Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And he could have killed a lot more with a big truck and a snow plowLike I said cops do not prevent crime.
What is it that you do not understand about that?
You said show up after clearly. But like in Orlando they were there and killer too heavily armed.
So they were there in the hotel room before he started shooting?
That's the only way they could have prevented it.
Cops react to crime which by definition means the crime has to happen first.
get it?
And he would have killed a whole lot less with a derringer.
Again we can close roads. Can use barriers and spike strips. But you want every option available to killers.
The anti gunners think they are pretty clever....here is another one. He lists 8 things to stop future mass public shooters....and none of them would stop a mass shooter........but don't let that stop him...
Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings
Strong gun control has reduced mass shootings. We are only civilized country with this problem. Everywhere else it is rare or requires a terrorist group.
The anti gunners think they are pretty clever....here is another one. He lists 8 things to stop future mass public shooters....and none of them would stop a mass shooter........but don't let that stop him...
Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings
Strong gun control has reduced mass shootings. We are only civilized country with this problem. Everywhere else it is rare or requires a terrorist group.
Tell that to the victims of the Norwegian and Paris shootings. Both had more fatalities. You are factually wrong on all counts and both of those countries have gun laws that you would swoon over.
Norway was a one time event. Nothing before or since. We have these regularly. Paris required a terrorist group and had many shooters. Both countries have much lower homicide rates than us. And they don't have police shot and killed weekly.
LOL! Only an idiot democrat would even think it.The anti gunners think they are pretty clever....here is another one. He lists 8 things to stop future mass public shooters....and none of them would stop a mass shooter........but don't let that stop him...
Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings
Where are you getting "Democrat"?
Where in fact do you see any citation of a political party at all?
“8. Invest in research to see what interventions will be more effective in reducing gun deaths. We know, for example, that alcohol and guns don’t mix, but we don’t know precisely what laws would be most effective in reducing the resulting toll. Similar investments in reducing other kinds of accidental deaths have been very effective.”
Tell that to the victims of the Norwegian and Paris shootings. Both had more fatalities. You are factually wrong on all counts and both of those countries have gun laws that you would swoon over.
Norway was a one time event. Nothing before or since. We have these regularly. Paris required a terrorist group and had many shooters. Both countries have much lower homicide rates than us. And they don't have police shot and killed weekly.
Wrong again silly boy. We have a population greater than ALL of Europe combined. When you look at Europe they have just as much violence as we do, and it is increasing. Furthermore we have an illegal immigrant population (where the vast majority of violent crime originates) that is more than twice the population of Norway as a whole. Like I sad, you are factually wrong in every respect.
You claimed that draconian gun laws prevent mass shootings. You are wrong. Or you are lying. I'll let you choose which applies to you.
Nothing I said was false. You clearly have no problem lying however. Shall we compare homicide rates with Europe?
Everything you said was false. And now I know you are nothing more than a propagandist. Which is a fancy way of saying you're a liar for hire.
It isn't even close.
26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually
I've never known anyone who needed a fire extinguisher either.
When was the last mass killing by fire extinguisher?
I don't know of one.
You can seize my gun and leave my family and I at the mercy of violent thugs. It won't stop the next mass killing.
Don't be so scared. I'm at the mercy of thugs every day and am just fine.
So you OPPOSE people being able to carry a gun on their body, right? Do you also oppose them being able to have a gun in their car? What about their home?
I didn't say any of that. Violent crime is rising as concealed carry increases however. I would say right now we need a ban again on high capacity magazines. Only pupose is mass killing.
Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.
One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.
And they would find him in the dark how?
Videos showed muzzle flashes. If you have to, shoot at the muzzle flashes. The side of the Mandalay bay resort is lit anyway, a good sniper could have taken him out. You don't think cops are trained in sniping at night?
You only fire at the window thats broken that has muzzle flashes coming out of it. I could see which windows were broken with the naked eye, much less with a high power scope.
Some stupid liberals were asking "what happened to the CC holders, why didn't they shoot back? They are supposed to be heros but were running like pussies".
1. Guns were not allowed at this concert. So CC holders who were actually following the law (yes there are a few of them left) wouldn't have had a gun to shoot back.
2. The shooter was over 400 yards away, CC means a handgun, they are useless at 400 yards.
With all the chaos going on you think he would have quickly found and shot him. Sure.
So rather than gun control which works we need more snipers. Funny.
Yep, I myself keep a can of gasoline handy in case something I'm cooking catches fire. So I can douse it.
'Scuse me a moment.............
A gun that you have an absolute right to own.That is all anyone is required to do and if you have a criminal background, yes, it is difficult. Many states don't even allow you to walk out of the shop with a gun on the same day.I just told you it wasn't easy. We literally have thousands of laws about guns and their misuse, and the barriers to acquiring them.The problem isn't the guns. It's the people.
Like I said, we have an obesity epidemic. Shall we ban all forks? The problem is, we have too much access to eating utensils.
You make it easy to be a mass killer. Easy things happen more often.
A background check is difficult? Ok princess.
Your belief that access to guns is easy is just another delusion.
Yes that is all. Not much at all. I could easily and legally go buy any gun right now.
You can claim that gun control works for the rest of your life, but that doesn't make it true.Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.
