What methods for reducing mass shootings and murders, have actually worked?

[g5000]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

Yep. Even our bases in Afghanistan and Iraq were places of mass shootings even though our troops are armed to the teeth in those places.

This disproves postulate number 1 in the OP.

There's this thing called war...maybe you've heard of it?

They have had mass shootings on base with armed personnel about. This disproves postulate number 1.

 

[jasonnfree]

Banning all guns has definitively been proven to reduce gun homicides, not just mass shootings.

To do so would require the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Not gonna happen.

The gun grabbers can't repeal the 2nd Amendment outright, but if they have their way, they will eventually make America a gun free zone. After each sensational killing, a new law introduced to reduce gun rights to make America safer.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

They dont walk around with guns while on base.

In Afghanistan and Iraq they do. And they have had mass shootings.

Only an idiot would try and compare a war zone to a U.S. base.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals in government don't care about gun violence, they're only interested in disarming patriots so they can put down any resistance to their tyranny.

Liberals promote gun control measures because they know it irritates the crap out of the right, yes they are that petty. Its not about gun violence that's why they don't care that the gun control measures won't actually do anything about gun violence.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

Security may tend to depress mass shootings. But I asked what supported the OP that the possibility of armed citizens depressed mass shootings. I'm not aware of any empirical data supporting that. The OP said there was such. So far, there's not been any posted. Just wondering.

Banning all guns has definitively been proven to reduce gun homicides, not just mass shootings.

To do so would require the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Not gonna happen.

no, it hasn't gun crime in Britain stayed the same, spiking immediately after the confiscation....and then coming back down to previous levels.

In the U.S....more Americans own and actually carry guns than ever before...and our gun murder rate has gone down by 50% since the 90s when concealed carry laws started to get passed in the states.

In Japan...where they have 0 access to guns for almost all civilians...they didn't have crime to start with.....and their criminals still get guns when they want them.


guns are not the issue...Puerto Rico..an island nation with stricter gun laws than the U.S....has a higher gun murder rate and VICE t.v. A left wing documentary show states it has the highest gun murder rate in the world...

You will have to sell the anti gun talking points somewhere else...we know better here.

 

[2aguy]

What I do not understand is when military bases get shot up.

You would think everyone would have a gun and well trained on how to use it. However, the mad men get the drop on them too.

Yep. Even our bases in Afghanistan and Iraq were places of mass shootings even though our troops are armed to the teeth in those places.

This disproves postulate number 1 in the OP.

Wrong...that is a war..and they want to kill Americans and the only Americans over there are armed......notice the jihadis here......attacked unarmed Americans.....those two jihadis in San Bernadino did not attack a police station or a military base......the Fort Hood shooter did not go to the rifle range during yearly rifle marksmanship qualification when the soldiers would be armed, and he didn't attack the military police post...did he?

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

You have not proven number 1. Your claims about the Santa Barbara shooter and the other shooters (with no links provided) only support that cops are a deterrent. That in no way supports "all law-abiding adults" carrying guns would reduce mass shootings.

I have posted links to all of the above in past posts and will do it again...they have the video from Santa Barbara, the actual journal of the Theater shooter and the confession of the kid in Minnesota.

Mass shooters are not looking for a gun fight...they do not target police stations and when confronted in past shootings by any armed resistance commit suicide or surrender immediately....and in several cases they were stopped by armed civilians.

the problem is that anti gunners have created so many gun free zones that these shooters don't have to choose........they know that law abiding people will not carry in a school...they won't carry with the gun free zone signs.....

We know that mass shootings happen almost exclusively in gun free zones......and not in well armed zones.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

Security may tend to depress mass shootings. But I asked what supported the OP that the possibility of armed citizens depressed mass shootings. I'm not aware of any empirical data supporting that. The OP said there was such. So far, there's not been any posted. Just wondering.

since so many areas,are,gun free zones and those are attacked...we have to make predictions......mass shooters do not target areas protected by armed people....therefore if they know that people can and will be armed they will be less likely to attack those places...especially considering that if an area allows,concealed carry, they will not know who is armed.....

the Sandy Hook killer, in his vast notes, said that he did not want anyone killing him because then they would get his "points".....he saw the killings as a video game....one of the main reasons he targeted the elementary school was that the middle school and the high school had police liason officers there...Sandy Hook did not.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

You have not proven number 1. Your claims about the Santa Barbara shooter and the other shooters (with no links provided) only support that cops are a deterrent. That in no way supports "all law-abiding adults" carrying guns would reduce mass shootings.

Here you go.....this takes a look at mass public shootings and some facts about them..including the planning by the shooters....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg1.pdf

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

You have not proven number 1. Your claims about the Santa Barbara shooter and the other shooters (with no links provided) only support that cops are a deterrent. That in no way supports "all law-abiding adults" carrying guns would reduce mass shootings.

Santa barbara shooter ...

