What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Conservative65]

There you go blaming the gun again. Do you have a video of a gun growing arms/legs, walking to where it fires, and shooting itself?

So if these killers had no guns, everyone would still be dead?

So if the laws you want in place were in place, no one would be dead?

I had a gun stolen from a locked vehicle while it was sitting on private property. I obeyed every law in place. The criminal committed 3 crimes. You gun haters blame me for following the law and excuse the criminal for breaking it. Perhaps we should have laws that say people should stay off private property where they're not invited, don't go in vehicles that don't belong to them, and don't take what isn't yours. Wait, we do and the criminal still committed a crime.

No one said there would be no deaths. There would be fewer & especially fewer slaughters of children.

Your idea of the dearth penalty for trespass, breaking into a car, or shoplifting belong in a third world country. Heck, you've done at least two of these & would likely be dead.

You made two claims you simply can't prove, retard.

So, you never ever walked on someone else's property without permission and you never took anything that was not yours.

Yep, that's believable.

Unlike your kind, I follow the law.

What I'm looking for is proof of your claim that I have. Do you have specifics or are you running you dick sucker, as usual?

 

[Lesh]

Did some idiot claim that the homicide rate in Britain was higher than America?

It's four time LOWER

List of countries by intentional death rate - Wikipedia

 

[RealDave]

So if these killers had no guns, everyone would still be dead?

So if the laws you want in place were in place, no one would be dead?

I had a gun stolen from a locked vehicle while it was sitting on private property. I obeyed every law in place. The criminal committed 3 crimes. You gun haters blame me for following the law and excuse the criminal for breaking it. Perhaps we should have laws that say people should stay off private property where they're not invited, don't go in vehicles that don't belong to them, and don't take what isn't yours. Wait, we do and the criminal still committed a crime.

No one said there would be no deaths. There would be fewer & especially fewer slaughters of children.

Your idea of the dearth penalty for trespass, breaking into a car, or shoplifting belong in a third world country. Heck, you've done at least two of these & would likely be dead.

You made two claims you simply can't prove, retard.

So, you never ever walked on someone else's property without permission and you never took anything that was not yours.

Yep, that's believable.

Unlike your kind, I follow the law.

What I'm looking for is proof of your claim that I have. Do you have specifics or are you running you dick sucker, as usual?

I have no proof.

I am laughing my ass off with your claim you have never been on a property that was not yours or public for which you did not have permission.

 

[Lesh]

Gun control in Britain has resulted in more violence, not less....and countries with extreme gun control have more gun death than we do

Only because the calculation has changed in the last couple years.

and still with that the murder rate has dropped.

Oh and according to you...England has "extreme gun control". Care to compare their gun death rate to ours? Hint...don't...you'll look more stupid than usual

Two problems with this graph:

1. The UK started treating multiple homicides as separate incidents in 1998, right where the apparent break in the data occurs.
2. The spike in homicides in 2003 is almost entirely due to the serial killer Harold Shipman . His 172 known homicides were all attributed to March 2003.[4] Without the Shipman homicides, the UK rate would be around 15 per million (decrease of 2.93). 2001 also includes a spike from the suffocation of 58 Chinese nationals en route to the UK (decrease of 0.98)[5]

oops

 

[Skull Pilot]

Gun control in Britain has resulted in more violence, not less....and countries with extreme gun control have more gun death than we do

Only because the calculation has changed in the last couple years.

and still with that the murder rate has dropped.

Oh and according to you...England has "extreme gun control". Care to compare their gun death rate to ours? Hint...don't...you'll look more stupid than usual

Two problems with this graph:

1. The UK started treating multiple homicides as separate incidents in 1998, right where the apparent break in the data occurs.
2. The spike in homicides in 2003 is almost entirely due to the serial killer Harold Shipman . His 172 known homicides were all attributed to March 2003.[4] Without the Shipman homicides, the UK rate would be around 15 per million (decrease of 2.93). 2001 also includes a spike from the suffocation of 58 Chinese nationals en route to the UK (decrease of 0.98)[5]

oops

Murder is murder

oops

 

[Skull Pilot]

define assault weapon for us.

Not this stupid argument again

We had an assault type weapon in the past. It is not my fault you are too stupid to know about it.

If we don't type the assault 'Type" weapons, you assfucks go into a total meltdown.

words mean things so use the correct words

Everyone knows what is being discussed . Be a fucking asswipe all your life, you're good at it & I don't give a shit.

you gave enough of a shit to reply though didn't you?

