If more guns makes a country safer

[flacaltenn]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

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.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

No.. You're a jerk.. According to several of the ARMED people caught in the middle of all that in El Paso, they all said they were too busy herding 10 kids out of the play area to safety, or helping move the wounded to safer positions... THAT'S why responsible gun carriers don't think that EVERY FUCKING ONE of them is gonna be the one to NAIL the perp...

Neither do the 39 or 50 responding officers to the scene.. They all have assignments, They ALL NEED WEAPONS to control an active shooter scene..

Good thing we don't have to depend on you to make quick life/death judgements on how to save lives. A gunless gun hating leftist trying to get 10 kids to safety is NEVER AS GOOD as someone rescuing them armed you moron...

You do what you can without causing greater harm...

 

[Markle]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

You just insist on looking stupid, don't you?

Why?

That's all you got? Lame.

It's all that was necessary.

 

[miketx]

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?

Why cant the people like you ever explain what those laws are and how they will stop shootings by criminals?

 

[miketx]

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.

If that were true cockroach, I never would have bought a revolver with a 2-inch barrel.

 

[2aguy]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

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.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

And yet you are wrong again.....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

 

[2aguy]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

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.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

Thanks for that.....I stole it and will now use it.....

 

[Blues Man]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

FYI no civilian is obligated to stop any criminal

I don't carry to defend others I carry to defend myself

If you don't want to carry I assume you have made a decision to put your safety in the hands of government law enforcement and I respect that decision

So if I see getting robbed or raped I'll call the cops for you

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?

Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.

My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.

However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.

But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.

My guns haven't killed anyone either

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[miketx]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

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.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And yet the majority of his victims were Americans.

 

[edward37]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

You're not a deep thinker are ya? There's only "so safe" a country can be... If you want REALLY safe, you shun immigrants and have a unicultural demographic, and a long list of traditions and a govt that values freedom and liberty... INCLUDING gun rights.. Maybe somewhere like Finland or Switzerland..

SPEAKING of the Swiss.. They ALL HAVE MILITARY style weapons.. They don't NEED them for personal protection, so it's hard to tell if there's any correlation there...

But the fact is -- with our fading culture, morals, education system, failing political system, poor results from imprisionment and a deeply immigrated to country --- It would blood shed and mayhem without the deterrent..

All those guns are not being used... They are the personal nuclear arsenal that keeps others from fucking with you...

YES Mr Flacal What we need is a gov't that honors freedom BTW did you get to read the NY Times or Washington Post this morning ??? The 2 trump forbids you and the gov't from reading?? I' am a deep thinker and I can agree with more than one thing you say. What I can't agree with is a man I despise, a racist piece of moronic trash like trump, telling me anything

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

You're not a deep thinker are ya? There's only "so safe" a country can be... If you want REALLY safe, you shun immigrants and have a unicultural demographic, and a long list of traditions and a govt that values freedom and liberty... INCLUDING gun rights.. Maybe somewhere like Finland or Switzerland..

SPEAKING of the Swiss.. They ALL HAVE MILITARY style weapons.. They don't NEED them for personal protection, so it's hard to tell if there's any correlation there...

But the fact is -- with our fading culture, morals, education system, failing political system, poor results from imprisionment and a deeply immigrated to country --- It would blood shed and mayhem without the deterrent..

All those guns are not being used... They are the personal nuclear arsenal that keeps others from fucking with you...

YES Mr Flacal What we need is a gov't that honors freedom BTW did you get to read the NY Times or Washington Post this morning ??? The 2 trump forbids you and the gov't from reading?? I' am a deep thinker and I can agree with more than one thing you say. What I can't agree with is a man I despise, a racist piece of moronic trash like trump, telling me anything

Then quit listening to him. Trust me, without all that hatred in your soul, you'll sleep better at night.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is what I've learned overall relating to Leftists and Gun Control.

Many leftists believe that Human Utopia can only exist where decisions are made for the masses. That people need guidance and direction in order to live civilized lives. In some ways, they are correct. Look at all the people in America dying of drug overdoses and the amount of crime. I have always thought that not everyone "deserves" freedom. Some humans cannot handle freedom or lack the intelligence to live in a society and respect the privacy and rights of others. Those who drive around with excessively loud car stereos that vibrate the windows of nearby homes are a perfect example. They have freedom to do these things, but lack the self control or respect for others to understand that others have the right not to have their space invaded. I've always thought that people like this do not deserve to be as free as those who do.

