Obama's Responses To Multiple Mass Shootings/Killings In The U S

[2aguy]

Which would be a great idea if criminals got their guns from licensed dealers and went through a background check. But they don't. That's why they are criminals.

Now how do you suppose we get rid of "all guns" in this country? The same way we got rid of all recreational narcotics? You know, the same recreational narcotics that are responsible for the USA having the highest percentage of their people locked up in jail in the entire industrialized world?

Now which Colorado shooting are you referring to?

Easy, stop manufacturing them. They'll soon dry up. After 10 or so years (it'll take that long due to the proliferation of guns in the US) it'll become harder and harder for crims to get firearms.

Planned Parenthood shooting victims include Iraq vet who tried to save others

And much harder for victims that need to protect themselves from the criminals that have guns. Outside of meth, do you really think that we manufacture most of our own drugs in this country?

LMAO!!!! 99.9% of all the normal adult citizens in this country never once encounter any violence, robbery, threats etc. You folks watch too much TV. The odds of anyone experiencing some kind of encounter with criminal violence is about the same as winning the lottery they're presently about to draw.

Now.....if someone lives in the poorest sections of the inner cities I can understand a lot of protection. The rest of it is NRA propaganda and rank bull shit! The whole thing is done to promote massive weapon sales.

Yes.....tell that to the neighbor of Joe Biden.....who was had his 10 year old son tortured, his wife stabbed to death their maid murdered..oh...and he was beaten to death with a baseball bat........just blocks from the sitting Vice President's house.....

The chances of being a victim of crime if you don't live in a democrat controlled city are low.....but not Zero....and if your number comes up......you had better have a gun.......

 

[2aguy]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

And Australia, France are completely disarmed and have mass shootings...........and the only reason they don't have more is because their countrymen have not decided to do it...I have listed many shootings in Australia that could easily have been mass shootings if the shooter had just decided to shoot more people...since he already had a gun and was in a target rich environment...

The two muslim terrorists in Australia last year...both immigrants, and one a 15 year old...could easily have killed more people...they just chose the wrong target and method...

You anti gun types are jinxing Australia..........they have been lucky...but lucky is no policy to keep your people safe from mass shooters.....

 

[2aguy]

Post from other thread....

BS re your second paragraph. Total phooey.

At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.

Yeah…..they don't have to worry about going to the movie theater or school…….the odds are in their favor…

Also….those places are gun free zones created by you guys…..where good, normal, law abiding, non violent gun owners are not allowed to carry a gun………and the gun free zone does nothing to stop killers…...

I can just image a gun shot going off in a crowded theater and dozens of people pull out their weapon. Armed with their Glock in one hand and Twinkies in the other, do you really think these people are going have the skill and presence of mind to take down the shooter without blowing away half the audience? If they didn't shoot themselves, the police probably would.

Encouraging the public to carry guns in public places is insane. This is not 1870 in Dodge City.

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

"Of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years, not one has been stopped by armed civilians."

Well could it be that because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones by any chance?

That isn't even an accurate statement....we have all listed mass shootings stopped by armed citizens...many of them were stopped by armed citizens and so the body count never reached mass shooting numbers......

That is the neat thing about being an anti gunner....when an actual mass shooting happens in a place where people can actually carry guns for self defense...and the killer is stopped...you don't have to worry about it making the news and ruining the meme that armed citizens don't stop mass shooters because the fact that an armed citizen stopped the shooter...means less than 4 dead bodies on the ground...thereby it is not a mass shooting....

Being an anti gunner is soooo easy.....

 

[2aguy]

(((((((YAWN))))))))

Insignificant statistics that point to acceptable risk to live in America.

-Geaux

They're only insignificant when it's somebody else's family getting mowed down. What skin off your ass would it be if some half wit had to be checked and wait a few days before he/she/it could buy a firearm? I've owned guns since the 50's and there are three within eight feet of where I'm seated right now. I will say this. The average American:

1) Never Joins The Military
2) Never Points A Loaded Gun At Another Citizen
3) Never Endures A Home Invasion
4) Doesn't Have A Clue How To Use A Semi Automatic Weapon

So why in hell does it bother them that some idiot has to have their background checked so they can't go to town and assassinate half a dozen citizens?

