The guy isn't White, didn't use an "Assault Rifle" and didn't use a large capacity magazine...

[RealDave]

[...]

If you want to do something that will actually work, we have to stop giving these killers notoriety, and encouraging the very few crazies out there to do something to make a splash and be all over the news.

The only way to do that would be to deprive the public of what is happening in their nation, a tactic which is common to fascist dictatorships.

In places like New York City and the entire state of New Jersey it is virtually impossible for the ordinary individual to obtain a CCW in spite of having a clean background and demonstrated competence. But the increasing frequency of mass shooting incidents makes it clear that police alone are incapable of preventing them and that competent and qualified citizens in places with repressive gun laws must be free to equip themselves to defend themselves and those around them from mass shooters and other armed, aggressive criminals.

Residents in places with repressive gun laws who have clean backgrounds and who complete an NRA approved training regimen should be issued CCW permits on demand.

Armed citizens are by far the most effective means of dealing with the increasing frequency of mass shooting incidents. Depriving peaceful, law-abiding citizens of their right to bear arms is to render them helpless when confronted by armed aggression.

A bunch of untrained people running around with guns.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Residents in places with repressive gun laws who have clean backgrounds and who complete an NRA approved training regimen should be issued CCW permits on demand.

A bunch of untrained people running around with guns.
[...]

". . . who complete an NRA approved training regimen . . ."

Did you overlook that (bolded) part of my message? Or does what I have to say not conform with your ideas?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Can someone explain to me why everyone is flipping out about airport security, as opposed to mall security when the dude shot up the makeup counter at wherever? What is it about airports that makes them so much more sacrosanct than any other place?

They don't have TSA at makeup counters

They don't have armed TSA officers at baggage claim because there are no armed TSA officers.

 

[tigerred59]

Our beloved FBI.....they can certainly find enough time to release emails about Hillary, days before an election. But have a bean eating nut come to their office in Alaska, tell them he's crazy and they notice he has a round of clips on him, but no gun....so they send him to the nut house for evaluation....now correct me if I'm wrong, but a guy who's clearly crazy comes to you of all people to tell you he's hearing voices from ISIS and he has ammo on him....that's a guy, I'm interested in, that's a guy I want to follow.

God help a country so fixated on hating Muslims, Celebrity Apprentice and hating the current president, they lose focus on real shit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again.....the police allowed 5 people to get killed because they were not at the scene when the shooting started......it was a gun free zone....and even with armed police he still managed to shoot people...because it was a gun free zone for law abiding people......until the police arrived......too late....

So you're disappointed because there weren't more bullets flying around the terminal? Not enough lethal crossfire to satisfy you?

No, we're disappointed that the laws you are all so proud of only allow evil doers to have guns. Back in the 1970's had the idiot done what he did in Ft. Lauderdale in Nevada where we are far more gun owner friendly he would have been able to shoot only a couple of people before he was ventilated into submission. You all WANT a culture of victimhood. You seem to love it when innocent people are harmed.

Why is that?

The gun loving culture believes in the hero gunslinger. The fact of a concealed carry permit does not guarantee skilled marksmanship. More bullets flying around is not a solution anymore than gasoline can extinguish fires.

The mere presence of guns does not guarantee an absence of gun violence. When Reagan was shot, he was surrounded by armed security personnel, yet he and three others took bullets that day.

Dirty Harry is a cinematic character. Mrs. Smith and her .38 in the handbag ain't Dirty Harry.

You seem to want to expand the violent gun culture in spite of the obvious dangers. Why?

If what you are claiming was true there would be oodles of cases where this has happened. Post up two for us please.

If only there was a published study, by the CDC for instance, where we could find credible information on gun violence. Perhaps the NRA could endorse legislation funding such a study. My! Wouldn't that be useful?

Why would the Center for Disease Control do a study on gun violence? Is it some kind of mental disease?

 

[2aguy]

Again.....the police allowed 5 people to get killed because they were not at the scene when the shooting started......it was a gun free zone....and even with armed police he still managed to shoot people...because it was a gun free zone for law abiding people......until the police arrived......too late....

So you're disappointed because there weren't more bullets flying around the terminal? Not enough lethal crossfire to satisfy you?

No, we're disappointed that the laws you are all so proud of only allow evil doers to have guns. Back in the 1970's had the idiot done what he did in Ft. Lauderdale in Nevada where we are far more gun owner friendly he would have been able to shoot only a couple of people before he was ventilated into submission. You all WANT a culture of victimhood. You seem to love it when innocent people are harmed.

Why is that?

The gun loving culture believes in the hero gunslinger. The fact of a concealed carry permit does not guarantee skilled marksmanship. More bullets flying around is not a solution anymore than gasoline can extinguish fires.

The mere presence of guns does not guarantee an absence of gun violence. When Reagan was shot, he was surrounded by armed security personnel, yet he and three others took bullets that day.

