Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[Brain357]

[

If I told you a banana was yellow would you say it wasn't true because your apple is green?

The UK had very few shootings BEFORE they banned guns.

There are more shootings in the UK SINCE guns were banned.

Gun bans CAUSED more crime, more mass shootings , more robbery in the UK since the gun ban.
Ten fold is not doubled it is ten times more.
10 in 88 years.
One every 8.8 years.
14 in 16 years, almost ten times more!!
Ten fold.

Your dishonesty is becoming legend!!

Soon time for you to dissapear, to "work"!!???
Every time your dishonesty and stupidity is shown........

Not true and you know it.

And, yeah, I have to go to my second job at nine today.

But I can make fun you you for a little while longer.

The problem with your "logic" here is that you use the term "mass shooting" as a standard, when that could mean as few as two people being killed.

When we are talking about REAL mass murders like Columbine or Aurora or Sandy Hook, (See, just saying the NAMES tells folks what I'm talking about with no further explanation) then the UK has had very, very few of those.

Only three "Mass shootings" in the double digits in the last 16 years.

We've had that many in the last year or so.

The fact is, the UK only has about 600 murders a year, and they only lock up about 78,000 people.


We have 16,000 murders a year and have to lock up 2 million people.

Real, raw numbers. And we're doing it wrong.

Before gun ban , 1 mass shooting in the uk( according to UK interpretation ) every 8.8 years for an 88 year period .
After the gun ban 14 mass shootings in 16 years.( mass shooting using the same criteria).
10 times more mass shootings since the gun ban was enacted.

Keep arguing apples and bananas but those numbers are there for all to see .
You refuse to touch them because they are in convienient to your fanatical dogma.

After gun ban Australia has no mass shootings. And they even have more of their population in urban areas.

 

[Brain357]

We don't have a gun problem......we have a nut problem.

And anyway......philosophy about gun bans/laws = gay.


Harvard University just completed a study, published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Here is the complete research paper >>>

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



What did they conclude?


more guns = less crimes




Here is a summary of their conclusions >>>>


Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.







Gun grabber limpwristers like to tell tall stories.

More guns = less crimes? Well lets look at that:
Guns per 100 residents
US: 94.3
Denmark: 12
Crime Index(higher means more crime)
US: 53.44
Denmark: 30.74
Safety Index(higher means more safe)
US: 46.09
Denmark: 69.26

Well I guess your wrong. That was easy.

It seems less guns with less income inequality might be the winning combination. Lots of guns with lots of inequality seems to be a disaster. Now smart people would learn from this.

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crime Index by Country 2013

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ANd that proves that the backgournd checks aren't thorough enough.

It's why we don't put a bicycle chain on the front doors of Fort Knox, guy.

It took the media less than a day to figure out how crazy this guy was.

Yet someone who was selling him a gun really didn't care.

How does it prove background checks are not thorough when he had never been convicted of a crime and had never been adjudicated as mentally ill? Isn't your beef with the fact that he got away with doing bad things and being crazy? Why blame guns for that?

He was involved in THREE violent incidents, two of them involving guns and he got thrown out of the Navy for being a nutbag. Oh, yeah, and the cops went to his residence after he reported hearing VOICES IN HIS HEAD.

All of which the Media found out within a DAY of the shooting.

In short, the background checks are inadequate.

He was never convicted of a crime.

Let me repeat that, he was never convicted of a crime.

I really can't say it enough, he was never convicted of a crime.

You can whine about background checks all day long, but he passed a federal background check, and a more stringent background check in Virginia, because he was never convicted of a crime.

By the way, he did not get a medical discharge from the Navy, he got an honorable discharge, which, once again, means he was never convicted of a crime.

The problem I see here is that he was never convicted of a crime, not that the background checks didn't work. They actually worked perfectly because he was never convicted of a crime.

Yet, for some reason, you blame the gun nuts even though he illegally modified the shotgun he bought the day before because he was never convicted of a crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, let's look at your list.

Kills Years Name


17 1996 THOMAS HAMILTON

16 1987 Michael Ryan

12 2010 DERRICK BIRD

7 1999 RICHARD FIELDING

5 1986 GEORGE STEPHENSON
5 2003 Kenneth Regan & William Horncy
5 1985 Jeremy Bamber

So only THREE in double digits in the last 26 years.

So let's just look at the last year or so in the US.

