BREAKING: Active shooter in Midland/Odessa TX

[Wyatt earp]

The path to that is not clear. That's why nobody is listening. You have about 15 pages of nonsense on this thread alone and you have no facts from this specific incident outside of the dead and injured.

Yes it is clear. We with the most guns regularly suffer mass shootings and all shootings. Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Could it be more clear?

what people do is use a different weapon to assault with I guess your clarity is really foggy.

Do they now? Yet countries with strong gun control don't have a mass killing problem by any weapon. Strange. Mass killing are only common here and guns are the favorite weapon.

Mass killing or die unarmed by the hands of a gang what's the difference? You have me confused with someone else that might find a difference between the two

Countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Much safer.

And the US military to protect them

 

[Natural Citizen]

People are pretty much the same all over. If we had easy access to guns our murder rates would match yours.

I dunno. Perhaps. Perhaps not. One can only say insofar as their own recollection of the company they themselves keep, though.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are listening to him because he is saying what you want to hear. He is simply preaching to the choir.

I'm stating the facts. The pro gun side can't debate them. I believe the majority of people want less mass shootings and a lower homicide rate. The path to that is clear.

The path to that is not clear. That's why nobody is listening. You have about 15 pages of nonsense on this thread alone and you have no facts from this specific incident outside of the dead and injured.

Yes it is clear. We with the most guns regularly suffer mass shootings and all shootings. Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Could it be more clear?

what people do is use a different weapon to assault with I guess your clarity is really foggy.

Please link me to some examples of drive-by knifings.

What difference how it's committed? who said anything about drive-by knifing?
Category:Mass stabbings - Wikipedia

 

[Brain357]

I accept your surrender.

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

You only need one bullet

Then lets outlaw all guns except derringers and see what that does for mass shootings.

 

[Brain357]

Yes it is clear. We with the most guns regularly suffer mass shootings and all shootings. Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Could it be more clear?

what people do is use a different weapon to assault with I guess your clarity is really foggy.

Do they now? Yet countries with strong gun control don't have a mass killing problem by any weapon. Strange. Mass killing are only common here and guns are the favorite weapon.

Mass killing or die unarmed by the hands of a gang what's the difference? You have me confused with someone else that might find a difference between the two

Countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Much safer.

And the US military to protect them

As we have the US military to protect us.

 

[Wyatt earp]

what people do is use a different weapon to assault with I guess your clarity is really foggy.

Do they now? Yet countries with strong gun control don't have a mass killing problem by any weapon. Strange. Mass killing are only common here and guns are the favorite weapon.

Mass killing or die unarmed by the hands of a gang what's the difference? You have me confused with someone else that might find a difference between the two

Countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Much safer.

And the US military to protect them

As we have the US military to protect us.

With guns?


Or do they use sticks and stones?

 

[Correll]

Move your ass to one of those countries.

I accept your surrender.

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

Dude. YOu made a POINT of pointing out that whiter countries don't have the problems we do.



Don't pretend that you want to go after everyone. When the time comes to put ink on paper, you going after the gun owners where you will have the most impact.


You know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

You only need one bullet

Then lets outlaw all guns except derringers and see what that does for mass shootings.

Once again only one bullet needed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

what people do is use a different weapon to assault with I guess your clarity is really foggy.

Do they now? Yet countries with strong gun control don't have a mass killing problem by any weapon. Strange. Mass killing are only common here and guns are the favorite weapon.

Mass killing or die unarmed by the hands of a gang what's the difference? You have me confused with someone else that might find a difference between the two

Countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Much safer.

And the US military to protect them

As we have the US military to protect us.

and we have a large armed civilian populace to ensure the military doesn't go rogue

 

[bigrebnc1775]

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

You only need one bullet

Then lets outlaw all guns except derringers and see what that does for mass shootings.

Those weapons aren't protected by the second amendment according to U.S. vs. Miller

 

[Brain357]

Do they now? Yet countries with strong gun control don't have a mass killing problem by any weapon. Strange. Mass killing are only common here and guns are the favorite weapon.

Mass killing or die unarmed by the hands of a gang what's the difference? You have me confused with someone else that might find a difference between the two

Countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Much safer.

And the US military to protect them

As we have the US military to protect us.

and we have a large armed civilian populace to ensure the military doesn't go rogue

No we have checks and balances against that. Our military won't go rogue, you insult them. They are the best we have.

 

[Brain357]

I accept your surrender.

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

Dude. YOu made a POINT of pointing out that whiter countries don't have the problems we do.



Don't pretend that you want to go after everyone. When the time comes to put ink on paper, you going after the gun owners where you will have the most impact.


You know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

I've made a point that countries with strong gun control don't have these problems. You must not read very well.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Mass killing or die unarmed by the hands of a gang what's the difference? You have me confused with someone else that might find a difference between the two

Countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Much safer.

And the US military to protect them

As we have the US military to protect us.

and we have a large armed civilian populace to ensure the military doesn't go rogue

No we have checks and balances against that. Our military won't go rogue, you insult them. They are the best we have.

With guns?

 

[Wyatt earp]

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

Dude. YOu made a POINT of pointing out that whiter countries don't have the problems we do.



Don't pretend that you want to go after everyone. When the time comes to put ink on paper, you going after the gun owners where you will have the most impact.


You know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

I've made a point that countries with strong gun control don't have these problems. You must not read very well.

They don't have the 2nd..


