Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

[2aguy]

Gun Facts Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). 17

And Denmark has much lower crime rates and very few guns. Guns really don't effect crime rates.

And there is where the entire gun control debate falls apart for gun control. You have no basis to restrict the right.

Yes I'm not aware of any strong evidence showing crime is effected either up or down by gun ownership.

Except for the fact that more Americans own guns, more Americans are actually carrying guns....and the gun murder rate is going down, and is currently at an all time low....dittos for accidental gun deaths.........that is a fact......and the meme that law abiding citizens carrying guns for self defense will create more gun violence is false.....

But that doesn't prove they lowered the rate, just that it doesn't increase the rate perhaps. Which is also what I believe.

I like how you get to believe only what you want...despite the evidence...it isn't just "not effecting the rate," the rate of gun murder is actually going down....while more people are getting concealed carry permits and carrying guns....according to anti gunner doctrine that can't happen........but it is happening.......accidental gun deaths are going down as well...again...another piece of anti gunner doctrine that is proving untrue.....

And yet we are told we have to believe what anti gunners want will lower gun crime rates......but with the laws we have now.....and more people carrying guns for protection...the gun murder rate is going down......

 

[Brain357]

And Denmark has much lower crime rates and very few guns. Guns really don't effect crime rates.

And there is where the entire gun control debate falls apart for gun control. You have no basis to restrict the right.

Yes I'm not aware of any strong evidence showing crime is effected either up or down by gun ownership.

Except for the fact that more Americans own guns, more Americans are actually carrying guns....and the gun murder rate is going down, and is currently at an all time low....dittos for accidental gun deaths.........that is a fact......and the meme that law abiding citizens carrying guns for self defense will create more gun violence is false.....

But that doesn't prove they lowered the rate, just that it doesn't increase the rate perhaps. Which is also what I believe.

I like how you get to believe only what you want...despite the evidence...it isn't just "not effecting the rate," the rate of gun murder is actually going down....while more people are getting concealed carry permits and carrying guns....according to anti gunner doctrine that can't happen........but it is happening.......accidental gun deaths are going down as well...again...another piece of anti gunner doctrine that is proving untrue.....

And yet we are told we have to believe what anti gunners want will lower gun crime rates......but with the laws we have now.....and more people carrying guns for protection...the gun murder rate is going down......

I have seen no proof it lowers crime. Denmark has few guns and much lower crime rates.

 

[2aguy]

How many times have you needed one?

Police apprehend criminals, very different from defendng.

Mass shooters and gang bangers pick their magazines and use the full capacity all the time. I've not heard of a defender needing to do that.

The Second Amendment is an individual right that is not needs based. I don't have to justify needs to anybody except myself. You have a hard time understanding that concept.

Mass shootings in this country hit a peak in the 1930s. Despite a few high profile mass shootings in the last few years they are at a very low rate compared to history.

By the way, the great majority of police never fire their weapon except for qualification during their career so if your criteria for need of a standard capacity magazine is actually having to shoot at a bad guy then most police would fail that test.

Police are not usually present when a crime takes place. They come later after the crime has been committed. It is more likely that a civilian will have the need for the firearm and the associated magazine than the police. If the police need standard capacity magazines then so do the citizens. They both have the threat of the same bad guys.

Why should I be restricted from owing standard capacity magazines because some gang bangers use them illegally? Taking the magazines away from me is not going to stop them from getting what they want.

Just mind you own business and don't worry about it. If you don't want a standard capacity magazine then don't buy one.

Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.

How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.

Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

And Denmark has much lower crime rates and very few guns. Guns really don't effect crime rates.

And there is where the entire gun control debate falls apart for gun control. You have no basis to restrict the right.

Yes I'm not aware of any strong evidence showing crime is effected either up or down by gun ownership.

So you agree with the thrust of my argument then?

Gun control (beyond what we have) should not be passed? I thought you were on the other side of this debate...

There are thngs I would like done, but I mostly just try to keep the debate honest. The main thing I am for is mag capacity limits. I've not yet heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, but gang bangers and mass shooters use them a lot. And there are examples of mass shooters stopped at reload.

And there are examples of mass shooters stopped at reload

And more of innocent people charging attackers....empty handed....because the law made them gun free zones....and getting gunned down....

Sandy Hook
Luby's cafe
Fort Hood,

And once I can' get to Ayoob's site I'll list more.....

stop gun free killing zones and magazine limits will be just as stupid an idea as all the other gun control ideas.....

I will now disabuse those who think, err, have been told and believe gun free zones are established to prevent anyone from entering one with a gun. They have been established to add custody time to anyone convicted of any crime within the zone.