Sixteen US Mass Shootings Happened in 2012, Leaving at Least 88 Dead | The Nation



February 22, 2012—Five people were killed in at a Korean health spa in Norcross, Georgia, when a man opened fire inside the facility in an act suspected to be related to domestic violence.

February 26, 2012—Multiple gunmen began firing into a nightclub crown in Jackson, Tennessee, killing one person and injuring 20 others.

February 27, 2012—Three students at Chardon High School in rural Ohio were killed when a classmate opened fire.

March 8, 2012—Two people were killed and seven wounded at a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, when a gunman entered the hospital with two semiautomatic handguns and began firing.

March 31, 2012—A gunman opened fire on a crowd of mourners at a North Miami, Florida, funeral home, killing two people and injuring 12 others.

April 2, 2012—A 43-year-old former student at Oikos University in Oakland, California, walked into his former school and killed seven people, “execution-style.” Three people were wounded.

April 6, 2012—Two men went on a deadly shooting spree in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shooting black men at random in an apparently racially motivated attack. Three men died and two were wounded.

May 29, 2012—A man in Seattle, Washington, opened fire in a coffee shop and killed five people and then himself.

July 9, 2012—At a soccer tournament in Wilmington, Delaware, three people were killed, including a 16-year-old player and the event organizer, when multiple gunmen began firing shots, apparently targeting the organizer.

July 20, 2012—James Holmes enters a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opens fire with a semi-automatic weapon; twelve people are killed and fifty-eight are wounded.

August 5, 2012—A white supremacist and former Army veteran shot six people to death inside a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before killing himself.

August 14, 2012—Three people were killed at Texas A&M University when a 35-year-old man went on a shooting rampage; one of the dead was a police officer.

September 27, 2012—A 36-year-old man who had just been laid off from Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered his former workplace and shot five people to death, and wounded three others before killing himself.

October 21, 2012—45-year-old Radcliffe Frankin Haughton shot three women to death, including his wife, Zina Haughton, and injured four others at a spa in Brookfield, Wisconsin, before killing himself.

December 11, 2012—A 22-year-old began shooting at random at a mall near Portland, Oregon, killing two people and then himself.

December 14, 2012—One man, and possibly more, murders a reported twenty-six people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, including twenty children, before killing himself.

I see how it works now, it only counts as a mass shooting it it is in the US.

No, go back and read what I sad. He gave a list over a 30 year period of British Mass shootings. (Most of which happened BEFORE the Brits tightened their gun laws.)

I proved that we can beat those number IN A FREAKIN YEAR. Largely because we let crazy people have guns. And Criminals. And blind people, apparently.

He said most of them occurred after, so you don't have a point other than that they didn't happen here, which means they don't count in your mind.

 

[Brain357]

How does it prove background checks are not thorough when he had never been convicted of a crime and had never been adjudicated as mentally ill? Isn't your beef with the fact that he got away with doing bad things and being crazy? Why blame guns for that?

He was involved in THREE violent incidents, two of them involving guns and he got thrown out of the Navy for being a nutbag. Oh, yeah, and the cops went to his residence after he reported hearing VOICES IN HIS HEAD.

All of which the Media found out within a DAY of the shooting.

In short, the background checks are inadequate.

He was never convicted of a crime.

Let me repeat that, he was never convicted of a crime.

I really can't say it enough, he was never convicted of a crime.

You can whine about background checks all day long, but he passed a federal background check, and a more stringent background check in Virginia because he was never convicted of a crime.

By the way, he did not get a medical discharge from the Navy, he got an honorable discharge, which, once again, means he was never convicted of a crime.

The problem I see here is that he was never convicted of a crime, not that the background checks didn't work. They actually worked perfectly because he was never convicted of a crime.

Yet, for some reason, you blame the gun nuts even though he illegally modified the shotgun he bought the day before because he was never convicted of a crime.

This is why we need to add more to backgrounds checks. We should make it possible for a psychologist to put somebody who seems crazy and potentially dangerous on a no gun buy list. At least for some time period until the person can be further examined and these details brought to a judge. Of course since all sales don't need a background check we also have to fix that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

I gave 104 years of history.
In 88 of those years there were 10 mass shootings.
In the 16 since the 1997 firearms act there have been 14 mass shootings.
You bead to learn to count.
Loser.

One more time, Double Wide.

14 mass shooting in 16 years is a HELL of a lot better than 14 mass shootings a YEAR, which is what we tend to have.

Lying again?

