More guns, more profiling

[Daryl Hunt]

Your estimate of how many will actually hit and kill the shooter is way off. One of the reasons many cop shops stress test is to train their cops to operate their firearms under duress. Without that stress test, they can't hit the broad side of a barn when under pressure JUST LIKE SILLYVILLIANS. And your Mass Shooter will have your 7 so badly outgunned, he may just ignore them and keep shooting into the masses. The Shooter is crazy and isn't affected by the stress like the sillyvillians area. In 45 seconds, he can get as many as 30 or more rounds off and that is if he's inept at a mag change. In 45 seconds, he should be able to get off at least 60 rounds. In a dense target area, he can get 2 and 3 kills per round. Luckily, most mass shooters are NOT combat trained and don't use their AR to it's capacity. If I was a nutcase, with my skillset, I could easily set a new all time record. But I am not insane and suicidal and I don't seem to hate my mother. Hell I don't even hate your mother.

You give the sillyvillians more credit than they deserve. Only in the Movies.

I completely disagree with you and favor more citizens shooting back and saving lives. I also support rewriting laws that take away criminal liablity for the citizen when they are in a mass shooter event.

I don't buy your estimates.

That's because I have 20 years in the Military helping to turn some of those sillyvillians into killers and teaching them to survive while you have a lifetime of watching Hollywood Movies and TV and listening to someone else.

You would be wrong about that. But then, many people are wrong about a great many things so I take that in stride.

What was your MOS/AFSC or Job. What was your Unit? Did you see combat? How many years did you serve? Did you ever work as a Cop other than Jailer or Dog Catcher?

I was NOT in the Law Enforcement field. I was in treaty monitoring. I served 10 years and the AFSC I held doesn't exist anymore since I left in 1990.

None of which has any bearing on anything as I am well educated, curious and can apply logic and critical thought to any issue. This is one of those issues.

I recognize experience and applaud it. But when experience keeps saying this won't work, or that won't work, when it has NEVER been tried, and the fact that what they say does work clearly isn't, then I'll stick with My own analysis. Thanks for your service, but again, I disagree with you.

That's okay about your AFSC. That tells me that you were Air Force. So was I. But I also spent time training firearms in 3rd world countries that the Army and Marines would have raised red flags if they were in. Cold War was a strange time. Just an old Country Boy with a nack for guns. But that was a short time since that didn't last very long and the reason went away in 73. Beware of Special Identifiers, they'll bite you in the ass every time.

I spent time in special weapons schools even though I was supposed to be an Aircraft Specialtist. Something about they thought it was odd that every time I fired a gun, I wiped my fingerprints off it. (just joking). Eyesight of 20/17 and 20/15. The Army guys will recognize people like that. The Air Force rarely used that ability full time. So we go special identifiers and special training. Otherwise, we carried tool bags. But it gave us a different point of view.

But it taught me that the normal person is different than the trained and seasoned combat troop. You keep describing a combat troop in a civilian setting. Most Combat Troops that leave the service slowly revert back to the sillyvillian way of thinking and acting. To automatically react like you think those 7 will takes constant training and stress training that only a handful of sillyvillian will receive. In fact, most Cops won't receive it nor will many Military People receive it. You honestly believe that even when I was training that I had the proper stress training? No, I had the proper skill set but not the stress training. And you need both. I am actually no better than a sillyvillian in that situation. I will be one of the ones that will stop and access. Probably far too long before acting. But I know what I will do. And it won't be to drag out that hotleg and start blasting away. I don't have the skills with the weapons I once had and I know, deep down, that I will miss at least 50% of the time. And in a target rich environment, that's 50 friendly hits (friendly fire isn't friendly at all). That means if I shoot 10 rounds, I will hit at least 10 innocents in the process shooting at one person. If there are 7 of me then we are going to do more damage than the shooter would have if left alone in the process.

This is all a judgement call. And most sillyvillians don't have the capacity to make those judgement calls. I am more qualified and I don't have the capacity to make those calls. Believe it or not, there is a better chance at a lower body count if those 7 were to forgo the guns and rush the shooter and take him down. If you want to be a hero, put your own life on the line and really save lives.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

The removal of God from the homes, the teaching of subjective morality in the schools coupled with lack of discipline in the homes and at school.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

That is a great question, one I cannot come up with a good answer to.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

Think about the weapons that were available. In order to accomplish a mass shooting you need the tool to actually kill the masses. There were shootings but they weren't called Mass yet. Oh, you might have 2 or 3 dead but the limit of the weapon didn't allow much more than that. (let's omit the mob 1920s and 30s) But in 1962 a new weapon was introduced call the AR-15 or the Colt Model 750. And in 1969, the US Army started training all their forces in using their version of it. The Army called their AR-15 Model 602 the M-16 due to all weapons needing to have a M identifier. Until then, the Air Force called theirs the AR-15 Model 601 but had to restamp them to read AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) until they started buying the M-16 which was the same weapon. For the first time, the Mass Shooter had the weapon designed for mass shooting. He had the tools he needed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

At what cost?

