Hogg WILD!

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

yea, come to think of it, candycorn doesn't need her keyboard to live. take it away.

You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

Tell me, what would limiting the capacity change?

Run biatch run.

all you're gonna get are bullets from other people who say it can buy a few seconds. that seems to matter. not fixing the god damn issue, but buying a few seconds in a gunfight.

reporter: "how would you like to stop the killing"?
candy: "well, we'll make it harder to kill people..."
reporter: "wouldn't it be better to find out why they're killing people and address that?
candy: YOU RACIST NAZI FUCKHEAD YOU SOLD YOUR SOUL TO THE NRA.

the end.

It seems you've gone full retard. Since you can't quote me, you have to make up quotes. The true trademark of a conservative; lies upon lies.

As for "fixing the god damn issue" again, What legislation has Trump proposed. Its good to toy with the ideas of more cops in schools--an NRA remedy that I support by the way fuck face--but if you don't pass/sponsor legislation to require/help schools pay for guards, to take steps to limit access, to harden their facilities.... Its pointless. Its hollow like your head. Districts will do what they always do, spend their money where they want; not where they should; hence the $60M football stadium.

Limiting mag size may mitigate the damage future rampage killers inflict.

Changing magazines is quicker than lighting a cigarette. Here is what one can accomplish with a few hours of practice:

 

[iceberg]

yea, come to think of it, candycorn doesn't need her keyboard to live. take it away.

You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

Tell me, what would limiting the capacity change?

Run biatch run.

all you're gonna get are bullets from other people who say it can buy a few seconds. that seems to matter. not fixing the god damn issue, but buying a few seconds in a gunfight.

reporter: "how would you like to stop the killing"?
candy: "well, we'll make it harder to kill people..."
reporter: "wouldn't it be better to find out why they're killing people and address that?
candy: YOU RACIST NAZI FUCKHEAD YOU SOLD YOUR SOUL TO THE NRA.

the end.

It seems you've gone full retard. Since you can't quote me, you have to make up quotes. The true trademark of a conservative; lies upon lies.

As for "fixing the god damn issue" again, What legislation has Trump proposed. Its good to toy with the ideas of more cops in schools--an NRA remedy that I support by the way fuck face--but if you don't pass/sponsor legislation to require/help schools pay for guards, to take steps to limit access, to harden their facilities.... Its pointless. Its hollow like your head. Districts will do what they always do, spend their money where they want; not where they should; hence the $60M football stadium.

Limiting mag size may mitigate the damage future rampage killers inflict.

Changing magazines is quicker than lighting a cigarette. Here is what one can accomplish with a few hours of practice:

don't forget:



we'll be banning those next.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

yea, come to think of it, candycorn doesn't need her keyboard to live. take it away.

You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

And you don't think gun owners feel the same way about their weapons?

look out man - it may be a tactical keyboard.

With high capacity BS.

 

[iceberg]

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

yea, come to think of it, candycorn doesn't need her keyboard to live. take it away.

You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

And you don't think gun owners feel the same way about their weapons?

look out man - it may be a tactical keyboard.

With high capacity BS.

they more they learn, the less they understand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

yea, come to think of it, candycorn doesn't need her keyboard to live. take it away.

You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

And you don't think gun owners feel the same way about their weapons?

look out man - it may be a tactical keyboard.

With high capacity BS.

they more they learn, the less they understand.

That is a problem because never shooting or being near guns, they think it's just like the movies. You are driving down the road, shooting at people and hitting your target each time. They don't do the research to find out that most of the shots that a highly trained police officer shoots are misses; almost 3/4 of them. They also don't understand that one shot is sometimes not enough to stop an attacker. Yeah, it works like that in the movies, but not in real life.

 

[iceberg]

You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

And you don't think gun owners feel the same way about their weapons?

look out man - it may be a tactical keyboard.

With high capacity BS.

they more they learn, the less they understand.

That is a problem because never shooting or being near guns, they think it's just like the movies. You are driving down the road, shooting at people and hitting your target each time. They don't do the research to find out that most of the shots that a highly trained police officer shoots are misses; almost 3/4 of them. They also don't understand that one shot is sometimes not enough to stop an attacker. Yeah, it works like that in the movies, but not in real life.

they don't need real life. they found someone to quote that suits their needs.