There have been less than 100 mass shootings in the US in the last 30 years, which is less than 4 a year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

I gave 104 years of history.
In 88 of those years there were 10 mass shootings.
In the 16 since the 1997 firearms act there have been 14 mass shootings.
You bead to learn to count.
Loser.

14 Mass shootings in 16 years. - Bad.

14 mass shootings A YEAR - Really, really bad and kind of unacceptable.

Which explains why Australia went apeshit when it happened. Funny thing, that has never happened in the US despite the fact that we have crazy people and guns.

It also proves that you really don't have an argument because you are lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Before gun ban , 1 mass shooting in the uk( according to UK interpretation ) every 8.8 years for an 88 year period .
After the gun ban 14 mass shootings in 16 years.( mass shooting using the same criteria).
10 times more mass shootings since the gun ban was enacted.

Keep arguing apples and bananas but those numbers are there for all to see .
You refuse to touch them because they are in convienient to your fanatical dogma.

No, I just go by PROBABILITIES.

The probabilities are that I am much more likely to die from gun violence in the US than the UK.

This is ESTABLISHED by the fact that we have 25 times the number of murders that they have.

to try to come up with an artificial standard of "mass shooting" to try to make your point is kind of silly, and you look desperate doing it.

That depends on your zip code, but don't let facts upset your rant.

 

[Pauli007001]

[

Before gun ban , 1 mass shooting in the uk( according to UK interpretation ) every 8.8 years for an 88 year period .
After the gun ban 14 mass shootings in 16 years.( mass shooting using the same criteria).
10 times more mass shootings since the gun ban was enacted.

Keep arguing apples and bananas but those numbers are there for all to see .
You refuse to touch them because they are in convienient to your fanatical dogma.

No, I just go by PROBABILITIES.

The probabilities are that I am much more likely to die from gun violence in the US than the UK.

This is ESTABLISHED by the fact that we have 25 times the number of murders that they have.

to try to come up with an artificial standard of "mass shooting" to try to make your point is kind of silly, and you look desperate doing it.

So when you get your gun ban you will offer a 100% assurance that murder will no longer exist?
No more mass shootings.
No more murders?
I get that iron clad?
Even though mass shootings increased ten times after after a gun ban in the UK?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not true and you know it.

And, yeah, I have to go to my second job at nine today.

But I can make fun you you for a little while longer.

The problem with your "logic" here is that you use the term "mass shooting" as a standard, when that could mean as few as two people being killed.

When we are talking about REAL mass murders like Columbine or Aurora or Sandy Hook, (See, just saying the NAMES tells folks what I'm talking about with no further explanation) then the UK has had very, very few of those.

Only three "Mass shootings" in the double digits in the last 16 years.

We've had that many in the last year or so.

The fact is, the UK only has about 600 murders a year, and they only lock up about 78,000 people.


We have 16,000 murders a year and have to lock up 2 million people.

Real, raw numbers. And we're doing it wrong.

Before gun ban , 1 mass shooting in the uk( according to UK interpretation ) every 8.8 years for an 88 year period .
After the gun ban 14 mass shootings in 16 years.( mass shooting using the same criteria).
10 times more mass shootings since the gun ban was enacted.

Keep arguing apples and bananas but those numbers are there for all to see .
You refuse to touch them because they are in convienient to your fanatical dogma.

After gun ban Australia has no mass shootings. And they even have more of their population in urban areas.

I wish people would stop pretending that Australia proves something. Even before the "gun ban" Australia had gun laws on the books that were actually stricter than the laws in the UK after the UK banned guns. It also ignore the fact that mass murders in Australia have declined only slightly, but you can still pretend yo won because the people were killed with something other than a gun.

 

[Pauli007001]

He was involved in THREE violent incidents, two of them involving guns and he got thrown out of the Navy for being a nutbag. Oh, yeah, and the cops went to his residence after he reported hearing VOICES IN HIS HEAD.

All of which the Media found out within a DAY of the shooting.

In short, the background checks are inadequate.

He was never convicted of a crime.

Let me repeat that, he was never convicted of a crime.

I really can't say it enough, he was never convicted of a crime.

You can whine about background checks all day long, but he passed a federal background check, and a more stringent background check in Virginia because he was never convicted of a crime.

By the way, he did not get a medical discharge from the Navy, he got an honorable discharge, which, once again, means he was never convicted of a crime.

The problem I see here is that he was never convicted of a crime, not that the background checks didn't work. They actually worked perfectly because he was never convicted of a crime.

