There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws

[P@triot]

Security was an armed off duty cop. He engaged the shooter right away and was quickly backed up by more police. Most the killing took minutes. The shooter took hostages in the bathroom and the hostage situation took hours.

Few people tell the monster lies like Brain-dead. If the armed off duty cop "engaged the shooter right away" there wouldn't be 49 dead and 53 more injured. It's simply mathematically impossible. Even from a gatling. More ignorant liberal propaganda.

 

[P@triot]

Try going without food.

Might as well. You've been going without thought since you were born.

 

[Brain357]

Security was an armed off duty cop. He engaged the shooter right away and was quickly backed up by more police. Most the killing took minutes. The shooter took hostages in the bathroom and the hostage situation took hours.

Few people tell the monster lies like Brain-dead. If the armed off duty cop "engaged the shooter right away" there wouldn't be 49 dead and 53 more injured. It's simply mathematically impossible. Even from a gatling. More ignorant liberal propaganda.

Around 2:02 a.m. ET: An officer working extra duty in uniform at the club hears gunshots and engages the shooter. The officer feels he is outgunned, retreats from the club, and calls for assistance. Two SWAT officers in a nearby patrol car are among units that respond and a gunbattle ensues.

 

[P@triot]

Try taking a gun away from a Texan!

Try taking it away from any American. It won't end well. The only prayer the left has is to legally amend the U.S. Constitution. I think most of us would accept the fact that the American people have spoken in that case. But anything short of that, and we will protect our Constitutional rights at all costs.

 

[P@triot]

Security was an armed off duty cop. He engaged the shooter right away and was quickly backed up by more police. Most the killing took minutes. The shooter took hostages in the bathroom and the hostage situation took hours.

Few people tell the monster lies like Brain-dead. If the armed off duty cop "engaged the shooter right away" there wouldn't be 49 dead and 53 more injured. It's simply mathematically impossible. Even from a gatling. More ignorant liberal propaganda.

Around 2:02 a.m. ET: An officer working extra duty in uniform at the club hears gunshots and engages the shooter. The officer feels he is outgunned, retreats from the club, and calls for assistance. Two SWAT officers in a nearby patrol car are among units that respond and a gunbattle ensues.

Exactly. He retreated and waited for help. Giving the shooter significant time to kill people. Thank you for correcting your previous misinformation. Incidentally - why do you feel the need to lie? Lets just accept reality and then discuss from there.

 

[Brain357]

Try taking a gun away from a Texan!

Try taking it away from any American. It won't end well. The only prayer the left has is to legally amend the U.S. Constitution. I think most of us would accept the fact that the American people have spoken in that case. But anything short of that, and we will protect our Constitutional rights at all costs.

You sound like the Oregon standoff guys. Worked out well for them.

 

[Brain357]

Security was an armed off duty cop. He engaged the shooter right away and was quickly backed up by more police. Most the killing took minutes. The shooter took hostages in the bathroom and the hostage situation took hours.

Few people tell the monster lies like Brain-dead. If the armed off duty cop "engaged the shooter right away" there wouldn't be 49 dead and 53 more injured. It's simply mathematically impossible. Even from a gatling. More ignorant liberal propaganda.

Around 2:02 a.m. ET: An officer working extra duty in uniform at the club hears gunshots and engages the shooter. The officer feels he is outgunned, retreats from the club, and calls for assistance. Two SWAT officers in a nearby patrol car are among units that respond and a gunbattle ensues.

Exactly. He retreated and waited for help. Giving the shooter significant time to kill people. Thank you for correcting your previous misinformation. Incidentally - why do you feel the need to lie? Lets just accept reality and then discuss from there.

Thanks to a legally bought weapon of mass killing. Armed security and police quickly arrived. The shooter just killed many so fast.

 

[P@triot]

Thanks to a legally bought weapon of mass killing.

Bwahahahaha! It was just a little semi-automatic. No different than a handgun, you ignorant tool.

Actually - it was due to cowardice. The exact same thing you suffer from. I mean - the U.S. special forces face exponentially more deadly weapons of mass killings and they don't retreat and wait for help. That little semi-automatic is nothing compared to the fully automatic weapons they face (and by platoons of enemies - not one little guy).

 

[mgh80]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

You are aware more people are accidently killed by firearms than are killed in mass shootings? The number of accidental deaths just jumped up dramatically. Your answer to the problem kills more than the problem.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a nanny-state where the government tells us what's good for us and makes decisions for us because we're "not able to". If people are stupid and get themselves killed a gun-that's their fault and problem, don't make me suffer as a responsible gun owner.

If you start letting guns into schools and areas with lots of people more innocent people will become victims of accidents. If the solution kills more than the problem, how is it a solution?

I've asked this question to many "anti-gun" (for lack of a better term) many times, so I'll pose it to you:

I'm a high school teacher and I have classes of 25 students. Let's say a student of mine stands up in class and starts shooting at their classmates and/or myself...how can I protect my students and myself from harm efficiently?

