How To Stop Mass Shootings? Abolish Gun-Free Zones.

Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

635847666746046576-cox2.JPG

(Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)
No, Mr. President, the NRA is not to blame: Chris Cox
Just when we think that politics can’t sink any lower, President Obama once again proves us wrong by politicizing the tragedy in San Bernardino before the facts were even known. What we do know is that the American people are heartbroken by these horrific crimes — and despite what the president would have us believe — America’s law-abiding gun owners are heartbroken by these horrific crimes as well. At the same time, we are sick and tired of this president suggesting the men and women of the National Rifle Association are somehow to blame.

The National Rifle Association is not to blame. Neither is our Second Amendment freedom. An act of evil unfolded in California. President Obama used it not as a moment to inform or calm the American people; rather, he exploited it to push his gun control agenda. Policy discussions should be intellectually honest and based on facts, not politics. And the fact remains that California has already adoptedPresident Obama’s gun control wish list: "universal" background checks, registration, waiting periods, gun bans, magazine bans and an expansion of prohibited gun categories. But those laws did nothing to prevent this horrific crime from taking place. Nothing.

Here's another fact: the president’s failed foreign policy has made us less safe. And his domestic gun control agenda would jeopardize our safety even further. In California, President Obama had what he wanted — the strictest gun control in the country — and it did not prevent this evil act. The plain truth is that the president cannot keep us safe. And his policies would leave us defenseless. That's why our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves must be protected. It’s not just a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. It’s a natural, God-given, human right.

Unlike the president, regular citizens are not surrounded by armed secret service agents wherever they go. When we find ourselves under attack, no one is there to protect us. That responsibility is ours and ours alone. The American people — including law-abiding gun owners — are scared these days, and for good reason. As a nation, we sit helpless and watch as innocent and defenseless people are slaughtered. President Obama's response is not one of unity, but rather a condescending lecture that we need more laws to restrict us from defending ourselves. Enough is enough with the self-righteous and self-serving demagoguery.
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

635847666746046576-cox2.JPG

(Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)
No, Mr. President, the NRA is not to blame: Chris Cox
Just when we think that politics can’t sink any lower, President Obama once again proves us wrong by politicizing the tragedy in San Bernardino before the facts were even known. What we do know is that the American people are heartbroken by these horrific crimes — and despite what the president would have us believe — America’s law-abiding gun owners are heartbroken by these horrific crimes as well. At the same time, we are sick and tired of this president suggesting the men and women of the National Rifle Association are somehow to blame.

The National Rifle Association is not to blame. Neither is our Second Amendment freedom. An act of evil unfolded in California. President Obama used it not as a moment to inform or calm the American people; rather, he exploited it to push his gun control agenda. Policy discussions should be intellectually honest and based on facts, not politics. And the fact remains that California has already adoptedPresident Obama’s gun control wish list: "universal" background checks, registration, waiting periods, gun bans, magazine bans and an expansion of prohibited gun categories. But those laws did nothing to prevent this horrific crime from taking place. Nothing.

Here's another fact: the president’s failed foreign policy has made us less safe. And his domestic gun control agenda would jeopardize our safety even further. In California, President Obama had what he wanted — the strictest gun control in the country — and it did not prevent this evil act. The plain truth is that the president cannot keep us safe. And his policies would leave us defenseless. That's why our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves must be protected. It’s not just a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. It’s a natural, God-given, human right.

Unlike the president, regular citizens are not surrounded by armed secret service agents wherever they go. When we find ourselves under attack, no one is there to protect us. That responsibility is ours and ours alone. The American people — including law-abiding gun owners — are scared these days, and for good reason. As a nation, we sit helpless and watch as innocent and defenseless people are slaughtered. President Obama's response is not one of unity, but rather a condescending lecture that we need more laws to restrict us from defending ourselves. Enough is enough with the self-righteous and self-serving demagoguery.

The NRA is calling on the president to stop exploiting tragedies to push his failed political agenda. It's shameful. Given the reality that he's unlikely to listen, however, we will continue to stand and fight for law-abiding gun owners who are both disgusted and heartbroken by these heinous acts — whether committed by madmen, gang members or terrorists. The NRA will neither accept the blame for the acts of murderers, nor apologize for fighting for our right to defend ourselves against them.
Barry worship is just sad, progressives are so invested in his agenda his puppet masters are just loving it...
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.
It's really the only place they are happening, dumbass
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.
It's really the only place they are happening, dumbass

Where are the guns welcome zones?
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.




