Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Brain357]

I feel pretty safe from trucks on the 3rd floor of this building. They put up barriers and close roads to take care of that problem.

Doesn't negate the fact that it's the person who is the danger not the gun

And a dangerous person with easy access to guns is a whole lot more danger than an unarmed one.

And it still only accounts for less than 1% of all murders

Which is a lot of death in a country of over 300 million. A huge percent of murder involves firearms. Hundreds die each year just in accidents.

------------------------------------------- its the price paid to have the FREEDOM to own effective guns Brian . Same as deaths on the highways and byways where we have more deaths caused by cars and vehicles Vehicle deaths are just the price paid to own and use , drive cars and vehicles Brian .

We don’t need the freedom to quickly become a mass killer.

 

[Defiant1]

-------------------------------------- YOU just keep HIDING and being Scared . I expect that kind of behavior from you and yer ilk Brian .

The scared ones run around with guns like you while our children die. Sad.

not one person has ever died as a result of my gun ownership

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

So rifles are for mass killing?

 

[Brain357]

The scared ones run around with guns like you while our children die. Sad.

not one person has ever died as a result of my gun ownership

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

you mean not letting him buy any rifle though don't you?

Bolt action is fine. Most countries with strong gun control allow certain rifles.

 

[Blues Man]

-------------------------------------- YOU just keep HIDING and being Scared . I expect that kind of behavior from you and yer ilk Brian .

The scared ones run around with guns like you while our children die. Sad.

not one person has ever died as a result of my gun ownership

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

irrelevant.

Unless you want to start convicting people of crimes they haven't committed

It’s a fact.

So what?

How many people with penises have committed rape?

In your mind all people with penises are just rapists in waiting.

Maybe we should just castrate everyone with a penis so as to end all rape

 

[Polishprince]

What is your criteria for defining a "problem?"

People dying regularly, something that doesn’t happen in other countries.

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

Yes unstable countries. How about Germany, UK, Japan, France?

------------------------------- Instability can happen pretty quickly , see 'germany' of the 30s and 40s Brian . See 'germany' and other 'euro' countries TODAY with their imported populations of violent third worlders Brian .

You claiming we are unstable?

America is fairly unstable. We have a large number of citizens in this country that still don't recognize the 2016 Presidential Election results as legit and are still trying to overturn them

 

[Brain357]

The scared ones run around with guns like you while our children die. Sad.

not one person has ever died as a result of my gun ownership

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

So rifles are for mass killing?

Semi autos with high capacity magazines. See the Vegas and Orlando mass shootings.

 

[Blues Man]

not one person has ever died as a result of my gun ownership

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

you mean not letting him buy any rifle though don't you?

Bolt action is fine. Most countries with strong gun control allow certain rifles.

once again IDGAF about other countries

 

[Brain357]

People dying regularly, something that doesn’t happen in other countries.

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

Yes unstable countries. How about Germany, UK, Japan, France?

------------------------------- Instability can happen pretty quickly , see 'germany' of the 30s and 40s Brian . See 'germany' and other 'euro' countries TODAY with their imported populations of violent third worlders Brian .

You claiming we are unstable?

America is fairly unstable. We have a large number of citizens in this country that still don't recognize the 2016 Presidential Election results as legit and are still trying to overturn them

Compared to Mexico we are very stable.

 

[Defiant1]

not one person has ever died as a result of my gun ownership

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

you mean not letting him buy any rifle though don't you?

Bolt action is fine. Most countries with strong gun control allow certain rifles.

So if a car pulls up in your driveway and 4 thugs with their pants below their asses get out, you want a bolt action rifle?

 

[pismoe]

Doesn't negate the fact that it's the person who is the danger not the gun

And a dangerous person with easy access to guns is a whole lot more danger than an unarmed one.

And it still only accounts for less than 1% of all murders

Which is a lot of death in a country of over 300 million. A huge percent of murder involves firearms. Hundreds die each year just in accidents.

------------------------------------------- its the price paid to have the FREEDOM to own effective guns Brian . Same as deaths on the highways and byways where we have more deaths caused by cars and vehicles Vehicle deaths are just the price paid to own and use , drive cars and vehicles Brian .

We don’t need the freedom to quickly become a mass killer.

-------------------------------- READ about the purpose and the reasoning behind the 'Second Amendment' Brian .

