Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

[rightwinger]

Good people?

like almost all lefties your understanding of good and evil is messed up.......

And dipstick.....he was the only one in the theater with a gun in a gun free zone.....wasn't he.....? And of course he was the one shooting people...again, thousands of people at the NRA convention in Tennessee, a majority of them carrying concealed guns...and not one mass shooting......

James Holmes enters your theater slinging an AR-15 as is his second amendment right. He is carrying a duffle bag full of magazines.
Do you help him carry his bag?
Do you help him pick out a good seat?

If the theater allowed law abiding citizens to carry guns he wouldn't go there....he picked a theater that was a gun free zone. So if the theater allowed everyone to carry guns, then he would have gone somewhere else. A rifle and a duffle bag......would have tipped off other gun owners......and the theater could bar the rifle as a safety hazard since it wasn't on his body but would have to be leaned against the seat, and the duffle bag would block the aisles....see....when you use common sense all of your stupid ideas turn to dust........

If a guy walks into a theater with a slung rifle it isn't a problem....it is when they just start shooting that you have a problem.......especially when they are the only one with a gun in a gun free zone....

You are avoiding the question

Are you going to allow law abiding James Holmes into your theater? Will you help him carry his bag of ammo?

I have no problem with it if everyone can carry a gun.....I would ask the manager to ask him to leave....not the place for a rifle....you carry a rifle when you expect trouble...a pistol on your body is sensible......and as long as he isn't shooting people....not a problem is it.....?

And again, a duffle bag.....it will take a seat or block an aisle and would be suspicious....I would ask the theater to have him questioned by police.....

But again...if he isn't shooting anyone with it....he is just weird......your guy.....started shooting, didn't watch the movie or buy popcorn.....In fact, he didn't bring the gun in till he started shooting, and it was a gun free zone....which he ignored......

You keep dancing
There is no constitutional obligation to buy popcorn. You say Holmes has a right to bring his AR-15 into the theater. He also has a right to bring a bag with him as long as it is not full of Milk Duds. He is allowed to bring a bag full of ammo

Will you bring your 8 year old granddaughter into the theater to sit next to Mr Holmes?

 

[2aguy]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

 

[rightwinger]

Hundred people firing in the dark.....there is a decent chance they may actually hit the right guy

And of course, just like at the NRA convention in Tennessee where thousands of people carried concealed guns into the packed convention center......when there are guns around, the mass shooters choose gun free zones....

The South Carolina church shooter, considered going to a local community college first, but decided there were too many people with guns there....

The Santa Barbara shooter....on his videos, he stated he thought about going and killing at an outdoor festival...again, decided againsts it becausethere would be too many guns on hand...

If theaters allowed good people to carry guns, mass shooters would go elsewhere, they are looking for a body count....not a gun fight.......

Good people?

like almost all lefties your understanding of good and evil is messed up.......

And dipstick.....he was the only one in the theater with a gun in a gun free zone.....wasn't he.....? And of course he was the one shooting people...again, thousands of people at the NRA convention in Tennessee, a majority of them carrying concealed guns...and not one mass shooting......

James Holmes enters your theater slinging an AR-15 as is his second amendment right. He is carrying a duffle bag . While checking his bag to make sure he is not smuggling in Milk Duds, you find the bag full of 50 round magazines
Do you help him carry his bag?
Do you help him pick out a good seat?

I ask the manager to call the police and have him detained. That is what you call suspicious behavior. See....that is what you call common sense gun control......while everyone else in the theater quietly carries their pistols on their hips.....also common sense gun control.....

What is suspicious about James Holmes executing his second amendment rights

The police come and Holmes hands them a copy of the Constitution and explains he needs extra ammo in case someone starts shooting

Are you going to allow your 8 year old granddaughter to sit next to Mr Holmes?

 

[2aguy]

like almost all lefties your understanding of good and evil is messed up.......

And dipstick.....he was the only one in the theater with a gun in a gun free zone.....wasn't he.....? And of course he was the one shooting people...again, thousands of people at the NRA convention in Tennessee, a majority of them carrying concealed guns...and not one mass shooting......

James Holmes enters your theater slinging an AR-15 as is his second amendment right. He is carrying a duffle bag full of magazines.
Do you help him carry his bag?
Do you help him pick out a good seat?