Yet, for some reason, you blame the gun nuts even though he illegally modified the shotgun he bought the day before because he was never convicted of a crime.

This is why we need to add more to backgrounds checks. We should make it possible for a psychologist to put somebody who seems crazy and potentially dangerous on a no gun buy list. At least for some time period until the person can be further examined and these details brought to a judge. Of course since all sales don't need a background check we also have to fix that.

Define a condition that would put a person on a no buy list?
Anyone trying to buy a gun will be declared a gun nut, that is your standard, correct?

It's your little lie to grab guns.
Declare the act if buying a gun to be an act that indicates risk.

Will you assure 100% that all murder will end when guns are banned.
JoeB said "it's simple, no guns=no murders"!
If you get your ban, will you take personal responsibility for every murder committed after your ban?

Another good way to stop gun crime, you could plan a mass murder of the children of gun owners.......

Oh, silly me , your already planning that!!

 

[Kondor3]

1. Another shooting.

2. Gun-grabbers make a stink.

3. Gun-owners shove the Constitution in their face and laugh at them.

4. No middle ground (semi-autos and assault rifles still OK, but much tighter controls on licensing).

5. Some time passes with nothing getting done.

6. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was involved in THREE violent incidents, two of them involving guns and he got thrown out of the Navy for being a nutbag. Oh, yeah, and the cops went to his residence after he reported hearing VOICES IN HIS HEAD.

All of which the Media found out within a DAY of the shooting.

In short, the background checks are inadequate.

He was never convicted of a crime.

Let me repeat that, he was never convicted of a crime.

I really can't say it enough, he was never convicted of a crime.

You can whine about background checks all day long, but he passed a federal background check, and a more stringent background check in Virginia because he was never convicted of a crime.

By the way, he did not get a medical discharge from the Navy, he got an honorable discharge, which, once again, means he was never convicted of a crime.

The problem I see here is that he was never convicted of a crime, not that the background checks didn't work. They actually worked perfectly because he was never convicted of a crime.

Yet, for some reason, you blame the gun nuts even though he illegally modified the shotgun he bought the day before because he was never convicted of a crime.

This is why we need to add more to backgrounds checks. We should make it possible for a psychologist to put somebody who seems crazy and potentially dangerous on a no gun buy list. At least for some time period until the person can be further examined and these details brought to a judge. Of course since all sales don't need a background check we also have to fix that.

We don't let doctors put people on lists that restrict their freedom because we use something called due process. I would explain it to you, but you would need a working brain to comprehend it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. Another shooting.

2. Gun-grabbers make a stink.

3. Gun-owners shove the Constitution in their face and laugh at them.

4. No middle ground (semi-autos and assault rifles still OK, but much tighter controls on licensing).

5. Some time passes with nothing getting done.

6. Rinse and repeat.

I am willing to make a reasonable compromise, like tighter checks for mental health, but the other side wants to take away everyone's guns, not just the wacko nutjobs.

 

[Pauli007001]

[

Before gun ban , 1 mass shooting in the uk( according to UK interpretation ) every 8.8 years for an 88 year period .
After the gun ban 14 mass shootings in 16 years.( mass shooting using the same criteria).
10 times more mass shootings since the gun ban was enacted.

Keep arguing apples and bananas but those numbers are there for all to see .
You refuse to touch them because they are in convienient to your fanatical dogma.

No, I just go by PROBABILITIES.

The probabilities are that I am much more likely to die from gun violence in the US than the UK.

This is ESTABLISHED by the fact that we have 25 times the number of murders that they have.

to try to come up with an artificial standard of "mass shooting" to try to make your point is kind of silly, and you look desperate doing it.

You will likely be more at risk after your gun ban.

Look at the UK.
10 mass shootings in 88 years, prior to gun ban.
14 mass shootings in the 16 years after the gun ban.
No artificial standard.
Just facts.
The gun ban increased gun crime.

 

[Brain357]

[

Before gun ban , 1 mass shooting in the uk( according to UK interpretation ) every 8.8 years for an 88 year period .
After the gun ban 14 mass shootings in 16 years.( mass shooting using the same criteria).
10 times more mass shootings since the gun ban was enacted.

Keep arguing apples and bananas but those numbers are there for all to see .
You refuse to touch them because they are in convienient to your fanatical dogma.

No, I just go by PROBABILITIES.

The probabilities are that I am much more likely to die from gun violence in the US than the UK.