Because you do not know the issue...read these links and you will see how Background checks aren't what they say they are.....

How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense

However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25).

In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.

Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.
--------------
Safety training

Sensible firearms policy should encourage, not impede, safety instruction. The Bloomberg laws do just the opposite. They do so by making ordinary safety training impossible unless it takes place at a corporate target range. (The federal S. 374 allows transfers “at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms.”)

A target range is usually necessary for the component of some safety courses that includes “live fire” — in which students fire guns at a range under the supervision of an instructor. However, even the courses that have live fire also have an extensive classroom component. Some introductory courses are classroom-only. In the classroom, dozens of firearms transfers will take place. Many students may not yet own a firearm; even if a student does own a firearm, many instructors choose to allow only their own personal firearms in the classroom, as the instructor may want to teach particular facts about particular types of firearms. The instructor also wants to use firearms that he or she is certain are in good working order. In any classroom setting, functional ammunition is absolutely forbidden.
****************
The next article in the series...private sharing on private property, with a link to long term storage article...

Sharing firearms for informal target shooting: Another legitimate activity outlawed by Everytown’s ‘universal background checks’

Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.
*************
How background checks affect long term storage when owner is away and wants to leave guns with friends...
Safe storage of firearms: The harms from Bloomberg’s strange background check system


Although the Bloomberg system is promoted as addressing private sales of firearms, the Bloomberg laws as written apply to all firearms loans — whether for a few seconds or a few weeks. There are some limited exceptions (e.g., certain family members, or at a corporate target range). But these exceptions do not apply to safe storage situations.

Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period, such as a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a family going on a long vacation, or someone evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted friend or neighbor for months or years. Under the Bloomberg system, for the friend or neighbor to store the firearms, the following procedures must be followed:

The owner and the bailee must find a gun store that is willing to process the loan. The store must treat the loan as if it were selling a firearm out of its inventory. Under the threat of a five-year federal prison sentence for perjury, the bailee and gun store must answer the dozens of questions on ATF Form 4473. Next, the gun store contacts the FBI or a state counterpart for permission to proceed with the sale. Under ideal circumstances, permission to proceed is granted in less than 10 minutes. The retailer then logs the gun into his Acquisition and Disposition record book, as an acquisition. He next logs the gun out of the record book, as a disposition. He hands the firearm to the bailee. The process must be followed for every firearm. If there are two are more handguns, the store must send additional forms to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Depending on the state, a fee is charged for each background check requested. The gun store, of course, will process this transaction only if it can charge a fee to compensate it for handling the paperwork. Unlike with an inventory sale, the gun store is not making any profit on the gun itself.

Later, when the bailor returns and is ready to take custody of her firearms, the entire process must be repeated, with bailor and bailee both taking all the guns to the gun store, before they may be returned to the bailor.

 

[2aguy]

ooooh! really, explain..., OK?

Post from other thread....

BS re your second paragraph. Total phooey.

At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.

Yeah…..they don't have to worry about going to the movie theater or school…….the odds are in their favor…

Also….those places are gun free zones created by you guys…..where good, normal, law abiding, non violent gun owners are not allowed to carry a gun………and the gun free zone does nothing to stop killers…...

I can just image a gun shot going off in a crowded theater and dozens of people pull out their weapon. Armed with their Glock in one hand and Twinkies in the other, do you really think these people are going have the skill and presence of mind to take down the shooter without blowing away half the audience? If they didn't shoot themselves, the police probably would.

Encouraging the public to carry guns in public places is insane. This is not 1870 in Dodge City.

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

Wrong....on all levels......just a few examples.......and civilian shooters are just as if not more likely than police to hit their targets....and considering it takes police 5-10 minutes to get to the scene and the shooting is already over.......

Do you actually research this or do you just pull the thoughts out of your butt....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

 

[2aguy]

I have an entire folder dedicated to stories of armed citizens that did stop attacks and death. Would you like be to post a dozen or two?

Your precious MSM doesn't like to cover stories like that, but there are plenty out there if you look beyond.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, because trying to stop a bad guy with a gun when nobody is armed is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Sure. Post away. I'll post the story from Colorado recently where the mass shooter shot and killed an armed police officer...