If the theater allowed law abiding citizens to carry guns he wouldn't go there....he picked a theater that was a gun free zone. So if the theater allowed everyone to carry guns, then he would have gone somewhere else. A rifle and a duffle bag......would have tipped off other gun owners......and the theater could bar the rifle as a safety hazard since it wasn't on his body but would have to be leaned against the seat, and the duffle bag would block the aisles....see....when you use common sense all of your stupid ideas turn to dust........

If a guy walks into a theater with a slung rifle it isn't a problem....it is when they just start shooting that you have a problem.......especially when they are the only one with a gun in a gun free zone....

You are avoiding the question

Are you going to allow law abiding James Holmes into your theater? Will you help him carry his bag of ammo?

I have no problem with it if everyone can carry a gun.....I would ask the manager to ask him to leave....not the place for a rifle....you carry a rifle when you expect trouble...a pistol on your body is sensible......and as long as he isn't shooting people....not a problem is it.....?

And again, a duffle bag.....it will take a seat or block an aisle and would be suspicious....I would ask the theater to have him questioned by police.....

But again...if he isn't shooting anyone with it....he is just weird......your guy.....started shooting, didn't watch the movie or buy popcorn.....In fact, he didn't bring the gun in till he started shooting, and it was a gun free zone....which he ignored......

You keep dancing
There is no constitutional obligation to buy popcorn. You say Holmes has a right to bring his AR-15 into the theater. He also has a right to bring a bag with him as long as it is not full of Milk Duds. He is allowed to bring a bag full of ammo

Will you bring your 8 year old granddaughter into the theater to sit next to Mr Holmes?

I told you. I would have the police come in and detain him. His behavior is odd and suspicious in a polite society. That is sensible gun control. They could ask him to leave or arrest him for disturbing the peace.

And the key point you won't address in what actually happened...............it was a gun free zone...right dipshit?.......did that stop him from bringing his weapon and killing people...dipshit?........that would be NO.

How would you stop him from bringing his weapon and killing people...since what he did could just as easily have been done with pistols........

And with over 1 million AR-15s in private hands...how many were used to kill people in 2013.....

The number of all murders with a rifle were 285.....so the murders with an AR-15....maybe, maybe under 5. Out of 1 million guns in private hands.....

And murder with knives...over 1000

And empty hands......over 500....

so your focus on the rifle.....a mental issue you should have checked by a therapist....

 

[Nosmo King]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

 

[2aguy]

And of course, just like at the NRA convention in Tennessee where thousands of people carried concealed guns into the packed convention center......when there are guns around, the mass shooters choose gun free zones....

The South Carolina church shooter, considered going to a local community college first, but decided there were too many people with guns there....

The Santa Barbara shooter....on his videos, he stated he thought about going and killing at an outdoor festival...again, decided againsts it becausethere would be too many guns on hand...

If theaters allowed good people to carry guns, mass shooters would go elsewhere, they are looking for a body count....not a gun fight.......

Good people?

like almost all lefties your understanding of good and evil is messed up.......

And dipstick.....he was the only one in the theater with a gun in a gun free zone.....wasn't he.....? And of course he was the one shooting people...again, thousands of people at the NRA convention in Tennessee, a majority of them carrying concealed guns...and not one mass shooting......

James Holmes enters your theater slinging an AR-15 as is his second amendment right. He is carrying a duffle bag . While checking his bag to make sure he is not smuggling in Milk Duds, you find the bag full of 50 round magazines
Do you help him carry his bag?
Do you help him pick out a good seat?

I ask the manager to call the police and have him detained. That is what you call suspicious behavior. See....that is what you call common sense gun control......while everyone else in the theater quietly carries their pistols on their hips.....also common sense gun control.....

What is suspicious about James Holmes executing his second amendment rights

The police come and Holmes hands them a copy of the Constitution and explains he needs extra ammo in case someone starts shooting

Are you going to allow your 8 year old granddaughter to sit next to Mr Holmes?

No. His behavior is suspicious and out of place....had he just had a pistol on his hip...sure.

and you fail to address the question I asked.........in what actually happened....he did bring the rifle into a gun free zone, and he murdered people with it........what gun law would have stopped that.....a bigger gun free zone sign?

 

[2aguy]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Because law abiding gun owners actually stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives on average 2 million times a year......I have read the stories, and some of them are the famous ones, the giffords shooting and others, and armed civilians do stop these shooters. Reagan's shooter was willing to die.....making him even harder to stop...

