I don't have much to disagree with here, so don't think I'm replying just to disagree with you, but I do have a few things to mention:

a study done by Baylor University where they asked residents on the street if they would intervene in a situation such as mass shooting. 81% said they would intervene and try to stop the subject.

People will obviously say that they would intervene if they had the means to when we aren't under the stress of actually being involved in that situation. It's fantasy enactment in a hypothetical situation.
Everyone wants to be the hero who runs in and saves the day, but as an ex-soldier you should know that the reality of situations like that don't match up with the fantasy.

A better study would be to look at mass shootings which have occurred in areas where guns were allowed, how many people were carrying guns in the immediate vicinity and how many people did intervene in those mass shootings.
That way you can get an average of how often mass shootings are prevented by conceal carriers and upscale that to theoretically apply to all of the USA in the event that gun-free zones were removed.

I'm not sure if that study has been done so I couldn't comment on any potential outcome.

firearms are not the problem, mental health is.

I believe that this is the case for mass shootings, but I'm not entirely convinced that it is the case for shootings in general. Obviously suicides make up a large chunk of the gun deaths in the US and mental health improvements could be hugely influential in reducing that chunk, but mental health issues aren't normally what drive people to commit armed robbery, for example. Their main motivator is obviously going to be poverty.

So while mental health improvements would reduce the amount of gun deaths in the US by a significant amount I don't think it is the best solution to the overall problem of gun violence.

I do however think that the most likely solution to the problem of firearm related deaths in the US is something that you are highly likely to disagree with.

Ending the drug war.

Legalise the drugs which make the gangs and cartels their money. Tax and regulate those drugs and the vast majority of income for those gangs is gone.
That means that the gangs reduce in numbers, they won't be able to buy as much weaponry, and their reasons behind killing each other will be greatly diminished.

If you think that this is a terrible idea then understand that this is just one benefit from legalising these drugs, but I think that going too far down that rabbit hole will just derail this topic.

Overall I agree, I don't think that banning guns is the answer, but we have Democrats who are too busy pushing the idea of gun control to focus on ending the drug war and mental health reform and we have Republicans too busy repelling the idea of gun control to focus on mental health reform and ending the drug war.

It is literally what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object and the problem of gun violence is going to persist until they break this routine and start looking at the other solutions.

Cioran wrote I don't have much to disagree with here, so don't think I'm replying just to disagree with you, but I do have a few things to mention:

a study done by Baylor University where they asked residents on the street if they would intervene in a situation such as mass shooting. 81% said they would intervene and try to stop the subject.

People will obviously say that they would intervene if they had the means to when we aren't under the stress of actually being involved in that situation. It's fantasy enactment in a hypothetical situation.
Everyone wants to be the hero who runs in and saves the day, but as an ex-soldier you should know that the reality of situations like that don't match up with the fantasy.

A better study would be to look at mass shootings which have occurred in areas where guns were allowed, how many people were carrying guns in the immediate vicinity and how many people did intervene in those mass shootings.
That way you can get an average of how often mass shootings are prevented by conceal carriers and upscale that to theoretically apply to all of the USA in the event that gun-free zones were removed.

I'm not sure if that study has been done so I couldn't comment on any potential outcome.

firearms are not the problem, mental health is.

I believe that this is the case for mass shootings, but I'm not entirely convinced that it is the case for shootings in general. Obviously suicides make up a large chunk of the gun deaths in the US and mental health improvements could be hugely influential in reducing that chunk, but mental health issues aren't normally what drive people to commit armed robbery, for example. Their main motivator is obviously going to be poverty.

So while mental health improvements would reduce the amount of gun deaths in the US by a significant amount I don't think it is the best solution to the overall problem of gun violence.

I do however think that the most likely solution to the problem of firearm related deaths in the US is something that you are highly likely to disagree with.

Ending the drug war.

Legalise the drugs which make the gangs and cartels their money. Tax and regulate those drugs and the vast majority of income for those gangs is gone.
That means that the gangs reduce in numbers, they won't be able to buy as much weaponry, and their reasons behind killing each other will be greatly diminished.

If you think that this is a terrible idea then understand that this is just one benefit from legalising these drugs, but I think that going too far down that rabbit hole will just derail this topic.

Overall I agree, I don't think that banning guns is the answer, but we have Democrats who are too busy pushing the idea of gun control to focus on ending the drug war and mental health reform and we have Republicans too busy repelling the idea of gun control to focus on mental health reform and ending the drug war.

It is literally what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object and the problem of gun violence is going to persist until they break this routine and start looking at the other solutions.

The unfortunate reality is what one side pushes. The other will always disagree and fight.

But about the drug war, i do agree with you however i only used it as an example here so this topic isn't really about it and is it's own topic by itself!

I believe that alot of these school shootings and mass terror attacks are flase flags.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

By carrying out these attacks on their own country, The Elite are able to incite fear and anger into the public. This makes it easier to control the public. Dont think so? Take the Patriot Act as an example. Americans are so scared that they are willing to allow allow the goverment to have to have the ability to infinitely detain any citizen without any charges against them, in the name of "Security"

It's time to allow citizens to carry firearms(if they pass training and checks)

If more guns = more peace, wouldn't the US by definition be the most peaceful country on earth?

I almost completely agree. Also, this topic has been discussed many times.

JUst compare to the UK. Hardly any in friend per year and there's like 8 per day in America

-Xenon wrote there's like 8 per day in America

32 homicides per day.

I agree with this bud just for our safety

Tywin wrote

It's time to allow citizens to carry firearms(if they pass training and checks)

If more guns = more peace, wouldn't the US by definition be the most peaceful country on earth?

That is not what OP said. More guns would probably lead to less crime. People will probably still rob people, but it should happen at a lesser rate, since they would know that people have guns.
Also less crime would happen, because people with guns would stop the crimes.

If more people have guns, then more people can defend themselves.

And although crimes would decrease, shootings would probably increase due to more guns.

I can see where this can go wrong, for example...
Somebody goes and does a mass shooting at a airport, well then everybody pulls out guns, and nobody knows who the mass shooter is. But I could also see where you could determine the mass shooter is the person who is shooting at everyone.

I know that criminals do not care about the laws. But what about charging some one who uses a gun in a crime with a additional charge.
In Oklahoma it is a crime to commit a crime while wearing a hoodie. And people still commit crimes while wearing hoodies, but they get a additional charge.
The same could apply to guns.