Another way is to get rid of guns altogether or put enough restrictions on them and get people licensed so it decreases the likelihood.

Speaking of murdering police officers...the muslim assasiin

I have an entire folder dedicated to stories of armed citizens that did stop attacks and death. Would you like be to post a dozen or two?

Your precious MSM doesn't like to cover stories like that, but there are plenty out there if you look beyond.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, because trying to stop a bad guy with a gun when nobody is armed is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Sure. Post away. I'll post the story from Colorado recently where the mass shooter shot and killed an armed police officer...

Another way is to get rid of guns altogether or put enough restrictions on them and get people licensed so it decreases the likelihood.

Another way is to get rid of guns altogether or put enough restrictions on them and get people licensed so it decreases the likelihood

Could you be the one anti gun extremist who actually explains how licensing normal, law abiding gun owners will stop criminals...who cannot legally own or license a gun.......from getting or using illegal guns? Not one of you has done this yet.....

See, here is what you guys do...I will use the analogy of an airplane....

I say, put a propeller on an airplane and it will make the plane fly....I can site actual mechanics on the abilitiy of a propeller and how it drags the plane forward, and the rush of air acts as lift on the wings and the aircraft rises....


You guys essentially say....put pixie dust on the plane and it will fly.

We then ask......how exactly does putting pixie dust on the plane make it fly?

And all you answer is....."We answered that question...you put pixie dust on it" And we say....but...that doesn't say how it works...you just keep saying "put pixie dust on it," without explaining the mechanics.......and then you say..."We have answered that question a number of times and you guys refuse to understand it.....you put pixie dust on the plane and it flies."


So too with gun licensing...you guys keep saying...make people get gun licenses and it will reduce gun crime...we say "How?" and you just say...if you make people get gun licenses it will reduce gun crime...and we go over and over it....

So please...just this once...explain why gun licenses are needed and how they actually prevent gun crime from criminals and mass shooters.


Here is another example...the muslim assassin who could not own a gun because of a past gun crime....he was out on the street after a light sentence......and would not be allowed to have a gun license........and got his gun from the police....

So...the Muslim assassin who almost murdered the police officer should have been in jail for a past gun crime.........but he got a light sentence...


The gun he used was a stolen gun...from the police.......

so..what I have pointed out is true..the best way to stop gun crime is to lock up gun criminals for a long time...because if this guy was in jail for armed robbery with a pistol.....with 10 years solely for using a gun for the crime on top of the robbery term....he would still be in jail....


also....he got a gun......from the police no less. so what we have said holds true...criminals will get guns...since his past crimes would have kept him from passing a background check he got an illegal gun...illegally........

and registering this gun would not have stopped this crime or helped solve it......since he was captured after having been shot...

licensing all gun owners is not necessary here because he was 1) not allowed to own a gun or have a gun license....2) he did not get his gun legally....3). Was shot and captured.....


so again, licensing gun owners is unecessary.....and pointless.....

and Universal Background checks would not have stopped this guy....because he could not pass current background checks because of his criminal record.....and even if you mandate a private seller to do a background check.......he would not have passed that either...so he simply got an illegal gun.....

Philly cop ambushed “in the name of Islam” with … stolen police gun; Update: Got slap on the wrist in 2013?

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberals are the reason security may be lacking at schools. They feel the absence of guns provides a force-field around the students. All it does is provide a soft target for nutcases.

They were the first to try to ban pilots from carrying a weapon. 911 never would have happened if pilots had the means to defend themselves.

There have been plenty of examples of armed people being in the vicinity of mass shootings. Nothing helped. In the latest Colorado incident one of the people killed was an armed cop. So please, don't give me this shit about if everybody was armed things would be different. And anyway, who wants to live in a society where you have armed guards walking the halls of schools. Welcome to Beruit....

Yes.

I don't mind armed guards walking the halls.

That's great....if you live in South Africa, or Somalia, Guatemala, or Indonesia, or Ethiopia...or.....