 

[candycorn]

No. I think we can do common sense things to mitigate the shootings.

can you define these "common sense things" or do you just spit that out and expect people to go "oh, yea - common sense!"

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

 

[candycorn]

can you define these "common sense things" or do you just spit that out and expect people to go "oh, yea - common sense!"

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

yea, come to think of it, candycorn doesn't need her keyboard to live. take it away.

You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

And you don't think gun owners feel the same way about their weapons?

You don't think I sounded irrational above? Gun owners sound just as irrational when they say the same thing about their guns.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The beanpole bully is behind a "lay in" at his local Publix grocery store. Seems the company made a contribution to a politician Hogg doesn't like. So his band of dingoes lay on the floor of the store like they are dead. And the customers ignore them, do their shopping and maybe "accidentally" step on one's head.

His charisma quickly fading, Hogg will be driven to plot more strange events like this one and eventually will fade from sight, becoming a violent alcoholic....well, as violent as an 80 pound pile of bones can be.

Shoppers Step Over Bodies at Hogg-Led Publix Protests

He is just following in the Black mailing of Jesse Jackson, all he needs is a Rainbow party to form. Mo money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

can you define these "common sense things" or do you just spit that out and expect people to go "oh, yea - common sense!"

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

It's not going to take eight to ten seconds, more like one second. Advanced training even requires you to count shots so you don't have to put a new round in the chamber after changing the magazine. In other words, you want a law that will do absolutely nothing but to hope the killer kills 18 people instead of 20.

So again I ask, are you happy with the last two school shooting results because neither had high capacity magazines?

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever

This officer stopped a school shooter before anyone got hurt - CNN

 

[Dan Stubbs]

can you define these "common sense things" or do you just spit that out and expect people to go "oh, yea - common sense!"

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

You have to take the numbers of people shot and remove gang shootings, drug killings, and terrorist killings, and you have a fairly peaceful population in the U.S. The House passed the Bill giving retired Mil, LEOs and others the right to carry without a permit. All a Retired LEO or other person listed, needs is a LEO I"D card and a Badge.

 

[candycorn]

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

It's not going to take eight to ten seconds, more like one second. Advanced training even requires you to count shots so you don't have to put a new round in the chamber after changing the magazine. In other words, you want a law that will do absolutely nothing but to hope the killer kills 18 people instead of 20.

See, that is nonsense. You're going to have to stop aiming to go through the reloading process. That takes time. Sorry, you're just wrong.

So again I ask, are you happy with the last two school shooting results because neither had high capacity magazines?

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever

This officer stopped a school shooter before anyone got hurt - CNN

No.

Again, lets hear your solutions? You don't get to say armed guards because it was, unfortunately, proven that armed guards don't stop school shootings. Anything else?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

It's not going to take eight to ten seconds, more like one second. Advanced training even requires you to count shots so you don't have to put a new round in the chamber after changing the magazine. In other words, you want a law that will do absolutely nothing but to hope the killer kills 18 people instead of 20.

So again I ask, are you happy with the last two school shooting results because neither had high capacity magazines?

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever

This officer stopped a school shooter before anyone got hurt - CNN

One suspect one bullet should do unless its a 9mm then three or four. I would be at the range is it took a whole mag.

 

[candycorn]

Limiting mag size. Does a “sportsman” really need a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

Why should that be up to you to determine what he does or doesn't need?

The last two school shootings, no extended magazines were used, and they killed plenty of people without them.

Because it’s reasonable.
I’m glad you brought it up…hypothetically…What if this last kid’s father had nothing but a bunch of 30 round clips? If you outlaw this excessive capacity, the kid would have had access to smaller clip sizes this means more downtime. Again, this mitigates the firepower while preserving vital second amendment rights.

Oh, so you like hypotheticals, do you? Even though I know you won't answer honestly, I'm going to throw one your way:

Let's say that several mass shootings ago, the Republicans agreed to give into Democrat demands on outlawing high capacity magazines. Would you have been satisfied with the last two school shootings? Would you have said we've done enough and there is nothing more we could do? Or would you say that outlawing HC magazines isn't enough, and we need to do more?

