Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Funny how when one does the research on guns (and many other issues for that matter), one finds that progressives are wrong. How often do we read of some professor or researcher who believed the stupidity of progressive ideas, only to find after researching the issue, how dumb that is.Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.
The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.
You are absolutely wrong.
Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.
There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.
breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...
JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.
Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."
Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.
While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:
When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).
-------------------------
Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)
That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:
The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)
We can't allow a handful of wack jobs dictate how we live. Asking club patrons to leave their weapons in their cars isn't a bad idea. Drunks with guns is a bad idea.
The closet fag muslim claimed terrorism and in reality the truth is more like he wanted to kill people that knew he was a faggot. He was fucked up mentally. Maybe one of them gave him aides. It is unlikely any official muslim terrorist organization would have claimed him if they knew he was a fag anyway.
If you ask me, and you didn't, but the Orlando massacre means nothing other than some nonviolent queers got murdered senselessly. That's all. It had little to nothing to do with muslim terrorism. It had little to nothing to do with "gun free zones". It had little to nothing to do with the ability for most law abiding citizen's right to purchase a rifle with a big clip.
more later the dogs are going off...
Whoa whoa whoa!!!! Omar cased Disney World too. It was a terror attack.
Your political correctness has no sense to it... Hollywood and your politically correct politicians have no knowledge of what the facts are. fuck nutIt seems youre profiling now, he was gay, and a Muslim and angry How would've any new laws stopped that? be SpecificHe legally bought a weapon for mass killing. Lack of laws allowed that to happen.
Magazine limits. He killed most in minutes while having a shootout with police. Should not have had such a deadly weapon.
Lol
You deny physics?
I've seen that sad video before. So mass shooters carry around a barrel so they can cleanly grab the next magazine? Ridiculous.
Piss your pants often?
I get the impression that a lot of you just don't have the slightest idea how a nightclub works.
No one gets into a club without being patted down and searched, if not run through a metal detectot. The only way someone's going to be carrying a gun on the dance floor is if they shot the door guy on the way in.
And yet guns get in all the time...I posted the video of the rapper shooting a few weeks ago...
Not through the front door.
If you're talking about the shooting at the TI show at Irving Plaza in NYC, the shooter was performing that night, and not a member of the audience.
That shooting also happened backstage, surrounded by armed security. More guns didn't stop it.
And had you been a victim waiting to be murdered....I suppose you wouldn't want a gun to stop it.
I explained earlier in the thread why bouncers don't carry guns.
you didn't answer the question...had you been one of the victims in that club...would you want to have had a gun?
Funny how when one does the research on guns (and many other issues for that matter), one finds that progressives are wrong. How often do we read of some professor or researcher who believed the stupidity of progressive ideas, only to find after researching the issue, how dumb that is.Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.
The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.
You are absolutely wrong.
Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.
There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.
breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...
JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.
Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."
Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.
While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:
When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).
-------------------------
Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)
That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:
The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)
[Q
Our homicide rate is much higher.
Yes because we have Blacks and Mexicans in Democrat controlled big cites (where crime of all kind is rampant) shooting each other mostly over drugs and no gun control law in the country is going change that.
50 just died in one mass shooting. Gun control can limit the death toll.
[Q
If you really believe magazine limits don't slow shooters then you have no reason to oppose them.
You are confused. How come you are always confused about everything?
There are 100s of millions of high capacity magazines in this country and if there was a demand then many more would come over illegally across the Mexican border.
If anybody needed a high capacity magazine to commit a crime then it wouldn't take much to get one.
California has a ban on high capacity magazines and that didn't do anything to stop Obama's Muslim couple from killing Christians, did it?
The only people that wouldn't have them are the law abiding citizen that never would have used them in a crime in the first place.
Gun control laws do nothing to stop gun crimes. All the gun control laws do is restrict Constitutional liberties.
Gun control stopped this guy before people were killed.
FBI thwarts mass shooting at Milwaukee Masonic center
You are obviously very wrong.
I cannot believe how confused you are.
Detective work involving an informant prevented the terrorist attack, not a gun control law. Do you understand the difference or are you simply confused?
It has been illegal to have a machine gun not taxed as a Class III since 1934 but that didn't stop the terrorist from planning to use one, did it?
Another example of how stupid gun control laws don't deter crime.
He was trying to illegally buy a machine gun moron. It was illegal due to gun control.
This is because they have been feed a bunch of lies by our government and it's media. Academia and Hollywood help out too.Funny how when one does the research on guns (and many other issues for that matter), one finds that progressives are wrong. How often do we read of some professor or researcher who believed the stupidity of progressive ideas, only to find after researching the issue, how dumb that is.Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.
The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.
You are absolutely wrong.
Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.
There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.
breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...
JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.
Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."
Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.
While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:
When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).
-------------------------
Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)
That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:
The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)
I had one of the more normal anti gunners post a chart on mass shootings and how they had increased......I had to point out to him...after going to the link...they had included military "assault" style rifles...that were bolt action....shotguns and semi-auto pistols to get their numbers....
What I have objectively found after years of debating anti gun people...nothing they believe is backed up by facts, statistics or reality.....I am not kidding.....everything they believe is wrong....and dangerous...
[Q
If you really believe magazine limits don't slow shooters then you have no reason to oppose them.
You are confused. How come you are always confused about everything?
There are 100s of millions of high capacity magazines in this country and if there was a demand then many more would come over illegally across the Mexican border.
