Mass shootings now ho hum.....

That NAS had a policy that nobody is allowed to bring guns on base even though Florida allows concealed carry. Another stupid "gun free" zone.

That didn't stop the Muslim terrorist but it did stop the people on base from having the means to defend themselves.

Filthy Liberal gun control laws never stop the bad guys but always makes it difficult for the citizens.

The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.


The fact that over two million people that live in Florida have concealed weapon permits but the people that got killed were not allowed to defend themselves on the Federal base is not much consolation to the families, is it?

The restrictions were wrong regardless of where they are imposed.

The restrictions did nothing to stop the shooter and everything to kept the victims from having the ability to defend themselves.

Fuck gun control laws.

Gun free zones (or installations) are only gun free for law abiding people but not the criminals.
More shootings and conservatives respond with the same ridiculous lies and sophistry.

More Truth....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.



In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

BREAKING: Man Opens Fire At Oklahoma Walmart, Confronted By Armed Citizen, Report Says

Two people were killed at a Walmart in Oklahoma by a man who opened fire in the parking lot on Monday before turning the weapon on himself after an armed citizen confronted him.
------

The assailant, who has not yet been identified, shot and killed a man and a woman in the parking lot and when he was “confronted by an armed citizen, he then turned the gun on himself,” The Daily Mail reported.
 
That NAS had a policy that nobody is allowed to bring guns on base even though Florida allows concealed carry. Another stupid "gun free" zone.

That didn't stop the Muslim terrorist but it did stop the people on base from having the means to defend themselves.

Filthy Liberal gun control laws never stop the bad guys but always makes it difficult for the citizens.

The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.


Moron...the base is a gun free zone for everyone but the military police...just like civilian life.......so when a shooting happens the military personnel are gun free until the police arrive, 5 or more minutes later......just like in the civilian world, you doofus.

Who flew planes into our lovely twin towers on 9/11? Be glad this guy didn't have a plane or you'd be arguing we all nned to arm ourselves with aircraft.

What did the poster - with firsthand experience post that you so fecklessly attempted to rebut?


“The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.”


It really doesn't make any difference the stupid justification that the filthy government uses to prevent the victims from protecting themselves. Federal, State, Local, what difference does it make if you are dead? The fact is the law prevented the victims from defending themselves but didn't stop the bad guy. Gun control laws don't work.

Face it, this is an unhealthy society predicated upon violence, which explains in part why americans think violence is the answer to everthing under the sun. And yeah, the american people should have never sat on our asses while a govt of/by/for the people morphed into a govt of/by/for concentrated corporate wealth and authority. But we did.
True.

American society is inherently violent; we accept and condone violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.
 
The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.


Moron...the base is a gun free zone for everyone but the military police...just like civilian life.......so when a shooting happens the military personnel are gun free until the police arrive, 5 or more minutes later......just like in the civilian world, you doofus.

Who flew planes into our lovely twin towers on 9/11? Be glad this guy didn't have a plane or you'd be arguing we all nned to arm ourselves with aircraft.

What did the poster - with firsthand experience post that you so fecklessly attempted to rebut?


“The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.”


It really doesn't make any difference the stupid justification that the filthy government uses to prevent the victims from protecting themselves. Federal, State, Local, what difference does it make if you are dead? The fact is the law prevented the victims from defending themselves but didn't stop the bad guy. Gun control laws don't work.

Face it, this is an unhealthy society predicated upon violence, which explains in part why americans think violence is the answer to everthing under the sun. And yeah, the american people should have never sat on our asses while a govt of/by/for the people morphed into a govt of/by/for concentrated corporate wealth and authority. But we did.
True.

American society is inherently violent; we accept and condone violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

Yes....Europe...the slave trade, colonialism, Naploeanic Wars, World War 1, World War 2, 12 million innocent men, women and children handed over to be murdered by socialists.......yes, we know how peaceful the Europeans are...
 
Don't have much information about todays shooter but according to what I have read the Preal Harbor shooter used his M4 service rifle for the attack and M9 service pistol to shoot himself in the head. So how would universal background checks or bans on military style semi automatic weapons have stopped this?
 
Pensacola shooter possibly terrorist related.

Link?

The gun violence today was a Muslim terrorist.


Link?


Yeah didn't think so.


You are confused or else simply low information.

Suspected shooter at Naval Air Station Pensacola was Saudi Air Force member

Suspected shooter at Naval Air Station Pensacola was Saudi Air Force member

The suspect in a shooting that killed three people and injured several others at a naval base in Pensacola, Florida, on Friday morning was a member of the Saudi Air Force who was in the U.S. for training, officials said.

Several law enforcement sources identified the gunman, who was killed in the incident, as Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani.

Just because he was from Saudi Arabia, does not automatically mean that he was a terrorist. People really should wait for the investigation to wrap up so they don't jump to conclusions.
Yes, but that’s not how the kids on the right play – for conservatives the process is to contrive a lie, propagate it quickly, repeat the lie over and over again, regardless of the facts.
 
