Why Was No One Armed & Shooting Back In El Paso WalMart ?

[JimBowie1958]

Pity you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.
Trump U old white fart?

You really don't contribute much to the discussions here and this is just the latest example.

Welcome to my ignore list, loser.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Walmart said no guns.. I guess they thought criminals would obey the rules

And this filthy leftist creep, this Beto O'Rourke type scumbag, said he picked Walmart because it's a gun free zone.

 

[BigTruck]

What’s Walmart’s policy on weapons?

It could be that anyone carrying a weapon in the store would have been guilty of trespassing at the very least.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What’s Walmart’s policy on weapons?

It could be that anyone carrying a weapon in the store would have been guilty of trespassing at the very least.

No. Open carry is allowed.

 

[GLASNOST]

I have noticed in this thread, all the gun-grabbers are particularly insulting as they try to avoid actually addressing the issue.

The issue is GUNS in abundance in a country like the U.S.... a population that cannot be trusted with GUNS. That is the ISSUE. It seems very clear to me that the pro-GUN people (as yourself) cannot address the ISSUE so you are on the wrong foot. Your ploy is a side-step from the ISSUE. It has been established by both the GUN nuts and the anti-GUN people that ... "It is not the GUN but the person holding the GUN who kills with it". Is this or is it not a fact? Right. Clear as day. You even helped (inadvertently) to prove it with your link about Switzerland. So the most sensible conclusion is that Americans should not have access to GUNS. It doesn't get much simpler than that but you and the pro-GUN nuts try to avoid actually addressing the issue. Well? Can you address the issue now?

None of that is true......

There is no doubt about it now ..... you are a TROLL.

 

[GLASNOST]

....Would you walk into a room of armed people with the intent of gunning most of them down ?
Yes or No?

Nobody seems to care if the room is full of armed people.

I guess that's right. It's the bad guy who's going to shoot first anyway and everybody else will drop like flies. The only choice America has is to disarm the country or for everyone to meet in front of the corral at the end of the street. And when the clock strikes noon ....
........ send the country to hell

 

[GLASNOST]

No, it is not true. One has no bearing on the other except in the mind of someone they want to insult rather than discuss the topic.

Don't get yourself worked up into such a lather over nothing. It only proves a weakness of character and that is exactly why the U.S. should not be allowed guns. Whereas some other country might be able to handle guns safely, the American population is (however) rampant with unemployed and intentionally, socially-unrepresented citizens with nowhere else to turn but to violent crime.

*** The American problem is clear:

1. Destitution - economically, psychologically, and socially.
2. An abundance of firearms.

*** The solution is also clear:

1. Take care of your people.
2. Remove guns.

 

[Leo123]

....Would you walk into a room of armed people with the intent of gunning most of them down ?
Yes or No?

Nobody seems to care if the room is full of armed people.

I guess that's right. It's the bad guy who's going to shoot first anyway and everybody else will drop like flies. The only choice America has is to disarm the country or for everyone to meet in front of the corral at the end of the street. And when the clock strikes noon ....
........ send the country to hell

Maybe you consider yourself a 'fly' but not US. Stop projecting.

 

[GLASNOST]

The issue is GUNS in abundance in a country like the U.S.... a population that cannot be trusted with GUNS. That is the ISSUE. It seems very clear to me that the pro-GUN people (as yourself) cannot address the ISSUE so you are on the wrong foot. Your ploy is a side-step from the ISSUE. It has been established by both the GUN nuts and the anti-GUN people that ... "It is not the GUN but the person holding the GUN who kills with it". Is this or is it not a fact? Right. Clear as day. You even helped (inadvertently) to prove it with your link about Switzerland. So the most sensible conclusion is that Americans should not have access to GUNS. It doesn't get much simpler than that but you and the pro-GUN nuts try to avoid actually addressing the issue. Well? Can you address the issue now?

There were 10,869 gun related murders in 2018. .......