Oh......we're too good for that sort of thing is what you're saying. Well, we're not too good for that sort of thing.
This is a free society run by criminals. Criminals that are trying to foment violence. Trying to cause anarchy and death here and abroad. A government that helps the criminal and punishes the victim. Well, we need to learn to take care of ourselves. The DA refuses to enforce our laws as written so it's up to us to enforce them at the local and state level. We get zero leadership from the White House, so we need to defend ourselves using common-sense.....not politically-correct nonsense.

If you won't let the citizens arm themselves, then hire armed/trained guards to do it.

 

[mudwhistle]

No wonder he's getting tired of this horse shit!

The number of times Obama has had to respond to mass shootings during his presidency is staggering

Terrible.....just terrible.

Obama is so busy creating more of them. He tried to do it when he first took office back in 2009. Now all of his hard work has resulted in more mass-shootings and the sale of more guns than I can remember. Releasing hundreds of thousands of criminals into our streets, bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in to our country with the potential for murder and rape that this country has never seen before. Europe is reeling from scores of rapes that were committed by new arrivals on New Years Eve. 18 by Syrian refugees, and 1 by a refugee from Afghanistan.

Obama isn't tired of this horse shit. He lives for it.

I would love to see some actual evidence demonstrating your claim that "Obama is creating more mass shootings." That is one of the most absurd statements I've seen yet on this forum, but it doesn't surprise me, partisan hackery brings out the worst in people. It should be noted that I am against more gun control, for a variety of reasons, but I support the president. Laughably, it appears gun sales went up due to people actually believing Obama and the democrats are going to come and take their guns from them. It's been, what, 7 years?

Releasing hundreds of thousands of criminals into our streets, bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in to our country with the potential for murder and rape that this country has never seen before.

Do you know what kind of criminals he released? Where do you get your "hundreds of thousands" statement? Potential for murder and rape this country has never seen before? Baseless rhetoric.

It was covered in the news...he is pardoning all kinds of federal drug criminals and others.

The claim discussed "hundreds of thousands." Which appears to be HUGELY false.

Actually not. Nobody knows how many he's released. So far, he's released close to 100,000 that we know of. They're gathering a team of lawyers to handle the thousands of pardons he's planning before he leaves office. Add to that the 66,000 or so criminal illegals he's released instead of deporting......the numbers are steadily rising.

 

[2aguy]

I have an entire folder dedicated to stories of armed citizens that did stop attacks and death. Would you like be to post a dozen or two?

Your precious MSM doesn't like to cover stories like that, but there are plenty out there if you look beyond.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, because trying to stop a bad guy with a gun when nobody is armed is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Sure. Post away. I'll post the story from Colorado recently where the mass shooter shot and killed an armed police officer...

Another way is to get rid of guns altogether or put enough restrictions on them and get people licensed so it decreases the likelihood.

Yeah...the muslim assassin.....should have been in jail for carrying a gun without a license........I guess your idea for making normal gun owners...law abiding gun owners, get a license is now shown to be stupid......

Archer was tracked down by police in 2013 and faced bevy of charges that included aggravated assault, conspiracy, terroristic threats, simple assault and others that involved firearms.

He pleaded guilty last year to carrying a gun without a license, a third-degree felony, and simple assault, a second-degree misdemeanor.

According to court documents, Archer was sentenced to nine to 13 months in prison, was allowed to count time served and was paroled. Records show he was arrested April 14, 2013 and was released April 30, 2013 after posting partial bail.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Oh......we're too good for that sort of thing is what you're saying. Well, we're not too good for that sort of thing.
This is a free society run by criminals. Criminals that are trying to foment violence. Trying to cause anarchy and death here and abroad. A government that helps the criminal and punishes the victim. Well, we need to learn to take care of ourselves. The DA refuses to enforce our laws as written so it's up to us to enforce them at the local and state level. We get zero leadership from the White House, so we need to defend ourselves using common-sense.....not politically-correct nonsense.

If you won't let the citizens arm themselves, then hire armed/trained guards to do it.

That's the only downside to Hollywood. You have all these great conspiracy movies and people start seeing things that aren't there.

A lot of politicians are dodgy (is the same in most countries), but very few are criminals.

I do agree that the US does have its nose in too many other people's business.

 

[Flopper]

Post from other thread....

BS re your second paragraph. Total phooey.