Stupidity & ignorance piss me off.

You must be pissed at yourself 24/7

 

[Lesh]

And bullshit statistics are bullshit statistics

Two problems with this graph:

1. The UK started treating multiple homicides as separate incidents in 1998, right where the apparent break in the data occurs.
2. The spike in homicides in 2003 is almost entirely due to the serial killer Harold Shipman . His 172 known homicides were all attributed to March 2003.[4] Without the Shipman homicides, the UK rate would be around 15 per million (decrease of 2.93). 2001 also includes a spike from the suffocation of 58 Chinese nationals en route to the UK (decrease of 0.98)[5]

 

[Skull Pilot]

And bullshit statistics are bullshit statistics

Two problems with this graph:

1. The UK started treating multiple homicides as separate incidents in 1998, right where the apparent break in the data occurs.
2. The spike in homicides in 2003 is almost entirely due to the serial killer Harold Shipman . His 172 known homicides were all attributed to March 2003.[4] Without the Shipman homicides, the UK rate would be around 15 per million (decrease of 2.93). 2001 also includes a spike from the suffocation of 58 Chinese nationals en route to the UK (decrease of 0.98)[5]

Hey moron each murder in a mass shooting is counted separately
If some asshole kills 2 people at the same time it's still TWO murders not one

 

[RealDave]

Not this stupid argument again

We had an assault type weapon in the past. It is not my fault you are too stupid to know about it.

If we don't type the assault 'Type" weapons, you assfucks go into a total meltdown.

words mean things so use the correct words

Everyone knows what is being discussed . Be a fucking asswipe all your life, you're good at it & I don't give a shit.

you gave enough of a shit to reply though didn't you?

Stupidity & ignorance piss me off.

You must be pissed at yourself 24/7

I post things that a true & certainly was not so fucking stupid to have voted for Trump.

 

[Skull Pilot]

words mean things so use the correct words

Everyone knows what is being discussed . Be a fucking asswipe all your life, you're good at it & I don't give a shit.

you gave enough of a shit to reply though didn't you?

Stupidity & ignorance piss me off.

You must be pissed at yourself 24/7

I post things that a true & certainly was not so fucking stupid to have voted for Trump.

I wasn't so fucking stupid as to vote for Hillary or Trump

I stayed home and actually did something productive

 

[peacefan]

here's my 2cts as a European who does not need to live in fear of gun-violence or even citizen-on-citizens violence like Americans have to these days.

1 : your right to own weapons to prevent oppression by your own government, has been eroded completely by time and the now huge disparity between government firepower vs what a civilian can buy, let alone train with often enough in realistic combat simulations.
2 : statistics from all countries that have strict gun-control (no guns allowed for civilians), show that in those countries hardly any citizen-on-citizens violence happens at all, ever.
that even includes knife-based violence.
3 : your argument that you're not safe unless you have a gun of your own, is completely inaccurate too.
with the balance of weapons power legally turned over to the cops, all you'd need to do is decrease police response times and institute stiff penalties for civilians using a gun to commit crime.
4 : the NRA argument that with more 'good gun carriers' walking the streets, there will be less civilian-on-civilians gun-violence, is bogus and like all their other statements, just designed to keep them in the lucrative gun-sellling business.
Recently there was another active shooter incident, and the police ended up killing a black man who had no criminal record at all, a concealed-carry-permit, and his gun drawn because he was in an active shooter zone.
Police can't distinguish between the active shooter and people with carry permits trying to help. Remember, the active shooter is likely to lie to police.

 

[Conservative65]

So if the laws you want in place were in place, no one would be dead?

I had a gun stolen from a locked vehicle while it was sitting on private property. I obeyed every law in place. The criminal committed 3 crimes. You gun haters blame me for following the law and excuse the criminal for breaking it. Perhaps we should have laws that say people should stay off private property where they're not invited, don't go in vehicles that don't belong to them, and don't take what isn't yours. Wait, we do and the criminal still committed a crime.

No one said there would be no deaths. There would be fewer & especially fewer slaughters of children.

Your idea of the dearth penalty for trespass, breaking into a car, or shoplifting belong in a third world country. Heck, you've done at least two of these & would likely be dead.

You made two claims you simply can't prove, retard.

So, you never ever walked on someone else's property without permission and you never took anything that was not yours.

Yep, that's believable.

