Im ready to curb gun murders. Lets work together

[2aguy]

Holmes' children were two of the 145 homicide victims in Milwaukee last year.

It was the highest number of homicides since 1993, when 160 people were killed in the city.

The spike was a nearly 69% increase from 2014 — a year-to-year increase higher than the headline-grabbing changes reported in Baltimore, St. Louis and Washington, D.C.

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

 

[2aguy]

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Ding ding ding. That's why I want a gun when I go out. duh!

Understood. But in the regulation aspect, why focus so hard on gangs, when it is the mentally ill grudge-holders that are causing such carnage among the innocent?

Because in reality...it isn't mass shooters causing the damage to the innocent in the same numbers as gang members do when they hit innocent people...or when other criminals shoot innocent people...

This is a list of mass public shootings from Mother Jones, and Anti gun website.....they list all the mass shootings and how many were killed....in a nation of 320 million people...mass public shootings are rare and don't kill as many people as criminals do...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2017: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 73.

2016.....71

2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42 ( Columbine)
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994...5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35 (Looby's cafe)
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1984...28
1983...none listed
1982...8

Those numbers are a reason to carry? That is some serious scared paranoia.

Troll....

Nope...they are one reason to carry....the odds that one day you might run into a violent criminal are the other reason...

And unless you can tell us the exact day, and time that we will be a victim......you have no right to tell people they can't carry a gun should that day ever happen.

 

[2aguy]

Holmes' children were two of the 145 homicide victims in Milwaukee last year.

It was the highest number of homicides since 1993, when 160 people were killed in the city.

The spike was a nearly 69% increase from 2014 — a year-to-year increase higher than the headline-grabbing changes reported in Baltimore, St. Louis and Washington, D.C.

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

 

[2aguy]

According to a 2016 analysis of federal data by the U.S. Education Department, state and local spending on incarceration has grown three times as much as spending on public education since 1980.[18]

Yep, we have too many liberals breaking the law. Your point? We should legalize more to make them happy?

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

Maybe so....drug convictions can be looked at...but gun criminals need to be kept in jail for 30 years.

 

[Iceweasel]

Holmes' children were two of the 145 homicide victims in Milwaukee last year.

It was the highest number of homicides since 1993, when 160 people were killed in the city.

The spike was a nearly 69% increase from 2014 — a year-to-year increase higher than the headline-grabbing changes reported in Baltimore, St. Louis and Washington, D.C.

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Ding ding ding. That's why I want a gun when I go out. duh!

Understood. But in the regulation aspect, why focus so hard on gangs, when it is the mentally ill grudge-holders that are causing such carnage among the innocent?

I'm all for restricting the mentally ill. In fact I don't distinguish it much from gangsters. They very likely had a piss poor upbringing too.

 

[2aguy]

A big concern is young people getting ahold of guns . And idiot 20 year old is going to be a trigger happy asshole.

Street guns are too cheap. Gun registration makes straw purchases harder to do , which drives up black market prices . Hopefully pricing out youngsters looking for a gun.

Gun registration does not make it harder......and the facts and statistics show that your point is innaccurate. It isn't the law abiding 20 year old who isn't carrying a gun because you have to be 21 who is shooting people...it is the 15 year old career gang member carrying a gun they can't legally buy, own or carry who is doing the shooting......and they don't register their guns...they get their guns from their baby mommas, grandmothers, other straw buyers or criminals.

 

[Iceweasel]

According to a 2016 analysis of federal data by the U.S. Education Department, state and local spending on incarceration has grown three times as much as spending on public education since 1980.[18]

Yep, we have too many liberals breaking the law. Your point? We should legalize more to make them happy?

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

What we are doing wrong is letting the 8% or so of the assholes causing most of the problems back on the streets. They plea down and get out way too early and do more crime. You also cannot fairly disregard the violent culture we live in. This is not Japan.

 

[Brain357]

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Cherry picking? Orlando had armed security.

 

[2aguy]

According to a 2016 analysis of federal data by the U.S. Education Department, state and local spending on incarceration has grown three times as much as spending on public education since 1980.[18]

Yep, we have too many liberals breaking the law. Your point? We should legalize more to make them happy?

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

What we are doing wrong is letting the 8% or so of the assholes causing most of the problems back on the streets. They plea down and get out way too early and do more crime. You also cannot fairly disregard the violent culture we live in. This is not Japan.