Nothing to worry about .... right? But that's an interesting figure of yours, just under 11,000. And ain't it funny too. I am a Vietnam War Veteran and for the year I fought over there (1966-67) the rough figures for our dead were just about the same, about 11,000. What kind of shithole is the United Snakes that you are killing as many of your own civilian population as if it were at war?

And you think it's OK! Yes, that's right, I'm talking to you ...

 

[Leo123]

Don't get yourself worked up into such a lather over nothing. It only proves a weakness of character and that is exactly why the U.S. should not be allowed guns. Whereas some other country might be able to handle guns safely, the American population is (however) rampant with unemployed and intentionally, socially-unrepresented citizens with nowhere else to turn but to violent crime.

*** The American problem is clear:

1. Destitution - economically, psychologically, and socially.
2. An abundance of firearms.

*** The solution is also clear:

1. Take care of your people.
2. Remove guns.

Apparently illegal aliens are risking their lives to come to "Destitution" and an 'abundance of firearms"....Please tell them how 'dangerous' America is so they STAY HOME!!! I'm sure you can communicate with the 'balless' 'girly boys' out there.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it is not true. One has no bearing on the other except in the mind of someone they want to insult rather than discuss the topic.

Don't get yourself worked up into such a lather over nothing. It only proves a weakness of character and that is exactly why the U.S. should not be allowed guns. Whereas some other country might be able to handle guns safely, the American population is (however) rampant with unemployed and intentionally, socially-unrepresented citizens with nowhere else to turn but to violent crime.

*** The American problem is clear:

1. Destitution - economically, psychologically, and socially.
2. An abundance of firearms.

*** The solution is also clear:

1. Take care of your people.
2. Remove guns.

Weakness of character? You spout bullshit insults, not one but twice. I call you on it. And you want to say I have the weakness of character? LMAO!! That take some serious mental acrobatics.

 

[Leo123]

Nothing to worry about .... right? But that's an interesting figure of yours, just under 11,000. And ain't it funny too. I am a Vietnam War Veteran and for the year I fought over there (1966-67) the rough figures for our dead were just about the same, about 11,000. What kind of shithole is the United Snakes that you are killing as many of your own civilian population as if it were at war?

And you think it's OK! Yes, that's right, I'm talking to you ...

Ask the Democrats who run Chicago. .

 

[GLASNOST]

Don't get yourself worked up into such a lather over nothing. It only proves a weakness of character and that is exactly why the U.S. should not be allowed guns. Whereas some other country might be able to handle guns safely, the American population is (however) rampant with unemployed and intentionally, socially-unrepresented citizens with nowhere else to turn but to violent crime.

*** The American problem is clear:

1. Destitution - economically, psychologically, and socially.
2. An abundance of firearms.

*** The solution is also clear:

1. Take care of your people.
2. Remove guns.

Apparently illegal aliens are risking their lives to come to "Destitution" and an 'abundance of firearms"....Please tell them how 'dangerous' America is so they STAY HOME!!! I'm sure you can communicate with the 'balless' 'girly boys' out there.

Ah yes, the same kinny-garden logic. I expected nothing better from your side of the table so I am not surprised. You cannot compare yourself to a decent nation and try to "measure up" to that. Oh no, the result of that is shockingly demoralizing. So you choose a Third World Arm-Pit and exclaim, "Oh! Look! Look! We are much better than that country!" Your logic is truly pitiful and it exposes not only your personal position (in this discussion) but also your nation with its back against the wall.

 

[GLASNOST]

No, it is not true. One has no bearing on the other except in the mind of someone they want to insult rather than discuss the topic.

Don't get yourself worked up into such a lather over nothing. It only proves a weakness of character and that is exactly why the U.S. should not be allowed guns. Whereas some other country might be able to handle guns safely, the American population is (however) rampant with unemployed and intentionally, socially-unrepresented citizens with nowhere else to turn but to violent crime.

*** The American problem is clear:

1. Destitution - economically, psychologically, and socially.
2. An abundance of firearms.

*** The solution is also clear:

1. Take care of your people.
2. Remove guns.

Weakness of character? You spout bullshit insults, not one but twice. I call you on it. And you want to say I have the weakness of character? LMAO!! That take some serious mental acrobatics.