One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.
And they would find him in the dark how?
Videos showed muzzle flashes. If you have to, shoot at the muzzle flashes. The side of the Mandalay bay resort is lit anyway, a good sniper could have taken him out. You don't think cops are trained in sniping at night?
You only fire at the window thats broken that has muzzle flashes coming out of it. I could see which windows were broken with the naked eye, much less with a high power scope.
Some stupid liberals were asking "what happened to the CC holders, why didn't they shoot back? They are supposed to be heros but were running like pussies".
1. Guns were not allowed at this concert. So CC holders who were actually following the law (yes there are a few of them left) wouldn't have had a gun to shoot back.
2. The shooter was over 400 yards away, CC means a handgun, they are useless at 400 yards.
With all the chaos going on you think he would have quickly found and shot him. Sure.
So rather than gun control which works we need more snipers. Funny.
The anti gunners think they are pretty clever....here is another one. He lists 8 things to stop future mass public shooters....and none of them would stop a mass shooter........but don't let that stop him...
Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings
Where are you getting "Democrat"?
Where in fact do you see any citation of a political party at all?
Okay, he's a Republican op-ed writer for the NYT and CNN contributer who champions a social safety net and universal health care. Sometimes something doesn't have to be explicitly stated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So where do you get "Republican"? It's the same question.
It could be that there's a legitimate answer to either one; I don't know, but I couldn't find one. I ask because I got immediately suspicious upon reading the OP's proper adjective. I know from past experience that he's probably pulling it out of his ass. So I give him a chance to prove me wrong. And he can't.
So yes, if your objective is to propagate an Association Fallacy by explicitly stating a specific adjective, it absolutely ***DOES*** have to have something backing it up. You can for instance describe the author as a writer for the New York Times. That's provable. You can link to it.
More to the point, where do either of you get this cockamamie idea that everybody belongs to a political party at all?
We live in a bifurcated world, in which most people who give a flying rat's patoot about politics identify with one of the major parties. No,I don't have concrete evidence that this guy belongs to one party or the other, but the majority of American "journalists" identify with the democrats. This guy is clearly left leaning, and the odds are that he is a democrat. I was being tongue in cheek by sarcastically suggesting that he was a Republican. Obviously, he is not. I would posit, though, that his sympathies would lie on the democrat side of the fence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know you were, but it's the same idiocy as the original idiocy to pretend that the world exists as some idiotic dichotomy like that. I for one belong to the largest political party faction in these United States, which is "NONE".
Aside from that obvious point, while condeding the one ass-umption you've injected several more, to wit: "this guy is clearly left leaning" and "the odds are that he is a democrat [sic]". Bullshit. What you have here is an "Everybody Knows X, therefore X is true" fallacy. Nothing more.
The bottom line still is, if you make an assertion you'd better be ready to back it up. With something a bit more tangible than "it seems likely" or "everybody knows" --- and then submit as your evidence a Wiki page that never mentions it at all.
Where are you getting "Democrat"?
Where in fact do you see any citation of a political party at all?
Okay, he's a Republican op-ed writer for the NYT and CNN contributer who champions a social safety net and universal health care. Sometimes something doesn't have to be explicitly stated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So where do you get "Republican"? It's the same question.
It could be that there's a legitimate answer to either one; I don't know, but I couldn't find one. I ask because I got immediately suspicious upon reading the OP's proper adjective. I know from past experience that he's probably pulling it out of his ass. So I give him a chance to prove me wrong. And he can't.
So yes, if your objective is to propagate an Association Fallacy by explicitly stating a specific adjective, it absolutely ***DOES*** have to have something backing it up. You can for instance describe the author as a writer for the New York Times. That's provable. You can link to it.
More to the point, where do either of you get this cockamamie idea that everybody belongs to a political party at all?
We live in a bifurcated world, in which most people who give a flying rat's patoot about politics identify with one of the major parties. No,I don't have concrete evidence that this guy belongs to one party or the other, but the majority of American "journalists" identify with the democrats. This guy is clearly left leaning, and the odds are that he is a democrat. I was being tongue in cheek by sarcastically suggesting that he was a Republican. Obviously, he is not. I would posit, though, that his sympathies would lie on the democrat side of the fence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know you were, but it's the same idiocy as the original idiocy to pretend that the world exists as some idiotic dichotomy like that. I for one belong to the largest political party faction in these United States, which is "NONE".
Aside from that obvious point, while condeding the one ass-umption you've injected several more, to wit: "this guy is clearly left leaning" and "the odds are that he is a democrat [sic]". Bullshit. What you have here is an "Everybody Knows X, therefore X is true" fallacy. Nothing more.
The bottom line still is, if you make an assertion you'd better be ready to back it up. With something a bit more tangible than "it seems likely" or "everybody knows" --- and then submit as your evidence a Wiki page that never mentions it at all.
I've cited several things that support the idea that he leans to the left.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The anti gunners think they are pretty clever....here is another one. He lists 8 things to stop future mass public shooters....and none of them would stop a mass shooter........but don't let that stop him...
Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings
Strong gun control has reduced mass shootings. We are only civilized country with this problem. Everywhere else it is rare or requires a terrorist group.