Like I said, you won't answer honestly, but be honest with yourself. You know damn well all these suggestions by anti-gunners are all stepping stones to the ultimate goal of disarming America. Because if we banned AR's, the next step would be banning all semi-automatics. Then the next step would ten round clips, then eight, then five........

This is why you have to stop the cancer before it starts. Democrats cannot be trusted. They are born liars and will never be honest enough to say what they really want. Like terrorists, they use incrementalism to eventually get everything they want.

Your standard for doing anything seems to be if it won't prevent all rampage killings, lets do nothing. Or do you have any solutions? Armed guards were at Santa Fe HS. It didn't stop the massacre of ten students. Should we not have armed guards at schools since it didn't work this last time? (Disclosure--I'm 100% for having multiple armed guards on campus)

Lets hear your ideas, please.

The truth is that Europe is actually mostly disarmed; they enjoy the same freedoms we do, the same standard of living, the same lifestyle... We have guns here. If guns made you safer, we should have not only a mostly murder free society, we should have an almost crime free society. Instead, the truth is we have, easily, the most violent, the most criminal advanced society in the world. Is it that Americans are just more homicidal by nature? I hope not. Europe has seen warfare within the last 100 years on an industrial scale. They've had ethnic cleansing. They've had bloody revolutions in many countries.Our history is comparatively placid. So if the latest among the litany of rationalizations is that we have a violent culture, they should be bloodbath central. Instead, because they are largely disarmed...they do not.
One thing we have that they do not is large swaths of rural lands. I think it would be almost criminal not to have a means of active self-defense and deterrence--yes I mean firearms--if you live in one of these areas.

So I'm not for disarming America. Mine opinion is mitigation. Limiting the size of magazines seems like it makes the most sense of steps we can take.

I saw on another post you said you can change magazines quick. That is true, of course. However, you also need to stop shooting, reload, and then re-acquire your target. This is happening during bedlam and, hopefully, during engagement with armed officers on campus. It would seem like common sense that anything that makes the shooter stop shooting for however long it takes--probably 8 to 10 seconds all together is a good thing.

You have to take the numbers of people shot and remove gang shootings, drug killings, and terrorist killings, and you have a fairly peaceful population in the U.S. The House passed the Bill giving retired Mil, LEOs and others the right to carry without a permit. All a Retired LEO or other person listed, needs is a LEO I"D card and a Badge.

No.

The theory is that the "good guy" with a gun will stop the "bad guy" with the gun. Are you saying that all 300 Million guns are owned by bad guys?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

See, that is nonsense. You're going to have to stop aiming to go through the reloading process. That takes time. Sorry, you're just wrong.

You don't need much aiming when you are firing into a group of people. To hit a beer can 50 feet away, yes, but not firing into a classroom of kids.

No.

Again, lets hear your solutions? You don't get to say armed guards because it was, unfortunately, proven that armed guards don't stop school shootings. Anything else?

It may not stop all of them, but it will reduce casualties much more than smaller magazines. Furthermore it has (if you read the link) worked. And I have yet to read a report that there was armed security at Santa Fe. They did have a resource officer, but that doesn't mean he was armed and able to challenge the kid with the gun.

 

[candycorn]

See, that is nonsense. You're going to have to stop aiming to go through the reloading process. That takes time. Sorry, you're just wrong.

You don't need much aiming when you are firing into a group of people. To hit a beer can 50 feet away, yes, but not firing into a classroom of kids.

Again, who says the kids are in a classroom? They may be in a cafeteria, library, playground... I hear what you're saying but again, smaller mags means fewer shots.

No.

Again, lets hear your solutions? You don't get to say armed guards because it was, unfortunately, proven that armed guards don't stop school shootings. Anything else?

It may not stop all of them, but it will reduce casualties much more than smaller magazines. Furthermore it has (if you read the link) worked. And I have yet to read a report that there was armed security at Santa Fe. They did have a resource officer, but that doesn't mean he was armed and able to challenge the kid with the gun.

USA Today reported he was armed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, who says the kids are in a classroom? They may be in a cafeteria, library, playground... I hear what you're saying but again, smaller mags means fewer shots.

You are avoiding the point, and that point is if you are shooting into a crowd of people (anywhere) you don't need great aim. You are killing anybody and anything.