So....genius...answer my question.....with what you posted...do you want the Secret Service to be disarmed because they missed it one time?

At Giffords, 2 concealed carriers, neither one shot because they didn't have to......the Mall shooting, the concealed carrier could have shot the killer but chose not to because there were people behind him....and when the shooter saw him...he suicided......

Read the stories...learn about this before you post.....

 

[MikeK]

The primary objection to more armed citizens, with emphasis on the movie theater hypothesis with the likelihood of dozens of frenzied, incompetents randomly blasting away in all directions. While the potential of such chaos is very real the reason for it, quite simply, is the lack of adequate competence in the proper handling and use of firearms on the part of a substantial percentage of Americans licensed to carry.

I have frequently voiced the opinion that anyone licensed to carry a gun must first be required to complete a training course similar to that administered to police officers -- which is not as demanding as most believe it to be. And while my critics regard this suggestion as an imposition on the Second Amendment, I disagree. It is not a barrier to gun possession but simply a reasonable requirement which exists in the interest of public safety.

The importance of a training program in the proper use and handling of a handgun is, for civilians and police, is drill.! Repetitive inculcation. The specifics of proper handgun use and handling which are taught to police can be thoroughly outlined within a few pages. But in order to ensure these specifics will be retained requires drill, repetitive practice, and final testing to ensure the specifics have been absorbed.

What I'm proposing is no different from the requirement for obtaining a driver license -- which all of us go through. In my opinion, allowing someone to buy a handgun, get a permit to carry it, and go to the movies with it makes as much sense as licensing someone to drive without first imposing a road test.

Simple conclusion: If you want a driver license, learn to drive and take the test. If you want to carry a gun, learn to properly use and handle it, and take the test.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Whether or not guns should be allowed in a movie theater should be the decision of the theater owners and nobody else.

Of course the theater owners' insurance companies are going to weigh in on the matter.

That's for the two of them to work out. At the end of the day it's still the owner's decision.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Whether or not guns should be allowed in a movie theater should be the decision of the theater owners and nobody else.

What is the liablility for the movie theater owner ?

What are they liable for?

Collateral damage

Movie theater allows patrons to carry guns into the theater, a shootout ensues and dozens are injured in a crossfire

And these shootout scenarios have happened where?

 

[2aguy]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Here you go dipshit......people who were disarmed vs. people who were armed facing a mass shooter and how many innocent people were killed...these are actual events, linked to.....and they show how stupid you are.....

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

Gun Free Zone Churches

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

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

vs.

Churches that had armed citizens...

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)

 

[2aguy]

The primary objection to more armed citizens, with emphasis on the movie theater hypothesis with the likelihood of dozens of frenzied, incompetents randomly blasting away in all directions. While the potential of such chaos is very real the reason for it, quite simply, is the lack of adequate competence in the proper handling and use of firearms on the part of a substantial percentage of Americans licensed to carry.

I have frequently voiced the opinion that anyone licensed to carry a gun must first be required to complete a training course similar to that administered to police officers -- which is not as demanding as most believe it to be. And while my critics regard this suggestion as an imposition on the Second Amendment, I disagree. It is not a barrier to gun possession but simply a reasonable requirement which exists in the interest of public safety.

The importance of a training program in the proper use and handling of a handgun is, for civilians and police, is drill.! Repetitive inculcation. The specifics of proper handgun use and handling which are taught to police can be thoroughly outlined within a few pages. But in order to ensure these specifics will be retained requires drill, repetitive practice, and final testing to ensure the specifics have been absorbed.

What I'm proposing is no different from the requirement for obtaining a driver license -- which all of us go through. In my opinion, allowing someone to buy a handgun, get a permit to carry it, and go to the movies with it makes as much sense as licensing someone to drive without first imposing a road test.

Simple conclusion: If you want a driver license, learn to drive and take the test. If you want to carry a gun, learn to properly use and handle it, and take the test.

What's wrong with that?

Law abiding gun owners routinely deploy their weapons effectively, in high stress violent crime scenarios and drive off, capture, or simply wound their attackers in most cases....usually with little to no training or maintenance of skill.

guns are not rocket science, they do not require Navy Seal skills to use for self defense......


You don't know what you are talking about.

For you too...

These people did not have police shooting training and the one woman was an ex officer......her skill level was not an issue in dealing with her shooter....

Gun Free Zone Churches

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

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

vs.

