More than 20 dead after shooting at Sutherland Springs church

[ColonelAngus]

Anyone know if the church was a gun free zone....

And if it is true that an armed citizen, with his own rifle, engaged and shot the killer, how soon will this story be buried by the press...?

The hero citizen will likely be personally attacked by the left. They don’t like people who can protect themselves without the government doing it for them.

The citizen should have called 911 and let the government handle everything.

there was a lefty on here the other day

that would call the good guy with a gun "violent" --LOL

He committed murder, right?

Will lefties demand the hero citizen be prosecuted for denying the shooter of his right to due process?

 

[Lewdog]

Moron... just because there is one loophole, doesn't mean you ignore others.

Holy shit... is this how you act in real life? If you find a failure in something you just throw your hands up in the air and yell, "Fuck it all, if one thing works, no need to try anything else!"

Yeah...your post was crap so now you move on....there is no loophole. you can sell private property...which your own guns are....and a felon already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun...yet that doesn't stop them, does it?

THEN HAVE MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!

Good lord you are fucking stupid.

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...your post was crap so now you move on....there is no loophole. you can sell private property...which your own guns are....and a felon already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun...yet that doesn't stop them, does it?

THEN HAVE MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!

Good lord you are fucking stupid.

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

And it has nothing to do wit htheir gun laws..since their criminals have easy access to guns, they just don't use them to commit murder......you have seen the links that show British gun crime is exploding, and the same thing is happening in Australia, you ignore the truth, because you hate gun owners.

Exploding? Do I need to explain your failed argument on percentages again?

Your dumb posts can't hide the truth....Britain told their subjects that if they gave up their guns they would be safer......they are now victims of violent crime higher than the U.S. and their gun crime is going through the roof...

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.




-------

Two men stabbed dead within hours as violent crime soars in London

The shocking attacks come as new figures revealed crime overall in London is rising, with significant increases in cases of youth violence.


A total of 35 young people under the age of 25 have been murdered in the capital in the last 12 months, an 84 per cent rise on the same period last year.

The number of cases of serious youth violence - a measure of gang activity - also rose by 18 per cent.

-----


as well as a 16 per cent rise in the number of rapes.

-------

Gun crime rose by nearly 19 per cent and the number of shootings was up by 11 per cent to 338.

==============

London now more dangerous than New York City, crime stats suggest

While both London and New York have populations of around 8 million, figures suggest you are almost six times more likely to be burgled in the British capital than in the US city, and one and a half times more likely to fall victim to a robbery.

London has almost three times the number of reported rapes and while the murder rate in New York remains higher, the gap is narrowing dramatically.


The change in fortunes of the two global cities has been put down largely to the difference in tactics adopted by the two police forces.

Both Scotland Yard and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) have just over 30,000 officers each and budgets of around £3 billion a year.

But in the mid-1990s spiralling crime rates in New York - sparked by the crack cocaine epidemic - resulted in radical a new approach being adopted by the city's police department.

Under the leadership of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and police commissioner, Bill Bratton, the NYPD introduced a zero tolerance approach to low level crime and flooded problem areas with patrols.

The force also put a huge amount of emphasis on community policing in order to build bridges between the police and members of the public.

As a result the murder plummeted from a high in 1990 of over 2,000 to a record low of 335 last year.

That figure is expected to fall even lower this year, and is currently in line to dip below 240.

=======


Arrests plunge by half in 10 years despite soaring crime rate

The new figures come just days after it was revealed the total number of crimes recorded year on year passed the 5 million mark for the first time in a decade.

In the year ending March 2017, only 11 per cent of crimes resulted in someone being charged. In almost half of all crimes (48 per cent) no suspects were identified.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...f-destruction-as-cowboy-builder-a3668551.html

Former home secretary David Blunkett claimed officers were more likely to give warnings rather than arrest people in a bid to avoid paperwork.


However, others have pointed to the pressure put on the dwindling number of officers, with a 13 per cent drop in numbers recorded by the Home Office between 2010 and 2016.

Lord Blunkett said: "Police are reluctant to arrest people because of the amount of paperwork involved, so officers are encouraged to give warnings rather than arrest people.