Dirty Harry is a cinematic character. Mrs. Smith and her .38 in the handbag ain't Dirty Harry.

You seem to want to expand the violent gun culture in spite of the obvious dangers. Why?

If what you are claiming was true there would be oodles of cases where this has happened. Post up two for us please.

If only there was a published study, by the CDC for instance, where we could find credible information on gun violence. Perhaps the NRA could endorse legislation funding such a study. My! Wouldn't that be useful?

The CDC can actually study whatever they want...they just can't lie and advocate for gun control.

And of course the bill clinton Department of Justice paid for a study on gun self defense....and found hat Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year for self defense.....

And of course as more Americans carry guns...from 4.7 million in 1997 to over 15 million in 2016....gun murder went down 47%......and violent crime went down even more....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have been waiting for a reason to post this again...thanks,

This is what guns are for....stopping evil people....

Self defense with a gun:

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

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......1994...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 ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

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)....

Most ofthose studies are bullshit. What is considered a deterred crime? They call up a person & ask some question, they have a bullshit story &then they write it down.

Yes......40 years of research, from both the private and public sector including obama and clinton....and it is bullshit.....good job....you have debunked all that actual research with that one word....

The reports I read were all in question because of the methods.

We could look at what the cdc has found but your Republicans banned them from studying the subject.

Look at how many people here they c;aimed have used a gun in self defense. I say it is mostly bullshit.

Statistics show that putting a gun in a home increases the likelyhood of death or injury to someone in that home. You say no. You say that gun protects them from death or harm by a criminal.

Statistics on gun deaths & injury are real. Any a stat on using a gun in self defense are based on stories.

No...the CDC was not banned from studying anything....they are not allowed to advocate for gun control

Look at all of the studies, done by separate groups over 40 years including obama and clinton........then keep telling yourself they are all lying....

And no....a gun in the home does not increase your chances...we have shown how that number was reached and how even the author of the study had to change his number.......and the actual factors...are criminals living in the home, drug addiction and acloholism as well as a history of violence and police encounters...

If you don't have any of those things, the gun in the home does not increase your risks....

Who is "we"?

You are now claiming that putting a gun in a home makes people less likely to get injured or killed.
How ridiculous is that? How may family members are shot because the gun owner thought someone was in their home?

Incredibly few.

 

[2aguy]

I have been waiting for a reason to post this again...thanks,

This is what guns are for....stopping evil people....

Self defense with a gun:

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

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......1994...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 ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

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)....

Most ofthose studies are bullshit. What is considered a deterred crime? They call up a person & ask some question, they have a bullshit story &then they write it down.

Yes......40 years of research, from both the private and public sector including obama and clinton....and it is bullshit.....good job....you have debunked all that actual research with that one word....

The reports I read were all in question because of the methods.

We could look at what the cdc has found but your Republicans banned them from studying the subject.

Look at how many people here they c;aimed have used a gun in self defense. I say it is mostly bullshit.

Statistics show that putting a gun in a home increases the likelyhood of death or injury to someone in that home. You say no. You say that gun protects them from death or harm by a criminal.

Statistics on gun deaths & injury are real. Any a stat on using a gun in self defense are based on stories.

No...the CDC was not banned from studying anything....they are not allowed to advocate for gun control

Look at all of the studies, done by separate groups over 40 years including obama and clinton........then keep telling yourself they are all lying....

And no....a gun in the home does not increase your chances...we have shown how that number was reached and how even the author of the study had to change his number.......and the actual factors...are criminals living in the home, drug addiction and acloholism as well as a history of violence and police encounters...

If you don't have any of those things, the gun in the home does not increase your risks....

"The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms."
Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

The NRA is one of the most un-American organizations in this country,

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about....I have in the past listed studies on guns that they have done...a big one just in 2015......

 

[2aguy]

I have been waiting for a reason to post this again...thanks,

This is what guns are for....stopping evil people....

Self defense with a gun:

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

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......1994...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 ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

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)....

Most ofthose studies are bullshit. What is considered a deterred crime? They call up a person & ask some question, they have a bullshit story &then they write it down.

Yes......40 years of research, from both the private and public sector including obama and clinton....and it is bullshit.....good job....you have debunked all that actual research with that one word....

The reports I read were all in question because of the methods.

We could look at what the cdc has found but your Republicans banned them from studying the subject.

Look at how many people here they c;aimed have used a gun in self defense. I say it is mostly bullshit.

Statistics show that putting a gun in a home increases the likelyhood of death or injury to someone in that home. You say no. You say that gun protects them from death or harm by a criminal.

Statistics on gun deaths & injury are real. Any a stat on using a gun in self defense are based on stories.

Let me fix your first sentence....