Same with people who drive recklessly or intoxicated, putting the lives of others in danger. We have laws to deal with this, but they are largely ineffective as is obvious by how large the problem remains. Again, the left is willing to overlook the shortcomings of the individual in favor of a strong Government control system over everyone. It is explains why many on the Left see "mob rule" as acceptable.....and a Democracy, the majority rules, more appealing than a Republic, which focuses on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The point is that many Leftists believe that in order to achieve a more perfect society, that a few should dictate how the rest may live their lives. China does this as do most Communist countries. Socialism is a step in that direction.

The fatal flaw is that in their quest for Utopia, Leftists often put aside the fact that concentrating power into a few almost always leads to corruption and human rights abuse. But they largely see this as an acceptable trade off.

In terms of guns, this is why they MUST disarm a population. Because an armed population is not easily put under the control of the few.

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.

So tell me, how many of our mass shootings ended when the shooter was changing a magazine and somebody tackled them at that split second?

In other words, let's say you are at a park, and this guy is a mass shooter. He shoots eight or nine people, but you're 5 feet in front of him and are one of the people he didn't shoot yet. Tell me you are going to tackle this guy while he's changing magazines.



You people on the left watch way too many movies to get your ideas. In reality, if you are not armed and somebody is committing a mass shooting, the only thing you are thinking of is getting as far away from him as you can, not sit there hoping for a magazine change opportunity.

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

Thanks for that.....I stole it and will now use it.....

Please do. Glad I can help.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Years ago, there was this far Left sociopath homosexual on several message forums. I told him it was OBVIOUS that he was gay, and OBVIOUS that he knew absolutely nothing about guns. You could READ the homosexuality in his posts. He denied it.

His brother, admittedly a good CONSERVATIVE and 2A supporter viciously argued with me that his brother was NOT gay, because he was captain of the football team, and he was "married with children" and yadda yadda ...

This Bozo would argue about his college education and his big expensive home in Virginia, and the fact that he worked as a pharmacist. He would argue that I was "an irresponsible gun owner" simply by virtue of OWNING guns. I lived in COMMIEfornia at the time. I told him I was an NRA member, that all of my guns were registered, and kept in a strong gun safe, and that I followed all of their inane laws about transporting them unloaded and/or disassembled, etc., but that didn't phase him. I was simply irresponsible BECAUSE I owned guns.

He then announced one day that he purchased his first gun. A revolver. He boasted "I am an expert shooter!" Of course I had to point out the fact that, if he WAS proficient with a handgun, and he knew ANYTHING about guns, he would have claimed to be an expert MARKSMAN.

Fast forward to a phone call from my conservative friend. I FELT IT, the moment the phone rang. I picked up the phone, and my first words were ... "Let me guess ... your brother told you he is gay." In a very angry grimace grumbling voice he replied, "Yes. He. Did! HOW did you know?" I told him that my GAYDAR is finely tuned.

Some time passed, and another phone call came in. This time, my friend told me that his brother had been arrested for trying to hire an undercover detective to murder his wife. I was not the least bit surprised. The videos were right there on the Net, just like you see in the COPS shows.

He is now serving time in prison for his crimes, and I am sure he has found a big guy named 'BUBBA' who thinks he looks cute in the shower. I hope he is happy now. I think he gets out in 2025

I only add this here, because 'sealybobo's writing style and the way he uses and assembles words is strangely similar.

Roanoke man arrested for murder-for-hire plot

Roanoke man sentenced to 10 years in murder-for-hire case

I had a neighbor. Guilty catholic gay trump supporter. Huge trump supporter. On trumps inauguration night he blew his brains out. So fucked up. No one except his catholic parents and church cared that he was gay.

I’m not gay.

Oh and that marksman line is such bullshit. I call magazines clips. Gun nuts get their panties in a bunch over it

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?

Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.

My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.

However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.

But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.