"That means people are on the street who might otherwise be prosecuted and it sends a signal that reverberates very quickly, leading criminals to think they can get away with it."

Campaigners have warned victims are losing confidence in police forces that increasingly treat crimes such as burglary and assault as minor incidents.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'll tell you this again, and if it doesn't sink in this time, then I'm done arguing with you because you refuse to use common sense... car deaths ARE NOT relevant to gun violence. Not even close to being relevant... at all. As proof, give me a list of times mass amounts of people were murdered by a car inside a church. I'm just using your reasoning here...

Car deaths are completely fucking relevant......more people are killed accidentally with cars....35,000 people every year, the leading cause of death for children........as opposed to mass shooters with guns...

In fact, knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year...mass shooters don't even come close...yet you want to use the rarest of these deaths to ban guns for the owners of 600 million guns...

That is why they are relevant....

And then there's the morality of it. The idea of restricting my ability to defend myself and my family against thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about rules and laws is highly immoral.

A good guy with a gun prevented further massacre today. That only happens in a free society. The only way to prevent bad people from doing bad things is a tyrannous society. North Korean doesn't have mass murders. I'll take freedom ever time.

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a fucking military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

That comment shows That you don't know or care what the 2nd amendment is actually for.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...your post was crap so now you move on....there is no loophole. you can sell private property...which your own guns are....and a felon already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun...yet that doesn't stop them, does it?

THEN HAVE MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!

Good lord you are fucking stupid.

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

We have improved....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%....as more AMericans bought and now carry guns.....Britain did the opposite and their gun murder rate went up....and gun crime in London was up 42% last year...

You don't know what you are talking about.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[pismoe]

I'll tell you this again, and if it doesn't sink in this time, then I'm done arguing with you because you refuse to use common sense... car deaths ARE NOT relevant to gun violence. Not even close to being relevant... at all. As proof, give me a list of times mass amounts of people were murdered by a car inside a church. I'm just using your reasoning here...

Car deaths are completely fucking relevant......more people are killed accidentally with cars....35,000 people every year, the leading cause of death for children........as opposed to mass shooters with guns...

In fact, knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year...mass shooters don't even come close...yet you want to use the rarest of these deaths to ban guns for the owners of 600 million guns...

That is why they are relevant....

And then there's the morality of it. The idea of restricting my ability to defend myself and my family against thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about rules and laws is highly immoral.

A good guy with a gun prevented further massacre today. That only happens in a free society. The only way to prevent bad people from doing bad things is a tyrannous society. North Korean doesn't have mass murders. I'll take freedom ever time.

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a fucking military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

---------------------------------- LewDog wants to be in charge of telling Americans the kinda guns that he and his smart people will allow Free Americans to own eh LewDog . Pretty funny Lew .

 

[Lewdog]

Car deaths are completely fucking relevant......more people are killed accidentally with cars....35,000 people every year, the leading cause of death for children........as opposed to mass shooters with guns...

In fact, knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year...mass shooters don't even come close...yet you want to use the rarest of these deaths to ban guns for the owners of 600 million guns...

That is why they are relevant....

And then there's the morality of it. The idea of restricting my ability to defend myself and my family against thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about rules and laws is highly immoral.

A good guy with a gun prevented further massacre today. That only happens in a free society. The only way to prevent bad people from doing bad things is a tyrannous society. North Korean doesn't have mass murders. I'll take freedom ever time.

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a fucking military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

Moron...the AR-15, if that is what he used, is not a military grade anything....it is a civilian self defense rifle also used by police......and tell the Swiss that they don't need actual military grade rifles...they have them and don't have the same number of mass shootings we do...it isn't the guns...moron.

The Swiss have them because they are allowed to keep them after they finish their mandatory service in the military... and they are ALWAYS part of the military reserves... and their ammunition is VERY restricted.

That is a very FAILED attempt....

And no, you don't need a weapon like the one used today in order to protect your home. In fact many people would say it is one of the worst weapons you could have to protect your home compared to a hand gun.

 

[2aguy]

And then there's the morality of it. The idea of restricting my ability to defend myself and my family against thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about rules and laws is highly immoral.