At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.

Yeah…..they don't have to worry about going to the movie theater or school…….the odds are in their favor…

Also….those places are gun free zones created by you guys…..where good, normal, law abiding, non violent gun owners are not allowed to carry a gun………and the gun free zone does nothing to stop killers…...

I can just image a gun shot going off in a crowded theater and dozens of people pull out their weapon. Armed with their Glock in one hand and Twinkies in the other, do you really think these people are going have the skill and presence of mind to take down the shooter without blowing away half the audience? If they didn't shoot themselves, the police probably would.

Encouraging the public to carry guns in public places is insane. This is not 1870 in Dodge City.

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

"Of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years, not one has been stopped by armed civilians."

Well could it be that because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones by any chance?

No. According to an FBI study only 13% took place public gun free zones.

 

[Flopper]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

And Australia, France are completely disarmed and have mass shootings...........and the only reason they don't have more is because their countrymen have not decided to do it...I have listed many shootings in Australia that could easily have been mass shootings if the shooter had just decided to shoot more people...since he already had a gun and was in a target rich environment...

The two muslim terrorists in Australia last year...both immigrants, and one a 15 year old...could easily have killed more people...they just chose the wrong target and method...

You anti gun types are jinxing Australia..........they have been lucky...but lucky is no policy to keep your people safe from mass shooters.....

The purpose in removing guns is not just to prevent mass shooting but to reduce the number of gun deaths which include both accidents and suicides as well murder.

Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms ever nearly 2 decades ago — and gun deaths plummeted

 

[2aguy]

Yeah…..they don't have to worry about going to the movie theater or school…….the odds are in their favor…

Also….those places are gun free zones created by you guys…..where good, normal, law abiding, non violent gun owners are not allowed to carry a gun………and the gun free zone does nothing to stop killers…...

I can just image a gun shot going off in a crowded theater and dozens of people pull out their weapon. Armed with their Glock in one hand and Twinkies in the other, do you really think these people are going have the skill and presence of mind to take down the shooter without blowing away half the audience? If they didn't shoot themselves, the police probably would.

Encouraging the public to carry guns in public places is insane. This is not 1870 in Dodge City.

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

"Of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years, not one has been stopped by armed civilians."

Well could it be that because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones by any chance?

No. According to an FBI study only 13% took place public gun free zones.

No......please link to that study. Almost every mass public shooting happened in a gun free zone.

 

[2aguy]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

And Australia, France are completely disarmed and have mass shootings...........and the only reason they don't have more is because their countrymen have not decided to do it...I have listed many shootings in Australia that could easily have been mass shootings if the shooter had just decided to shoot more people...since he already had a gun and was in a target rich environment...

The two muslim terrorists in Australia last year...both immigrants, and one a 15 year old...could easily have killed more people...they just chose the wrong target and method...

You anti gun types are jinxing Australia..........they have been lucky...but lucky is no policy to keep your people safe from mass shooters.....

The purpose in removing guns is not just to prevent mass shooting but to reduce the number of gun deaths which include both accidents and suicides as well murder.

Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms ever nearly 2 decades ago — and gun deaths plummeted

Wrong.....gun deaths in Australia were already going down and were very low to begin with.......before they confiscated their guns....and right now gun ownership in Australia is back to where it was before the confiscation and gun violence is going back up...

And New Zealand.....did not confiscate their guns.....and has the same gun crime stats as Australia....

 

[2aguy]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

And Australia, France are completely disarmed and have mass shootings...........and the only reason they don't have more is because their countrymen have not decided to do it...I have listed many shootings in Australia that could easily have been mass shootings if the shooter had just decided to shoot more people...since he already had a gun and was in a target rich environment...

The two muslim terrorists in Australia last year...both immigrants, and one a 15 year old...could easily have killed more people...they just chose the wrong target and method...

You anti gun types are jinxing Australia..........they have been lucky...but lucky is no policy to keep your people safe from mass shooters.....

The purpose in removing guns is not just to prevent mass shooting but to reduce the number of gun deaths which include both accidents and suicides as well murder.

Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms ever nearly 2 decades ago — and gun deaths plummeted

And now the trend is going the other way as drugs and immigrant gangs start doing their magic...