Look at that video again (if you even looked at it at all) and tell me that smaller magazines means fewer shots. In most cases, it takes police anywhere from five minutes to 20 minutes to get to a school to stop a shooter. What difference would two seconds per magazine make?

USA Today reported he was armed.

Then USA either lied or provided false information that they must have revised which you didn't see. If you have a recent link, by all means, post it. But all other reporting didn't mention anything but a resource officer which is nothing more than a high profile hallway monitor.

Trust me, if there was an armed guard there that failed to stop this shooting, it would have been the top story for a month. The truth of the matter is mass killers avoid places where there are guns. They want total control and no resistance. The Colorado movie shooter passed several theaters that allowed firearms until he got to the one that didn't.

A good guy with a gun is not only the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, but it's also a deterrent to a bad guy with a gun.

 

[candycorn]

Again, who says the kids are in a classroom? They may be in a cafeteria, library, playground... I hear what you're saying but again, smaller mags means fewer shots.

You are avoiding the point, and that point is if you are shooting into a crowd of people (anywhere) you don't need great aim. You are killing anybody and anything.

Look at that video again (if you even looked at it at all) and tell me that smaller magazines means fewer shots. In most cases, it takes police anywhere from five minutes to 20 minutes to get to a school to stop a shooter. What difference would two seconds per magazine make?

You're making the assumption there will be a group.

According to you, you can reload a gun in a second. The armed guards that I want on the campus get that much more of an advantage if the shooter is even encumbered by your ridiculous "two seconds" suggestion.

USA Today reported he was armed.

Then USA either lied or provided false information that they must have revised which you didn't see. If you have a recent link, by all means, post it. But all other reporting didn't mention anything but a resource officer which is nothing more than a high profile hallway monitor.

Trust me, if there was an armed guard there that failed to stop this shooting, it would have been the top story for a month. The truth of the matter is mass killers avoid places where there are guns. They want total control and no resistance. The Colorado movie shooter passed several theaters that allowed firearms until he got to the one that didn't.

A good guy with a gun is not only the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, but it's also a deterrent to a bad guy with a gun.

There are several links to the tragedy.

Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.

At Santa Fe High School, police had an active-shooter plan. Then the fog of chaos descended.

From Time magazine:

Santa Fe High School had an active-shooter plan and two armed security guards on campus. Trochesset said 200 officers from law enforcement agencies throughout the region converged Friday afternoon on the shooting scene.

Santa Fe Shooting Unlikely to Bring Gun Control in Texas


I think you and I are both together on having armed security on campus. I don't like the idea of arming teachers but if they are ready, willing, and able to undertake the responsibility...I say maybe we should arm the teachers if campus security is not practical. I'd rather have people dedicated to law enforcement do the job but in cases where the teacher is able to prove qualifications and mental stability....lets not just reject the idea out of hand.

Everything should be on the table.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, who says the kids are in a classroom? They may be in a cafeteria, library, playground... I hear what you're saying but again, smaller mags means fewer shots.

You are avoiding the point, and that point is if you are shooting into a crowd of people (anywhere) you don't need great aim. You are killing anybody and anything.

Look at that video again (if you even looked at it at all) and tell me that smaller magazines means fewer shots. In most cases, it takes police anywhere from five minutes to 20 minutes to get to a school to stop a shooter. What difference would two seconds per magazine make?

You're making the assumption there will be a group.

According to you, you can reload a gun in a second. The armed guards that I want on the campus get that much more of an advantage if the shooter is even encumbered by your ridiculous "two seconds" suggestion.

USA Today reported he was armed.

Then USA either lied or provided false information that they must have revised which you didn't see. If you have a recent link, by all means, post it. But all other reporting didn't mention anything but a resource officer which is nothing more than a high profile hallway monitor.

Trust me, if there was an armed guard there that failed to stop this shooting, it would have been the top story for a month. The truth of the matter is mass killers avoid places where there are guns. They want total control and no resistance. The Colorado movie shooter passed several theaters that allowed firearms until he got to the one that didn't.

A good guy with a gun is not only the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, but it's also a deterrent to a bad guy with a gun.

There are several links to the tragedy.

Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.

At Santa Fe High School, police had an active-shooter plan. Then the fog of chaos descended.

From Time magazine:

Santa Fe High School had an active-shooter plan and two armed security guards on campus. Trochesset said 200 officers from law enforcement agencies throughout the region converged Friday afternoon on the shooting scene.

