won't stop it. Throwing every crazy person you find in a mental institution won't stop it. No country is immune to this occurrence.
Can we reduce the occurrence? I think so but it will require taking a hard look at what the causes are rather than looking at the weapons used. I think it will also require surveillance and possible detention of people based on keywords or phrases they use on social media. I think it will require a better system of reporting and background checks that look into not just infractions of the law but beyond that to threats made regardless of age and to what medications a person is using. Mood altering prescription meds should be a red flag that requires a more in depth review of whether a person can legally obtain a firearm or not. The problem is, all of that will be a tough sell to a country and a population that values freedom.

What does anyone care about what the Left thinks they are irrational..they believe their own lies.

If you can say the exact same thing about the Right, at least you and I will have reached a unanimous consensus :(.

Might be the starting point....I dunno?

See this ^

Otherwise people are to busy directing attention away from the problem and at each other instead of banding together to work on problems.

Wow. The doctor is wrong. Every person who ever shot a water jug, ballistic gelatin, piece of fruit or wild animal didn’t see what they thought they saw. the US military should’ve given out 9mm handguns instead of ARs. velocity is meaningless in damage to soft tissue. Police who ask for rifles to assist in shootout situations are fools and should just get it done with their pistols.

All of these things you expect us to believe? What on earth is your game here?

Umm... they do hand out 9mm's.... and no... velocity is not meaningless, it's what helps create the energy. Velocity and mass are used to calculate kinetic energy. There are more lethal rounds than the .223.

I shot a water jug with a .338... DEFINITELY more lethal. Like I said in the post you selectively quoted, the .223 is not the most lethal.

I want you to remember something here, the person I'm discussing this with once made the claim that the .223 was "designed to tumble".

yeah that's F'edup..

The plea bargaining business in the US is terrible.. Many poor kids take a plea bargain knowing they are innocent, just to avoid the risk of longer sentence or CP.

That ain't right.

Op Ed from the LA Times I found interesting:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/on-the-two-mass-shootings.php

For two years, we’ve been studying the life histories of mass shooters in the United States for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We’ve built a database dating back to 1966 of every mass shooter who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999. We’ve interviewed incarcerated perpetrators and their families, shooting survivors and first responders. We’ve read media and social media, manifestos, suicide notes, trial transcripts and medical records.

Our goal has been to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings. Although we haven’t found that mass shooters are all alike, our data do reveal four commonalities among the perpetrators of nearly all the mass shootings we studied.

Link from the Op Ed: https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooters

Then just saddling up and riding into the sunset.

Here bretta... since you OBVIOUSLY haven't been following along and seem to have penchant for selectively quoting me here in this thread in an attempt to make it appear like I'm not familiar with the capabilities of various rounds of ammunition... this is where this all started.
That's a bull**** statement made by a person with no functional understanding of guns or ballistics. Now... go from there. Tell me where I'm wrong but make sure you use my exact quotes when you do it.

The early 1920's were incredibly unfiltered. "The roaring Twenties".

Magazines carried adds for vibrators to "put a glow on a woman's face".

By the 1930's a lot of organizations and the government where possible worked to take control. A lot of censorship arose that held together for a few decades. It started to break up in the 1960's and for the most part was gone by the 1970's.

Yes in part, a common theme in these events that garner major attention are that they are from a broken home and raised by government programs.

A lot of our education system deals in over population, too many people, too little resources, and that climate change will make it worse.

When you take these teachings literally you will either commit suicide(on the rise), or go out and kill a lot of people.

Those with kind and loving parents aren't going to do this because the example of a family provides a counter to the PC movement that says humans are the worst thing for the planet.

I do not believe you can legislate love and caring; the solution has to be what you do for those around you, and how you motivate those around you to do for others.

Not true. While it could be that you do not have a clue does not mean others do not. And, clearly solutions have been put forward, it's just that said solutions are not acceptable to you and your lofty virtue signalling standards. For example, one solution is for more people to carry lethal force. -noting that most mass shooters target people in "gun-free zones" places where no one is likely to quickly shoot back . -- any mass shootings at gun shows? No. - Yer Welcome.

I think you were a little misleading. I understand and agree with your basic point.

If we eliminate "assault" rifles we should still expect high casualty rates when handguns are used as a replacement.

Look at the entire post from which I quoted if you like. If anything it makes my point even more clear. You quoted Corgi's article in which a Dr. compared handgun wounds to .223 wounds and said what I quoted.

I'm a certified gun nut but a careful reading of some of Corgi's posts will show a reasonable point of view. Perhaps not one you agree with but reasonable just the same. When you go off on a tangent about how there are more deadly calibers it undermines your entire argument. Ballistics wars are for basement dwelling mall ninjas, not adults. You know better and can do better. As a gun nut I see this issue reaching a critical mass and frankly if the response is a never ending 'nope, nope, I can't hear you' from us then at some point that response is going to get tuned out and a Prez like Trump, WHO HAS ZERO PERSONAL AFFECTION FOR FIREARMS, is gonna do what he wants with no concern for what we think.

TLDR- quit the Rain Man bull**** and own up to the fact that mag fed rifle calibers are far more deadly and efficient than any handgun or shotgun so we can move on with the discussion.

Thanks for posting that anti-Trump article from Russian state sponsored RT.

A question for you.

If the shooters had used handguns instead of rifles would we be satisfied wirh the results? Would there be less concern by all of us and less media attention? No call to action to change gun laws?

While others are having a reasonable discussion, one poster consistently rants uncontrollably with accusations and emotional tripe that clearly belongs in PARF. Where are the moderators when they’re needed?

I understand exactly what you're driving at here. And I agree, it's a slippery slope. I've said before if we could trust Dems to stop at 'x' point with bans we'd get a deal done pretty quickly. We know better though. That said I'm willing to let detachable mag fed rifles go away entirely. If I were a large game hunter I'd be fine with non mag fed rifles.

I'm not going to lie, however, about rifles and such things to avoid having an honest discussion. I'm also not willing to let the US turn into a police state where any cop with a beef can show up at my house and confiscate my guns because the old bat across the street doesn't like me cleaning ducks on my tailgate and decides to fabricate a story about a threat or some such thing. That, I think, is going to be a very attractive option to the president if gun owners don't bring some other good faith offering to the table.

Sadly a very small percentage of people on this forum who enjoy firearms seem to be capable of critical thought and honest discussion about this issue. The games and lies used by the other side don't justify the same on ours.

I agres with you. The difference in performance between the two platforms was understated. If we want to make a point we should be factual.

Carry on