A good guy with a gun prevented further massacre today. That only happens in a free society. The only way to prevent bad people from doing bad things is a tyrannous society. North Korean doesn't have mass murders. I'll take freedom ever time.

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a fucking military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

Moron...the AR-15, if that is what he used, is not a military grade anything....it is a civilian self defense rifle also used by police......and tell the Swiss that they don't need actual military grade rifles...they have them and don't have the same number of mass shootings we do...it isn't the guns...moron.

The Swiss have them because they are allowed to keep them after they finish their mandatory service in the military... and they are ALWAYS part of the military reserves... and their ammunition is VERY restricted.

That is a very FAILED attempt....

And no, you don't need a weapon like the one used today in order to protect your home. In fact many people would say it is one of the worst weapons you could have to protect your home compared to a hand gun.

Wrong...their military ammo is restricted, not their civilian ammo.......yes...you do need a weapon like that if you see that as a weapon you need to defend your home....it sure as fuck would have helped stop this shooter.... since the good guy with a gun was firing across a street.....he could likely have put the guy down with an AR-15...a civilian self defense rifle over the shotgun...

 

[Lewdog]

THEN HAVE MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!

Good lord you are fucking stupid.

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

We have improved....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%....as more AMericans bought and now carry guns.....Britain did the opposite and their gun murder rate went up....and gun crime in London was up 42% last year...

You don't know what you are talking about.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

lmao... How about you talk about something important that took place for a great period of that time?

Assault weapons legislation in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[2aguy]

And then there's the morality of it. The idea of restricting my ability to defend myself and my family against thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about rules and laws is highly immoral.

A good guy with a gun prevented further massacre today. That only happens in a free society. The only way to prevent bad people from doing bad things is a tyrannous society. North Korean doesn't have mass murders. I'll take freedom ever time.

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a fucking military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

Moron...the AR-15, if that is what he used, is not a military grade anything....it is a civilian self defense rifle also used by police......and tell the Swiss that they don't need actual military grade rifles...they have them and don't have the same number of mass shootings we do...it isn't the guns...moron.

The Swiss have them because they are allowed to keep them after they finish their mandatory service in the military... and they are ALWAYS part of the military reserves... and their ammunition is VERY restricted.

That is a very FAILED attempt....

And no, you don't need a weapon like the one used today in order to protect your home. In fact many people would say it is one of the worst weapons you could have to protect your home compared to a hand gun.

It would be nice if you had a clue about what you were talking about....

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com

The authorities made one concession, though: since 2008, all military — but not private — ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers’ homes. The debate culminated in a nationwide referendum last year, when 56% of voters rejected the proposal initiated by anti-gun organizations to ban army rifles from homes altogether.


-----------

One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.

Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting.

The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section.

Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.

=======

The Swiss have remained one of the best armed countries in the world since then. Many claim they escaped most of the ravages of WWII because of their citizen army.

Switzerland is said not to “have an army” but “be an army.” Because of their universal training and weaponry, Switzerland has the largest potential army in Europe: 1.5 million men capable of bearing arms, who have the arms and ammunition and training.

After the current spate of terrorist attacks in Europe, the Swiss are buying even more guns.From usatoday.com:

GENEVA — Business at Daniel Wyss’ gun shop has been brisk lately in the village of Burgdorf near Switzerland’s capital of Bern.

He said the increased demand for firearms is triggered by a growing fear among the Swiss public that terrorists could attack their tranquil land at any time.

As nations around Europe tighten their gun laws after a series of terror attacks in several countries since 2015, the Swiss are bucking this trend by turning to firearms for protection.

Official statistics show that gun sales in some parts of Switzerland soared nearly 50% after last year’s attacks in Paris and the March bombings in Brussels. And gun sales continue to grow since the killings in France and Germany in the past two weeks.

In Wyss’ shop, “the demand for pistols, revolvers and pump-action guns rose by 30% to 50% after this month’s attacks in Nice and Munich,” he told USA TODAY.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If we waved a magic wand and all guns in the USA vanished, there would be a black market of guns and bad people would get guns.