So you think that you throwing a bomb or grenade would be more effective than a bullet that travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second? Did you ever consider somebody can see you throwing such an object and simply move away? Or shoot you before you even had a chance to pull your arm back?

You know who else thought they were invincible to crime because they knew how to keep themselves from being targets? All the people who were victims of a criminal attack.

Don't get me wrong, I understand how you think. I thought like that too when I was a kid. Then I came home from work one Saturday and found my apartment broken into. I knew the people who did it as well. Very dangerous people. So that's when I purchased my first gun.

Through channels, I let the people who broke into my house know I was armed, and I was ready and waiting for them. I even told them I had a friend come over from time to time to remove my car and take it home with him to give the appearance the apartment was empty just so I could get a chance at putting the robbers in a body bag. They never came back since.

If you ever read any of the hundreds of stories of people using a firearm to protect themselves or others, you'd see they too did what they could to stay out of that situation. Many times these self-defense acts take place during the day, in good neighborhoods or areas not known for criminal attack.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Years ago, there was this far Left sociopath homosexual on several message forums. I told him it was OBVIOUS that he was gay, and OBVIOUS that he knew absolutely nothing about guns. You could READ the homosexuality in his posts. He denied it.

His brother, admittedly a good CONSERVATIVE and 2A supporter viciously argued with me that his brother was NOT gay, because he was captain of the football team, and he was "married with children" and yadda yadda ...

This Bozo would argue about his college education and his big expensive home in Virginia, and the fact that he worked as a pharmacist. He would argue that I was "an irresponsible gun owner" simply by virtue of OWNING guns. I lived in COMMIEfornia at the time. I told him I was an NRA member, that all of my guns were registered, and kept in a strong gun safe, and that I followed all of their inane laws about transporting them unloaded and/or disassembled, etc., but that didn't phase him. I was simply irresponsible BECAUSE I owned guns.

He then announced one day that he purchased his first gun. A revolver. He boasted "I am an expert shooter!" Of course I had to point out the fact that, if he WAS proficient with a handgun, and he knew ANYTHING about guns, he would have claimed to be an expert MARKSMAN.

Fast forward to a phone call from my conservative friend. I FELT IT, the moment the phone rang. I picked up the phone, and my first words were ... "Let me guess ... your brother told you he is gay." In a very angry grimace grumbling voice he replied, "Yes. He. Did! HOW did you know?" I told him that my GAYDAR is finely tuned.

Some time passed, and another phone call came in. This time, my friend told me that his brother had been arrested for trying to hire an undercover detective to murder his wife. I was not the least bit surprised. The videos were right there on the Net, just like you see in the COPS shows.

He is now serving time in prison for his crimes, and I am sure he has found a big guy named 'BUBBA' who thinks he looks cute in the shower. I hope he is happy now. I think he gets out in 2025

I only add this here, because 'sealybobo's writing style and the way he uses and assembles words is strangely similar.

Roanoke man arrested for murder-for-hire plot

Roanoke man sentenced to 10 years in murder-for-hire case

Here’s one of my guns. Oops. It’s not a gun it’s a crossbow. That mistake must mean I don’t know how to use it.

Ps. I could be gay for you

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

In Dayton, he was outside of a bar early morning where people were obviously drinking. It's against the law for me to carry anywhere with even a drop of alcohol in my system in the state of Ohio.

I don't carry a weapon to be a surrogate police officer until the real police arrive. I carry to defend myself until they arrive. It's also a law (at least in my state) that I must use every available option to escape if possible before using a firearm for self defense. In other words, if I hear a shooting in a store, run to the shooter, gun him down, I technically broke the law. I could be arrested, charged, and of course, have to surrender my carry license.

But even if I was not charged or able to beat the rap, I still have a liability issue to consider. If the attacker belonged to a family of "My baby neva do a ding like dat" they can attack me financially for taking out their family member. While they may not be successful, it's still a very costly process.

 

[sealybobo]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

In Dayton, he was outside of a bar early morning where people were obviously drinking. It's against the law for me to carry anywhere with even a drop of alcohol in my system in the state of Ohio.

