Some perspective on mass shootings. CARS kill 100 americans every DAY

[ShootSpeeders]

What percent of the population are carrying in places where carrying weapons is allowed?

What a silly question. How long is a piece of string?

 

[hadit]

That's fine, hadit. However, I think had the terrorists struck such a target in gun-rich Utah or Texas the results would not have been different. Joe Citizens are not John Rambos.

They don't have to be, and having armed civilians won't prevent a killer from STARTING a rampage. That's not the point. What they CAN do, however, is STOP the rampage and REDUCE the number of dead. When a killer opens fire in a gun-free zone and kills 15 people over the course of 5 minutes, would it not be preferable for an armed civilian to shoot back after the first couple of shots were fired and save a dozen or more lives? I do believe that armed civilians can reduce the number of lives lost to mass killers.

What percent of the population are carrying in places where carrying weapons is allowed?

I don't know, because they have CONCEALED carry permits, so we don't know at any given time how many are actually carrying. Just having the permit doesn't mean that they will be carrying at all times. The irony is, of course, that permit holders are more likely to NOT carry in gun-free zones because they are law abiding citizens. Since gun-free zones do absolutely zero to protect anyone, and in fact REDUCE their protection, it makes sense to just do away with them, for the same reason that no one puts a gun-free zone sign on their house. If it would be stupid to do that, why is it not stupid to advertise the lack of defensive weaponry in other places?

 

[JakeStarkey]

They don't have to be, and having armed civilians won't prevent a killer from STARTING a rampage. That's not the point. What they CAN do, however, is STOP the rampage and REDUCE the number of dead. When a killer opens fire in a gun-free zone and kills 15 people over the course of 5 minutes, would it not be preferable for an armed civilian to shoot back after the first couple of shots were fired and save a dozen or more lives? I do believe that armed civilians can reduce the number of lives lost to mass killers.

Actually armed civilians WILL prevent a killer from starting a rampage. Mass killers prefer gun-free zones 76 to 1.

No, they won't.

 

[regent]

The problem with using cars in mass killings is they are hard to conceal and are just unwieldy to use in a crowded theater, plus the admission cost to get a car into a theater lobby would be more than many could afford.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Since gun-free zones do absolutely zero to protect anyone, and in fact REDUCE their protection, it makes sense to just do away with them, for the same reason that no one puts a gun-free zone sign on their house. If it would be stupid to do that, why is it not stupid to advertise the lack of defensive weaponry in other places?

Yup - we need to demand that all liberals put "gun free zone" signs on their homes. Also lets demand that rich liberals not hire armed bodyguards.

 

[TrumpForGreece]

Logic of a liberal ''cars kill 100 americans everyday so we should not worry about terrorists''. With so many idiots in America i am pretty sure you will elect that idiot Hillary. Trump is too good for USA.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Logic of a liberal ''cars kill 100 americans everyday so we should not worry about terrorists''. With so many idiots in America i am pretty sure you will elect that idiot Hillary. Trump is too good for USA.

No one said not to worry about terrorists. But we need some perspective. Terrrorism is a tiny problem compared to everyday things like text-drivers and speeders, THINK

 

[RDD_1210]

They don't have to be, and having armed civilians won't prevent a killer from STARTING a rampage. That's not the point. What they CAN do, however, is STOP the rampage and REDUCE the number of dead. When a killer opens fire in a gun-free zone and kills 15 people over the course of 5 minutes, would it not be preferable for an armed civilian to shoot back after the first couple of shots were fired and save a dozen or more lives? I do believe that armed civilians can reduce the number of lives lost to mass killers.

Actually armed civilians WILL prevent a killer from starting a rampage. Mass killers prefer gun-free zones 76 to 1.

You know this from first hand knowledge?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Actually armed civilians WILL prevent a killer from starting a rampage. Mass killers prefer gun-free zones 76 to 1.

You know this from first hand knowledge?

Hey einstein. If you wanted to kill a bunch of people, would you want them armed or unarmed.?