At sentencing, if someone is arrested even for a minor crime within such a zone, and convicted, and the allegation of having a gun in their possession is found true by the trier of fact, a one year sentence can be added to the original crime - even if the original crime is an infraction or low grade misdemeanor.

Is that clear? Too many ignorant fools keep repeating the same bull shit as the moron above has done.

 

[Brain357]

How many times have you needed one?

Police apprehend criminals, very different from defendng.

Mass shooters and gang bangers pick their magazines and use the full capacity all the time. I've not heard of a defender needing to do that.

The Second Amendment is an individual right that is not needs based. I don't have to justify needs to anybody except myself. You have a hard time understanding that concept.

Mass shootings in this country hit a peak in the 1930s. Despite a few high profile mass shootings in the last few years they are at a very low rate compared to history.

By the way, the great majority of police never fire their weapon except for qualification during their career so if your criteria for need of a standard capacity magazine is actually having to shoot at a bad guy then most police would fail that test.

Police are not usually present when a crime takes place. They come later after the crime has been committed. It is more likely that a civilian will have the need for the firearm and the associated magazine than the police. If the police need standard capacity magazines then so do the citizens. They both have the threat of the same bad guys.

Why should I be restricted from owing standard capacity magazines because some gang bangers use them illegally? Taking the magazines away from me is not going to stop them from getting what they want.

Just mind you own business and don't worry about it. If you don't want a standard capacity magazine then don't buy one.

Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.

How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.

Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

Giffords wasn't a gun free zone....

So where is your list of lives saved by hi cap mags? I've not heard one yet.

 

[Brain357]

How many times have you needed one?

Police apprehend criminals, very different from defendng.

Mass shooters and gang bangers pick their magazines and use the full capacity all the time. I've not heard of a defender needing to do that.

The Second Amendment is an individual right that is not needs based. I don't have to justify needs to anybody except myself. You have a hard time understanding that concept.

Mass shootings in this country hit a peak in the 1930s. Despite a few high profile mass shootings in the last few years they are at a very low rate compared to history.

By the way, the great majority of police never fire their weapon except for qualification during their career so if your criteria for need of a standard capacity magazine is actually having to shoot at a bad guy then most police would fail that test.

Police are not usually present when a crime takes place. They come later after the crime has been committed. It is more likely that a civilian will have the need for the firearm and the associated magazine than the police. If the police need standard capacity magazines then so do the citizens. They both have the threat of the same bad guys.

Why should I be restricted from owing standard capacity magazines because some gang bangers use them illegally? Taking the magazines away from me is not going to stop them from getting what they want.

Just mind you own business and don't worry about it. If you don't want a standard capacity magazine then don't buy one.

Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.

How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.

Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

The biggest gun free zones we have are with big corporations. I don't know anyone who can carry at work. Shootings at work are pretty common. Why aren't you going after them?

 

[2aguy]

The Second Amendment is an individual right that is not needs based. I don't have to justify needs to anybody except myself. You have a hard time understanding that concept.

Mass shootings in this country hit a peak in the 1930s. Despite a few high profile mass shootings in the last few years they are at a very low rate compared to history.

By the way, the great majority of police never fire their weapon except for qualification during their career so if your criteria for need of a standard capacity magazine is actually having to shoot at a bad guy then most police would fail that test.

Police are not usually present when a crime takes place. They come later after the crime has been committed. It is more likely that a civilian will have the need for the firearm and the associated magazine than the police. If the police need standard capacity magazines then so do the citizens. They both have the threat of the same bad guys.

Why should I be restricted from owing standard capacity magazines because some gang bangers use them illegally? Taking the magazines away from me is not going to stop them from getting what they want.

Just mind you own business and don't worry about it. If you don't want a standard capacity magazine then don't buy one.

Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.

How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.

Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

The biggest gun free zones we have are with big corporations. I don't know anyone who can carry at work. Shootings at work are pretty common. Why aren't you going after them?

I would...they are violating the Civil rights of their employees by not allowing them to carry guns.....as per all the other civil rights laws at work....we can get to them after we protect what we have now....

and remember....the Doctor who broke the hospital gun free zone policy....saved lives by having his gun with him when he killed that former patient who also came into the gun free zone with a gun...but to kill innocent people...........

Gun free zones are stupid...and get people killed...lots of people....every school shooting for example.......gun free zones......church shootings, the Sikh temple.....gun free zone....businesses with armed employees.....dead criminals.....all the time.....the construction site where the guy went in to kill people with a gun....killed by the armed owner.....