Two queries...just to give everyone a chuckle at your expense:

Were you lying when you posted "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

And....is that why you are know to be a congenital liar, NYLiar?
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

California has one of the lowest overall gun death rates:

This Chart Shows That States With Tighter Gun Control Laws Have Fewer Deaths
Look at the chart.
Here guns outnumber people many, many times and some of the most lax gun laws in the country thus no gun violence here. The biggest problem we have here for deaths are drunk Indians drowning in Rapid creek...
 
Now that we've had yet another mass shooting here in America, everyone is asking how to stop all this. As is the case with most crime in general, criminals respect only one thing >> FORCE. Criminals have to be forced to stop what they do. Sure, we can tighten gun sales to stop crazies and criminals from buying guns, but they'll probably just buy them illegally anyway.

The more effective way to stop mass shootings to to let the mass shooter know that he won't be able to succeed in his mission. That doesn't happen by passing extra strict gun laws like those in New York City, for example. Passing those strict gun laws not only doesn't stop gun violence, it encourages it, and makes more of it happen. All taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding, licensed gun owners does, is make everyone more vulnerable. It gives the mass shooters a green light to go places where they know everyone is UNarmed and defenseless, and shoot the place up. If they had to think, there will be a half dozen gun carriers in that crowd, then 1) in most cases, they wouldn't even show up or 2) if they did, as soon as they fired their first shot, they'd be cut down in a hail of bullets.

If this had been the case, in Paris, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, TN, San Bernardino, etc. hundreds of people now dead, would still be alive.

As it stands right now, I'd say the gun-free zones are one of the biggest causes of mass shootings. Abolish them, and the next couple of mass shooting attempts won't succeed, with the shooters being quickly shot themselves, with minimal damage to innocent, intended victims. Mass shooters will get the message, and the whole phenomenon will dissipate into nothing but bad memories.



We didn't start having these mass shootings until the last 30 or so years.

in the 60s and 70s we didn't have gun free zones and we didn't have mass shootings like we have today.

What's the difference between then and now? Not gun free zones. It's the availability of guns to anyone who wants them. It's the availability to buy semi automatic guns that kill many in a matter of seconds.

Ending gun free zones isn't going to stop the carnage.

Seems to me we got it right in the 60s and 70s. We should go back to what we had then. Not add more guns everywhere in America.


From post #118:
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
For example,Congressional Research Serviceshowed that the number of privately owned firearms increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. And record background checks under Obama make it easy to see how tens of millions more privately owned guns have found their way into Americans’ hands since 2009.

So gun ownership increased for 20 years, but “gun homicides” decreased–except in gun free zones." WaPo: Gun Violence Declining, Except in Gun-Free Zones


Seems you're dead wrong.
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.




Two queries...just to give everyone a chuckle at your expense:

Were you lying when you posted "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

And....is that why you are know to be a congenital liar, NYLiar?

Don't change the subject.

Where in the linked WAPO article does it say anything about gunfree zones.
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

California has one of the lowest overall gun death rates:

This Chart Shows That States With Tighter Gun Control Laws Have Fewer Deaths
Look at the chart.
Here guns outnumber people many, many times and some of the most lax gun laws in the country thus no gun violence here. The biggest problem we have here for deaths are drunk Indians drowning in Rapid creek...

Where the fuck is here?
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.
It's really the only place they are happening, dumbass

Where are the guns welcome zones?
Depends on where you are, Here about everywhere...
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

California has one of the lowest overall gun death rates:

This Chart Shows That States With Tighter Gun Control Laws Have Fewer Deaths
Look at the chart.
Here guns outnumber people many, many times and some of the most lax gun laws in the country thus no gun violence here. The biggest problem we have here for deaths are drunk Indians drowning in Rapid creek...

Where the fuck is here?
Northern plains...
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.




Two queries...just to give everyone a chuckle at your expense:

Were you lying when you posted "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

And....is that why you are know to be a congenital liar, NYLiar?

Don't change the subject.

Where in the linked WAPO article does it say anything about gunfree zones.



Let's see....you wrote "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

I wrote "I don't recall ever posting same.
Provide it."

So...you attempted to retreat this way:
"You don't recall ever going to a gun range?

Okay."


So.....I caught you lying again?
Shocker.


Don't change the subject.
 
Now that we've had yet another mass shooting here in America, everyone is asking how to stop all this. As is the case with most crime in general, criminals respect only one thing >> FORCE. Criminals have to be forced to stop what they do. Sure, we can tighten gun sales to stop crazies and criminals from buying guns, but they'll probably just buy them illegally anyway.

The more effective way to stop mass shootings to to let the mass shooter know that he won't be able to succeed in his mission. That doesn't happen by passing extra strict gun laws like those in New York City, for example. Passing those strict gun laws not only doesn't stop gun violence, it encourages it, and makes more of it happen. All taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding, licensed gun owners does, is make everyone more vulnerable. It gives the mass shooters a green light to go places where they know everyone is UNarmed and defenseless, and shoot the place up. If they had to think, there will be a half dozen gun carriers in that crowd, then 1) in most cases, they wouldn't even show up or 2) if they did, as soon as they fired their first shot, they'd be cut down in a hail of bullets.

