USA Shootings (4 Viewers)

[UncleZen]

For those excited about the bump stock ban, I hope you know that you can do the same thing with your belt loop. Most anyone who would own a bump stock surely knows this.

 

[-fish-]

SC back to “we shouldn’t adopt laws because criminals don’t obey laws.”

I have NEVER said that

ever

and neither has anyone here nor gun owners nor the NRA -- are you smoking dope today ?

Why do you constantly lie?

what good are more laws and rules other than to just have criminals walk through them too ? 

Don't bother to answer.  I know why you lie.  Because the actual facts show that you're wrong on almost everything you've posted in this entire thread.

 

[timschochet]

For those excited about the bump stock ban, I hope you know that you can do the same thing with your belt loop. Most anyone who would own a bump stock surely knows this.

I don’t know that. What I do know is that every RARE instance any gun control law is actually passed, somebody makes the argument, after the fact, “I hope you realize we can do xyz just as easily this other way.” My question always is, if this is true, why did you fight so hard against the law in the first place? 

My suspicion, as always, is that it’s true but not nearly quite as easy as it would have been before, and that’s ok with me. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Have I made any suggestions on regulations that would effect mass shootings? 

No, that's the point.

 

[KCitons]

No, that's the point.

Then you must have difficulty reading. And therefor, I assume you are trolling.

Perhaps someone else will point out that you are incorrect. But, I won't hold my breath.

For anyone paying attention, this is why there won't be compromise on this issue. Sheriff Bart is for your side, what SC is to our side. Neither are helping.

Have a nice night.

 

[The Indestructible]

not fine at all ....  we need to stop airplanes flying into buildings but not by banning airplanes, we need to stop people using u-haul trucks as bombs but not by banning uhaul trucks .... we need to stop these people who do violent things, these criminals without negatively impacting law abiding people. 

how did we as a society reduce DUI's ? education in schools, harsh penalties ..... we didn't ban cars, we didn't ban alcohol.

what good are more laws and rules other than to just have criminals walk through them too ? 

we have common sense gun laws right now in the USA .......... we need way harsher penalties for crimes using guns, we need better stoppage when we know people have issues (Nikolas Cruz) We've seen many schools go to armed guards .... what's the impact been ? WAY less school shootings ! amazing ... Bidens gun free zone laws failed massively just like we knew it would.

those laws / changes would help ........ banning one of the least used guns and impacting people who hunt and shoot and collect? won't help a damned bit

My kids have to go to school with armed guards so you can hunt and shoot and collect?  What a joke.  

 

[The General]

NZ to ban semi-automatic assault rifles.

 

[Radical Larry]

NZ to ban semi-automatic assault rifles.

Wake me up when they ban cars and booze.

 

[Politician Spock]

Have I made any suggestions on regulations that would effect mass shootings? Please show me where I said it can't happen because of automobiles? I said that we have an acceptable number of deaths because of other things. Nobody wants to put a number of acceptable number of mass shootings in exchange for the right to own guns. Why the difference?

No amount of lives lost is "acceptable". We don't ban cars because we accept the amount of lives lost. We don't ban cars because life would be drastically altered for everyone if we couldn't drive cars.

There is absolutely no possible way banning guns could alter everyone's lives like banning cars would. To compare the two is ridiculous, and to suggest we "accept" the lost lives from automobiles is asinine.

We ban people from owning tanks and grenades because the reasons anyone would need them are meritless and unwarranted. The reasons anyone needs guns are also meritless and unwarranted, but not to the degree tanks and grenades are. 

But that difference of degree is no where near the TON of merit and warrant that exists to own and operate automobiles. 

 

[KCitons]

No amount of lives lost is "acceptable". We don't ban cars because we accept the amount of lives lost. We don't ban cars because life would be drastically altered for everyone if we couldn't drive cars.

There is absolutely no possible way banning guns could alter everyone's lives like banning cars would. To compare the two is ridiculous, and to suggest we "accept" the lost lives from automobiles is asinine.

