If more guns makes a country safer

[M14 Shooter]

Only people with a hard on for guns knows exactly how many guns he has.

Said no rational, reasoned person, ever.

And you want irrational people like me...

This explains everything.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course we make decisions for the masses. Do we want one person to have the fire power that when he snaps he can go out and kill hundreds of people? No we do not.

By "we" you mean the irrational and ineffectual.

Sorry you don't have the FREEDOM to commit mass murder.

Everyone does.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

I'd rather you only be able to shoot 10 people before we tackle your fat ass instead of 15. I just saved 5 lives.

Okay RAMBO! Dream on!

When you are in an area where someone is shooting people, you DO NOT calmly think, "Okay ... that was eight shots ... nine shots ... one more, and all of the guys are going to tackles this dude! ... Ten! GET HIM!!!!!"

You don't KNOW the other people, and they don't know YOU. You have not worked out a PLAN in advance with the other people, and it is my experience that most people will let YOU charge out there ALONE and they'll wait to see if YOU took down the bad guy.

Your infantile hoplophobe snowflake fantasies of rushing a shooter while he is reloading only translates into making YOU easier targets after the reload because you are CLOSER to the shooter and therefore you have made yourselves larger and easier targets to hit.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

Obama never was against guns. Bill Clinton was never against guns and neither was Hillary. I'll give you Sanders and Warren. But you are wrong about everything else. You are just repeating what you handlers are telling you to say without doing any real research for your self. To give you an idea, Rump is more of a gun grabber than the Clintons or Obama. Yet you rave on and on about that fruitcake and how he can do no wrong. \

It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be that stupid.

Actually, you just proved that it IS possible to be more stupid than that by a very long shot.

Please elaborate.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

And most states have a "Reasonable" method for you to be armed in public. It's called Licensed CCW. And that is perfectly constitutional.

I believe that conservatives should remove the liberals' constitutional Right to VOTE, and only allow them to vote after they have successfully jumped through a series of hoops WE would create, to determine whether or not they are QUALIFIED to vote. We would then give them a laminated Voter Permit that they would have to renew every five years in order to continue exercising their Right to vote.

It is not Constitutional to FORCIBLY VOID someone's Constitutional Right, and then SELL that right back to them in the form of a permit they can only obtain after passing a set of arbitrary pre-qualifications. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what is or is not Constitutional.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

You can keep the ones you have though. I just want to stop a future nut from being able to dole out max carnage.

I agree with you! That is why I want to see you work HARD to push through legislation that allows every able-bodied citizen to keep and bear arms without any restrictions!

You just have to reload after 10 shots when you are hitting your little paper targets.

Silly Hoplophobe. Little paper targets do not invade remote homes in large numbers at night to loot, rape and kill. If FIVE armed thugs raid your home at night, and you are holding a gun with only TEN shots, you are pretty much SCREWED.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

Be thankful that YOU live in an area where that is not necessary. Be INTELLIGENT enough to understand that other parts of the country are not as "safe" as your own neighborhood. Everyone cannot live in Mayberry.

Oh, and guns are only phallic symbols to homosexuals.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

Not a guy.

That explains a lot!

And still braver than you.

Highly doubtful.

 

[2aguy]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

All guns are weapons of mass destruction. The problem is people with very little knowledge of guns don't understand that.

No, people with guns don't understand that us people who want common sense gun legislation aren't trying to ban 10 round magazines just 20 round magazines.

I have a lot of knowledge about guns. I own about 5 guns.

Maybe it's you who has very little knowledge about what our knowledge is?

Wrong, they are going to ban 10 round magazines too....since democrat party members have already spoken about banning all magazine fed weapons....

We already have common sense gun laws what we don't have is a democrat party willing to keep violent, repeat gun offenders locked up in prison....

They keep letting them out over and over again...can you explain why?

 

[2aguy]

Murderer, rapist, prostitute, pedophile, terrorist - whatever.

Well those people are all brown, according to Humpty Trumpty.

So, you agree; restricting peoples' rights because they -might- commit a crime is inane.
Good to hear.

I think gun nutters should have to take a fear test before they can carry a gun. If the sight of a brown woman and child illegally crossing the border makes them flop sweat and hyperventilate, then they definitely have too much fear to own a gun.

Also, since you value my opinion so highly, I would institute a minimum penis size before a man can own a gun. Girth and length. Despite red state white male uneducated voter belief, a gun is not a substitute for your tiny pecker.

And there you have it.......another anti-gun loon who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns as a substitute for the penis. This seems to be a common mental disorder with these types....and really needs to be addressed by a psychiatric professional.

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.

There it is again.....the fixation on the penis....