 

[2aguy]

The Second Amendment is an individual right that is not needs based. I don't have to justify needs to anybody except myself. You have a hard time understanding that concept.

Mass shootings in this country hit a peak in the 1930s. Despite a few high profile mass shootings in the last few years they are at a very low rate compared to history.

By the way, the great majority of police never fire their weapon except for qualification during their career so if your criteria for need of a standard capacity magazine is actually having to shoot at a bad guy then most police would fail that test.

Police are not usually present when a crime takes place. They come later after the crime has been committed. It is more likely that a civilian will have the need for the firearm and the associated magazine than the police. If the police need standard capacity magazines then so do the citizens. They both have the threat of the same bad guys.

Why should I be restricted from owing standard capacity magazines because some gang bangers use them illegally? Taking the magazines away from me is not going to stop them from getting what they want.

Just mind you own business and don't worry about it. If you don't want a standard capacity magazine then don't buy one.

Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.

How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.

Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

Giffords wasn't a gun free zone....

So where is your list of lives saved by hi cap mags? I've not heard one yet.

Sadly....we will need to start counting bullets at crime scenes since those aren't usually reported in news stories...if your craziness gets steam, we will have to start logging in how many bullets each defender used.....

 

[2aguy]

another reason magazine limits are nuts.....they are defacto gun bans in disguise....

Colorado Democrats Magazine Ban Bill Outlaws Virtually Every Magazine Available Extrano s Alley a gun blog

That’s because the bill specifies that magazines that can be “readily converted” to hold more than 15 bullets will also be outlawed.

Practically every magazine on the market can be easily converted with readily available extenders, as demonstrated in a video posted by John Caldera, the president of the libertarian Independence Institute.

Caldera demonstrates the ease with which the standard 15-round magazine for his Glock 19 pistol can be converted to hold 17 rounds by removing the base plate and installing the extender. Practically all magazines have removable base plates so that they can be cleaned.

Fields told 9News that she had no idea her bill would effectively ban nearly all magazines with removable base plates for which extenders are made.

that she had no idea her bill would effectively ban nearly all magazines with removable base plates for which extenders are made.

Would it be rude to call her a lying B***h......she knew exactly what she was doing.....so again....never, ever trust a gun grabber and never give them the benefit of the doubt when they claim all they want is "reasonable" gun laws....they are lying.....

law abiding citizens lose those magazines....criminals get them whenever they want or need them.........the true goal of the anti gunners.....

 

[Brain357]

Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.

How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.

Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

The biggest gun free zones we have are with big corporations. I don't know anyone who can carry at work. Shootings at work are pretty common. Why aren't you going after them?

I would...they are violating the Civil rights of their employees by not allowing them to carry guns.....as per all the other civil rights laws at work....we can get to them after we protect what we have now....

and remember....the Doctor who broke the hospital gun free zone policy....saved lives by having his gun with him when he killed that former patient who also came into the gun free zone with a gun...but to kill innocent people...........

Gun free zones are stupid...and get people killed...lots of people....every school shooting for example.......gun free zones......church shootings, the Sikh temple.....gun free zone....businesses with armed employees.....dead criminals.....all the time.....the construction site where the guy went in to kill people with a gun....killed by the armed owner.....

Well make companies allow it then I might agree with you. I don't think the gun lobby will go after them though.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

The biggest gun free zones we have are with big corporations. I don't know anyone who can carry at work. Shootings at work are pretty common. Why aren't you going after them?

I would...they are violating the Civil rights of their employees by not allowing them to carry guns.....as per all the other civil rights laws at work....we can get to them after we protect what we have now....

and remember....the Doctor who broke the hospital gun free zone policy....saved lives by having his gun with him when he killed that former patient who also came into the gun free zone with a gun...but to kill innocent people...........

Gun free zones are stupid...and get people killed...lots of people....every school shooting for example.......gun free zones......church shootings, the Sikh temple.....gun free zone....businesses with armed employees.....dead criminals.....all the time.....the construction site where the guy went in to kill people with a gun....killed by the armed owner.....

Well make companies allow it then I might agree with you. I don't think the gun lobby will go after them though.

The gun lobby won't have to....one day they will be sued by their employees..........for civil rights violations.....

 

[Brain357]

Machine guns have been controlled and we should do the same with semi-autos now.

How many examples you have of a defender needing more than 10 rounds? I can give you a lot of mass shooters who used them. Lots of people hit by strays from gang bangers too.

Did you know kids escaped at newtown while he reloaded?

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

Giffords wasn't a gun free zone....