"the reports I read were all in question....because anti gunners lied about the results and conlusions by lying about the methods...even when the results were found by anti gunners...like in the bill clinton Department of Justice study...two anti gunners did that one..."

So, how did they gather these statistics.

They used professional research methods.....as you can see if you look at the Department of Justice study or the Kleck research......and those are only two of the dozen or so...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So....the guy isn't white, according to the left, he may have been a muslim.....he didn't use an "Assault Rifle," he didn't use a large capacity magazine, and the FBI knew about him.....the left wing anti gunners are already having a bad 2017.........

The US citizen & ex US soldier was mentally ill caused by his time at war. But when mental illness is used as a reason to prevent gun ownership you NRA nutjobs have a fit. " Who says when someone is crazry!!!!! OMG OMG OMG"

It he did have an assault type weapon, a lot more would have been killed.

More misinformation from a useful tool

 

[2aguy]

No, we're disappointed that the laws you are all so proud of only allow evil doers to have guns. Back in the 1970's had the idiot done what he did in Ft. Lauderdale in Nevada where we are far more gun owner friendly he would have been able to shoot only a couple of people before he was ventilated into submission. You all WANT a culture of victimhood. You seem to love it when innocent people are harmed.

Why is that?

The gun loving culture believes in the hero gunslinger. The fact of a concealed carry permit does not guarantee skilled marksmanship. More bullets flying around is not a solution anymore than gasoline can extinguish fires.

The mere presence of guns does not guarantee an absence of gun violence. When Reagan was shot, he was surrounded by armed security personnel, yet he and three others took bullets that day.

Dirty Harry is a cinematic character. Mrs. Smith and her .38 in the handbag ain't Dirty Harry.

You seem to want to expand the violent gun culture in spite of the obvious dangers. Why?

If what you are claiming was true there would be oodles of cases where this has happened. Post up two for us please.

If only there was a published study, by the CDC for instance, where we could find credible information on gun violence. Perhaps the NRA could endorse legislation funding such a study. My! Wouldn't that be useful?

Oh? You mean like these? The problem you have is when you are forced to lie to make a point, you have no point.

Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

Notice how gun violence likes red states. Counting stats is not studying & research.

Sorry.....too many times they conflate gun "deaths" and gun violence...suicide is not part of gun crime...which is what the anti gunners would have you believe...that is how they put Wyoming, a state with lots of guns, in the same category as other gun states....Wyoming has a high suicide rate....but an incredibly low gun murder rate......but gets tagged for "gun violence"....a typical anti gun bait and switch.

 

[JoeMoma]

He was still nuts. We know that's the kind of people you want to be armed.

Nuts is a pretty broad definition, what's going to be considered "nuts" and how is the government going to fairly apply "nuts" without infringing on people's constitutional rights? What about "nuts" and harmless? Should they have their rights stripped? It's very hard to make the distinction of whose dangerous and whose not, especially when it comes to people who are "nuts". There's a lot of them out there that claim a lot of crazy things like this guy did, and a large large majority are harmless, and just need help.

This guy didn't even need to be on a no fly list (which is a whole other BS issue), to commit this crime. Even if he was, he still would have been able to commit it since he snuck into baggage claim.

And again gun control would not have worked to prevent this crime, or many of the mass shootings we have seen. San Bernadino shooter was not clinically insane, just fanatical. He worked for years among the non fanatical without any problems.

If you want to do something that will actually work, we have to stop giving these killers notoriety, and encouraging the very few crazies out there to do something to make a splash and be all over the news.

I agree that sometimes it's a fine line between nuts and not nuts, or nuts but harmless and nuts and dangerous. However, this guy turned himself in saying the government was putting voices in his head telling him to watch ISIS videos. I think this is a clear case of nuts and dangerous when he turned himself in.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you're disappointed because there weren't more bullets flying around the terminal? Not enough lethal crossfire to satisfy you?

They also ignore that the number of people killed or wounded is due that the shooter was ex military.

I have been waiting for a reason to post this again...thanks,

This is what guns are for....stopping evil people....

Self defense with a gun:

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

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......1994...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 ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

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)....

Most ofthose studies are bullshit. What is considered a deterred crime? They call up a person & ask some question, they have a bullshit story &then they write it down.

Yes......40 years of research, from both the private and public sector including obama and clinton....and it is bullshit.....good job....you have debunked all that actual research with that one word....

The reports I read were all in question because of the methods.

We could look at what the cdc has found but your Republicans banned them from studying the subject.

Look at how many people here they c;aimed have used a gun in self defense. I say it is mostly bullshit.

Statistics show that putting a gun in a home increases the likelyhood of death or injury to someone in that home. You say no. You say that gun protects them from death or harm by a criminal.

Statistics on gun deaths & injury are real. Any a stat on using a gun in self defense are based on stories.

Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute increases the likelihood of death or injury to the person jumping out and anyone they might land on!