Spike in handgun crimes reveals nation’s secret problem | The New Daily

Our investigation found:

• NSW: in 2014-15, there were 3463 firearms charges, up 83 per cent on 2005-06

• Victoria: in 2014-15, there were 3645 firearms-related charges, up 85 per cent on 2005-06

• SA: in 2014, charges for possession and trafficking of guns are up 49 per cent on 2010-11

• Tasmania: in 2014, charges for unlawful gun possession were up 32 per cent on 2005-06

The big picture: What the numbers indicate
There are several ways to interpret the data: either the rate of offending has risen dramatically in the past decade or the problem was always much larger than previously understood.

The data also indicates that police have taken a more proactive and hardline approach to enforcement in recent years and are uncovering more offences than ever before.

-----------------------

But he conceded more firearms and gun parts are being imported illegally and that there had been an increase in the number of weapons stolen from registered owners.

Australia Sees Spike in Gun Crime Despite Outright Ban

Regardless of the reasons for the jump in gun crime, the numbers reveal the true size of Australia’s illegal gun market. “Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally,” The New Daily said. “The fourfold rise in handgun-related charges in NSW in the past decade points to the existence of a big illegal market for concealable firearms that seems to have been underestimated in the past.”

 

[Flopper]

I can just image a gun shot going off in a crowded theater and dozens of people pull out their weapon. Armed with their Glock in one hand and Twinkies in the other, do you really think these people are going have the skill and presence of mind to take down the shooter without blowing away half the audience? If they didn't shoot themselves, the police probably would.

Encouraging the public to carry guns in public places is insane. This is not 1870 in Dodge City.

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

"Of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years, not one has been stopped by armed civilians."

Well could it be that because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones by any chance?

No. According to an FBI study only 13% took place public gun free zones.

No......please link to that study. Almost every mass public shooting happened in a gun free zone.

Analysis of Mass Shootings

 

[2aguy]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

And Australia, France are completely disarmed and have mass shootings...........and the only reason they don't have more is because their countrymen have not decided to do it...I have listed many shootings in Australia that could easily have been mass shootings if the shooter had just decided to shoot more people...since he already had a gun and was in a target rich environment...

The two muslim terrorists in Australia last year...both immigrants, and one a 15 year old...could easily have killed more people...they just chose the wrong target and method...

You anti gun types are jinxing Australia..........they have been lucky...but lucky is no policy to keep your people safe from mass shooters.....

The purpose in removing guns is not just to prevent mass shooting but to reduce the number of gun deaths which include both accidents and suicides as well murder.

Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms ever nearly 2 decades ago — and gun deaths plummeted

And more truth about Australia...what are they going to say as gun crime rises and they have already confiscated guns....?

'This is really getting out of control': Government responds to gangster gun culture

Melbourne is awash with guns, with senior police warning of an arms race "getting out of control" in Melbourne's north west.

A former firearms dealer told Fairfax Media that high-calibre semi-automatic handguns like the Glock and Sig Sauer were easily available to criminals via an extensive underground weapons importation and trafficking network.

"There hasn't been this much weaponry on the streets since the days of the underworld war," the source said. "It's now endemic and it's a real worry."
-----
The trade is largely controlled by outlaw motorcycle gangs, with an increasing number of guns originating from South East Asia, particularly the Philippines, the source said.

Senior police say young criminals are increasingly carrying guns because their rivals are armed.

"This is really getting out of control. A lot of these kids don't seem to grasp what they're doing. Drive-by shootings used to be a big deal, now it's a daily event around here," said a senior police source from city's north-west police region, dubbed the "red zone" by officers because of its soaring crime rate.
------



"While I'm reticent to buy into the terminology 'gangster culture', it is obvious that carrying firearms is more often a part of the criminal culture we are observing," he said.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

"Of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years, not one has been stopped by armed civilians."

Well could it be that because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones by any chance?

No. According to an FBI study only 13% took place public gun free zones.

No......please link to that study. Almost every mass public shooting happened in a gun free zone.

Analysis of Mass Shootings

Really......Everytown For Gun Safety.....Bloombergs anti gun fanatics.....that is your source...they analyzed FBI data...and you want us to take them seriously....