Unlike your kind, I follow the law.

What I'm looking for is proof of your claim that I have. Do you have specifics or are you running you dick sucker, as usual?

I have no proof.

I am laughing my ass off with your claim you have never been on a property that was not yours or public for which you did not have permission.

Then your claim is meaningless and your laughter is toward yourself for making claims you can't prove.

The best thing for you to do is STFU before embarrassing yourself some more, boy.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Butt socks makes a gun very inaccurate for one, it also does not allow you to deplete an entire clip from one trigger pull the same as a automatic machine gun, so they are NOT an equivalent. Take it from a military veteran, you don’t know what you are talking about. That is the same crazy “logic” an individual would use to try and compare a Corvette to a Ferrari. Keep digging your hole deeper.

Bump stock....

If I posted the same posting, you gunnutters would be all over me like stink on a skunk. There are so many things wrong with shakles post.

I am willing to bet you have never fired an automatic machine gun. nor one with the capability to go from a Sami-Auto to an automatic, I pointed out only once, adding that the bump stock makes a gun very inaccurate, which you most likely can’t figure out why. You, on the other hand, probably got your information from some opinion piece you overheard from an anti-gun activist on a news segment. Yet from what I’ve seen of your posts on the subject, your statements suggesting that a bump stock makes a gun an automatic over and over and over again does not make any more true or accurate.

You get the title of

FAKE NEWS!!! and IDJIT!!!! on this one. Every person that served during the Vietnam Era even if they didn't actually serve in Vietnam spent some time on a full auto M-16. I spent time on an AR-15 Model 601(M-16) the Daddy to the M-16 along wit a few hundred thousand or so other Troops from that time period. If you know anything about the history of the M-16 you can identify the Branch. If you were as bright as you claim to be, you would already have at least some information on me and you would not be spewing this FAKE NEWS!!!!! and IDJIT!! statements.

What you've shown is that you have earned the coveted duel title of FAKE NEWS!!!! and IDJIT. Wear the titles well. You've earned them. There is no real hope for you since there is just no real cure for the stupid.

 

[jc456]

LET THIS SINK IN FOR A MINUTE:

HILLARY CLINTON, THE DNC'S HAND-PICKED 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE - POTENTIALLY THE NEXT PRESIDENT (AT THE TIME), WAS CAUGHT PAYING THUGS TO BEAT AND BLOODY AMERICANS - TRUMP SUPPORTERS AT TRUMP RALLIES - DURING THE CAMPAIGN ... A 1ST IN US HISTORY...

... AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS SO IMPORTANT....

The though of a government run by such a person willing to pay for violence against the people she claimed to want to 'rule' scares the hell out of me. Thank God she did not win!

they based it on the retaliation rule. create a scenario to engage your enemy and your enemy will defend itself. It is then the time to point a finger and say see, they are violent. Football players do it frequently.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

LET THIS SINK IN FOR A MINUTE:

HILLARY CLINTON, THE DNC'S HAND-PICKED 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE - POTENTIALLY THE NEXT PRESIDENT (AT THE TIME), WAS CAUGHT PAYING THUGS TO BEAT AND BLOODY AMERICANS - TRUMP SUPPORTERS AT TRUMP RALLIES - DURING THE CAMPAIGN ... A 1ST IN US HISTORY...

... AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS SO IMPORTANT....

The though of a government run by such a person willing to pay for violence against the people she claimed to want to 'rule' scares the hell out of me. Thank God she did not win!

they based it on the retaliation rule. create a scenario to engage your enemy and your enemy will defend itself. It is then the time to point a finger and say see, they are violent. Football players do it frequently.

Or create an idea that the occurrence actually happened whether it did or did not. Then present it enough times where it appears to have a sliver of truth to it. Once the perception of truth emerges, run with it hard. Use it to cover up any useful information that might be a negative for yourself. We see that even in here.

 

[jc456]

LET THIS SINK IN FOR A MINUTE:

HILLARY CLINTON, THE DNC'S HAND-PICKED 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE - POTENTIALLY THE NEXT PRESIDENT (AT THE TIME), WAS CAUGHT PAYING THUGS TO BEAT AND BLOODY AMERICANS - TRUMP SUPPORTERS AT TRUMP RALLIES - DURING THE CAMPAIGN ... A 1ST IN US HISTORY...

... AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS SO IMPORTANT....

