But rational arguments, based in facts?
Notsomuch..

Watching the hollow claims of
Victory is fun.

It's just Gotta Sukk getting crushed daily.

I type out reasons for my positions.
I get talking points in response.
What's Your answer for school shootings?

All rational folks have made their points on this topic: (1) As proven again and again, even the professional gunmen (police, military) are not particularly good at shooting people, (2) Firefights have a great percentage of misses and poor aiming which in a school setting myeans many deaths by friendly fire.  


Bullshit. The shooter has to come down the hall.
Exactly ZERO students and teachers will be behind the shooter.
I guess that's beyond you to know.

Outside of making schools fortresses which no town has the money for, the alternative is to reduce the availability of AK-47 and AR-15's to people who might want to shoot up a school (people under 21 for example when hormones and depression run somewhat unchecked in the still maturing brain).

As if murderers wouldn't use a 22 if that's what is available. You don't see how these shootings are carried out by young people in No Gun Zone places? Eliminating access to the sks, AR15S, AK47, does not change anything. The children are unprotected and vulnerable. Nobody wants to make schools a
Fortress. Just not a Free Kill zone. Arm teachers and staff. Stop leaving the kids as targets. Stop pretending we want something we haven't said we want. Is that bait and switch?

As far as whackos who shoot up theatres and concerts, I would argue that the elimination of lage capacity magazines and semiautomatic weapons would be a good start.
We're talking about the SCHOOLS.
More bait and switch?


And lastly, the 2nd amendment stipulates "well organized militia" which is why I suggested using National guard armories for weapons storage to be made available to citizens for use on properly supervised ranges.


And the second amendment says


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

The part beyond question is

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Unless you're convinced the founding fathers included an amendment that contradicted itself.

But that is just me, I would rather people be and feel safe listening even to country music or taking their grandchildren to see Bami or Black Panther rather  than having weapons of war out amongst the population.


You clearly have no clue what the second amendment is about.
Don't you understand that governments become tyrannical?

What made sense when everyone had single shot muzzle load weapons should be reasonably modified given the lethality of modern weapons.