No...the truth, facts and reality are that almost all mass public shootings take place in gun free zones......

 

[2aguy]

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

"Of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years, not one has been stopped by armed civilians."

Well could it be that because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones by any chance?

No. According to an FBI study only 13% took place public gun free zones.

No......please link to that study. Almost every mass public shooting happened in a gun free zone.

Analysis of Mass Shootings

Yeah...see.....go to their Appendix.....they include gang violence at homes as mass shootings......please...never, ever trust anit gunners....the actual numbers about guns do not support their beliefs so they have to lie........

http://everytownresearch.org/documents/2015/10/mass-shootings-analysis-appendix.pdf

Columbus, OH, 6/13/15 The shooter killed a man, the man’s daughter, and two other victims inside the man’s home. He also shot and injured a 16-year-old girl.
• SHOOTER NAME: Robert Lee Adams, 27 •
GUN DETAILS: Handgun •
GUN ACQUIRED: Unknown •

PROHIBITING CRITERIA: The shooter was prohibited from possessing firearms due to a 2008 felony robbery conviction.

Missoula, MT, 6/07/15 The shooter killed his wife and their three children — ages one, four, and five — in their home. He then set the house on fire and committed suicide with the gun. • SHOOTER NAME: Michael Bournes, 59 •
GUN DETAILS: .45-caliber handgun •
GUN ACQUIRED: Unknown •
PROHIBITING CRITERIA: Despite a previous criminal history, the shooter was likely not prohibited from possessing firearms. In 1999, he was convicted in New Mexico of three misdemeanor crimes: fleeing from an officer, concealing his identity, and resisting, evading or obstructing an office


These are not mass shootings because the FBI does not include these types of shootings for mass public shootings....

Mass public shootings...which everyone recognizes.....are where an individual enters a public space...a school, a theater, a mall and starts shooting people.....


Notice.....the two I found right away......neither one was able to own a gun or could have passed the background checks you guys want....or universal background checks...

 

[Flopper]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

And Australia, France are completely disarmed and have mass shootings...........and the only reason they don't have more is because their countrymen have not decided to do it...I have listed many shootings in Australia that could easily have been mass shootings if the shooter had just decided to shoot more people...since he already had a gun and was in a target rich environment...

The two muslim terrorists in Australia last year...both immigrants, and one a 15 year old...could easily have killed more people...they just chose the wrong target and method...

You anti gun types are jinxing Australia..........they have been lucky...but lucky is no policy to keep your people safe from mass shooters.....

The purpose in removing guns is not just to prevent mass shooting but to reduce the number of gun deaths which include both accidents and suicides as well murder.

Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms ever nearly 2 decades ago — and gun deaths plummeted

And now the trend is going the other way as drugs and immigrant gangs start doing their magic...

Spike in handgun crimes reveals nation’s secret problem | The New Daily

Our investigation found:

• NSW: in 2014-15, there were 3463 firearms charges, up 83 per cent on 2005-06

• Victoria: in 2014-15, there were 3645 firearms-related charges, up 85 per cent on 2005-06

• SA: in 2014, charges for possession and trafficking of guns are up 49 per cent on 2010-11

• Tasmania: in 2014, charges for unlawful gun possession were up 32 per cent on 2005-06

The big picture: What the numbers indicate
There are several ways to interpret the data: either the rate of offending has risen dramatically in the past decade or the problem was always much larger than previously understood.

The data also indicates that police have taken a more proactive and hardline approach to enforcement in recent years and are uncovering more offences than ever before.

-----------------------

But he conceded more firearms and gun parts are being imported illegally and that there had been an increase in the number of weapons stolen from registered owners.

Australia Sees Spike in Gun Crime Despite Outright Ban

Regardless of the reasons for the jump in gun crime, the numbers reveal the true size of Australia’s illegal gun market. “Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally,” The New Daily said. “The fourfold rise in handgun-related charges in NSW in the past decade points to the existence of a big illegal market for concealable firearms that seems to have been underestimated in the past.”

Your figures exclude gun deaths do to accidents and suicide. As I said, the purpose in removing guns is to prevent gun deaths, not just homicides.