Do mentally ill, multiple victim killers purposefully pick targets where victims are most vulnerable?: The case of Elliot Rodger - Crime Prevention Research Center



With all the discussions about mental illness, one has to understand how much care and planning these killers engage in. Here is something from Elliot Rodger’s manifesto that no one seems to understand the importance of:

“The first thing I had to consider was the exact date it will take place. Valentine’s Day would have been very fitting, since it was the holiday that made me feel the most miserable and insulted, the holiday in which young couples celebrated their happy lives together. The problem was that Valentine’s Day was only a month away. I needed more time than that. Also, on Valentine’s Day most young couples will be spread out in various restaurants in the city instead of being packed together at parties in Isla Vista. Another option was Deltopia, a day in which many young people pour in from all over the state to have a spring break party on Del Playa Street. I figured this would be the perfect day to attack Isla Vista, but after watching Youtube videos of previous Deltopia parties, I saw that there were way too many cops walking around on such an event. It would be impossible to kill enough of my enemies before being dispatched by those damnable cops.“

Rodger was apparently planning this attack for over 1.5 years, and this planning is quite common. During the fall of 2012, when he was 21-years-old he wrote:

At this point, it fully dawned on me that the possibility of having to resort to exacting this Retribution was more real than ever before. Without the prospect of becoming wealthy at a young age, I had nothing to live for now. I was going to be a virgin outcast forever. I realized that I had to start planning and preparing for the Day of Retribution, even though I hadn’t yet had any idea of what day that would be. . . .

The recent Aurora, Colorado Batman movie theater and Sikh Temple shootings are by no means the first times that killers targeted gun-free zones. Few appreciate that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Presumably, he feared being stopped during his attack by someone with a weapon. In fact, the Columbine attack occurred the very day that final passage was scheduled.

And the killers’ concern that they would be stopped before many people were killed is justified. Many mass public shootings have been stopped by permit holders. Look at some of the cases: Shootings at schools were stopped before police arrived in such places as Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Pa., and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or consider attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; churches such as the New Life Church in Colorado Springs; malls in Portland, Ore., and Salt Lake City; or outside an apartment building in Oklahoma.


Colorado theater shooter....


Notes on the James Holmes Batman Movie Theater Shooting case Maximize killing and Deterrence matters for these mass killers - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

Notes on the James Holmes Batman Movie Theater Shooting case: Maximize killing and Deterrence matters for these mass killers


This past week we finally got a look at the diary of the Batman movie theater killer, James Holmes, and it was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater. But he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

While Holmes’ diary was no where near as detailed as Elliot Rodger’s, the Santa Barbara killer from last year, it still shows that he was concerned about avoiding people who might stop his attack.

Dr. William Reid, a state-appointed psychiatrist who performed Holmes’ sanity evaluation, had these comments:

— “Reid said the gunman picked a show in the movie theater that was going to be packed”

— “Holmes said he looked at what other mass killers did but didn’t compare it. He said he just learned from what they did — specifically, ‘don’t shoot police or they will kill you.'”

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

What is the empirical support for option 1? Not that I'm in favor of 2.

We have the notes and journals of various mass shooters after the shooting….Santa Barbara wanted to shoot up an outdoor festival but said there would be too many armed police….the Colorado theater shooter wanted to shoot up an airport, in his journal he said there would be too much security…..the South Carolina Church shooter wanted to shoot up a university…but there was too much security. Sandy Hook…the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school….only Sandy Hook elementary did not have an armed resource officer. There was a kid in Minnesota…he confessed to planning a fire in a field to draw police away from the school and then he planned to first murder the police resource officer so no one else would have a gun to stop him.

So getting rid of gun free zones would force these guys to take into consideration an armed, random citizen that you don't know where they are…since as John Lott points out, uniformed security can be planned for especially if you only have one guy…….

You have not proven number 1. Your claims about the Santa Barbara shooter and the other shooters (with no links provided) only support that cops are a deterrent. That in no way supports "all law-abiding adults" carrying guns would reduce mass shootings.

And more on the how mass shooters prefer gun free zones....the first kid, from Minnesota planned on making his own gun free zone...

Minnesota…...

Teen made bombs, stockpiled guns in prep for Minnesota school massacre: police

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.

The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.

About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.

LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.



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


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

Lupica: Lanza plotted massacre for years

They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list.

They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

The man paused and said, “They believe that (Lanza) believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points. It’s why he didn’t want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that’s why he killed himself.

-----

It really was like he was lost in one of his own sick games. That’s what we heard. That he learned something from his game that you learn in (police) school, about how if you’re moving from room to room — the way he was in that school — you have to reload before you get to the next room. Maybe he has a 30-round magazine clip, and he’s only used half of it. But he’s willing to dump 15 rounds and have a new clip before he arrives in the next room.”
*****************
MILLER: Adam Lanza shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown final report

The shooter only stopped when the police arrived. He had plenty of ammunition and was prepared to continue changing magazines and reloading.

The rifle found near Lanza had a magazine only half-empty. Police found two empty 30-round magazines duct-taped together in a tactical configuration at the scene.

Gun-control advocates often cite “high-capacity” magazines as a cause of gun violence, but the sophisticated way Lanza prepared his weapons showed how easy it is to change a magazine of any size and reload, even in an active shooter situation.

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

Blame school security?