If this had been the case, in Paris, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, TN, San Bernardino, etc. hundreds of people now dead, would still be alive.

As it stands right now, I'd say the gun-free zones are one of the biggest causes of mass shootings. Abolish them, and the next couple of mass shooting attempts won't succeed, with the shooters being quickly shot themselves, with minimal damage to innocent, intended victims. Mass shooters will get the message, and the whole phenomenon will dissipate into nothing but bad memories.



We didn't start having these mass shootings until the last 30 or so years.

in the 60s and 70s we didn't have gun free zones and we didn't have mass shootings like we have today.

What's the difference between then and now? Not gun free zones. It's the availability of guns to anyone who wants them. It's the availability to buy semi automatic guns that kill many in a matter of seconds.

Ending gun free zones isn't going to stop the carnage.

Seems to me we got it right in the 60s and 70s. We should go back to what we had then. Not add more guns everywhere in America.


From post #118:
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
For example,Congressional Research Serviceshowed that the number of privately owned firearms increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. And record background checks under Obama make it easy to see how tens of millions more privately owned guns have found their way into Americans’ hands since 2009.

So gun ownership increased for 20 years, but “gun homicides” decreased–except in gun free zones." WaPo: Gun Violence Declining, Except in Gun-Free Zones


Seems you're dead wrong.

Quote the WAPO article regarding gun free zones.
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.




Two queries...just to give everyone a chuckle at your expense:

Were you lying when you posted "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

And....is that why you are know to be a congenital liar, NYLiar?

Don't change the subject.

Where in the linked WAPO article does it say anything about gunfree zones.



Let's see....you wrote "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

I wrote "I don't recall ever posting same.
Provide it."

So...you attempted to retreat this way:
"You don't recall ever going to a gun range?

Okay."


So.....I caught you lying again?
Shocker.


Don't change the subject.

No you didn't catch me lying. You don't remember (or claim you don't remember) ever posting such pictures.

Now back to the WAPO. Where is that quote?
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

California has one of the lowest overall gun death rates:

This Chart Shows That States With Tighter Gun Control Laws Have Fewer Deaths
Look at the chart.


You would get more correct unbiased statics from the FBI rather than lefty Slate.
They manipulate their data and statistics in order to fit the Dem's political agenda.
 
[


"On December 3, The Washington Postreported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones;WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase.
According toWaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
s

Please show me in that link where the Post says gunfree zone shootings are on the increase.

If I missed it I apologize.




Two queries...just to give everyone a chuckle at your expense:

Were you lying when you posted "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

And....is that why you are know to be a congenital liar, NYLiar?

Don't change the subject.

Where in the linked WAPO article does it say anything about gunfree zones.



Let's see....you wrote "Post that picture of that old Korean lady shooting a machine gun again. That was epic."

I wrote "I don't recall ever posting same.
Provide it."

So...you attempted to retreat this way:
"You don't recall ever going to a gun range?

Okay."


So.....I caught you lying again?
Shocker.


Don't change the subject.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Does that help your memory? Eh?

lolol
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

California has one of the lowest overall gun death rates:

This Chart Shows That States With Tighter Gun Control Laws Have Fewer Deaths
Look at the chart.


You would get more correct unbiased statics from the FBI rather than lefty Slate.
They manipulate their data and statistics in order to fit the Dem's political agenda.

Well then post them or shut up.
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

California has one of the lowest overall gun death rates:

This Chart Shows That States With Tighter Gun Control Laws Have Fewer Deaths
Look at the chart.


You would get more correct unbiased statics from the FBI rather than lefty Slate.
They manipulate their data and statistics in order to fit the Dem's political agenda.

Well then post them or shut up.


We all have many, many times, it's you who ignores them when we do.
 
Obama's new gun proposals are already in effect in CA.


California has the strictest gun control in the nation, so Obama's politicization of San Bernardino rings sickeningly hollow.

California has one of the lowest overall gun death rates:

This Chart Shows That States With Tighter Gun Control Laws Have Fewer Deaths
Look at the chart.


You would get more correct unbiased statics from the FBI rather than lefty Slate.
They manipulate their data and statistics in order to fit the Dem's political agenda.

Well then post them or shut up.


We all have many, many times, it's you who ignores them when we do.

No you haven't and who cares. You made an accusation in THIS thread. Stop being a retard for 2 minutes and prove your charge.
 

Forum List

Back
Top