If anybody needed a high capacity magazine to commit a crime then it wouldn't take much to get one.
California has a ban on high capacity magazines and that didn't do anything to stop Obama's Muslim couple from killing Christians, did it?
The only people that wouldn't have them are the law abiding citizen that never would have used them in a crime in the first place.
Gun control laws do nothing to stop gun crimes. All the gun control laws do is restrict Constitutional liberties.
Gun control stopped this guy before people were killed.
FBI thwarts mass shooting at Milwaukee Masonic center
You are obviously very wrong.
I cannot believe how confused you are.
Detective work involving an informant prevented the terrorist attack, not a gun control law. Do you understand the difference or are you simply confused?
It has been illegal to have a machine gun not taxed as a Class III since 1934 but that didn't stop the terrorist from planning to use one, did it?
Another example of how stupid gun control laws don't deter crime.
He was trying to illegally buy a machine gun moron. It was illegal due to gun control.
You are confused
He was trying to commit an act of terror and and informant ratted on him.
Since he hadn't commit the terrorist crime yet the FBI charge him with another crime. An NFA violation. A violation of a law that has been around since 1934. It is not a crime to have an automatic weapon. It is a crime to have one and not pay the $200 tax, which is ridiculous.
It is like the Muslim terrorists in California. Had they not be killed they could have been charged with a number of crimes.
You really need to pull your head out of your ass. You embarrass yourself when you post.
Typically, bars are a no no when it comes to guns. I think most states (mine does) have laws banning guns from any place alcohol is served and I think that's a good thing. What would have prevented this Haji from shooting the place up would have been the FBI doing its job and getting this dude off the streets. Basically, had the administration been doing its job and not been worried about looking PC this shooting would never have happened.
That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.
That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.
You drink when your armed? That's scary.
I'm always armed, sometimes I drink. And I'm sure you spend your whole life scared.
I'm always to chicken to go it. They would pull my card here If I was cought.
Yeah they would here too but why would you get caught unless you drew it? And if you drew it to save someone's life it might be worth it.
You mean you have never been to a restaurant while carrying? I carry all the time and most restaurants I go to also serve alcohol. Sometimes I have a margarita, somethimes iced tea.
That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.
That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.
You drink when your armed? That's scary.
I'm always armed, sometimes I drink. And I'm sure you spend your whole life scared.
I'm always to chicken to go it. They would pull my card here If I was cought.
Yeah they would here too but why would you get caught unless you drew it? And if you drew it to save someone's life it might be worth it.
You mean you have never been to a restaurant while carrying? I carry all the time and most restaurants I go to also serve alcohol. Sometimes I have a margarita, somethimes iced tea.
Mine fell out in a chili's once. No booze involved.
That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.
You drink when your armed? That's scary.
I'm always armed, sometimes I drink. And I'm sure you spend your whole life scared.
I'm always to chicken to go it. They would pull my card here If I was cought.
Yeah they would here too but why would you get caught unless you drew it? And if you drew it to save someone's life it might be worth it.
You mean you have never been to a restaurant while carrying? I carry all the time and most restaurants I go to also serve alcohol. Sometimes I have a margarita, somethimes iced tea.
Mine fell out in a chili's once. No booze involved.
Geez, fella. Try a better holster! Bianchi or maybe Galco or Fitzpatrick leather....
I'm always armed, sometimes I drink. And I'm sure you spend your whole life scared.
I'm always to chicken to go it. They would pull my card here If I was cought.
Yeah they would here too but why would you get caught unless you drew it? And if you drew it to save someone's life it might be worth it.
You mean you have never been to a restaurant while carrying? I carry all the time and most restaurants I go to also serve alcohol. Sometimes I have a margarita, somethimes iced tea.
Mine fell out in a chili's once. No booze involved.
Geez, fella. Try a better holster! Bianchi or maybe Galco or Fitzpatrick leather....
Ya, a Yaqui slide for a 1911 holds a Glock kind of lose. Very embarrassing.
More guns less crime... FactOne of my gay friends asked me: "Take me shooting with you. I want to buy a gun."
Gun Sales Soar as Gay Community Arms Itself in Orlando Aftermath
Right cause the lack of gun control in FL helped. Real official tracking by the way. Gun store owners claim surge in sales.
This is provably false.
The city with the highest murder rate in the country also has some of the most lax gun laws in the country.
More guns less crime... FactOne of my gay friends asked me: "Take me shooting with you. I want to buy a gun."
Gun Sales Soar as Gay Community Arms Itself in Orlando Aftermath
Right cause the lack of gun control in FL helped. Real official tracking by the way. Gun store owners claim surge in sales.
This is provably false.
The city with the highest murder rate in the country also has some of the most lax gun laws in the country.
Chicago? Lax gun laws? Please clarify.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper.
Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
Drunk people firing guns? That would have worked out well.
If the shooter knew there were armed people there, he would have gone elsewhere, thus no need to shoot at all.
There WAS an armed police officer!
Who apparently beat feet out of there !?
how about we not allow civilians to have guns that shoot that many bullets without re-loading?
but nice that you bought all the BS.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper.
the answer to gun violence is not more guns. that is idiocy.
how about we not allow civilians to have guns that shoot that many bullets without re-loading?
how about some loser who was on the terrorist watch list not being allowed to buy a gun without red flags going off?
but nice that you bought all the BS.
