New York hospital shooter used New York legal, AR-15, 10 round magazines..

[Divine Wind]

Thank goodness. Who knows how many he would have killed if he'd been able to get a larger magazine?

I can change a mag in three seconds or less.

Nice 3 second window for you to be taken out then.

By who? A good man with a gun?

In the close quarters of a hospital building? By whoever's nearby.

Just as long as it's not you, amirite? LOL

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thank goodness. Who knows how many he would have killed if he'd been able to get a larger magazine?

I can change a mag in three seconds or less.

Nice 3 second window for you to be taken out then.

Why would you ever reload when someone was near you?
And are you smart enough to count rounds? Do you know how many rounds are in the shooters magazines?
Thats a pipe dream.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

 

[MaryL]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

If this society didn't have guns, if they were banned, would we NEED them so much? We needed guns back in 1776 for sustenance, or to fight British overlords and their minions. We have supermarkets and F 22 raptors now, why do we need guns? It's a silly self sustaining argument. We NEED guns to protect us from people with guns?

 

[Pogo]

If only that doctor had been packin' - right?

Nope, if only another doctor had been packin. Fight fire with fire, but no, you want to fight fire with piss. Real effective there looney tune.

But of course And if the building caught fire you'd hose it down with gasoline. In a hospital no less.

Real effective there fruit loop.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thank goodness. Who knows how many he would have killed if he'd been able to get a larger magazine?

I can change a mag in three seconds or less.

Nice 3 second window for you to be taken out then.

By who? A good man with a gun?

In the close quarters of a hospital building? By whoever's nearby.

Pipe Dream.
Anyone who would do this and has a lick of common sense would know how to defeat your dreams of a mag change charge.
By the time you knew they were changing mags,if you ever knew,they'd be reloaded.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

If this society didn't have guns, if they were banned, would we NEED them so much? We needed guns back in 1776 for sustenance, or to fight British overlords and their minions. We have supermarkets and F 22 raptors now, why do we need guns? It's a silly self sustaining argument. We NEED guns to protect us from people with guns?

Beautifully said.

You gotta wonder if these deep intellects that conclude the answer to violence is more violence must have been dropped on their heads at some point. SMH

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

If this society didn't have guns, if they were banned, would we NEED them so much? We needed guns back in 1776 for sustenance, or to fight British overlords and their minions. We have supermarkets and F 22 raptors now, why do we need guns? It's a silly self sustaining argument. We NEED guns to protect us from people with guns?

You're missing the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

If this society didn't have guns, if they were banned, would we NEED them so much? We needed guns back in 1776 for sustenance, or to fight British overlords and their minions. We have supermarkets and F 22 raptors now, why do we need guns? It's a silly self sustaining argument. We NEED guns to protect us from people with guns?

Sweetie, that's like saying "if we didn't have pillows, would we still sleep?" Of course we would....but we'd also invent pillows. The same for means of self-defense.

 

[MaryL]

Back in the sixties, Buffalo Springfield had a song with the refrain : "There is a man with a gun over there, telling me I have to beware". What can I say?

 

[MaryL]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

If this society didn't have guns, if they were banned, would we NEED them so much? We needed guns back in 1776 for sustenance, or to fight British overlords and their minions. We have supermarkets and F 22 raptors now, why do we need guns? It's a silly self sustaining argument. We NEED guns to protect us from people with guns?

You're missing the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

GUN GUN GUNS? That subtle point went over my head, you are right.

 

[2aguy]

Thank goodness. Who knows how many he would have killed if he'd been able to get a larger magazine?

Magazine capacity doesn't matter.....actual research shows this...

Here ....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.

LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

If only that doctor had been packin' - right?

Since it was a gun free zone...created by people like you...there was no one in the area to stop him....

If you notice...this Doctor brought in a gun to his Hospital gun free zone against those rules.....and stopped a mass shooter...too bad there wasn't an armed civilian at the New York hospital....right?

Penn. psychiatric center shooting intended mass killing: DA

The Pennsylvania patient accused of killing his caseworker in a psychiatric center shooting carried dozens of bullets — and he would have likely continued shooting if a doctor didn’t fire back, officials said.

Richard Plotts, 49, is expected to be charged with murder for allegedly opening fire at Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center in Darby Thursday.

After he killed his caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, and shot his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman, the wounded doctor fired back, stopping the attack, District Attorney Jack Whelan said in a Friday press conference.

Plotts had 39 more bullets on him. He intended a mass shooting, Whelan said.