We ban people from owning tanks and grenades because the reasons anyone would need them are meritless and unwarranted. The reasons anyone needs guns are also meritless and unwarranted, but not to the degree tanks and grenades are. 

But that difference of degree is no where near the TON of merit and warrant that exists to own and operate automobiles. 

Fair enough. I'll concede that cars are much more useful to a greater portion of the population. 

Please replace the word automobile or gun with alcohol. Does the same hold true? 

 

[KCitons]

Wake me up when they ban cars and booze.

Alcohol is a leading cause of road deaths in NZ. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

My kids have to go to school with armed guards so you can hunt and shoot and collect?  What a joke.  

SC has made it fairly clear that he would be fine turning most of our country into a prison.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Fair enough. I'll concede that cars are much more useful to a greater portion of the population. 

Please replace the word automobile or gun with alcohol. Does the same hold true? 

We banned alcohol before. The results were worse, so we unbanned it. 

 

[parrot]

For those excited about the bump stock ban, I hope you know that you can do the same thing with your belt loop. Most anyone who would own a bump stock surely knows this.

I don't think anyone is particularly "excited" about the bump stock ban.  It's the lowest of low-hanging fruit.  I brought up bump stocks more to demonstrate how little real difference there is in capability between select-fire weapons and civilian version semi-auto weapons.  The fact that you can use your belt-loop to get a pretty good approximation of an automatic weapon only reinforces the point.  

 

[KCitons]

We banned alcohol before. The results were worse, so we unbanned it. 

Okay. I'll concede the fact that 100 years ago, the ban on alcohol didn't work.

Please replace alcohol in the above sentence with assault weapons. 

 

[Stealthycat]

You know, you and I are one of very few people on the pro gun side. But, you don't help the situation with comments like this. 

It's the reason I rarely engage you in conversation. 

I'm not going to lie - what I said is absolutely true. the Vegas shooter could have pulled the trigger almost as fast or faster than using a bump stock. In fact, put your finger in your belt loop and there you go - bump stock.

So no, I don't think Paddock not having bump stocks would have impacted the results at all ....... in fact, he might have been far more accurate and hit more people without bump stocked guns. IIRC quite a few didn't have bump stocks at all

 

[Politician Spock]

Okay. I'll concede the fact that 100 years ago, the ban on alcohol didn't work.

Please replace alcohol in the above sentence with assault weapons. 

We banned assault weapons for a decade. It worked. There was no need to end the ban. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I am pretty sure that you are for laws that don't allow those women to make that choice either, which is forcing them to treat their bodies how you want them to.    Like I said, that feels weird to think that way (and a woman choosing to do that has absolutely 0 impact on you or your life in any way), but complain that people want to force you to hunt a certain way or with a lesser gun that you want to through proposed laws and rules.  Like I said, I just find that reasoning a little odd.  But alas, this isn't the abortion/gun crossover thread.  

isn't the reverse just as weird feeling ?

liberals preach if its not impacting you, don't worry about .... gay marriage, abortion, drugs etc. If you don't want to do those things, don't do them and everyone is happy. Guns though they want to enforce their views on everyone

I don't care what a woman does with her body - she can pierce it, tattoo it, inject it with drugs and hormones in an attempt to change into male looking, she can abuse it however she wants. You're right, her freedoms to do that. When she has an unborn child killed, I think that's wrong. 

If you want to think that's about control your'e absolutely wrong - its about protecting human life. this isn't the abortion/gun crossover thread. you're right, I'm just trying to show the difference in comparisons and as a society we DO have common sense gun control laws, right now. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I don’t know that. What I do know is that every RARE instance any gun control law is actually passed, somebody makes the argument, after the fact, “I hope you realize we can do xyz just as easily this other way.” My question always is, if this is true, why did you fight so hard against the law in the first place? 

My suspicion, as always, is that it’s true but not nearly quite as easy as it would have been before, and that’s ok with me. 