 

[mgh80]

I'm teaching a class of 25 students and one of my students stands up with a gun and starts shooting...how am I supposed to defend my 24 other students in the room?

Interesting. You shooting back at the shooter..who is surrounded by 24 other kids.

What could possibly go wrong? LMAO.

A few students could get shot and killed in the process. However they're going to get shot and killed regardless. Look at what happened in Columbine-those poor students in the library were sitting ducks, and many of them paid for it with their lives.

PS: Those guns were purchased illegally, and Columbine had an armed resource officer at the time.

 

[P@triot]

I've asked this question to many "anti-gun" (for lack of a better term) many times, so I'll pose it to you:

I'm a high school teacher and I have classes of 25 students. Let's say a student of mine stands up in class and starts shooting at their classmates and/or myself...how can I protect my students and myself from harm efficiently?

You can't. And sadly, that's exactly what liberals want. Remember when Rham Emanuel let it slip? "Never let a good crisis go to waste".

The tragic part is that automobiles cause more deaths every year. But libtards like automobiles, so they don't care about the loss of life. They'll spew a bunch of bullshit about human life (as if they give a shit). But when push comes to shove, their entire ideology is about promoting that which they love (promiscuity, perversion, deviance) and outlawing that which they have a fear of (freedom, liberty, firearms, etc.).

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm teaching a class of 25 students and one of my students stands up with a gun and starts shooting...how am I supposed to defend my 24 other students in the room?

Interesting. You shooting back at the shooter..who is surrounded by 24 other kids.

What could possibly go wrong? LMAO.

Dear Wilbur Right
It's called reducing the chances of any shooters even trying such a stunt.
If they know a teacher is trained to use a gun and has one on hand.

 

[emilynghiem]

You can't even safely teach carry.
Ohio gun store owner accidentally killed by student during firearm-safety class

Dear Brain357
How many military personnel get killed during training exercises. Should we get rid of all defense and security training also?

If people die from medical malpractice do we ban all medical procedures and go with natural remedies?

Where does this end?

Why not reduce the cause of crime and the cause of accidents.

Look at drunk driving, if ppl get help for the actual alcohol ADDICTION causing the denial and dangerous DWI then we don't have to ban either alcohol or driving. We cure the root cause.

In the case of gun deaths, we address mental illness and screening out criminally sick ppl who pose a threat to to health safety and security, and address gun safety responsibility and consistent law enforcement.

Brain357 these aren't just hypothetical arguments but serious issues we should be required to address for public health and safety. If you want to attach these as requirements on gun rights, why not make a list of conditions that need to be met in order to exercise those rights. You can lobby for that without restricting guns themselves, but by putting more political pressure on effective measures in the areas that are really the target for concern.

 

[emilynghiem]

Try taking a gun away from a Texan!

Try taking it away from any American. It won't end well. The only prayer the left has is to legally amend the U.S. Constitution. I think most of us would accept the fact that the American people have spoken in that case. But anything short of that, and we will protect our Constitutional rights at all costs.

You sound like the Oregon standoff guys. Worked out well for them.

Yikes Brain357
If you can't tell the difference between an armed person standing off against a criminal attack, and a criminal attacker standing off against police that's the real issue.

Are you treating all guns the same statistically whether in the hands of law abiding citizens or crooks abusing them?

We need more citizens, not less, trained in the same standards as police and military in defending laws and protecting public order and safety.

Isn't the pool safer if more ppl are trained as lifeguards rather than less.
Doesn't it help to have more ppl trained in CPR and how to use a defibrillator. Guns require more knowledge and training so why not encourage that. We need better screening of our police and military so why not expand that to screening citizens for mental and criminal issues that otherwise pose threats to public health and safety.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's called reducing the chances of any shooters even trying such a stunt.
If they know a teacher is trained to use a gun and has one on hand.

Then the bad guy simply shoots the teacher first.

But if ALL law-abiding adults were allowed to carry concealed.... most of them still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And the murderer wouldn't know which ones they were.

But he would know there's likely a few armed people in the crowd where he's contemplating doing his thing. Which means he probably won't be able to rack up a huge body count before somebody stops him. Which means, he won't get what he wants out of his attempted murders - lurid headlines for weeks after he's dead.

Which in many cases, will make him decide to not even try it.

And maybe that gives you 30 or 40 lives saved. Without a shot being fired.

Shooting the bad guy isn't the most important reason for law-abiding people to be allowed to carry (though it's a good start).

The most important reason, is that it will often deter him from ever doing his murders in the first place. Sure, a few of the REALLY crazy ones will try it anyway. But a number of them won't.... and many innocent lives will be saved.

It's far more important to allow ALL law-abiding adults to carry concealed, than to just restrict it to teachers or staff. Then the bad guy will have no idea where the bullet(s) might come from. It's enough to make him find a different line of work.

 

[P@triot]

You sound like the Oregon standoff guys. Worked out well for them.