The facts are right in front of your face and this here outburst of yours seals it. Funny ain't it that right after I put the situation on a silver platter for you to see, your very first response is precisely what I was talking about. And your response to the main topic - nowhere to be seen. Rinse the foam of rage from your mouth and try to get back on topic. The biggest tell-tale sign of a weak character is when the person thinks everything is about him. In more professional terms it is called "INFERIORITY COMPLEX" and owning lots of guns is a typical (and most obvious) response of someone with an inferiority complex.

I suggest you try to put your fears aside and try to think more logically. This theme is about your country, your people, and the future of it .... not about your irrelevant, personal problems.

 

[WinterBorn]

The issue is GUNS in abundance in a country like the U.S.... a population that cannot be trusted with GUNS. That is the ISSUE. It seems very clear to me that the pro-GUN people (as yourself) cannot address the ISSUE so you are on the wrong foot. Your ploy is a side-step from the ISSUE. It has been established by both the GUN nuts and the anti-GUN people that ... "It is not the GUN but the person holding the GUN who kills with it". Is this or is it not a fact? Right. Clear as day. You even helped (inadvertently) to prove it with your link about Switzerland. So the most sensible conclusion is that Americans should not have access to GUNS. It doesn't get much simpler than that but you and the pro-GUN nuts try to avoid actually addressing the issue. Well? Can you address the issue now?

There were 10,869 gun related murders in 2018. .......

Nothing to worry about .... right? But that's an interesting figure of yours, just under 11,000. And ain't it funny too. I am a Vietnam War Veteran and for the year I fought over there (1966-67) the rough figures for our dead were just about the same, about 11,000. What kind of shithole is the United Snakes that you are killing as many of your own civilian population as if it were at war?

And you think it's OK! Yes, that's right, I'm talking to you ...

Not ONCE did I even hint that it was ok. The fact that you avoid the actual facts and make erroneous claims to what I said, shows you are the one with the issue.

I said nothing about anything being ok. In fact, I believe I used the word "tragedy". But to disarm millions over the acts of a few thousand is totalitarian insanity.

WE have banned drugs for how long? Are they gone? Or are they just as plentiful and creating an entire underground economy?

I am happy to give up all my guns. Provided you can guaranteed that all the criminals will be similarly disarmed. Until you can do that, I'll keep mine.

I'll also keep the firearms I use for legal hunting. Which, if it comes right down to it, are a greater threat should they be used for assault and murder.

I own 21 firearms. Three that I inherited, and were probably bought used. I cannot vouch for those. But the other 18 firearms have never even been pointed at another human being, much less fired at one. Why would those guns be taken? No crime committed with them at all.

Also, according to this site Vietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics there were 17,713 casualties in 1966 & 1967 in Vietnam.

Another problem with what you posted is that you compared straight number without comparing relative populations. In 1966, the population of South Vietnam was roughly 16 million people. There were around 385,000 US military and 280,000 NVA. For a total of 16, 665,000. Or around 5% of the current population of the US.

If you extrapolate the number of people killed (17,713) in the years 1966 & 1967, into a populaton of 320,000,000 (roughly the current US population), you would have to have 340,000 killed to create a comparable number of dead. But since one was a war zone, it would be expected to have 30 times greater number of people killed.

So when you were in Vietnam (thank you for your service) there were 30x more people killed when you compare based on comparable populations.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it is not true. One has no bearing on the other except in the mind of someone they want to insult rather than discuss the topic.

Don't get yourself worked up into such a lather over nothing. It only proves a weakness of character and that is exactly why the U.S. should not be allowed guns. Whereas some other country might be able to handle guns safely, the American population is (however) rampant with unemployed and intentionally, socially-unrepresented citizens with nowhere else to turn but to violent crime.