Your stupid detector is in serious need of calibration!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So....the guy isn't white, according to the left, he may have been a muslim.....he didn't use an "Assault Rifle," he didn't use a large capacity magazine, and the FBI knew about him.....the left wing anti gunners are already having a bad 2017.........

And this means what exactly?

That the people weren't actually shot and are not dead?

I'm sure they'll be glad to hear your on the job, making up lies and struggling to make apples into oranges.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So....the guy isn't white, according to the left, he may have been a muslim.....he didn't use an "Assault Rifle," he didn't use a large capacity magazine, and the FBI knew about him.....the left wing anti gunners are already having a bad 2017.........

The US citizen & ex US soldier was mentally ill caused by his time at war. But when mental illness is used as a reason to prevent gun ownership you NRA nutjobs have a fit. " Who says when someone is crazry!!!!! OMG OMG OMG"

It he did have an assault type weapon, a lot more would have been killed.

Yes, who decides who's crazy is absolutely the crux of the matter. I don't give a shit if someone went to medical school or studied psychology, that shouldn't give them the unilateral authority to revoke someone else's constitutional rights. Before that sort of punishment is handed down to any citizen, there needs to be due process. A trial is generally what's required to take away someone's freedoms. Just because someone is generally studious enough to get a degree doesn't mean they should be the gatekeepers of the constitution, regardless of how practical a solution the fear mongers pretend this would be.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trucks...Oklahoma City, Nice....killed more than the worst shooting incidents....Jets.....over 3,000 in one go....

Trucks serve a purpose. Jets serve a purpose.

so do guns

Can you transport goods with a gun, can your travel by gun? No. The purpose of a gun to to harm or kill. Or, in the majority of cases, it puffs out your chest & makes you think you are some sort of tough guy.

only people who have no experience with guns say stupid shit like you just did.

a gun is a tool that it all it is. I regard a gun as a tool no different from a table saw, or a drill.

And if the purpose of a gun is to kill then I and millions of other gun owners have been using them wrong

You are right. Carpenters typically have a piston on their tool belt. Grab by the barrel & you can pound nails & that front sight works as a flat head screw driver.

Guns are designed to kill or harm. Yes you can target shoot or hunt but you don't need a assault type rifle to do that.

I guess you never heard of a nail gun!

How do they let you run loose without a keeper?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He was checked by doctors & his gun was then returned to him. RealDave doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Is anyone actually surprised tho?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

guns make it a lot easier.

Yep. Indeed, that's exactly why they were invented and why they exist.

There are mentally ill allover the world but very few mass killings. There are attacks all over the world but no where near the number killed. And, as we all know, there are more or less 30 people gunned down in the US every single day, including many children. And don't forget that you're more likely to be shot by a toddler in the US than by a foreign terrorist.

But, the Rs guaranteed known and suspected terrorists can get all the guns they want. This guy went so far as to go to the FBI himself but he still had easy access to guns.

Recently saw an ISIS defector saying foreign ISIS/ISIL doesn't look for converts in the US to find guns for them because its so easy for them to get the guns whenever they want.

What a stupid situation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So....the guy isn't white, according to the left, he may have been a muslim.....he didn't use an "Assault Rifle," he didn't use a large capacity magazine, and the FBI knew about him.....the left wing anti gunners are already having a bad 2017.........

The US citizen & ex US soldier was mentally ill caused by his time at war. But when mental illness is used as a reason to prevent gun ownership you NRA nutjobs have a fit. " Who says when someone is crazry!!!!! OMG OMG OMG"

It he did have an assault type weapon, a lot more would have been killed.

Those people were assaulted with a handgun. Doesn't that make it an assault weapon?

How about an assault bomb?

How about if he used an assault knife?

How about an assault baseball bat?

See how stupid it sounds when you use it correctly?

Go fuck yourself if you don't know to what an assault rifles refers.

I don't? That's funny! I am a military vet, a member of the NRA, and own what you would incorrectly classify as an assault weapon. I shoot fully automatic weapons as a volunteer military urban combat opposition force.

I think I know what I am talking about more than an obvious pansy-ass bedwetter like you.

First, thank you for your service.

Second, there can be several definitions of an assault rifle. When talking about banning assault rifles, typically it refers to the previous ban and the type of guns being sold today such as the AR15.

Third, are you saying you are in one of those wacko militias?

Fourth, If you think I am a pansy ass bed wetter, try to break into my home & find out how many guns I own & how well I can use them.

You are welcome.

The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. The definition of an assault weapon that separates it from others is select-fire ability, which the AR-15 DOES NOT HAVE!

No, I am not in a militia. I train special operations troops in an urban combat environment. I play the bad guy!

You attitude towards guns tells me all I need to know about your nocturnal urination.

 

[francoHFW]

A tribute to our mental health system...An assault rifle would have meant many more dead...