You sound like an idiot. Probably because you are. I just stated that the majority of American's (including myself) would peacefully surrender our firearms if the 2nd Amendment was legally repealed. Anything short of that is illegal. Why would I comply or otherwise engage with illegal activity? I'm not a criminal like you idiots.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's called reducing the chances of any shooters even trying such a stunt.
If they know a teacher is trained to use a gun and has one on hand.

Then the bad guy simply shoots the teacher first.

But if ALL law-abiding adults were allowed to carry concealed.... most of them still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And the murderer wouldn't know which ones they were.

But he would know there's likely a few armed people in the crowd where he's contemplating doing his thing. Which means he probably won't be able to rack up a huge body count before somebody stops him. Which means, he won't get what he wants out of his attempted murders - lurid headlines for weeks after he's dead.

Which in many cases, will make him decide to not even try it.

And maybe that gives you 30 or 40 lives saved. Without a shot being fired.

Shooting the bad guy isn't the most important reason for law-abiding people to be allowed to carry (though it's a good start).

The most important reason, is that it will often deter him from ever doing his murders in the first place. Sure, a few of the REALLY crazy ones will try it anyway. But a number of them won't.... and many innocent lives will be saved.

It's far more important to allow ALL law-abiding adults to carry concealed, than to just restrict it to teachers or staff. Then the bad guy will have no idea where the bullet(s) might come from. It's enough to make him find a different line of work.

Thanks Little-Acorn you point out how there is just no getting around the need for mental health screening to catch abusive or criminal behavior before it becomes deadly .

The cases of school attacks that were thwarted successfully are because the was talk or signs in advance and ppl acted in time to stop the planned violence. There is no substitution for early intervention to weed out and address the root cause of attacks.

None of the after the fact approaches solve the mental illness, but they do increase the deterrence so there is more time room and chance to weed out risky ppl in advance to get them proper help.

 

[emilynghiem]

You sound like the Oregon standoff guys. Worked out well for them.

You sound like an idiot. Probably because you are. I just stated that the majority of American's (including myself) would peacefully surrender our firearms if the 2nd Amendment was legally repealed. Anything short of that is illegal. Why would I comply or otherwise engage with illegal activity? I'm not a criminal like you idiots.

P@triot
I can tell you right now Texas leaders would not agree to enforce that change in law but would argue the change was done unconstitutionally. The difference is the state would stand up and challenge federal govt as lawfully and civilly as possible so it doesn't erupt into chaos among the ppl.

If citizens were banned, the Texas govt might opt to send out more trained militia and police and seek a restraining order on the gun ban until adequate training of officers can be distributed in all districts to ensure public safety.

They'd probably keep suing tying this up in courts until enough citizens complete training to be legally armed as military police sheriff's etc. In order to meet the new requiremnts.

 

[jasonnfree]

It's called reducing the chances of any shooters even trying such a stunt.
If they know a teacher is trained to use a gun and has one on hand.

Then the bad guy simply shoots the teacher first.

But if ALL law-abiding adults were allowed to carry concealed.... most of them still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And the murderer wouldn't know which ones they were.

But he would know there's likely a few armed people in the crowd where he's contemplating doing his thing. Which means he probably won't be able to rack up a huge body count before somebody stops him. Which means, he won't get what he wants out of his attempted murders - lurid headlines for weeks after he's dead.

Which in many cases, will make him decide to not even try it.

And maybe that gives you 30 or 40 lives saved. Without a shot being fired.

Shooting the bad guy isn't the most important reason for law-abiding people to be allowed to carry (though it's a good start).

The most important reason, is that it will often deter him from ever doing his murders in the first place. Sure, a few of the REALLY crazy ones will try it anyway. But a number of them won't.... and many innocent lives will be saved.

It's far more important to allow ALL law-abiding adults to carry concealed, than to just restrict it to teachers or staff. Then the bad guy will have no idea where the bullet(s) might come from. It's enough to make him find a different line of work.

Thanks Little-Acorn you point out how there is just no getting around the need for mental health screening to catch abusive or criminal behavior before it becomes deadly .

The cases of school attacks that were thwarted successfully are because the was talk or signs in advance and ppl acted in time to stop the planned violence. There is no substitution for early intervention to weed out and address the root cause of attacks.

None of the after the fact approaches solve the mental illness, but they do increase the deterrence so there is more time room and chance to weed out risky ppl in advance to get them proper help.

That's just another step towards total disarmament, since the gun grabbers will keep raising the bar for who can own a gun. If we're going to do this, then let's give some psychological tests for people in public office or those wanting to run for office as well. Maybe give them periodic lie detector tests as well. Imagine now how this would work .... hillary, did you ever receive money for doing political favors?

 

[NoNukes]

Since there is no God, then you do not have that right.

Since you operate on the same intellectual level as the average 4-year old, then you do not have an opinion. At least, not one that matters.

Says the man who believes in blind faith.