That porous southern border is where they would flood in....maybe then Progs would want border security.

 

[2aguy]

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

We have improved....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%....as more AMericans bought and now carry guns.....Britain did the opposite and their gun murder rate went up....and gun crime in London was up 42% last year...

You don't know what you are talking about.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

lmao... How about you talk about something important that took place for a great period of that time?

Assault weapons legislation in the United States - Wikipedia

again...another thing you have no idea you are talking about...

http://cebcp.org/wp-content/CRIM491/Roth and Koper aw_final 1997.pdf

At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.



CPRC at the Wall Street Journal: Brussels Is Wrong on Guns: Instead of passing bans terrorists will ignore, arm off-duty police; In what European countries can’t police carry off-duty?



The proposed regulation is similar to the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. Criminologists and economists have found no evidence that the U.S. ban reduced either ordinary gun crime or mass public shootings. In 1997, criminology professors Christopher Koper and Jeffrey Roth hired by the Clinton administration wrote, “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”

Seven years later, Messrs. Koper and Roth, with fellow criminologist Daniel Woods,published a follow-up study for the U.S. National Institute of Justice and concluded, “There has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

 

[Lewdog]

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a fucking military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

Moron...the AR-15, if that is what he used, is not a military grade anything....it is a civilian self defense rifle also used by police......and tell the Swiss that they don't need actual military grade rifles...they have them and don't have the same number of mass shootings we do...it isn't the guns...moron.

The Swiss have them because they are allowed to keep them after they finish their mandatory service in the military... and they are ALWAYS part of the military reserves... and their ammunition is VERY restricted.

That is a very FAILED attempt....

And no, you don't need a weapon like the one used today in order to protect your home. In fact many people would say it is one of the worst weapons you could have to protect your home compared to a hand gun.

It would be nice if you had a clue about what you were talking about....

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com

The authorities made one concession, though: since 2008, all military — but not private — ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers’ homes. The debate culminated in a nationwide referendum last year, when 56% of voters rejected the proposal initiated by anti-gun organizations to ban army rifles from homes altogether.


-----------

One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.

Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting.

The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section.

Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.

=======

The Swiss have remained one of the best armed countries in the world since then. Many claim they escaped most of the ravages of WWII because of their citizen army.

Switzerland is said not to “have an army” but “be an army.” Because of their universal training and weaponry, Switzerland has the largest potential army in Europe: 1.5 million men capable of bearing arms, who have the arms and ammunition and training.

After the current spate of terrorist attacks in Europe, the Swiss are buying even more guns.From usatoday.com:

GENEVA — Business at Daniel Wyss’ gun shop has been brisk lately in the village of Burgdorf near Switzerland’s capital of Bern.

He said the increased demand for firearms is triggered by a growing fear among the Swiss public that terrorists could attack their tranquil land at any time.

As nations around Europe tighten their gun laws after a series of terror attacks in several countries since 2015, the Swiss are bucking this trend by turning to firearms for protection.

Official statistics show that gun sales in some parts of Switzerland soared nearly 50% after last year’s attacks in Paris and the March bombings in Brussels. And gun sales continue to grow since the killings in France and Germany in the past two weeks.

In Wyss’ shop, “the demand for pistols, revolvers and pump-action guns rose by 30% to 50% after this month’s attacks in Nice and Munich,” he told USA TODAY.

I love how you take part of something and then expand it on your own to cover the entire country and every individual. You mentioned why so many households have military rifles. I explained why. Was I wrong?

 

[ColonelAngus]

So, we now know enough information that the shooting wasn’t a White Supremacist shooting up a black church.

It sure is a shame when people recklessly and immediately cry racism when racism isn’t involved. It really is a middle finger to incidents that are actually motivated by racism.

What is the purpose of immediately crying racism when it’s not the truth?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So when?

When you are able to suggest a law that would have prevented things like this, already against quite a few laws, while not infringing on my right to defend myself and my family.

The floor is yours.

Define "Infringe" with some detail.

 

[Lewdog]

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

We have improved....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%....as more AMericans bought and now carry guns.....Britain did the opposite and their gun murder rate went up....and gun crime in London was up 42% last year...