The though of a government run by such a person willing to pay for violence against the people she claimed to want to 'rule' scares the hell out of me. Thank God she did not win!

they based it on the retaliation rule. create a scenario to engage your enemy and your enemy will defend itself. It is then the time to point a finger and say see, they are violent. Football players do it frequently.

Or create an idea that the occurrence actually happened whether it did or did not. Then present it enough times where it appears to have a sliver of truth to it. Once the perception of truth emerges, run with it hard. Use it to cover up any useful information that might be a negative for yourself. We see that even in here.

so you deny the fact they were there?

Do you deny the MSM pointed at trump supporters when they defended themselves?

Just asking since you said it was made up. well what say you?

 

[Flopper]

We already have background checks for buying guns in every state. You will never be able to do background checks when one gangbanger sells a gun to another gangbanger for a bag of crack, or when a grandfather gives his shotgun to his grandson.

Many years ago my Ol' Man passed away leaving me a half dozen or so of what they used to call Saturday Night Specials. I still have them but I haven't committed any murders...yet!

I purchase a little 38 about 35 years ago for protection after a number of murders in our area. At the time, I had an old shotgun and rifle but I thought having a handgun would be a good idea. As my kids grew older, I worried about having guns in the house. I sold the rifle and shotgun since I never use them any more and hide away the little 38.

Now I have grand-kids in the house. My little 6 year old granddaughter was in my closet looking for clothes to play dress up which was where the old 38 was hidden. I had been thinking of getting rid of it for years but the thought of her getting hold that gun did it. I sold it and for the first time in over 50 years, I have no guns and I feel safer now without them. I guess some people need guns to feel safe. They should be able to buy guns, but not without any restrictions.

 

[RealDave]

No one said there would be no deaths. There would be fewer & especially fewer slaughters of children.

Your idea of the dearth penalty for trespass, breaking into a car, or shoplifting belong in a third world country. Heck, you've done at least two of these & would likely be dead.

You made two claims you simply can't prove, retard.

So, you never ever walked on someone else's property without permission and you never took anything that was not yours.

Yep, that's believable.

Unlike your kind, I follow the law.

What I'm looking for is proof of your claim that I have. Do you have specifics or are you running you dick sucker, as usual?

I have no proof.

I am laughing my ass off with your claim you have never been on a property that was not yours or public for which you did not have permission.

Then your claim is meaningless and your laughter is toward yourself for making claims you can't prove.

The best thing for you to do is STFU before embarrassing yourself some more, boy.

What's the "boy" shit. Are you now pretending to be some sort of tough guy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[RealDave]

Everyone knows what is being discussed . Be a fucking asswipe all your life, you're good at it & I don't give a shit.

you gave enough of a shit to reply though didn't you?

Stupidity & ignorance piss me off.

You must be pissed at yourself 24/7

I post things that a true & certainly was not so fucking stupid to have voted for Trump.

I wasn't so fucking stupid as to vote for Hillary or Trump

I stayed home and actually did something productive

So, you didn't do your civic duty. I have news, one was going to be President.

You couldn't choose between an experienced leader & a con man, business cheat, proven fraud, a women groiping, lying piece of shit.

Don't tell me - you were one of those Bernie pouters?

 

[RealDave]

LET THIS SINK IN FOR A MINUTE:

HILLARY CLINTON, THE DNC'S HAND-PICKED 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE - POTENTIALLY THE NEXT PRESIDENT (AT THE TIME), WAS CAUGHT PAYING THUGS TO BEAT AND BLOODY AMERICANS - TRUMP SUPPORTERS AT TRUMP RALLIES - DURING THE CAMPAIGN ... A 1ST IN US HISTORY...

... AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS SO IMPORTANT....

The though of a government run by such a person willing to pay for violence against the people she claimed to want to 'rule' scares the hell out of me. Thank God she did not win!

they based it on the retaliation rule. create a scenario to engage your enemy and your enemy will defend itself. It is then the time to point a finger and say see, they are violent. Football players do it frequently.

Or create an idea that the occurrence actually happened whether it did or did not. Then present it enough times where it appears to have a sliver of truth to it. Once the perception of truth emerges, run with it hard. Use it to cover up any useful information that might be a negative for yourself. We see that even in here.

so you deny the fact they were there?

Do you deny the MSM pointed at trump supporters when they defended themselves?

Just asking since you said it was made up. well what say you?

That must be it because we all know Donald Trump NEVER EVER encourages violence.