 

[Brain357]

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

you mean not letting him buy any rifle though don't you?

Bolt action is fine. Most countries with strong gun control allow certain rifles.

once again IDGAF about other countries

Yes you prefer lots of murder.

 

[Slade3200]

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

Dear Slade3200
Having a local agreement on school policy within a district is LOCAL.
That's different from FEDERAL REGULATIONS trying to ban or regulate guns for everyone across states and the nation.

Why don't you get that these are different?

Schools can decide democratically on their own if students can give invocations or speeches
referencing things that the local admin can approve or disapprove, or the students can vote on.

Why can't you and other liberals understand that's totally DIFFERENT from
judges or Congress in DC "mandating a policy for the entire nation" where nobody has a say otherwise!

By common sense, schools would not allow weapons that disrupt or threaten to breach the peace in
the classroom and school setting.

Why would you think that "federal legislation or regulation" is needed for something simple
like that which just requires common sense school policies, such as not bringing pets to school
unless approved by the teachers or administration. Does that require Congress to pass federal laws?

This is one area that really separates liberals from conservatives.

Just because a local law or state law on safety or on car insurance is democratically
voted on by people on that level,
suddenly the LIBERAL mind makes a huge leap that this means it's okay for
FEDERAL GOVT to mandate such laws FOR THE ENTIRE NATION.

That's not people voting on it or having a say through their local district reps for their own
district or state.

Going through Congress means 400 million people across 50 states are all
competing to be represented, and that's why the Constitution was set up to
LIMIT what duties and decisions authorized to Federal Govt so it DOESN'T
involve individual rights that should be decided democratically on state and local levels.

Like Duh.

Why don't Liberals get this?
There is a HUGE difference between local policies that only affect that district or
a state at most, vs. nationalized policies that attempt to make ONE LAW for the
entire population across all 50 states through a central Congressional vote.

Can you not grasp the difference in representation that different
issues require that are better decided LOCALLY vs. NATIONALLY?

The constitutionalists here don’t think states have the rights to limit or regulate the second amendment.

Dear Slade3200
The way to say this using Constitutional language with a Constitutionalist
is the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. So the rest of the
Bill of Rights has to be equally enforced and obeyed to prevent any criminal
abuses of the 2nd Amendment.

This way of explaining it precludes and prevents any need for additional regulations.
Except maybe to REQUIRE that people invoking the Second Amendment be
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who agree to uphold the rest of the Constitution.

(which includes right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble and to
SECURITY in their persons, houses, and effects and not to be deprived
of liberty without DUE PROCESS OF LAWS. So all Constitutionalists
believe in those principles as part of the Bill of Rights. by enforcing
all these principles consistently in the SAME CONTEXT, then
the 2nd Amendment then cannot be abused to violate laws or rights of others)

the people who invoke and defend the 2nd Amendment ALREADY believe
in enforcing the other laws within the same context. So this isn't adding
any new regulations, it's just enforcing Constitutional laws as a whole.

How do the other elements of the bill of rights justify the gun laws we currently have in the books. Connect the dots for me if you will

 

[Brain357]

And a dangerous person with easy access to guns is a whole lot more danger than an unarmed one.

And it still only accounts for less than 1% of all murders

Which is a lot of death in a country of over 300 million. A huge percent of murder involves firearms. Hundreds die each year just in accidents.

------------------------------------------- its the price paid to have the FREEDOM to own effective guns Brian . Same as deaths on the highways and byways where we have more deaths caused by cars and vehicles Vehicle deaths are just the price paid to own and use , drive cars and vehicles Brian .

We don’t need the freedom to quickly become a mass killer.

-------------------------------- READ about the purpose and the reasoning behind the 'Second Amendment' Brian .

I have. With the strongest military in the world we don’t need militias.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

 

[Slade3200]

that isn't what he said, now is it?
he has no problem with people owning machine guns. i would disagree but his opinion, his right.
he has no problem with people who own property setting the rules for what is allowed in on it. this would include schools and the like. if you don't want guns on there you can be a gun free zone. your call has he said.

he said he feels IF YOU ARE LICENSED you should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere. while i could think this contradicts his previous statement of letting someone set the rules for their property - he never said a thing about carrying machine guns around schools.

last i checked, a machine gun is NOT a concealed weapon so to link that to a school is you doing it for emotional impact and misconstruing what he did in fact say, twisting it to a loose interpretation you'd not allow someone to do to you. in essence you took what he said and slammed it to an extreme "machine guns in schools" statement OF WHICH HE NEVER SAID was cool. you said it for him then went on a rant about his views you just gave him.

i'd ask why you do that but i'm more afraid you'd tell me.