You don't know what you are talking about.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

lmao... How about you talk about something important that took place for a great period of that time?

Assault weapons legislation in the United States - Wikipedia

again...another thing you have no idea you are talking about...

http://cebcp.org/wp-content/CRIM491/Roth and Koper aw_final 1997.pdf

At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.



CPRC at the Wall Street Journal: Brussels Is Wrong on Guns: Instead of passing bans terrorists will ignore, arm off-duty police; In what European countries can’t police carry off-duty?



The proposed regulation is similar to the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. Criminologists and economists have found no evidence that the U.S. ban reduced either ordinary gun crime or mass public shootings. In 1997, criminology professors Christopher Koper and Jeffrey Roth hired by the Clinton administration wrote, “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”

Seven years later, Messrs. Koper and Roth, with fellow criminologist Daniel Woods,published a follow-up study for the U.S. National Institute of Justice and concluded, “There has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Fact is, during the period you say gun violence went down in the United States, for about 50% of that time there was a law against owning the types of rifles that were used today.

 

[2aguy]

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

We have improved....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%....as more AMericans bought and now carry guns.....Britain did the opposite and their gun murder rate went up....and gun crime in London was up 42% last year...

You don't know what you are talking about.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

lmao... How about you talk about something important that took place for a great period of that time?

Assault weapons legislation in the United States - Wikipedia

again...another thing you have no idea you are talking about...

http://cebcp.org/wp-content/CRIM491/Roth and Koper aw_final 1997.pdf

At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.



CPRC at the Wall Street Journal: Brussels Is Wrong on Guns: Instead of passing bans terrorists will ignore, arm off-duty police; In what European countries can’t police carry off-duty?



The proposed regulation is similar to the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. Criminologists and economists have found no evidence that the U.S. ban reduced either ordinary gun crime or mass public shootings. In 1997, criminology professors Christopher Koper and Jeffrey Roth hired by the Clinton administration wrote, “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”

Seven years later, Messrs. Koper and Roth, with fellow criminologist Daniel Woods,published a follow-up study for the U.S. National Institute of Justice and concluded, “There has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Fact is, during the period you say gun violence went down in the United States, for about 50% of that time there was a law against owning the types of rifles that were used today.

Moron...actual research shows there was no effect from the ban because those rifles aren't used in crime........

And of course, the primary point you gun grabbers make, that more guns = more crime is shown to be a lie......since

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah...your post was crap so now you move on....there is no loophole. you can sell private property...which your own guns are....and a felon already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun...yet that doesn't stop them, does it?

THEN HAVE MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!

Good lord you are fucking stupid.

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

Thank you for saying the obvious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Notice how the usual gun lover's first response to another horrific slaughter by gun is to defend the 2nd A.; there is not a hint of empathy for those murdered today, last week, last month and in the dozens of senseless crimes where guns take the life of innocents.

Yet you celebrate 900,000 abortions each year.

I don't, and this is off topic and reported.

What was he discharged for....?

Notice how the usual gun lover's first response to another horrific slaughter by gun is to defend the 2nd A.; there is not a hint of empathy for those murdered today, last week, last month and in the dozens of senseless crimes where guns take the life of innocents.

It would be nice to be able to take a moment...which I did, off line...moron, but asshats like you come out, before the blood is dry and the bodies are cold and attack the law abiding gun owners and their Right to self defense......

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminals, rapists, robbers, murderers and even like this one, where an armed citizen shot the attacker, in mass shootings....

26 vs. 1,500,000 can you tell which number is bigger?

Did you spend your time away cuddling with your favorite gun? Did she/he feel comforted by your passion?

 

[Lewdog]

So when?

When you are able to suggest a law that would have prevented things like this, already against quite a few laws, while not infringing on my right to defend myself and my family.

The floor is yours.

Define "Infringe" with some detail.

You are wasting your breath.

No matter what you say, it will be interpreted as worst case scenario. You could say you want to limit a person to owning only 1,000 guns unless they are a gun dealer, and people on this forum will yell at you saying they need 1,001 guns to defend their home against someone trying to TP their house.