*** The American problem is clear:

1. Destitution - economically, psychologically, and socially.
2. An abundance of firearms.

*** The solution is also clear:

1. Take care of your people.
2. Remove guns.

Weakness of character? You spout bullshit insults, not one but twice. I call you on it. And you want to say I have the weakness of character? LMAO!! That take some serious mental acrobatics.

The facts are right in front of your face and this here outburst of yours seals it. Funny ain't it that right after I put the situation on a silver platter for you to see, your very first response is precisely what I was talking about. And your response to the main topic - nowhere to be seen. Rinse the foam of rage from your mouth and try to get back on topic. The biggest tell-tale sign of a weak character is when the person thinks everything is about him. In more professional terms it is called "INFERIORITY COMPLEX" and owning lots of guns is a typical (and most obvious) response of someone with an inferiority complex.

I suggest you try to put your fears aside and try to think more logically. This theme is about your country, your people, and the future of it .... not about your irrelevant, personal problems.

YOu have continued to try and claim "facts" about gun owners. Since I am a gun owner, you are the one who made it about me.

As for my "foam of rage", nothing could be further from the truth. I am not raging. I am correcting your inaccuracies and calling you on your bullshit.

 

[GLASNOST]

Not ONCE did I even hint that it was ok. The fact that you avoid the actual facts and make erroneous claims to what I said, shows you are the one with the issue.

I said nothing about anything being ok. In fact, I believe I used the word "tragedy". But to disarm millions over the acts of a few thousand is totalitarian insanity.

WE have banned drugs for how long? Are they gone? Or are they just as plentiful and creating an entire underground economy?

I am happy to give up all my guns. Provided you can guaranteed that all the criminals will be similarly disarmed. Until you can do that, I'll keep mine.

I'll also keep the firearms I use for legal hunting. Which, if it comes right down to it, are a greater threat should they be used for assault and murder.

I own 21 firearms. Three that I inherited, and were probably bought used. I cannot vouch for those. But the other 18 firearms have never even been pointed at another human being, much less fired at one. Why would those guns be taken? No crime committed with them at all.

Also, according to this site Vietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics there were 17,713 casualties in 1966 & 1967 in Vietnam.

Another problem with what you posted is that you compared straight number without comparing relative populations. In 1966, the population of South Vietnam was roughly 16 million people. There were around 385,000 US military and 280,000 NVA. For a total of 16, 665,000. Or around 5% of the current population of the US.

If you extrapolate the number of people killed (17,713) in the years 1966 & 1967, into a populaton of 320,000,000 (roughly the current US population), you would have to have 340,000 killed to create a comparable number of dead. But since one was a war zone, it would be expected to have 30 times greater number of people killed.

So when you were in Vietnam (thank you for your service) there were 30x more people killed when you compare based on comparable populations.

YOu have continued to try and claim "facts" about gun owners. Since I am a gun owner, you are the one who made it about me.

As for my "foam of rage", nothing could be further from the truth. I am not raging. I am correcting your inaccuracies and calling you on your bullshit.

The U.S. is destroying itself from within and it is all because of political corruption in conjunction with armament manufacturers and others. But rather than you getting your ass off the sofa and trying to help to save your country and your countrymen you instead contribute your spending and BS logic (found in the pages of the very sources that are strangling you) on defending them!

Saying you "care" is cheap lip service. If you do not give American politicians a good kick in the keester and an ultimatum then the country is going to explode into a full-blown civil war ... and then what will you say? The Military-Industrial Complex moguls will be kicking back with a Piña colada in Thaiti and watching you crying in front of some upstart CNN reporter with his microphone in your face.

And BTW, your statics (above) are all false and/or spun - but in the big picture, it doesn't matter because you are killing each other at an alarming rate. YOU MUST BAN GUNS!

 

[WinterBorn]

Not ONCE did I even hint that it was ok. The fact that you avoid the actual facts and make erroneous claims to what I said, shows you are the one with the issue.

I said nothing about anything being ok. In fact, I believe I used the word "tragedy". But to disarm millions over the acts of a few thousand is totalitarian insanity.