Guns are not a penis...you need to learn this quickly before you do something really stupid to the plastic doll you own.....

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

Nah. You;re one of the 300 people in the Pulse nightclub that did nothing to stop a single shooter.

Or would have been, IF the Pulse Nightclub shooting was REAL. Of course, it wasn't. It was a bunch of homosexuals who wanted to act out a shooting to try to become the final wimpy nails in the coffin lid of a nationwide gun ban.

"But KC! How do you know it was fake?!"

The news showed videos of people hanging by their fingernails from the second story windows of the building, trying to escape the carnage.

There is only one problem...

The Pulse Night Club only had ONE level.

 

[2aguy]

Tell me, am I a gun Grabber? Do I want to grab your guns? You want to keep preaching to me. But if I present concrete evidence you won't read it either. I don't see much of a difference in both groups.

There is no concrete evidence to support the arguments of the gun grabbers.

You didn't answer the question. Am I a gun grabber. You can leave off the BS and just answer the question. And be specific.

I'm not a gun grabber. I'm a Tell the Gun manufacturers to stop making and selling certain types of guns kind of guy.

And no more 20 round mags. The gun nuts say this won't slow them down but then cry if we suggest limiting the mags to 10 rounds. So you know they are lying. It would slow down a gun nut on a rampage and that's all we want to do is lower the number of victims. We know we can't stop a guy from going into a store with a glock and 10 magazines that each hold 10 rounds. What we can do is prevent him from getting 10 20 round magazines. That would save lives.

Wow...no rational basis for anything you want....yet you still want it because you "feel" about it......

Actual research shows you are wrong.....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

 

[2aguy]

My ruger 1911 45 only holds 8. You can buy an extended mag that holds 10. Your semi auto handgun holds 15? Yea, I would probably ban the manufacturing of that capacity mag.

For no rational reason whatsoever.

You can keep the ones you have though. I just want to stop a future nut from being able to dole out max carnage.

Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.

I'd rather you only be able to shoot 10 people before we tackle your fat ass instead of 15. I just saved 5 lives.

Wrong....real life shows you have no idea what you are talking about...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

 

[NotYourBody]

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

Be thankful that YOU live in an area where that is not necessary. Be INTELLIGENT enough to understand that other parts of the country are not as "safe" as your own neighborhood. Everyone cannot live in Mayberry.

Oh, and guns are only phallic symbols to homosexuals.

Oh bless your heart. I live on the California/Tijuana border. I am less than 7 miles from the largest border crossing on the planet. I shop in Tijuana on a regular basis, without a gun because I don't want to go to Mexican prison. I use public transportation and I live where red state nutters claim hordes of Meemaw raper/killers are rushing the border. All of the things the nutters claim are deadly.

There are brown people everywhere. Whites are only about 20% where I live so that puts me in the minority. Mayberry, lmao. You wouldn't last 5 seconds here before you were so terrified you'd start shooting up the place.

For the thousandth time, I am not a man so your homophobic bit doesn't work.

And I'm still braver than you are, even without a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

Be thankful that YOU live in an area where that is not necessary. Be INTELLIGENT enough to understand that other parts of the country are not as "safe" as your own neighborhood. Everyone cannot live in Mayberry.

Oh, and guns are only phallic symbols to homosexuals.

Oh bless your heart. I live on the California/Tijuana border. I am less than 7 miles from the largest border crossing on the planet. I shop in Tijuana on a regular basis, without a gun because I don't want to go to Mexican prison. I use public transportation and I live where red state nutters claim hordes of Meemaw raper/killers are rushing the border. All of the things the nutters claim are deadly.

There are brown people everywhere. Whites are only about 20% where I live so that puts me in the minority. Mayberry, lmao. You wouldn't last 5 seconds here before you were so terrified you'd start shooting up the place.

For the thousandth time, I am not a man so your homophobic bit doesn't work.

And I'm still braver than you are, even without a gun.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

And I'm still braver than you are, even without a gun.

I lived in Southern CommieFornia for 40 years before moving back to Free America where I now live. I am sorry that you are stuck in that stinking cesspool of Socialism where the illegals have turned your area into a festering landfill of filth and disease and crime.

I am no stranger to the "brown people." I lived in Vista, HOME of the "La Raza" movement. I was there at the Von's parking lot on S. Santa Fe Drive for the many confrontations between the Minute Men and the hoards of Mexicans who came to America only to BITCH about America.