The school doors were locked and secure at 9:30 a.m. with a video camera and buzzer system that can allow entry after that time from three monitoring locations. Lanza simply shot through the plate-glass window next to the lobby door to enter the school.

A 911 call was made at 9:35 a.m. It took less than five minutes for the police to get to the school. About a minute later, Lanza shot and killed himself. The first officer entered the school at 9:44 a.m.

In that tight time frame, it seems the only thing that could have stopped Lanza was a good guy inside the school with a gun. There were no armed security guards at Sandy Hook Elementary School, nor did any of the staff have a weapons.

 

[CowboyTed]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Guns in England are not banned. They have just a lot better gun control. They are very restrictive of handguns but Shotguns and Rifles are common.

This post is just one of thoes RW red pill or blue pill crap....

Don't think out of the box

 

[Rustic]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Guns in England are not banned. They have just a lot better gun control. They are very restrictive of handguns but Shotguns and Rifles are common.

This post is just one of thoes RW red pill or blue pill crap....

Don't think out of the box

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Then again murder rates are going down.

 

[Programmer]

1. Build a wall. This move and the immigration policies that go with it will improve the opportunity for the average sob-story suburban anti-social pansy to work his ass off and get out of his mom's house.

2. A shutdown on muslims coming in to the country... With all it's clarifications and reconfigurations, this posture and the recognition that nearly epidemic extremism in that faith borders on cult status will help to reform Islam, at least as it exists here. We'd be less likely to deal with muslim kooks.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Guns in England are not banned. They have just a lot better gun control. They are very restrictive of handguns but Shotguns and Rifles are common.

This post is just one of thoes RW red pill or blue pill crap....

Don't think out of the box

thanks Rustic...great video find......


if you want to lower the murder rate.......encourage people to get married before they have kids....single mothers are probably the greatest creators of gun violence.....

 

[Rustic]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Guns in England are not banned. They have just a lot better gun control. They are very restrictive of handguns but Shotguns and Rifles are common.

This post is just one of thoes RW red pill or blue pill crap....

Don't think out of the box

thanks Rustic...great video find......


if you want to lower the murder rate.......encourage people to get married before they have kids....single mothers are probably the greatest creators of gun violence.....

Progressive always ignore reality, the little youtube that I posted clearly shows gun control is a myth. The more laws equals less freedoms

 

[CowboyTed]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Guns in England are not banned. They have just a lot better gun control. They are very restrictive of handguns but Shotguns and Rifles are common.

This post is just one of thoes RW red pill or blue pill crap....

Don't think out of the box

Well the first argument about suicides is pretty much crap... Using a gun in suicide is over twice as effective as any other method. It also requires the least skill and planning.

His second argument about the source of illegal guns is a complete joke. There is no break down when the gun first went into the blackmarket...He doesn't even have a synopsis about it..

I am fucked if I am watching anymore of the biased asshole painting an obscure picture...

 

[Rustic]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Guns in England are not banned. They have just a lot better gun control. They are very restrictive of handguns but Shotguns and Rifles are common.

This post is just one of thoes RW red pill or blue pill crap....

Don't think out of the box

Well the first argument about suicides is pretty much crap... Using a gun in suicide is over twice as effective as any other method. It also requires the least skill and planning.

His second argument about the source of illegal guns is a complete joke. There is no break down when the gun first went into the blackmarket...He doesn't even have a synopsis about it..

I am fucked if I am watching anymore of the biased asshole painting an obscure picture...

The fact remains more gun laws will do nothing, will not save another single soul. By the way, his first point is true putting all gun deaths together is lying. The government cannot fix things, they do not have the ethics, morality and credibility to do so.
The government is the enemy of its citizens...

 

[CowboyTed]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back. And the cities with the strictest gun laws, which disarm only the people who obey laws, are almost always the cities with the highest crime rates.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try. Those who do, will find themselves disabled or even dead after their first few shots.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force with extraordinary powers to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them. And they constantly praise the results in countries like Australia, Japan, England etc, where guns are almost completely banned from law-abiding citizens.)

Guns in England are not banned. They have just a lot better gun control. They are very restrictive of handguns but Shotguns and Rifles are common.

This post is just one of thoes RW red pill or blue pill crap....

Don't think out of the box

Well the first argument about suicides is pretty much crap... Using a gun in suicide is over twice as effective as any other method. It also requires the least skill and planning.

His second argument about the source of illegal guns is a complete joke. There is no break down when the gun first went into the blackmarket...He doesn't even have a synopsis about it..

I am fucked if I am watching anymore of the biased asshole painting an obscure picture...

The fact remains more gun laws will do nothing, will not save another single soul. By the way, his first point is true putting all gun deaths together is lying. The government cannot fix things, they do not have the ethics, morality and credibility to do so.
The government is the enemy of its citizens...

So the democratically elected government is an enemy of the Citizens... You mean the Government voted by the people in an enemy of the people.

The fact is UK has better Gun Control and has gun homicide which 59 times smaller that of the US and suicide by gun 44 time less...

Get serious, those are the numbers of failure...

I have said a simple solution is that gun owners have to get mandatory insurance...