You missed my original question that he was responding to. I was talking to two others yesterday (patriot and bigrebnc) and asked if they supported any citizens ability to walk into a store and buy a machine gun as easy as buying a slurpy and then take it to a high school football game and hold it as they watched. Both posters I was talking to said yes they supported it. Schools and states don’t have the right to infringe on the second amendment. Blues man called it a stupid question and we went from there.

you mean where he said "who would bring a machine gun to a football game?" and followed up with no one, it's a stupid question?

Breaking News - Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

i went back 250 posts and never saw him say it's fine to bring a machine gun to a school. please give me your direct reference.

I had two posters literally say bring guns into schools. And then blues guy calls it a stupid question and when pressed responds with this...
“I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere”

You are right he never said the words “bring guns into school”... he played around giving a direct answer so I shot back... I’ll take back my comment and ask him to further clarify if he believes the second amendment can and should be restricted by federal, state and or local laws or should it not. If not then legally anybody would be able to buy and bring a gun into a school. If so then he believes we can regulate it

so like i said - you took pieces of a conversation and put them together on your own - each step requiring an assumption on your part to link the two.

i've pointed this out to you a lot, DamnDude has also and others i'm sure.

before i say someone is ok with bringing a machine gun to school i'm going to ask the direction question. not ask things like "so you think people should own machine guns" and get a yes and then extrapolate to our own ends and in effect, create a strawman along the way. and it looks like he answered your questions, you just didn't like them or they were not what you wanted him to say, so you went this route.

from my vantage point anyway.

I apologized to him and ask him to clarify his position. Thanks for keeping me in check

What odds to you give him to actually answer the question and clarifying the position? ;-)

 

[pismoe]

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

Yes unstable countries. How about Germany, UK, Japan, France?

------------------------------- Instability can happen pretty quickly , see 'germany' of the 30s and 40s Brian . See 'germany' and other 'euro' countries TODAY with their imported populations of violent third worlders Brian .

You claiming we are unstable?

America is fairly unstable. We have a large number of citizens in this country that still don't recognize the 2016 Presidential Election results as legit and are still trying to overturn them

Compared to Mexico we are very stable.

----------------------------------------------------- and an unstable 'south america' and mexico and drug cartels may one day need to be fought using effective privately owned guns , who knows eh Brian ??

 

[Slade3200]

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

 

[iceberg]

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

and this is my point not to just slade, but both sides who do this all the time.

they say it's ignorant to call Obama/Trump names like hitler, nazi, racist and other extreme names and defend their chosen side it would seem to the "death". but then they turn around and do the very same thing they called stupid but only now it's ok cause they're doing it to someone they hate.

if someone else doing an action makes them stupid, then i would fall under that same "stupid" connotation if i do the same thing.

 

[Polishprince]

Yes unstable countries. How about Germany, UK, Japan, France?

------------------------------- Instability can happen pretty quickly , see 'germany' of the 30s and 40s Brian . See 'germany' and other 'euro' countries TODAY with their imported populations of violent third worlders Brian .

You claiming we are unstable?

America is fairly unstable. We have a large number of citizens in this country that still don't recognize the 2016 Presidential Election results as legit and are still trying to overturn them

Compared to Mexico we are very stable.

----------------------------------------------------- and an unstable 'south america' and mexico and drug cartels may one day need to be fought using effective privately owned guns , who knows eh Brian ??

America's privately own firearms is what keeps America stable.

If we continue to keep the border open,and confiscate the weapons of American citizens, allowing MS13 et al to run wild---how stable would we be then?

 

[iceberg]

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

for someone who doesn't support the hyperbole, you sure to engage in it a lot.

trump is full of shit a lot. yes. but that's not nazi, communist, racist or the like. somewhere along the way we've lost sense of meaning in words and can only use the most extreme to describe people, devaluing the meaning of extreme words in the end.