YouTube it - very easy to belt loop. Like bump stocks, pretty inaccurate too, and causes guns to jam that were never designed to auto fire

the fight is because its continual creeping timshochet .......... if fish and others had their way, they'd ban every gun. They know its a long road - so its a process ............ ban accessories, target age groups, lawsuits, ban certain looks and styles, magazines, taxation, clips, ............ all the time realizing the impact is exceptionally marginal and knowing that they'll say " well look how far we've come, we just need to go further" .......... and the end goal is banning many kinds of guns and as far as repealing the 2nd

 

[Stealthycat]

My kids have to go to school with armed guards so you can hunt and shoot and collect?  What a joke.  

no

your kids go to school because you choose to send them to that school .... if there are armed security then the people in your community realized that Joe Biden's stupid gun free zone created killing grounds that criminals capitalized on far too long. Your community decided that, like rich people's kids, and Federal buildings and many things in our society that's valuable and protected from criminals, your kids too are very valuable and deserving of protection from the wackos in today's world that rarely come around but they sometimes do. 

your kids are safer now - and you're complaining? unreal

 

[Stealthycat]

No amount of lives lost is "acceptable". We don't ban cars because we accept the amount of lives lost. We don't ban cars because life would be drastically altered for everyone if we couldn't drive cars.

There is absolutely no possible way banning guns could alter everyone's lives like banning cars would. To compare the two is ridiculous, and to suggest we "accept" the lost lives from automobiles is asinine.

its absolutely acceptable for so many to die in auto's .... if it wasn't, would you see massive efforts to STOP IT ?

no one wants to ban cars

lets just limit them then 20 mph maximum speed - surely if lives can be saved that's worth it isn't it ?

I mean some here want me to go to single shot guns .... if I did that, my hunting would be impacted, my self defense would etc............. but they think its worth it to save lives

 

[Stealthycat]

SC has made it fairly clear that he would be fine turning most of our country into a prison.  

nobody ever said that - ever

I don't think you understand what a prison is vs having security at a school or business or industrial complex or apartment buildings or malls etc. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

isn't the reverse just as weird feeling ?

liberals preach if its not impacting you, don't worry about .... gay marriage, abortion, drugs etc. If you don't want to do those things, don't do them and everyone is happy. Guns though they want to enforce their views on everyone

I dont see it as the reverse.  I am cool with what you do in your home.  As soon as guns are in the public domain and what someone does can effect me and others, then we need to talk about that.  I think that is pretty consistent. 

I dont care if you smoke weed in your house- I care if you sell it to my kid.  I dont care if you have a gun at home for protection, I care if you are walking around with it. 

 

[Politician Spock]

its absolutely acceptable for so many to die in auto's .... if it wasn't, would you see massive efforts to STOP IT ?

no one wants to ban cars

lets just limit them then 20 mph maximum speed - surely if lives can be saved that's worth it isn't it ?

I mean some here want me to go to single shot guns .... if I did that, my hunting would be impacted, my self defense would etc............. but they think its worth it to save lives

Cars can be made to go 200+ MPH. Limiting then to 70 is a pretty extreme limit, and 25 MPH zones are even more extreme limits. Not sure why you think the same extreme should not be set for guns. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Then you must have difficulty reading. And therefor, I assume you are trolling.

Perhaps someone else will point out that you are incorrect. But, I won't hold my breath.

For anyone paying attention, this is why there won't be compromise on this issue. Sheriff Bart is for your side, what SC is to our side. Neither are helping.

Have a nice night.

Still nothing, perfect.  Every post suggesting a ban on assault rifles or a new law to do something to reduce mass shootings and shootings in general is met with a reply about alcohol or automobiles. 

As far as being a  troll, I'm a treasured member of this community, guy.  A folk hero of sorts really.

You have a nice night too.

 

[dkp993]

Still nothing, perfect.  Every post suggesting a ban on assault rifles or a new law to do something to reduce mass shootings and shootings in general is met with a reply about alcohol or automobiles. 

As far as being a  troll, I'm a treasured member of this community, guy.  A folk hero of sorts really.