We have already eroded the fuck out of the right to keep and bear arms that we held long before the constitution was inked.

I would agree to a law requiring all people to carry arms with them at all times.

I will agree to no further restrictions on the weapons we have.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

Think about the weapons that were available. In order to accomplish a mass shooting you need the tool to actually kill the masses. There were shootings but they weren't called Mass yet. Oh, you might have 2 or 3 dead but the limit of the weapon didn't allow much more than that. (let's omit the mob 1920s and 30s) But in 1962 a new weapon was introduced call the AR-15 or the Colt Model 750. And in 1969, the US Army started training all their forces in using their version of it. The Army called their AR-15 Model 602 the M-16 due to all weapons needing to have a M identifier. Until then, the Air Force called theirs the AR-15 Model 601 but had to restamp them to read AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) until they started buying the M-16 which was the same weapon. For the first time, the Mass Shooter had the weapon designed for mass shooting. He had the tools he needed.

semi automatic high-capacity magazine rifles were available in 1955.

.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

Think about the weapons that were available. In order to accomplish a mass shooting you need the tool to actually kill the masses. There were shootings but they weren't called Mass yet. Oh, you might have 2 or 3 dead but the limit of the weapon didn't allow much more than that. (let's omit the mob 1920s and 30s) But in 1962 a new weapon was introduced call the AR-15 or the Colt Model 750. And in 1969, the US Army started training all their forces in using their version of it. The Army called their AR-15 Model 602 the M-16 due to all weapons needing to have a M identifier. Until then, the Air Force called theirs the AR-15 Model 601 but had to restamp them to read AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) until they started buying the M-16 which was the same weapon. For the first time, the Mass Shooter had the weapon designed for mass shooting. He had the tools he needed.

I am not talking about quantity of victims. No question the capability of weapons to kill more evolved. Let’s define a mass shooting as shooting one or more UNKNOWN innocent civilians. The point I am trying to make is that more than the capability of the weapon, more than the availability of the weapon, there has been a cultural shift in the mindset of people believing they can kill masses. That number goes up when you factor in non-gun mass killings involving bombs, cars, knives.

 

[Seawytch]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

How come mental health is only a consideration when the shooter is a white male?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

How come mental health is only a consideration when the shooter is a white male?

Who said that?

Leftist-inspired cultural rot is the reason behind more violence these days.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

Prior to these two shootings, how many were NOT in gun-free zones?

.

 

[danielpalos]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

We have a Second Amendment. Organize more militia until we have no more security problems.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

Think about the weapons that were available. In order to accomplish a mass shooting you need the tool to actually kill the masses. There were shootings but they weren't called Mass yet. Oh, you might have 2 or 3 dead but the limit of the weapon didn't allow much more than that. (let's omit the mob 1920s and 30s) But in 1962 a new weapon was introduced call the AR-15 or the Colt Model 750. And in 1969, the US Army started training all their forces in using their version of it. The Army called their AR-15 Model 602 the M-16 due to all weapons needing to have a M identifier. Until then, the Air Force called theirs the AR-15 Model 601 but had to restamp them to read AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) until they started buying the M-16 which was the same weapon. For the first time, the Mass Shooter had the weapon designed for mass shooting. He had the tools he needed.

I am not talking about quantity of victims. No question the capability of weapons to kill more evolved. Let’s define a mass shooting as shooting one or more UNKNOWN innocent civilians. The point I am trying to make is that more than the capability of the weapon, more than the availability of the weapon, there has been a cultural shift in the mindset of people believing they can kill masses. That number goes up when you factor in non-gun mass killings involving bombs, cars, knives.

If I try and do a mass killing with a car or knife, I won't get much of a body count. Yes, the potential is there but the reality is, it's going to be limited to a low number. That might be an attempt at Mass Killing but it's going to fall far short.

As for bombs, it's almost impossible to get the materials to assemble a real mass killing bomb. Oh, sure, you can make Black Powder or even buy gun powder but not in enough quantity to do a lot of damage. If you purchase the amount of gun powder to do that you will raise enough flags long before you get to that point that you will fail. The best you can do is make a few small bombs that "Might" hurt or kill a couple or three people. Not a mass killing machine by any standard except for yours. As for the big stuff, trying to get that much Nitrogen Fertilizer will get your raided very quickly. Or buying that much Diesel Fuel without having an industrial or agricultural reason will definitely get your raided. Unlike France, the US learned from our own OKC bomber.

You say Mass means anything one or more. Get real. The number is much higher than 1 or 2 or even 8 or 9. There has been some over 50. That's more than a major Military Middle Eastern Battle. What you are trying to do is say that every murder is Mass Murder. It's not. A Mass Murder is when a person has the right tools and picks the right environment and has the driving mind set to kill as many people as they can with little or no regard for their own life. There has been only 2 cases where handguns have been used primarily for mass murder, the first one and the one in California. All the rest have involved a "Military Style" rifle with high capacity mags. And the two with handguns were rather unique but I won't go into what made them special.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As for bombs, it's almost impossible to get the materials to assemble a real mass killing bomb.

