Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[JoeB131]

actually a lot of folks has woken up to the fact that the liberal fantasy

of gun free zones being save is neither gun free nor save

'save'? Did you mean "safe", Cleetus?

Fact is, Tuscon happened in a Conceal Carry state, that didn't stop Loughner.

There were armed guards at Columbine. That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan

There was a police force at VA Tech. That didn't stop Cho.

Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES! That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.

And the Tuscon shooter was stopped by a legal concealed carry citizen.

-Geaux

No, he wasn't. He was mobbed by bystanders after he had to stop and reload.

A legal owner DID almost shoot one of the bystanders by mistake, though.

 

[JoeB131]

Only sell guns to people with a minimum IQ of 100. That would be a good start.

Well that explains why Joe can't own firearms

-Geaux

Was in the army for 11 years, and handled more firearms than you could even fantasize about....

 

[Geaux4it]

'save'? Did you mean "safe", Cleetus?

Fact is, Tuscon happened in a Conceal Carry state, that didn't stop Loughner.

There were armed guards at Columbine. That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan

There was a police force at VA Tech. That didn't stop Cho.

Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES! That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.

And the Tuscon shooter was stopped by a legal concealed carry citizen.

-Geaux

No, he wasn't. He was mobbed by bystanders after he had to stop and reload.

A legal owner DID almost shoot one of the bystanders by mistake, though.

Wrong again Joe- I am using great restraint with you. Just my nature

Concealed Carry and the Tucson Massacre: Debunking a Few Myths

The armed citizen who entered the scene that day did not “almost shoot the wrong guy.” I encourage you to listen to him speak about the incident on the ProArms Podcast. Zamudio explains that he never removed his gun from his pocket. He came upon the scene when Loughner was on the ground struggling with a group of people, one of whom had been wounded. Zamudio saw an individual holding Loughner’s gun with the slide locked back. The individual was not facing Zamudio. He felt that the person was not a significant threat so he ordered them to put the gun on the ground which they immediately did. At no time did Zamudio deploy his firearm. After learning that the person he had encountered was not a danger, he helped to hold Loughner on the ground until the police arrived, some four minutes later.

 

[Geaux4it]

Only sell guns to people with a minimum IQ of 100. That would be a good start.

Well that explains why Joe can't own firearms

-Geaux

Was in the army for 11 years, and handled more firearms than you could even fantasize about....

Wait- I thought you mentioned a while back that you were a 2nd Louie of the latrine detail. You sure it was not lime you handled instead of a weapon?

Just sayin

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously.

How about a VALID mainstream news source?

Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post

TUCSON — Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.

He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"

Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.

Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man — it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.

"They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."

 

[JoeB131]

Well that explains why Joe can't own firearms

-Geaux

Was in the army for 11 years, and handled more firearms than you could even fantasize about....

Wait- I thought you mentioned a while back that you were a 2nd Louie of the latrine detail. You sure it was not lime you handled instead of a weapon?

Just sayin

-Geaux

Uh, no, I think you are delusional.

I've been pretty clear on my service, and it's even in my profile.

 

[Geaux4it]

When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously.

How about a VALID mainstream news source?

Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post

TUCSON — Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.

He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"

Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.

Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man — it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.

"They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."

I like this one better

-Geaux

[youtube]Ldi1mgVgsAc[/youtube]

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, not seeing it. The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.

His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner. By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.

More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy. In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.

 

[Geaux4it]

Sorry, not seeing it. The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.

His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner. By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.

More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy. In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.

This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.

Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, not seeing it. The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.

His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner. By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.

More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy. In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.

This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.

Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?

-Geaux

Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...

Anyone could have shown up. One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

 

[Geaux4it]

Sorry, not seeing it. The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.

His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner. By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.

More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy. In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.

This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.

Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?

-Geaux

Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...

Anyone could have shown up. One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

I am responsible for protecting myself. If attacked, I would rather have gun for self defense than any other weapon.

If someone is breaking into my moms house, who is there to protect her?

A gun, that's who

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.

Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?

-Geaux

Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...

Anyone could have shown up. One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

I am responsible for protecting myself. If attacked, I would rather have gun for self defense than any other weapon.

If someone is breaking into my moms house, who is there to protect her?

A gun, that's who

-Geaux

A gun that is 43 times more likely to kill someone in that house than a bad guy.

Guns actually being used for self-defense are so rare to not even register. They do provide an easy supply of guns for suicides, domestic violence and theft....

It's truly a case of the "Solution" being far worse than the "problem".

 

[Geaux4it]

Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...

Anyone could have shown up. One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

I am responsible for protecting myself. If attacked, I would rather have gun for self defense than any other weapon.

If someone is breaking into my moms house, who is there to protect her?

A gun, that's who

-Geaux

A gun that is 43 times more likely to kill someone in that house than a bad guy.

Guns actually being used for self-defense are so rare to not even register. They do provide an easy supply of guns for suicides, domestic violence and theft....

It's truly a case of the "Solution" being far worse than the "problem".

I know how a parrot feels

Like I said, acceptable risk. The fact the police have no obligation to come to your aid solidifies that risk for me and many, many others

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously.

How about a VALID mainstream news source?

Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post

TUCSON — Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.

He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"

Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.

Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man — it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.

"They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."

One’s concealed firearm is for personal protection only, in the event he is in personal, imminent danger; he’s not a ‘cop,’ it’s not his job to ‘save others,’ one has no training in that regard whatsoever. Those who carry concealed firearms should understand that as well and act accordingly, whether his state’s law allows for that type of intervention or not.

 

[Bern80]

[

the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.

 

[JoeB131]

[

the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.

No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't.

Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns. If you guys say you can't keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.

 

[martybegan]

When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously.

How about a VALID mainstream news source?

Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post

TUCSON — Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.

He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"

Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.

Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man — it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.

"They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."

One’s concealed firearm is for personal protection only, in the event he is in personal, imminent danger; he’s not a ‘cop,’ it’s not his job to ‘save others,’ one has no training in that regard whatsoever. Those who carry concealed firearms should understand that as well and act accordingly, whether his state’s law allows for that type of intervention or not.

According to some court descions its not a Cop's Job to save you either.

 

[Geaux4it]

[

the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.

No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't.

Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns. If you guys say you can't keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.

Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?

 

[Geaux4it]

Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.

Wow.

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence. You'd think tighter security would be in order.

We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.

No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't.

Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns. If you guys say you can't keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.

Hate to break it to you, if it can't work in California, it's absolutely doomed AGAIN on the National level

But don't let that get you down

-Geaux

Brown vetoes gun-control bills - latimes.com

SACRAMENTO — Declaring that California already has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday vetoed bills that would have further limited gun ownership and the sale of semiautomatic rifles.

The Democratic governor, a gun owner who hunted in his younger days, said the proposals went too far and would have infringed on the rights of hunters and marksmen without making Californians safer.

Many of the bills had been introduced after last December's shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed.

Among Brown's vetoes was a proposal that had been a top target for defeat by the National Rifle Assn. The measure would have banned the future manufacture, import and sale of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. It would also have required those who already own such guns to register them.

"The state of California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including bans on military-style assault rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines," Brown wrote in his veto message.