Shoot outs are a rarity. Gangsters prefer drive-bys, ambushes, back stabbings, and whatever else leaves as little chance of facing resistance as possible.
Nevermind that it'd be a lot harder for them to menace decent folk who are able to meet lead with lead. That alone would deter more crimes than the police ever could.
As for "more effective" weapons, gangsters always prefer cheap and/or flashy. Most of them have records, or use the black market to purchase smuggled or stolen weapons.

Nobody in their right mind wants to start shit when everybody is strapped. Those who are out of their mind would be dealt with summarily.

Nothing to be done for it. Live and let die.

People likely to harm themselves or others are already barred from owning firearms.

So I was wrong. Thanks for setting me straight.
As for that bit about the FBI wasting resources and not doing their jobs: What else is new?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all fundamental rights. Effective arms falls under liberty.

I heard something about it being from an extremist group. I haven't confirmed it, but it makes more sense than the fucker being lucky enough for everything to fall through in the time span his purchase was being processed.

Best people

If that's all you're hearing, it's a big sign you aren't listening.
I gave you my logic, and you haven't even acknowledged it to dismiss it.
Way to straw-man me one last time too.
Goodbye, and good riddance.

It's more than hard enough already if they'd just enforce the laws already in the books.
And I know for a fact that the edit didn't happen until after my response, because my response would've addressed that point too.
And there you go trying to straw man me again. I advocate for constitutional liberty, not anarchy.
The founders had puckle guns and cannons, watched weapons evolve in their own lifetimes. They wanted the people to have the means to resist conquerors and oppressors alike, foreign and domestic. Should freedom of speech be restricted to a printing press? Why not?

Not to mention, the entire point of the second amendment was so that people could defend themselves from foreign and domestic threats. The founders would think that the laws are far too tight as it is.

Strawmanning is exactly what you're doing.
Also, it's a pretty dick move to change the content of your comment AFTER it's been responded to. By your logic, the first amendment should be restricted to the printing press.
It's not about the guns. It's about what they represent. A means to provide for and defend oneself.
Without liberty, there is no life. I will gladly sentence the world to constant strife before I even consider a comfortable subjugation.

And get rid of soft targets.

No, we've been cutting back federal overreach and letting the individual states decide what they are willing to tolerate.
Just because we aren't willing to throw money at empty promises, or hold our own people at gunpoint doesn't mean we're neglecting anything.

He's trying to equate dogs to insects.

Don't make me into a straw-man, I never said anything about this is okay.
Liberty is more valuable than life, but that is no excuse to be stupid. Someone fucked up if he was able to get a gun with a violent record, but I will not sacrifice my culture, liberty, and autonomy to fear.
.
If you are willing to sacrifice any liberty for the illusion of security, then you are willfully blind and ignorant to both human nature and history.

American Revolution
.
Slave Revolts throughout history
.
Polish, French, Italian, Soviet, and other resistance groups
.
Mujahideen resistance of Soviet scorched earth operation
.
Six Day and Yom Kippur wars
.
Millions upon millions of Self-defense cases throughout history.
.
Pray tell, how the hell is a person supposed to preserve their liberty without arms?
.
@felman87
Congress is not supposed to fund schools. That is the responsibility of the states and cities. A distinction that is rather important for federalism and checks and balances.
.
And laws don't exist to stop criminals, they exist as a deterrence and so that there are prescribed ways to deal with those who act to harm others and society short of lynch mobs.

Life is not more important than liberty.
That is my nation's first value, and I'll be damned before I let us relinquish that in the face of fear. Before I let us relinquish anything.
.
Aside from that, stricter laws will do all of jack shit for the United States. We have millions in circulation, the black markets at the borders are out of control, and criminals don't care about laws.
It's not good that these shootings happen in the first place, but paper isn't gonna do a dann thing to stop them. Step back and look at this realistically. All the laws in the world won't stop it, but there are countless records of any resistance being enough to mitigate loss of life. Why not give those willing the training and the means to better resist?

Nationalism is not a bad thing. It never has been. What's bad is letting dictators and warlords in the U.N. have any say in how the world should be. What's bad is forcing nations to relinquish their culture, safety, liberty, and history just to accommodate people who already fucked up their own countries.
Your way is only sustainable if it is applied in a way that would make the most imperialist and power-hungry men in history blush.

He'd just get one illegally.
And that's assuming there is anything on his record that would bar him from buying one.