So where is your list of lives saved by hi cap mags? I've not heard one yet.

Sadly....we will need to start counting bullets at crime scenes since those aren't usually reported in news stories...if your craziness gets steam, we will have to start logging in how many bullets each defender used.....

Was done using armed citizen, 2-3 shots.

 

[Brain357]

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

The biggest gun free zones we have are with big corporations. I don't know anyone who can carry at work. Shootings at work are pretty common. Why aren't you going after them?

I would...they are violating the Civil rights of their employees by not allowing them to carry guns.....as per all the other civil rights laws at work....we can get to them after we protect what we have now....

and remember....the Doctor who broke the hospital gun free zone policy....saved lives by having his gun with him when he killed that former patient who also came into the gun free zone with a gun...but to kill innocent people...........

Gun free zones are stupid...and get people killed...lots of people....every school shooting for example.......gun free zones......church shootings, the Sikh temple.....gun free zone....businesses with armed employees.....dead criminals.....all the time.....the construction site where the guy went in to kill people with a gun....killed by the armed owner.....

Well make companies allow it then I might agree with you. I don't think the gun lobby will go after them though.

The gun lobby won't have to....one day they will be sued by their employees..........for civil rights violations.....

Then why not now?

With only 11 million choosing to carry what do you think is the chance of your armed hero first being there and second winning the gun fight? I'm sort of on the line with gun free zones. I've seen that several teachers have shot themselves.

 

[orogenicman]

Such as?

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.

it isn't repeated all across the country...in fact, there hasn't been an increase in these shootings...and it would help a lot if we got rid of gun free killing zones for crazies....

Really?

Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. If there has been no increase, then what you are saying is that it has been horrendous all along, we just didn't realize it. You can't have it both ways.

USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS

The deaths from mass shootings at the hands of some lunatic, account for less than 1% of the gun murder deaths in the US. Yet they seem to be the main focus of the anti-gun crowd.

They haven't been my main focus. But they are a serious issue, nonetheless.

 

[Flash]

[


Well the mass shooter from CA used 10 round mags because they have a law against larger ones. So they won't all go through the effort of finding larger ones.

I see you keep failing to answer my questions. Very telling.

So what? Bad guys do bad things. That is no reason to take away Constitutional rights from somebody that doesn't use the magazines in a crime.

That is like taking away the freedom of religion from Christians because Muslims perform acts of terrorism in the name of Islam.

 

[Brain357]

[


Well the mass shooter from CA used 10 round mags because they have a law against larger ones. So they won't all go through the effort of finding larger ones.

I see you keep failing to answer my questions. Very telling.

So what? Bad guys do bad things. That is no reason to take away Constitutional rights from somebody that doesn't use the magazines in a crime.

That is like taking away the freedom of religion from Christians because Muslims perform acts of terrorism in the name of Islam.

Machine guns are already controlled and I see no negatives to it. We had a limit before and everyone was fine. It is the right to bear arms and everyone can still choose to be armed.

 

[S.J.]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Tell us oh wise one, what are the real causes of gun violence in America?

People who have no regard for human life are the cause of gun violence (and every other kind). The same person that kills with a gun will kill with a knife, baseball bat, screwdriver, etc. Idiots like you, however, think it's the gun that does the killing.

So you have no idea that people like you are the real cause of gun violence in America. Paranoid racists who preach hate and fear like you, and others of every race, creed, ethnicity and social class.

Who does most of the killing in this country, dumbfuck? Gang members, drug dealers, in other words...CRIMINALS! Apparently you are not prepared to argue against that point. Prove me wrong, instead of spewing meaningless talking points like "paranoid racists preaching hate and fear". Give me a fucking break. Blacks kill blacks more than anyone kills anyone. Don't give me that "racist" bullshit. If that's all you have, then you suck at this.

Pointing out you are a racist and preach hate and fear is obvious to everyone but you, apparently. And, if you were capable of reading with comprehension, which you are not, you would note that I included other races, creeds, ethnicity and social class. So, feel good about not being alone and as culpable as other cowards whose sole source of feeling like a man means having a gun.

First of all, I don't own a gun. Second, you just reinforced what I said, racism is the only point you are ever capable of presenting.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tell us oh wise one, what are the real causes of gun violence in America?

People who have no regard for human life are the cause of gun violence (and every other kind). The same person that kills with a gun will kill with a knife, baseball bat, screwdriver, etc. Idiots like you, however, think it's the gun that does the killing.

So you have no idea that people like you are the real cause of gun violence in America. Paranoid racists who preach hate and fear like you, and others of every race, creed, ethnicity and social class.