You have a nice night too.

Your avatar certainly is.  

 

[-fish-]

YouTube it - very easy to belt loop. Like bump stocks, pretty inaccurate too, and causes guns to jam that were never designed to auto fire

the fight is because its continual creeping timshochet .......... if fish and others had their way, they'd ban every gun. They know its a long road - so its a process ............ ban accessories, target age groups, lawsuits, ban certain looks and styles, magazines, taxation, clips, ............ all the time realizing the impact is exceptionally marginal and knowing that they'll say " well look how far we've come, we just need to go further" .......... and the end goal is banning many kinds of guns and as far as repealing the 2nd

why keep lying?  I've made my positions on gun control very clear.   not once have I ever suggested banning every gun.

yes, many guns shouldn't be in the hands of ordinary citizens.   that's what our laws currently say.  you just refuse to understand our actual laws, or the reasoning behind them--even the reasoning of one of the most conservative justices in the history of the Supreme Court.   those guns are not protected by the second amendment in the first place.   yes, the second amendment should be revised through a constitutional amendment so that we can effectively address the proliferation of semiautomatic handguns that are the primary source of gun deaths, particularly in inner cities.   that's also neither repealing the second amendment or banning guns.   

meaningful gun control is not marginal in any way.   stricter gun control=less gun violence.   this is a proven fact.   if you'd ever stop repeating NRA talking points and lying about what other people say, you would have learned this through the numerous studies that you've been presented with. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I care if you are walking around with it. 

why ?

what % of concealed carry / open carry people harm others?  do you have a guess ?

0.00001 % maybe ?

you feel that is a threat, but the gangs and thugs and criminals that shouldn't have guns .... why don't the liberals push hard to focus laws on them instead of legal law abiding people ? does that make sense to you? I'm serious 

 

[Stealthycat]

Cars can be made to go 200+ MPH. Limiting then to 70 is a pretty extreme limit, and 25 MPH zones are even more extreme limits. Not sure why you think the same extreme should not be set for guns. 

we don't allow 200mph speed limits, we don't allow military weapons to civilian populations  

both seem reasonable do you agree ?

if you removed all semi-auto, that's extreme and affecting literally hundreds of million of people .... in an effort to stop a few hundred from being killed by semi-auto weapons every year and you've still only pushed the criminals to use handguns anyway - you've not done anything to stop them from doing their crimes

if you took all cars down to 25mph, you're impacts hundreds of million of people ,,,,,, in an effort to stop thousands being killed when their vehicles going over 25mph are hit and crashed and wrecked and most often its deliberate actions that results in the wrecks - DUI, distractions, tired, texting, just being an idiot etc

you are for one and not the other, even though that speed limit reduction would save literally thousands of lives .......... its hard to die when cars are only going 25mph. Not impossible - but harder

you don't want it because you don't want to give up 65mph and you're not one of the ones who text and drive, dui and drive, distracted and drive, idiot and drive etc .... hey, i get it, either am I. I'm a superb driver ............ but we all gotta suffer to save those lives don't we ? 

 

[Stealthycat]

or a new law to do something to reduce mass shootings and shootings in general

actually, something being done like arming school security is met with liberals heads exploding - they do NOT want safer schools, they fought it hard

and lost in many areas too BTW

but go ahead, suggest a law that reduces mass shootings and I can show you how easy that law is to break. that's the problem - laws stacked on top means nothing .... its like passing another law banning rape ..... do you REALLY think that'll help stop rapes? Or, until the core problem is solved ( people wanting to rape others ) ..... nothing will really chance ? 

 

[Stealthycat]

hmmmmmm

not once have I ever suggested banning every gun.