This is ESTABLISHED by the fact that we have 25 times the number of murders that they have.

to try to come up with an artificial standard of "mass shooting" to try to make your point is kind of silly, and you look desperate doing it.

So when you get your gun ban you will offer a 100% assurance that murder will no longer exist?
No more mass shootings.
No more murders?
I get that iron clad?
Even though mass shootings increased ten times after after a gun ban in the UK?

Your not a citizen so it doesn't matter.

 

[Brain357]

He was never convicted of a crime.

Let me repeat that, he was never convicted of a crime.

I really can't say it enough, he was never convicted of a crime.

You can whine about background checks all day long, but he passed a federal background check, and a more stringent background check in Virginia because he was never convicted of a crime.

By the way, he did not get a medical discharge from the Navy, he got an honorable discharge, which, once again, means he was never convicted of a crime.

The problem I see here is that he was never convicted of a crime, not that the background checks didn't work. They actually worked perfectly because he was never convicted of a crime.

Yet, for some reason, you blame the gun nuts even though he illegally modified the shotgun he bought the day before because he was never convicted of a crime.

This is why we need to add more to backgrounds checks. We should make it possible for a psychologist to put somebody who seems crazy and potentially dangerous on a no gun buy list. At least for some time period until the person can be further examined and these details brought to a judge. Of course since all sales don't need a background check we also have to fix that.

Define a condition that would put a person on a no buy list?
Anyone trying to buy a gun will be declared a gun nut, that is your standard, correct?

It's your little lie to grab guns.
Declare the act if buying a gun to be an act that indicates risk.

Will you assure 100% that all murder will end when guns are banned.
JoeB said "it's simple, no guns=no murders"!
If you get your ban, will you take personal responsibility for every murder committed after your ban?

Another good way to stop gun crime, you could plan a mass murder of the children of gun owners.......

Oh, silly me , your already planning that!!

I think I was pretty clear that it would be people psychologists deemed dangerous. Are you saying all gun owners are crazy? Now that would make sense.

 

[Brain357]

He was never convicted of a crime.

Let me repeat that, he was never convicted of a crime.

I really can't say it enough, he was never convicted of a crime.

You can whine about background checks all day long, but he passed a federal background check, and a more stringent background check in Virginia because he was never convicted of a crime.

By the way, he did not get a medical discharge from the Navy, he got an honorable discharge, which, once again, means he was never convicted of a crime.

The problem I see here is that he was never convicted of a crime, not that the background checks didn't work. They actually worked perfectly because he was never convicted of a crime.

Yet, for some reason, you blame the gun nuts even though he illegally modified the shotgun he bought the day before because he was never convicted of a crime.

This is why we need to add more to backgrounds checks. We should make it possible for a psychologist to put somebody who seems crazy and potentially dangerous on a no gun buy list. At least for some time period until the person can be further examined and these details brought to a judge. Of course since all sales don't need a background check we also have to fix that.

We don't let doctors put people on lists that restrict their freedom because we use something called due process. I would explain it to you, but you would need a working brain to comprehend it.

Yes and it might actually work right? Can't have that. Course the right keeps saying throw more people in jail. I think that restricts freedom quite a bit more.

 

[Brain357]

1. Another shooting.

2. Gun-grabbers make a stink.

3. Gun-owners shove the Constitution in their face and laugh at them.

4. No middle ground (semi-autos and assault rifles still OK, but much tighter controls on licensing).

5. Some time passes with nothing getting done.

6. Rinse and repeat.

I am willing to make a reasonable compromise, like tighter checks for mental health, but the other side wants to take away everyone's guns, not just the wacko nutjobs.

In your previous post you said no tighter checks for mental health. You seem very confused. Lets face it, the right is not opposed to doing something. They are just opposed to anything that would actually work.

 

[Pauli007001]

No, I just go by PROBABILITIES.

The probabilities are that I am much more likely to die from gun violence in the US than the UK.

This is ESTABLISHED by the fact that we have 25 times the number of murders that they have.

to try to come up with an artificial standard of "mass shooting" to try to make your point is kind of silly, and you look desperate doing it.

So when you get your gun ban you will offer a 100% assurance that murder will no longer exist?
No more mass shootings.
No more murders?
I get that iron clad?
Even though mass shootings increased ten times after after a gun ban in the UK?

Your not a citizen so it doesn't matter.

I live here and pay taxes here, my wife is a citizen , two of my children, that you want to kill, are.
Few short months, I will be a citizen.
3 months.

Now will your ban assure an end to gun crime?