Santa Fe Shooting Unlikely to Bring Gun Control in Texas


I think you and I are both together on having armed security on campus. I don't like the idea of arming teachers but if they are ready, willing, and able to undertake the responsibility...I say maybe we should arm the teachers if campus security is not practical. I'd rather have people dedicated to law enforcement do the job but in cases where the teacher is able to prove qualifications and mental stability....lets not just reject the idea out of hand.

Everything should be on the table.

Okay, your first link didn't work with my computer (possibly because of my ad blocker) but the other two didn't say anything about armed security being there when the shooting started. What one article did say is that the resource officer was wounded in the attack. The other article stated that armed security might be on the table in the future. It said that armed officers were there only for practice drills, but not full time employees of the school.

The conclusion is that there was no armed security at that school when the shooter attacked. Had there been prepared armed security (or teachers) the casualties would have been reduced or the kid wouldn't have tried to attack the school in the first place afraid of being wounded or killed himself.

What is clear is that mass shooters avoid places where guns are permitted. So the solution is to have guns in those places. And again, this is not a federal thing, it's a local issue.

 

[candycorn]

Again, who says the kids are in a classroom? They may be in a cafeteria, library, playground... I hear what you're saying but again, smaller mags means fewer shots.

You are avoiding the point, and that point is if you are shooting into a crowd of people (anywhere) you don't need great aim. You are killing anybody and anything.

Look at that video again (if you even looked at it at all) and tell me that smaller magazines means fewer shots. In most cases, it takes police anywhere from five minutes to 20 minutes to get to a school to stop a shooter. What difference would two seconds per magazine make?

You're making the assumption there will be a group.

According to you, you can reload a gun in a second. The armed guards that I want on the campus get that much more of an advantage if the shooter is even encumbered by your ridiculous "two seconds" suggestion.

USA Today reported he was armed.

Then USA either lied or provided false information that they must have revised which you didn't see. If you have a recent link, by all means, post it. But all other reporting didn't mention anything but a resource officer which is nothing more than a high profile hallway monitor.

Trust me, if there was an armed guard there that failed to stop this shooting, it would have been the top story for a month. The truth of the matter is mass killers avoid places where there are guns. They want total control and no resistance. The Colorado movie shooter passed several theaters that allowed firearms until he got to the one that didn't.

A good guy with a gun is not only the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, but it's also a deterrent to a bad guy with a gun.

There are several links to the tragedy.

Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.

At Santa Fe High School, police had an active-shooter plan. Then the fog of chaos descended.

From Time magazine:

Santa Fe High School had an active-shooter plan and two armed security guards on campus. Trochesset said 200 officers from law enforcement agencies throughout the region converged Friday afternoon on the shooting scene.

Santa Fe Shooting Unlikely to Bring Gun Control in Texas


I think you and I are both together on having armed security on campus. I don't like the idea of arming teachers but if they are ready, willing, and able to undertake the responsibility...I say maybe we should arm the teachers if campus security is not practical. I'd rather have people dedicated to law enforcement do the job but in cases where the teacher is able to prove qualifications and mental stability....lets not just reject the idea out of hand.

Everything should be on the table.

Okay, your first link didn't work with my computer (possibly because of my ad blocker) but the other two didn't say anything about armed security being there when the shooting started. What one article did say is that the resource officer was wounded in the attack. The other article stated that armed security might be on the table in the future. It said that armed officers were there only for practice drills, but not full time employees of the school.

The conclusion is that there was no armed security at that school when the shooter attacked. Had there been prepared armed security (or teachers) the casualties would have been reduced or the kid wouldn't have tried to attack the school in the first place afraid of being wounded or killed himself.

What is clear is that mass shooters avoid places where guns are permitted. So the solution is to have guns in those places. And again, this is not a federal thing, it's a local issue.

I quoted the Time magazine article that said there were 2 security guards on campus.... Not sure what to tell you about the fine details but unless you're sponsoring a shoulder-to-shoulder barrier of guards around the perimeter of the school, that is about as serious as you can expect deterrence to be I would think.. Of course, more guards is better than fewer guards. The liberals are way off on not wanting armed guards at school when your first call will be to call armed response.... Makes no sense.