Your son has no right to his turkey gun.  You have no right to an AR 15.   None.  And that's an opinion from one of the most conservative justices in the history of the supreme court.  So yes, I hope your son's gun gets banned.  I hope your AR 15 gets banned.  I hope you lose the ability to carry, whether open or concealed.   Because you don't have a "right" to any of those things.   And everyone else has a right not to get shot by a gun toting idiot.

you want me son to lose a model 500 turkey shotgun .......... you've made that clear ..... why not just be honest and tell us what guns you WOULD feel comfortable with everyone having ?

please - do tell, share your gun lore with us

 

[Politician Spock]

we don't allow 200mph speed limits, we don't allow military weapons to civilian populations  

both seem reasonable do you agree ?

if you removed all semi-auto, that's extreme and affecting literally hundreds of million of people .... in an effort to stop a few hundred from being killed by semi-auto weapons every year and you've still only pushed the criminals to use handguns anyway - you've not done anything to stop them from doing their crimes

if you took all cars down to 25mph, you're impacts hundreds of million of people ,,,,,, in an effort to stop thousands being killed when their vehicles going over 25mph are hit and crashed and wrecked and most often its deliberate actions that results in the wrecks - DUI, distractions, tired, texting, just being an idiot etc

you are for one and not the other, even though that speed limit reduction would save literally thousands of lives .......... its hard to die when cars are only going 25mph. Not impossible - but harder

you don't want it because you don't want to give up 65mph and you're not one of the ones who text and drive, dui and drive, distracted and drive, idiot and drive etc .... hey, i get it, either am I. I'm a superb driver ............ but we all gotta suffer to save those lives don't we ? 

It wouldn't even come close to affecting hundreds of millions of people. 

 

[UncleZen]

I don’t know that. What I do know is that every RARE instance any gun control law is actually passed, somebody makes the argument, after the fact, “I hope you realize we can do xyz just as easily this other way.” My question always is, if this is true, why did you fight so hard against the law in the first place? 

My suspicion, as always, is that it’s true but not nearly quite as easy as it would have been before, and that’s ok with me. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ0jTMLK9jI

For the record, I'm ok with bump stock ban but criminals are going to be criminals. They don't care about the laws.

 

[-fish-]

hmmmmmm

you want me son to lose a model 500 turkey shotgun .......... you've made that clear ..... why not just be honest and tell us what guns you WOULD feel comfortable with everyone having ?

please - do tell, share your gun lore with us

For one, your son wouldn't lose his turkey gun, since there has never been a ban with confiscation.   But you need to constantly lie, so you keep repeating this.  

If I had my way I'd ban all semiautomatic weapons of any kind, period.   That would require revising the constitution, but it would still leave plenty of guns for home defense, hunting and target shooting.   

For all remaining guns, I would require safe storage laws and no use whatsoever outside of private property, designated hunting areas and designated target ranges.  

Hunters get to hunt, sport shooters get to sport shoot, and little frightened people get to cling onto their guns in their bunkers waiting for the big bad MMA fighters to break into their homes.  

 

[Stealthycat]

It wouldn't even come close to affecting hundreds of millions of people. 

180 million gun owners in the US right ?

we don't know how many rifles of the 500+ million guns but its a significant ammount

100 million hunting every year, a great many of them use semi-auto rifles and shotguns 

yes - banning semi-auto rifles alone would impacts literally over a hundred million IMO .... all to stop a few people from using them to shoot a few hundred people and even then, those wackos would still either get them black market or they'd kill all those people other ways and so the realistic goal is absolutely failure

like a sign that says "no guns" .... absolutely failure, what idiot thought a sign/law would stop a crazy wacko ?  that's not to say that laws are bad .......... but to have them as the only means to stop a criminal ? insane

 

[Stealthycat]

For one, your son wouldn't lose his turkey gun, since there has never been a ban with confiscation.   But you need to constantly lie, so you keep repeating this.  

If I had my way I'd ban all semiautomatic weapons of any kind, period.   That would require revising the constitution, but it would still leave plenty of guns for home defense, hunting and target shooting.   

For all remaining guns, I would require safe storage laws and no use whatsoever outside of private property, designated hunting areas and designated target ranges.  