Churches that had armed citizens...

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)

 

[MikeK]

No. His behavior is suspicious and out of place....had he just had a pistol on his hip...sure.

and you fail to address the question I asked.........in what actually happened....he did bring the rifle into a gun free zone, and he murdered people with it........what gun law would have stopped that.....a bigger gun free zone sign?

A posted "Gun Free Zone" is testimony to ignorance.

 

[Nosmo King]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Because law abiding gun owners actually stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives on average 2 million times a year......I have read the stories, and some of them are the famous ones, the giffords shooting and others, and armed civilians do stop these shooters. Reagan's shooter was willing to die.....making him even harder to stop...

So....genius...answer my question.....with what you posted...do you want the Secret Service to be disarmed because they missed it one time?

At Giffords, 2 concealed carriers, neither one shot because they didn't have to......the Mall shooting, the concealed carrier could have shot the killer but chose not to because there were people behind him....and when the shooter saw him...he suicided......

Read the stories...learn about this before you post.....

1) the 2,000,000 figure is suspect. Had the NRA not squashed the CDC data on gun violence, perhaps we could argue from fact rather than anecdote.

2) The secret Service had guns but the assailant was physically taken down rather than in a spray of lead.

 

[2aguy]

The primary objection to more armed citizens, with emphasis on the movie theater hypothesis with the likelihood of dozens of frenzied, incompetents randomly blasting away in all directions. While the potential of such chaos is very real the reason for it, quite simply, is the lack of adequate competence in the proper handling and use of firearms on the part of a substantial percentage of Americans licensed to carry.

I have frequently voiced the opinion that anyone licensed to carry a gun must first be required to complete a training course similar to that administered to police officers -- which is not as demanding as most believe it to be. And while my critics regard this suggestion as an imposition on the Second Amendment, I disagree. It is not a barrier to gun possession but simply a reasonable requirement which exists in the interest of public safety.

The importance of a training program in the proper use and handling of a handgun is, for civilians and police, is drill.! Repetitive inculcation. The specifics of proper handgun use and handling which are taught to police can be thoroughly outlined within a few pages. But in order to ensure these specifics will be retained requires drill, repetitive practice, and final testing to ensure the specifics have been absorbed.

What I'm proposing is no different from the requirement for obtaining a driver license -- which all of us go through. In my opinion, allowing someone to buy a handgun, get a permit to carry it, and go to the movies with it makes as much sense as licensing someone to drive without first imposing a road test.

Simple conclusion: If you want a driver license, learn to drive and take the test. If you want to carry a gun, learn to properly use and handle it, and take the test.

What's wrong with that?

And again....as soon as you impose a poll tax, a literacy test, and a property requirement to vote and an extensive exam on U.S. government and the Constitution and Bill of Rights....since they are not really barriers to vote but merely making sure the voter knows what they are doing when they vote....

Then we can still not impose any more restrictions on gun ownership...since gun grabbers will use any training requirement to make it almost impossible for the poor people to own guns.

 

[Nosmo King]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Here you go dipshit......people who were disarmed vs. people who were armed facing a mass shooter and how many innocent people were killed...these are actual events, linked to.....and they show how stupid you are.....

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

Gun Free Zone Churches

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

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

vs.

Churches that had armed citizens...

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)

I can debate without calling you asshole and dipshit.

But your lack of comportment makes it impractical for me to try to discuss anything with the li9kes of you. It's so sad that you cannot make a point without insult. Must have been a poor upbringing among the lower classes that's to blame.

 

[2aguy]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Because law abiding gun owners actually stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives on average 2 million times a year......I have read the stories, and some of them are the famous ones, the giffords shooting and others, and armed civilians do stop these shooters. Reagan's shooter was willing to die.....making him even harder to stop...

So....genius...answer my question.....with what you posted...do you want the Secret Service to be disarmed because they missed it one time?

At Giffords, 2 concealed carriers, neither one shot because they didn't have to......the Mall shooting, the concealed carrier could have shot the killer but chose not to because there were people behind him....and when the shooter saw him...he suicided......

Read the stories...learn about this before you post.....

1) the 2,000,000 figure is suspect. Had the NRA not squashed the CDC data on gun violence, perhaps we could argue from fact rather than anecdote.

2) The secret Service had guns but the assailant was physically taken down rather than in a spray of lead.