I don't carry a weapon to be a surrogate police officer until the real police arrive. I carry to defend myself until they arrive. It's also a law (at least in my state) that I must use every available option to escape if possible before using a firearm for self defense. In other words, if I hear a shooting in a store, run to the shooter, gun him down, I technically broke the law. I could be arrested, charged, and of course, have to surrender my carry license.

But even if I was not charged or able to beat the rap, I still have a liability issue to consider. If the attacker belonged to a family of "My baby neva do a ding like dat" they can attack me financially for taking out their family member. While they may not be successful, it's still a very costly process.

Yea but your state is better off without stand your ground. Stand your ground turns fist fights into murders.

I see both sides but I like it that you have to do whatever you can first before deciding to take a life

 

[harmonica]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

In Dayton, he was outside of a bar early morning where people were obviously drinking. It's against the law for me to carry anywhere with even a drop of alcohol in my system in the state of Ohio.

I don't carry a weapon to be a surrogate police officer until the real police arrive. I carry to defend myself until they arrive. It's also a law (at least in my state) that I must use every available option to escape if possible before using a firearm for self defense. In other words, if I hear a shooting in a store, run to the shooter, gun him down, I technically broke the law. I could be arrested, charged, and of course, have to surrender my carry license.

But even if I was not charged or able to beat the rap, I still have a liability issue to consider. If the attacker belonged to a family of "My baby neva do a ding like dat" they can attack me financially for taking out their family member. While they may not be successful, it's still a very costly process.

Yea but your state is better off without stand your ground. Stand your ground turns fist fights into murders.

I see both sides but I like it that you have to do whatever you can first before deciding to take a life

wow--just went to the news and saw this--another responsible, legal firearm owner:
Man urinates next to couple fishing in Washington, shoots woman after he’s asked to leave

 

[2aguy]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

In Dayton, he was outside of a bar early morning where people were obviously drinking. It's against the law for me to carry anywhere with even a drop of alcohol in my system in the state of Ohio.

I don't carry a weapon to be a surrogate police officer until the real police arrive. I carry to defend myself until they arrive. It's also a law (at least in my state) that I must use every available option to escape if possible before using a firearm for self defense. In other words, if I hear a shooting in a store, run to the shooter, gun him down, I technically broke the law. I could be arrested, charged, and of course, have to surrender my carry license.

But even if I was not charged or able to beat the rap, I still have a liability issue to consider. If the attacker belonged to a family of "My baby neva do a ding like dat" they can attack me financially for taking out their family member. While they may not be successful, it's still a very costly process.

Yea but your state is better off without stand your ground. Stand your ground turns fist fights into murders.

I see both sides but I like it that you have to do whatever you can first before deciding to take a life

No, moron, it doesn't, and, in fact, minorities have benefitted from Stand your Ground laws more than White victims have....you idiot.

 

[2aguy]

And in Texas, they (like most states) allow stores and malls to be gun-free as an option.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

In Dayton, he was outside of a bar early morning where people were obviously drinking. It's against the law for me to carry anywhere with even a drop of alcohol in my system in the state of Ohio.

I don't carry a weapon to be a surrogate police officer until the real police arrive. I carry to defend myself until they arrive. It's also a law (at least in my state) that I must use every available option to escape if possible before using a firearm for self defense. In other words, if I hear a shooting in a store, run to the shooter, gun him down, I technically broke the law. I could be arrested, charged, and of course, have to surrender my carry license.

But even if I was not charged or able to beat the rap, I still have a liability issue to consider. If the attacker belonged to a family of "My baby neva do a ding like dat" they can attack me financially for taking out their family member. While they may not be successful, it's still a very costly process.

Yea but your state is better off without stand your ground. Stand your ground turns fist fights into murders.

I see both sides but I like it that you have to do whatever you can first before deciding to take a life

wow--just went to the news and saw this--another responsible, legal firearm owner:
Man urinates next to couple fishing in Washington, shoots woman after he’s asked to leave

So....a criminals uses a gun illegallly....wow, great find there......

90% of those who commit murder have long histories of crime and violence you dumb shit........anyone using a gun in this way isn't a normal human....you dumb asshat.

Since the Concealed carry gun owner is more responsible, statistically than even sworn police officers, you post is even more stupid than when you posted it....