Hunters get to hunt, sport shooters get to sport shoot, and little frightened people get to cling onto their guns in their bunkers waiting for the big bad MMA fighters to break into their homes.  

so if you had your way - the hundreds of millions of rifles in the USA we could all keep ? great -thanks for clarifying

so in your above ..... what's to stop a person from acquireing a semi-auto shotgun, taking 6 of them loaded with buckshot  to a mall and killing 50 people ?

 

[-fish-]

so if you had your way - the hundreds of millions of rifles in the USA we could all keep ? great -thanks for clarifying

so in your above ..... what's to stop a person from acquireing a semi-auto shotgun, taking 6 of them loaded with buckshot  to a mall and killing 50 people ?

Nobody but you thinks that the end result will be zero shootings.  That's just a straw man NRA talking point.   

But the true facts are that stricter gun laws = less gun violence.   So gun laws work.    It's the way all laws work.  You keep trying to convince people that we shouldn't adopt laws because criminals don't obey laws.  It's one of the dumbest talking points you repeat, and it's been undeniably proven wrong.   

Tighten restrictions on felons, domestic abusers, stalkers, and they work even more.   Require safe storage--even less gun violence, as it's harder for criminals to obtain guns.   Increase background checks, close sales loopholes---even less guns in the hands of criminals.   Huh, those work, too.   Provide funding to enforce them, so that they aren't as inefficient.    Require registration, so your precious red flag laws (which the NRA actually opposes) could actually work, since it's impossible to confiscate the guns from a mentally ill person if you don't know what guns they have.

It's simple stuff, if you just start looking at actual facts and stop being so afraid that THEY"RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!  

Next up, more lies and deflection.

 

[Politician Spock]

180 million gun owners in the US right ?

we don't know how many rifles of the 500+ million guns but its a significant ammount

100 million hunting every year, a great many of them use semi-auto rifles and shotguns 

yes - banning semi-auto rifles alone would impacts literally over a hundred million IMO .... all to stop a few people from using them to shoot a few hundred people and even then, those wackos would still either get them black market or they'd kill all those people other ways and so the realistic goal is absolutely failure

like a sign that says "no guns" .... absolutely failure, what idiot thought a sign/law would stop a crazy wacko ?  that's not to say that laws are bad .......... but to have them as the only means to stop a criminal ? insane

Bolded is way wrong. 

3 out of 10 US adults own guns (see: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/)

There are approximately 255 million adults in the US.

30% of 255 million is 76.5 million that own a gun

And not all of them own semi automatics. 

Removing all semi-autos wouldn't come close to affecting hundreds of millions of people like you claimed

 

[Stealthycat]

Nobody but you thinks that the end result will be zero shootings.  That's just a straw man NRA talking point.   

But the true facts are that stricter gun laws = less gun violence.   So gun laws work.    It's the way all laws work.  You keep trying to convince people that we shouldn't adopt laws because criminals don't obey laws.  It's one of the dumbest talking points you repeat, and it's been undeniably proven wrong.   

Tighten restrictions on felons, domestic abusers, stalkers, and they work even more.   Require safe storage--even less gun violence, as it's harder for criminals to obtain guns.   Increase background checks, close sales loopholes---even less guns in the hands of criminals.   Huh, those work, too.   Provide funding to enforce them, so that they aren't as inefficient.    Require registration, so your precious red flag laws (which the NRA actually opposes) could actually work, since it's impossible to confiscate the guns from a mentally ill person if you don't know what guns they have.

It's simple stuff, if you just start looking at actual facts and stop being so afraid that THEY"RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!  

Next up, more lies and deflection.

stop lying

I've never been against common sense gun laws - what you suggest would impact 2% of all gun crimes ..... the semi-auto rifles used in all gun crimes 

I agree on focusing on the criminals - can we agree to stop focusing on the not criminals though?

that's the problem - your side wants to target the 99.99% of gun owners who do everything right. 

 

[-fish-]

I've never been against common sense gun laws - what you suggest would impact 2% of all gun crimes ..... the semi-auto rifles used in all gun crimes 

lies and deflection in the same sentence.   you're so predictable.   