True...actual research shows that the number of people pulling triggers is tiny...compared to the population in theses cities and the areas where the shootings happen is also confined to very tiny areas of those cities....

The cops know who the shooters are, who the shooters are likely to shoot...and they need to be able to do their jobs.....

 

[ricechickie]

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Ding ding ding. That's why I want a gun when I go out. duh!

Understood. But in the regulation aspect, why focus so hard on gangs, when it is the mentally ill grudge-holders that are causing such carnage among the innocent?

I'm all for restricting the mentally ill. In fact I don't distinguish it much from gangsters. They very likely had a piss poor upbringing too.

Maybe you could quote some research to support that.

 

[Brain357]

According to a 2016 analysis of federal data by the U.S. Education Department, state and local spending on incarceration has grown three times as much as spending on public education since 1980.[18]

Yep, we have too many liberals breaking the law. Your point? We should legalize more to make them happy?

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

Maybe so....drug convictions can be looked at...but gun criminals need to be kept in jail for 30 years.

I'm certainly not suggesting letting violent criminals out early.

 

[2aguy]

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Cherry picking? Orlando had armed security.

Wrong.....they had 1 armed security guard who left the scene to call for backup...the rest of the 320 or so people inside were unarmed vs. the killer....who went through 3 FBI interviews, an FBI undercover investigation, an FBI detailed background history check, a background check at his security job, the individual background checks for each weapon he purchased......

And yet all those innocent people were unable to carry legal guns because it was a gun free zone.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

Trying to do a mass shooting at a gun show is like expecting a good outcome by trying to hijack a FBI Shuttle Bus.

 

[2aguy]

According to a 2016 analysis of federal data by the U.S. Education Department, state and local spending on incarceration has grown three times as much as spending on public education since 1980.[18]

Yep, we have too many liberals breaking the law. Your point? We should legalize more to make them happy?

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

Maybe so....drug convictions can be looked at...but gun criminals need to be kept in jail for 30 years.

I'm certainly not suggesting letting violent criminals out early.

Then why do you keep posting what you post...you are implying that locking up violent criminals is not the answer, when it is, in fact, the biggest part of the immediate solution to save lives.

 

[Brain357]

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

How many are baseball games?

 

[2aguy]

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

Trying to do a mass shooting at a gun show is like expecting a good outcome by trying to hijack a FBI Shuttle Bus.

Forgive me......I debate a lot of left wing nutters on guns here on U.S......I don't exactly know where you are coming from on this issue.....are you Pro- self defense and the 2nd Amendment.....?

 

[2aguy]

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

How many are baseball games?

There are armed police at baseball games....mass shooters target gun free zones. Unless they want to try to kill police....then they shoot at police...and die pretty quickly.

 

[Brain357]

According to a 2016 analysis of federal data by the U.S. Education Department, state and local spending on incarceration has grown three times as much as spending on public education since 1980.[18]

Yep, we have too many liberals breaking the law. Your point? We should legalize more to make them happy?

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

Maybe so....drug convictions can be looked at...but gun criminals need to be kept in jail for 30 years.

I'm certainly not suggesting letting violent criminals out early.

Then why do you keep posting what you post...you are implying that locking up violent criminals is not the answer, when it is, in fact, the biggest part of the immediate solution to save lives.

I started by agreeing with you they need to be incarcerated. It is the immediate solution. I'm saying we need to do more to not create so many criminals.

 

[ricechickie]

And the shooters could not legally buy, own or carry a gun....and the victims were also other criminals or their friends and family.....

and the crime rate for Milwaukee is down over 10%......if you aren't a criminal or the friend or family member of a criminal...you are not likely to be shot......

AGain...it is criminals, not law abiding people carrying guns....who need to be controlled.

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

 

[2aguy]

Yep, we have too many liberals breaking the law. Your point? We should legalize more to make them happy?

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

Maybe so....drug convictions can be looked at...but gun criminals need to be kept in jail for 30 years.

I'm certainly not suggesting letting violent criminals out early.

Then why do you keep posting what you post...you are implying that locking up violent criminals is not the answer, when it is, in fact, the biggest part of the immediate solution to save lives.

I started by agreeing with you they need to be incarcerated. It is the immediate solution. I'm saying we need to do more to not create so many criminals.

Yep....we need to address the biggest driver of crime and poverty....single teenage mothers raising young males without adult male fathers......