Who does most of the killing in this country, dumbfuck? Gang members, drug dealers, in other words...CRIMINALS! Apparently you are not prepared to argue against that point. Prove me wrong, instead of spewing meaningless talking points like "paranoid racists preaching hate and fear". Give me a fucking break. Blacks kill blacks more than anyone kills anyone. Don't give me that "racist" bullshit. If that's all you have, then you suck at this.

Pointing out you are a racist and preach hate and fear is obvious to everyone but you, apparently. And, if you were capable of reading with comprehension, which you are not, you would note that I included other races, creeds, ethnicity and social class. So, feel good about not being alone and as culpable as other cowards whose sole source of feeling like a man means having a gun.

First of all, I don't own a gun. Second, you just reinforced what I said, racism is the only point you are ever capable of presenting.

I'm not surprised. How many times have you been detained civilly as a danger to yourself or others. Was the room padded?

 

[2aguy]

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

The biggest gun free zones we have are with big corporations. I don't know anyone who can carry at work. Shootings at work are pretty common. Why aren't you going after them?

I would...they are violating the Civil rights of their employees by not allowing them to carry guns.....as per all the other civil rights laws at work....we can get to them after we protect what we have now....

and remember....the Doctor who broke the hospital gun free zone policy....saved lives by having his gun with him when he killed that former patient who also came into the gun free zone with a gun...but to kill innocent people...........

Gun free zones are stupid...and get people killed...lots of people....every school shooting for example.......gun free zones......church shootings, the Sikh temple.....gun free zone....businesses with armed employees.....dead criminals.....all the time.....the construction site where the guy went in to kill people with a gun....killed by the armed owner.....

Well make companies allow it then I might agree with you. I don't think the gun lobby will go after them though.

The gun lobby won't have to....one day they will be sued by their employees..........for civil rights violations.....

Then why not now?

With only 11 million choosing to carry what do you think is the chance of your armed hero first being there and second winning the gun fight? I'm sort of on the line with gun free zones. I've seen that several teachers have shot themselves.

Who knows....but I do know it has happened....at the Appalachian School Shooting, at the hospital with the doctor who broke the rule on gun free zones, at Pearl Mississipi and you can see it happen at small convenience stores all the time.....they may or may not have carry permits but they use guns to stop robberies....and you can't win a gun fight if you don't have a gun...and the best way to win a gun fight is to have a gun and shoot the bad guy....a lot easier than trying to do it empty handed......and law abiding gun owners....aren't shooting up the place.....even accidents are rare and a small number each year....out of well over 310 million guns in the country there are only 6-700 accidental gun deaths.....so tiny a number that it doesn't come close to touching the 11.1 million people who have concealed carry permits....

As to teachers and guns....I think that peripheral staff might be a better idea...principals, school secretaries, clerks, deans, nurses, librarians.....and keep in mind.....you just have to arm some of the staff, not everyone, and as long as people know the school is no longer a "gun free" zone, and that parents will also be carrying guns when they drop kids off, visit the principal, drop off forgotten homework....you lower the chance that that school will be chosen.......

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....and 26 didn't.....the magazine thing is as silly as your other arguments Brain.......

Silly? Saving lives isn't silly. The Giffords shooter stopped at reload. If only he had to reload sooner.

The giffords shooter was in the middle of a crowd and they got lucky...dittos for the long island train shooter...again packed into a group of people and they didn't try to rush him until the very end after a whole bunch of other people were already shot....and for each one you mention there are more where innocent people charged the attacker and were gunned down.....it is the worst idea in the world.......better to end gun free zones, and allow the victims to shoot back.....

If you are serious about stopping mass shooters.....then end gun free zones.....they do not attack places where they might encounter people with guns...we know this from their behavior....when they actually choose where they will go.....Santa barbara shooter, colorado theater shooter, 2 other kids planning attacks, and the guy in Canada who laughed at gun free zone laws....we know they choose gun free zones......

And when someone on the scene uses a gun....the killer is stopped and more lives are saved.....

Giffords wasn't a gun free zone....

So where is your list of lives saved by hi cap mags? I've not heard one yet.

Sadly....we will need to start counting bullets at crime scenes since those aren't usually reported in news stories...if your craziness gets steam, we will have to start logging in how many bullets each defender used.....

Was done using armed citizen, 2-3 shots.

The Armed Citizen research only looked at just over 100 news stories so it is hardly a representative sample....and again....you can't tell someone how many bullets they will need to survive...and until you do, I am not going to help disarm innocent, law abiding people in the face of violent criminals.....