 

[-fish-]

stop lying

there isn't one inaccurate statement in my post.   are you so mentally ill that you can't tell lies from facts?  I think you should be red flagged.

 

[Stealthycat]

Bolded is way wrong. 

3 out of 10 US adults own guns (see: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/)

There are approximately 255 million adults in the US.

30% of 255 million is 76.5 million that own a gun

And not all of them own semi automatics. 

Removing all semi-autos wouldn't come close to affecting hundreds of millions of people like you claimed

https://drgo.us/what-can-100-million-armed-americans-tell-us/

100 million Americans lawfully own 400 million guns ,,,,,,,,,, could be 120 million or 140 million or even more

but lets say you're right .... it would impact 50 or 60 million people

that's acceptable to you I suppose ?

 

[Stealthycat]

stricter gun control=less gun violence.   this is a proven fact

so if I named a country with strict gun control that had high violence ..... hmmmmm then what ?

 

[KarmaPolice]

meaningful gun control is not marginal in any way.   stricter gun control=less gun violence.   this is a proven fact.  

so if I named a country with strict gun control that had high violence ..... hmmmmm then what ?

You would be doing your usual and not talking about the same thing and presenting like it was a good refusal of a point made.  I assume that you will try to post something like the Australia link, talk about how death or violence was not stopped, talk about knives and cars,  and ignore the one major red bolded word in his post.  

 

[The Indestructible]

no

your kids go to school because you choose to send them to that school .... if there are armed security then the people in your community realized that Joe Biden's stupid gun free zone created killing grounds that criminals capitalized on far too long. Your community decided that, like rich people's kids, and Federal buildings and many things in our society that's valuable and protected from criminals, your kids too are very valuable and deserving of protection from the wackos in today's world that rarely come around but they sometimes do. 

your kids are safer now - and you're complaining? unreal

There aren't armed guards at my kids' school; that was a figure of speech.  But thanks for telling me what I can complain about when it comes to my kids' safety.  

 

[Radical Larry]

https://drgo.us/what-can-100-million-armed-americans-tell-us/

100 million Americans lawfully own 400 million guns ,,,,,,,,,, could be 120 million or 140 million or even more

but lets say you're right .... it would impact 50 or 60 million people

that's acceptable to you I suppose ?

There is no citation to back up those numbers.  

“Gun owners, who are frequently arm chair statisticians, point out that 100 million Americans lawfully own 400 million guns.  More than 17 million of these are permitted to carry in public.”.

That article also cites both Lott and Kleck.  Sheesh.

 

[dkp993]

You would be doing your usual and not talking about the same thing and presenting like it was a good refusal of a point made.  I assume that you will try to post something like the Australia link, talk about how death or violence was not stopped, talk about knives and cars,  and ignore the one major red bolded word in his post.  

Come on, SC’s never done that before.  

 

[-fish-]

so if I named a country with strict gun control that had high violence ..... hmmmmm then what ?

Then you’d continue to prove that you’re unable to understand simple concepts.

 

[Politician Spock]

https://drgo.us/what-can-100-million-armed-americans-tell-us/

100 million Americans lawfully own 400 million guns ,,,,,,,,,, could be 120 million or 140 million or even more

but lets say you're right .... it would impact 50 or 60 million people

that's acceptable to you I suppose ?

I would agree it's around 50 million. But the impact would be minimal. Not being able to use a semi auto when you can still use a standard gun isn't that big of a deal. Anyone who says otherwise is just 

 

[Jackstraw]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/indiana-teachers-mock-executed-during-drill-gun-control.html

One of the costs of the gun deal is we routinely terrorize our students with these school drills. You really think making a five year old hide in a closet to practice when the bad men come doesn't mess them up? 

Every single one of them. So even when everything goes great people are getting terrorized. 

Now as far as what they think they are doing in this Indiana story I really don't know. Mock executions? 

This is just enabling the cops and their hard on for tactical training as far as I can tell.  

But no lets worry about the gun owners fee fees. They might not be able to PEW PEW as fast as they want.