 

[2aguy]

Thank goodness. Who knows how many he would have killed if he'd been able to get a larger magazine?

Or driven a truck through a school yard. After you ban all guns, start working on cars and swimming pools. Thousands of kids die every year because of those.

Yeah those have been pretty heavily regulated, with people still working on new regs. Good point. I agree with you that dangerous things should be regulated.

Not enough since thousands die every year. Since neither are Constitutional amendments, why don't you advocate banning them? Do you hate kids?

Cars and pools serve purposes other than to inflict life-threatening harm. But regulations are certainly needed for safety.

Guns serve an even greater purpose.....Guns are used 1,500,000 times a year to save lives and to stop violent criminal attack....according to bill clinton and barak obama........

And because we also have this...showing that 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 15.7 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.

 

[2aguy]

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

If this society didn't have guns, if they were banned, would we NEED them so much? We needed guns back in 1776 for sustenance, or to fight British overlords and their minions. We have supermarkets and F 22 raptors now, why do we need guns? It's a silly self sustaining argument. We NEED guns to protect us from people with guns?

You're missing the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

GUN GUN GUNS? That subtle point went over my head, you are right.

Guns save more lives in this country than criminals take using guns......

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 15.7 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.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

No....you are wrong.....

Guns are used each year to save lives and to stop violent criminal attack....on average 1,500,000 times a year..according to bill clinton and barak obama....

Guns were missing from Europe...after their governments confiscated them....and 12 million people were sent to gas chambers...

Every year, disarmed Mexican citizens are murdered in the 10s of thousands right across our border by the police, military and their drug cartel allies.......

We need guns...you might not...but too many other people do.....because they save the lives of innocent people...

 

[2aguy]

Thank goodness. Who knows how many he would have killed if he'd been able to get a larger magazine?

I can change a mag in three seconds or less.

Nice 3 second window for you to be taken out then.

Wrong....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN


On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[MaryL]

Excuse the hell out of me. I voted for the republican party, sorry kids. I have seen the flip side of this, and gun people scare the holy hell out of me. And thugs with guns scare me even more, and this pro gun stuff just feeds into those bad actors in the shadows, the people you fear the most. If we just got rid of the damned things, most of you wouldn't be so damned paranoid about protecting yourselves, either.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah. The pro gun people remind me of the people that defend illegal aliens. That's right, this weird logic of theirs. We need them, why? It's what America is about? There is a parallel here. We don't NEED either and both are harmful, and yet certain groups put on the blinkers and use patriotism and use money and political maneuvering to further their cause despite the harm they do, PACs are powerful things.

Which amendment is the "illegal alien" one?

Common here, people fineness laws to support illegal or guns, illegal alien is pejorative, we aren't supposed to say that because of liberal group think. And Conservative group think would excuse mas shootings, illegal possession of firearms, Sandy Hook and live in a deluded group think world like liberals.

I readily agree there are lying pieces of shit partisan fuckwards on both sides of the political divide. Still, self-defense is a fundamental right and enumerated in our Constitution. While I fully support immigration reform, I do not condone encouraging criminals to break the law.

If this society didn't have guns, if they were banned, would we NEED them so much? We needed guns back in 1776 for sustenance, or to fight British overlords and their minions. We have supermarkets and F 22 raptors now, why do we need guns? It's a silly self sustaining argument. We NEED guns to protect us from people with guns?

Criminals need guns to protect their criminal activity..they have the money to buy guns.....we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals and from the government...do you ever read history? World History? Ever notice that mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who don't have guns?

 

[2aguy]

If only that doctor had been packin' - right?

Nope, if only another doctor had been packin. Fight fire with fire, but no, you want to fight fire with piss. Real effective there looney tune.

But of course And if the building caught fire you'd hose it down with gasoline. In a hospital no less.

Real effective there fruit loop.

Hey...asswipe....it worked in this gun free zone Hospital...when the Doctor disobeyed the gun free zone rule...

Penn. psychiatric center shooting intended mass killing: DA

The Pennsylvania patient accused of killing his caseworker in a psychiatric center shooting carried dozens of bullets — and he would have likely continued shooting if a doctor didn’t fire back, officials said.

Richard Plotts, 49, is expected to be charged with murder for allegedly opening fire at Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center in Darby Thursday.

After he killed his caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, and shot his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman, the wounded doctor fired back, stopping the attack, District Attorney Jack Whelan said in a Friday press conference.

Plotts had 39 more bullets on him. He intended a mass shooting, Whelan said.