It's not anecdote moron...those are actual studies conducted by economists and criminologists studying the defensive use of guns....in fact the President Clinton, the rapist, had his Dept. of Justice conduct a study using 2 rabid anti gun researchers, their number 1.5 million....

President obama....gave 10 million dollars to his CDC to study all available gun data in 2013..their number 500,000 to 3 milllion.......

and here you go....

 

[2aguy]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Here you go dipshit......people who were disarmed vs. people who were armed facing a mass shooter and how many innocent people were killed...these are actual events, linked to.....and they show how stupid you are.....

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

Gun Free Zone Churches

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

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

vs.

Churches that had armed citizens...

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)

I can debate without calling you asshole and dipshit.

But your lack of comportment makes it impractical for me to try to discuss anything with the li9kes of you. It's so sad that you cannot make a point without insult. Must have been a poor upbringing among the lower classes that's to blame.

I've dealt with you in the past...you are an anti gun extremist......and refuse to listen to reason.....

 

[2aguy]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Because law abiding gun owners actually stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives on average 2 million times a year......I have read the stories, and some of them are the famous ones, the giffords shooting and others, and armed civilians do stop these shooters. Reagan's shooter was willing to die.....making him even harder to stop...

So....genius...answer my question.....with what you posted...do you want the Secret Service to be disarmed because they missed it one time?

At Giffords, 2 concealed carriers, neither one shot because they didn't have to......the Mall shooting, the concealed carrier could have shot the killer but chose not to because there were people behind him....and when the shooter saw him...he suicided......

Read the stories...learn about this before you post.....

1) the 2,000,000 figure is suspect. Had the NRA not squashed the CDC data on gun violence, perhaps we could argue from fact rather than anecdote.

2) The secret Service had guns but the assailant was physically taken down rather than in a spray of lead.

Here you go....the actual studies.....with studies showing that the most effective way to stop a rape is by using a gun.....that would be civilian females doing that....not trained Secret Service agents..

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....
And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....
Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

********************

So, again a woman's best chance for stopping the rape and ultimately surviving the situation is to use a gun.....

***********************

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/
In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.
When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.
Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]
Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.
The results?
In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4.
Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide.
5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.
Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.
In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)
The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.
Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

And for 19.95 you can read Southwick's 2000 study on guns that talk about rape.....

Self-defense with guns The consequences

This one gives the actual percentages of how rapes are stopped...guns come out on top...

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf

 

[Nosmo King]

March 31, 1981. Four men are wounded in a shooting in broad daylight on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the wounded were armed. One victim was rendered paraplegic. the fourth was rushed to the hospital emergency room with a chest wound. He was President of the United States.

All of them were surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history.

What chance does an armature Rambo wanna be have in making the movie thriller kill shot in a dark, smoky, panicked movie theater?

Gun fetishists always think they can be the big hero. Meanwhile, the lives of innocents lay before their fantasies of glory and gore without regard.

and of course asshole you didn't do your research........Washington D.C. was a gun free city.....no law abiding citizen could carry a gun....he broke the law....

What exactly did your gun control laws do to stop him....? And aren't you the assholes who say only law enforcement and soldiers should have guns....of course that worked out poorly in Europe in the late 1930s-45, but that aside......what gun control law stopped him?

And of course the guys who stopped him....had guns to do it....right....or do you want the Secret Service to be unarmed as well...

You truly are a fucking genius.....

My point must not have been as clearly apparent as the one atop your skull.

All those Secret Services agents could not prevent the shooting. What makes the average mouth breather gun nut believe that his marksmanship skills are greater, his reflexes are more honed, and his fantasy of actually shooting a bad guy are realistic so he himself can be the big hero and shoot down the assailant in a dark, crowded, panicked movie theater?

Here you go dipshit......people who were disarmed vs. people who were armed facing a mass shooter and how many innocent people were killed...these are actual events, linked to.....and they show how stupid you are.....

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

Gun Free Zone Churches

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

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

vs.

Churches that had armed citizens...

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)

I can debate without calling you asshole and dipshit.

But your lack of comportment makes it impractical for me to try to discuss anything with the li9kes of you. It's so sad that you cannot make a point without insult. Must have been a poor upbringing among the lower classes that's to blame.

I've dealt with you in the past...you are an anti gun extremist......and refuse to listen to reason.....

And you think there's no problem a gun cannot solve. Adding guns to the street is like wishing you could extinguish a fire with gasoline.