They don't have illegal rapist killer Mexicans

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mass killing or die unarmed by the hands of a gang what's the difference? You have me confused with someone else that might find a difference between the two

Countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Much safer.

And the US military to protect them

As we have the US military to protect us.

and we have a large armed civilian populace to ensure the military doesn't go rogue

No we have checks and balances against that. Our military won't go rogue, you insult them. They are the best we have.

Yes we do it's called a large armed civilian populace
I'm willing to bet you whine when the police shoot a bad guy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

Dude. YOu made a POINT of pointing out that whiter countries don't have the problems we do.



Don't pretend that you want to go after everyone. When the time comes to put ink on paper, you going after the gun owners where you will have the most impact.


You know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

I've made a point that countries with strong gun control don't have these problems. You must not read very well.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers, and the Brady Act created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));

(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

 

[Correll]

2nd amendment twat

What about it? Even Scalia said it is limited. It clearly states well regulated militia. Its intent was to protect the country from invasion. With the worlds strongest military it is no longer needed. We can and should implement some gun control.

Who would you want to take guns away from, racist?

I think you start by ensuring that every gun is registered and each sale has a background check. Then you heavily regulate any weapons for mass killing that use high capacity magazines.

Dude. YOu made a POINT of pointing out that whiter countries don't have the problems we do.



Don't pretend that you want to go after everyone. When the time comes to put ink on paper, you going after the gun owners where you will have the most impact.


You know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

I've made a point that countries with strong gun control don't have these problems. You must not read very well.

And you made sure to point out that arabs are a "better" minority to have than,


than who exactly? YOu went vague.


Mmm?

 

[OldLady]

I'm stating the facts. The pro gun side can't debate them. I believe the majority of people want less mass shootings and a lower homicide rate. The path to that is clear.

The path to that is not clear. That's why nobody is listening. You have about 15 pages of nonsense on this thread alone and you have no facts from this specific incident outside of the dead and injured.

Yes it is clear. We with the most guns regularly suffer mass shootings and all shootings. Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Could it be more clear?

No. It is not clear. You couldn't wait to jump the gun and rush right into an event which you do not know anything about so that you could listen to yourself.

Disir, what more does brain need to know to comment on gun control? The mass shooter had a rifle in his car (according to the police). He shot a cop, hijacked a mail truck and randomly shot others as he drove by them. He killed six, injured twenty-some others and was eventually shot himelf by the police.
What more does brain need to know to comment on gun control in this country? What extenuating circumstances would take the easy availability of guns out of the equation? Mental health? lol He may have been nuts but he still had a rifle.

Well, it would be nice if he had some knowledge on how to operate a rifle before he comments. Do you realize how hard it is to operate a vehicle and shoot a rifle at the same time and actually hit a target??

I was thinking that myself. But that is what they said he did. Do you think he may have stopped to aim?

 

[Disir]

You are listening to him because he is saying what you want to hear. He is simply preaching to the choir.

I'm stating the facts. The pro gun side can't debate them. I believe the majority of people want less mass shootings and a lower homicide rate. The path to that is clear.

The path to that is not clear. That's why nobody is listening. You have about 15 pages of nonsense on this thread alone and you have no facts from this specific incident outside of the dead and injured.

Yes it is clear. We with the most guns regularly suffer mass shootings and all shootings. Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Could it be more clear?

No. It is not clear. You couldn't wait to jump the gun and rush right into an event which you do not know anything about so that you could listen to yourself.

Disir, what more does brain need to know to comment on gun control? The mass shooter had a rifle in his car (according to the police). He shot a cop, hijacked a mail truck and randomly shot others as he drove by them. He killed six, injured twenty-some others and was eventually shot himelf by the police.
What more does brain need to know to comment on gun control in this country? What extenuating circumstances would take the easy availability of out of the equation? Mental health? lol He may have been nuts but he still had a rifle.

Debate or commengt. lol.......indeed.

Were you not aware that there are shooters that obtained guns legally with the checks in place? Are you not aware that there has been a great deal of shootings that could be prevented had people not been released from jail but the criminal justice roll out in the last decade has allowed them back on the street? Would it matter if the guy was mentally ill and attempts had been made previously to get him admitted? Did you watch a bunch of people jump on the bandwagon of the garlic festival shooter and claim that he was a white supremacist even though the FBI said.....that ain't it?

Multi-pronged approach and if people waited for the details then you would see a hell of a lot more people agreeing rather than the usual suspects saying the usual shit. That goes fucking nowhere. But, it sure makes a hell of a lot of political hacks pat each other on the back while spouting some self-righteous bullshit.

 

[OldLady]

I'm stating the facts. The pro gun side can't debate them. I believe the majority of people want less mass shootings and a lower homicide rate. The path to that is clear.

The path to that is not clear. That's why nobody is listening. You have about 15 pages of nonsense on this thread alone and you have no facts from this specific incident outside of the dead and injured.

Yes it is clear. We with the most guns regularly suffer mass shootings and all shootings. Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours. Could it be more clear?

what people do is use a different weapon to assault with I guess your clarity is really foggy.

Please link me to some examples of drive-by knifings.

What difference how it's committed? who said anything about drive-by knifing?
Category:Mass stabbings - Wikipedia

My point being, it is much harder to kill and injure as many people at a time with a knife as it is with a gun. There is no sense wasting time on this argument. You know it as well as I do.