I know all about it. You cannot tell me anything that I do not already know. I also know about the REAL crime rates down there, despite your efforts to paint it as a reasonably safe region. You are only able to walk around there by pure luck. Either that, or you present yourself as one of them, so you are not bothered, and that may be an effective survival tactic. Are you a dike? Are you covered with tats and steel pins through various body parts? Is your hair purple? Do you LOOK like you have a record, or an STD? Do you look like Fred Flintstone in drag? There are several ways to be "brave" among those animals. One of the most effective ways, is to BECOME one of them.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course we make decisions for the masses. Do we want one person to have the fire power that when he snaps he can go out and kill hundreds of people? No we do not. So we are going to make decisions that are good for the masses. Sorry you don't have the FREEDOM to commit mass murder. Or you still do but you're going to have to use a car or bomb. And if you decide to use a gun you'll have to reload after 10 shots. That'll give us some time to run away from you or tackle you.

To be honest, as Leftist policies have become more prevalent, the violence problem has increased.

In early America, school children routinely carried loaded guns to school. Yet "mass shootings" did not occur. What changed?

Unfortunately, Leftist policies seem to encourage "victimhood" and a lack of effective criminal and mental corrections. Which leads to a decaying society as we are seeing today.

Finally, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that in EVERY free society, unfortunate events like mass shootings are occasionally inevitable. It goes with the part of being "Free".
But similar events occur in non free societies as well. China has mass killings frequently, but usually it is suppressed in the news and those involved dealt with swiftly and removed from society quickly. .

Do you prefer to live in a free society where you can basically do and speak as you please, but be subject to occasionally mentally ill people who can do horrible things like buy guns and kill innocent people?

OR......

Do you prefer to live oppressed and tightly watched and dictated to by a government that does not allow you to voice your opinions or do as you please in the hopes of being "safer"? (Notice I said "hopes". Because in such a society, the government can arbitrarily take your life if it so desires with little or no cause or justification. Cuba is also such a society.

But the mass shooting epidemic is only happening in America. What other societies are having this problem?

No, I don't want to live in a free society where one person is free and capable of wiping out hundreds of people with a weapon that should not be in their hands.

You know where you should go live? You'd love it. The Congo. Or any other nation where kids are walking around with guns.

Yes, liberalism and freedom go hand in hand. You can cry that liberalism is what leads to the shootings but all liberalism is is freedom to do what you want. Free to fuck. Free to divorce. Free to not be a father to your kid. But that's not why all these fatherless white men are going on shooting rampages. They're doing it because they have no hope. Back when liberals ran this country, they could have gone out and got a factory job that would have paid enough to support a family. Today white men who go to college can't get a job that can support a family of 4. It's very hard growing up in Conservative America. College is more expensive, corporations have broken the social contract with workers, etc.

 

[sealybobo]

And I'm still braver than you are, even without a gun.

I lived in Southern CommieFornia for 40 years before moving back to Free America where I now live. I am sorry that you are stuck in that stinking cesspool of Socialism where the illegals have turned your area into a festering landfill of filth and disease and crime.

I am no stranger to the "brown people." I lived in Vista, HOME of the "La Raza" movement. I was there at the Von's parking lot on S. Santa Fe Drive for the many confrontations between the Minute Men and the hoards of Mexicans who came to America only to BITCH about America.

I know all about it. You cannot tell me anything that I do not already know. I also know about the REAL crime rates down there, despite your efforts to paint it as a reasonably safe region. You are only able to walk around there by pure luck. Either that, or you present yourself as one of them, so you are not bothered, and that may be an effective survival tactic. Are you a dike? Are you covered with tats and steel pins through various body parts? Is your hair purple? Do you LOOK like you have a record, or an STD? There are several ways to be "brave" among those animals. One of the most effective ways, is to BECOME one of them.

So you had to leave free America to make a decent living? Is that what you are saying? And now that you have saved your nest egg working in California, you moved back to hickville Mayberry where there are no jobs? Notice all the kids in free America have to leave when they are 18 and they have to come to commyfornia or commyNYC to make their money? Because there are no jobs where you finally moved once you were no longer marketable. Cheaper standard of living. We get it. If you have money it's nice in rural America. IF

 

[sealybobo]

I'd rather you only be able to shoot 10 people before we tackle your fat ass instead of 15

Nah. You;re one of the 300 people in the Pulse nightclub that did nothing to stop a single shooter.

So would you be if they ever caught you in that or any other club. Are you claiming you aren't a sheep like the rest of us?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But the mass shooting epidemic is only happening in America.

So?

No, I don't want to live in a free society where one person is free and capable of wiping out hundreds of people with a weapon that should not be in their hands.

With two exceptions, every mass shooting in the US could have been equally perpetrated with a pump-action shotgun.
Tell us how you do not want to ban pump-action shotguns.

Yes, liberalism and freedom go hand in hand.

So long as liberals agree with the choices you want to make, sure.