I stopped reading right there.

.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

Think about the weapons that were available. In order to accomplish a mass shooting you need the tool to actually kill the masses. There were shootings but they weren't called Mass yet. Oh, you might have 2 or 3 dead but the limit of the weapon didn't allow much more than that. (let's omit the mob 1920s and 30s) But in 1962 a new weapon was introduced call the AR-15 or the Colt Model 750. And in 1969, the US Army started training all their forces in using their version of it. The Army called their AR-15 Model 602 the M-16 due to all weapons needing to have a M identifier. Until then, the Air Force called theirs the AR-15 Model 601 but had to restamp them to read AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) until they started buying the M-16 which was the same weapon. For the first time, the Mass Shooter had the weapon designed for mass shooting. He had the tools he needed.

I am not talking about quantity of victims. No question the capability of weapons to kill more evolved. Let’s define a mass shooting as shooting one or more UNKNOWN innocent civilians. The point I am trying to make is that more than the capability of the weapon, more than the availability of the weapon, there has been a cultural shift in the mindset of people believing they can kill masses. That number goes up when you factor in non-gun mass killings involving bombs, cars, knives.

If I try and do a mass killing with a car or knife, I won't get much of a body count. Yes, the potential is there but the reality is, it's going to be limited to a low number. That might be an attempt at Mass Killing but it's going to fall far short.

As for bombs, it's almost impossible to get the materials to assemble a real mass killing bomb. Oh, sure, you can make Black Powder or even buy gun powder but not in enough quantity to do a lot of damage. If you purchase the amount of gun powder to do that you will raise enough flags long before you get to that point that you will fail. The best you can do is make a few small bombs that "Might" hurt or kill a couple or three people. Not a mass killing machine by any standard except for yours. As for the big stuff, trying to get that much Nitrogen Fertilizer will get your raided very quickly. Or buying that much Diesel Fuel without having an industrial or agricultural reason will definitely get your raided. Unlike France, the US learned from our own OKC bomber.

You say Mass means anything one or more. Get real. The number is much higher than 1 or 2 or even 8 or 9. There has been some over 50. That's more than a major Military Middle Eastern Battle. What you are trying to do is say that every murder is Mass Murder. It's not. A Mass Murder is when a person has the right tools and picks the right environment and has the driving mind set to kill as many people as they can with little or no regard for their own life. There has been only 2 cases where handguns have been used primarily for mass murder, the first one and the one in California. All the rest have involved a "Military Style" rifle with high capacity mags. And the two with handguns were rather unique but I won't go into what made them special.

So, are you saying that the will, the urge, the drive to go kill multiple people without cause, reason other than personal hate and anger has always been there and that because of innovations in firepower and automation, that is why we have seen an uptick in the last 55 years vs the previous 174 years? I think it is more than the means or vehicle. People intent on random mass murder have zero deterrent and fear no accountability for one. I also think culturally, we have moved away from human compassion and empathy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

The removal of God from the homes, the teaching of subjective morality in the schools coupled with lack of discipline in the homes and at school.

Out of all the reasons given, that's the top one IMO right there.

When we were kids (and no mass shootings) people believed that God watched them 24/7. I still believe that today. Yes, you could go to the store and steal a yo-yo. You probably didn't get caught, and your parents never asked you about it, but God knew, and he will punish you for it. In the Catholic religion, there is no hiding from God.


And of course how you conduct your life was how you will spend eternity. Most people believed in that.

Since that time, the left has raged a war on God. Take his name out of anything public from schools, to the courts, to public displays on government property.

Every time a new survey comes out, it usually shows an increase in atheism and secularism, while at the same time, a decrease in religion and religious beliefs.

So instead of these kooks believing that they will pay a heavy price for doing the devils work, they believe there will be no punishment. Kill a bunch of people and then kill yourself. Everything just goes black after you die just as it was before you were born.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

What impact would that have had on the last two shootings?

I think what needs to be done is the government authorities be allowed to monitor social media. Some of these murders had signs written right on the wall for months on end.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

Correct, but they don't want to risk a non life threatening injury by an armed citizen. They do want to die because they are cowards that can't face prison. So they do look for gun-free zones as their targets. They may be loony, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

One small problem with what you keep saying. MOST mass shooting happen in non gun free areas. The last one happened with armed police all around the place. It only lasted about 45 seconds but a lot of people were killed by an AR 100 round armed shooter. You still don't see the one thing that all the high body count shootings have in common.

I think you are wrong, and so does Crime Prevention Research.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[Siete]

So the DemoRats are the party of Racism, Rape, Abortion, Open Borders, and Gun-Grabbing.

NAW.

thats just RW's with a closet full of AR-15's.

criminals never fuck with anyone else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

 

[mudwhistle]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

What impact would that have had on the last two shootings?

I think what needs to be done is the government authorities be allowed to monitor social media. Some of these murders had signs written right on the wall for months on end.

If a Democrat gets back in WH they will start arresting people for being white.