WE have banned drugs for how long? Are they gone? Or are they just as plentiful and creating an entire underground economy?

I am happy to give up all my guns. Provided you can guaranteed that all the criminals will be similarly disarmed. Until you can do that, I'll keep mine.

I'll also keep the firearms I use for legal hunting. Which, if it comes right down to it, are a greater threat should they be used for assault and murder.

I own 21 firearms. Three that I inherited, and were probably bought used. I cannot vouch for those. But the other 18 firearms have never even been pointed at another human being, much less fired at one. Why would those guns be taken? No crime committed with them at all.

Also, according to this site Vietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics there were 17,713 casualties in 1966 & 1967 in Vietnam.

Another problem with what you posted is that you compared straight number without comparing relative populations. In 1966, the population of South Vietnam was roughly 16 million people. There were around 385,000 US military and 280,000 NVA. For a total of 16, 665,000. Or around 5% of the current population of the US.

If you extrapolate the number of people killed (17,713) in the years 1966 & 1967, into a populaton of 320,000,000 (roughly the current US population), you would have to have 340,000 killed to create a comparable number of dead. But since one was a war zone, it would be expected to have 30 times greater number of people killed.

So when you were in Vietnam (thank you for your service) there were 30x more people killed when you compare based on comparable populations.

YOu have continued to try and claim "facts" about gun owners. Since I am a gun owner, you are the one who made it about me.

As for my "foam of rage", nothing could be further from the truth. I am not raging. I am correcting your inaccuracies and calling you on your bullshit.

The U.S. is destroying itself from within and it is all because of political corruption in conjunction with armament manufacturers and others. But rather than you getting your ass off the sofa and trying to help to save your country and your countrymen you instead contribute your spending and BS logic (found in the pages of the very sources that are strangling you) on defending them!

Saying you "care" is cheap lip service. If you do not give American politicians a good kick in the keester and an ultimatum then the country is going to explode into a full-blown civil war ... and then what will you say? The Military-Industrial Complex moguls will be kicking back with a Piña colada in Thaiti and watching you crying in front of some upstart CNN reporter with his microphone in your face.

And BTW, your statics (above) are all false and/or spun - but in the big picture, it doesn't matter because you are killing each other at an alarming rate. YOU MUST BAN GUNS!

Spun? lol Good reply when someone offers facts. Don't argue with facts, just scream "fake news"!

And how in the hell do you know what I do? Do I volunteer with the mentally ill? Do I work for reforms?

And what is it that you do?

You want to ban all guns? What about hunting? It provides the lion's share of conservation money at the state level and controls animal populations. Just toos it out?

 

[GLASNOST]

The U.S. is destroying itself from within and it is all because of political corruption in conjunction with armament manufacturers and others. But rather than you getting your ass off the sofa and trying to help to save your country and your countrymen you instead contribute your spending and BS logic (found in the pages of the very sources that are strangling you) on defending them!

Saying you "care" is cheap lip service. If you do not give American politicians a good kick in the keester and an ultimatum then the country is going to explode into a full-blown civil war ... and then what will you say? The Military-Industrial Complex moguls will be kicking back with a Piña colada in Thaiti and watching you crying in front of some upstart CNN reporter with his microphone in your face.

And BTW, your statics (above) are all false and/or spun - but in the big picture, it doesn't matter because you are killing each other at an alarming rate. YOU MUST BAN GUNS!

Spun? lol Good reply when someone offers facts. Don't argue with facts, just scream "fake news"!

And how in the hell do you know what I do? Do I volunteer with the mentally ill? Do I work for reforms?

And what is it that you do?

You want to ban all guns? What about hunting? It provides the lion's share of conservation money at the state level and controls animal populations. Just toos it out?

Oh goody, I'm debating with a child.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

4 fatally injured in stabbing spree in Southern California, suspect nabbed

https://www.foxnews.com/us/southern-california-suspect-kills-4-injures-2-in-series-of-stabbings-robberies