Don't have much information about todays shooter but according to what I have read the Preal Harbor shooter used his M4 service rifle for the attack and M9 service pistol to shoot himself in the head. So how would universal background checks or bans on military style semi automatic weapons have stopped this?


The M4 is the military grade rifle....the AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle, not military grade......so the anti-gunners have nothing......
 
Pensacola shooter possibly terrorist related.

Link?

The gun violence today was a Muslim terrorist.


Link?


Yeah didn't think so.


You are confused or else simply low information.

Suspected shooter at Naval Air Station Pensacola was Saudi Air Force member

Suspected shooter at Naval Air Station Pensacola was Saudi Air Force member

The suspect in a shooting that killed three people and injured several others at a naval base in Pensacola, Florida, on Friday morning was a member of the Saudi Air Force who was in the U.S. for training, officials said.

Several law enforcement sources identified the gunman, who was killed in the incident, as Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani.

Just because he was from Saudi Arabia, does not automatically mean that he was a terrorist. People really should wait for the investigation to wrap up so they don't jump to conclusions.
Yes, but that’s not how the kids on the right play – for conservatives the process is to contrive a lie, propagate it quickly, repeat the lie over and over again, regardless of the facts.


And morons like you take the truth, facts and reality that conservatives constantly post, call it a lie, and repeat that over and over again because you have nothing to refute the truth, facts and reality that conservatives post....just like now........
 
The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.


Moron...the base is a gun free zone for everyone but the military police...just like civilian life.......so when a shooting happens the military personnel are gun free until the police arrive, 5 or more minutes later......just like in the civilian world, you doofus.

Who flew planes into our lovely twin towers on 9/11? Be glad this guy didn't have a plane or you'd be arguing we all nned to arm ourselves with aircraft.

What did the poster - with firsthand experience post that you so fecklessly attempted to rebut?


“The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.”


It really doesn't make any difference the stupid justification that the filthy government uses to prevent the victims from protecting themselves. Federal, State, Local, what difference does it make if you are dead? The fact is the law prevented the victims from defending themselves but didn't stop the bad guy. Gun control laws don't work.

Face it, this is an unhealthy society predicated upon violence, which explains in part why americans think violence is the answer to everthing under the sun. And yeah, the american people should have never sat on our asses while a govt of/by/for the people morphed into a govt of/by/for concentrated corporate wealth and authority. But we did.
True.

American society is inherently violent; we accept and condone violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

It certainly ends the argument.
 
Don't have much information about todays shooter but according to what I have read the Preal Harbor shooter used his M4 service rifle for the attack and M9 service pistol to shoot himself in the head. So how would universal background checks or bans on military style semi automatic weapons have stopped this?


The M4 is the military grade rifle....the AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle, not military grade......so the anti-gunners have nothing......
I know I was just curious to see what if any crazy responses they would give.
 
The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.


Moron...the base is a gun free zone for everyone but the military police...just like civilian life.......so when a shooting happens the military personnel are gun free until the police arrive, 5 or more minutes later......just like in the civilian world, you doofus.

Who flew planes into our lovely twin towers on 9/11? Be glad this guy didn't have a plane or you'd be arguing we all nned to arm ourselves with aircraft.

What did the poster - with firsthand experience post that you so fecklessly attempted to rebut?


“The laws of the state can be different from the laws on the base. Why? Because military property is considered federal property, not state.

And, while you want to spew the false narrative that the base is a gun free zone, hate to tell you, but all security personnel are armed, and there are always several roving patrols (2 personnel in a vehicle), but there are also 2 armed guards at each gate onto the base. Response time when I was on the Security Force at Newport was 2 min. or less.”


It really doesn't make any difference the stupid justification that the filthy government uses to prevent the victims from protecting themselves. Federal, State, Local, what difference does it make if you are dead? The fact is the law prevented the victims from defending themselves but didn't stop the bad guy. Gun control laws don't work.

Face it, this is an unhealthy society predicated upon violence, which explains in part why americans think violence is the answer to everthing under the sun. And yeah, the american people should have never sat on our asses while a govt of/by/for the people morphed into a govt of/by/for concentrated corporate wealth and authority. But we did.
True.

American society is inherently violent; we accept and condone violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

It certainly ends the argument.
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?


Easy access to guns? More guns = less gun violence.

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?


See, what you don't understand? Normal people who own and carry guns for self defense are not the ones driving our gun crime and gun murder levels. The policies of democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians are driving our gun murder and gun crime levels. They keep releasing violent gun criminals on bail and insanely short prison sentences, and the democrat party politicians keep reducing the sentences for actual gun criminals.....that is our problem.

Total number of mass public shootings in 2018....12.

Total killed...93.

Total killed from all gun murder in 2018.... 10,265.

The majority of those who kill with a gun are repeat gun offenders released from prison by insane, democrat party policies..... fix that problem and our gun crime and gun murder rates go down 95%.
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?


And this is another thing........all those normal people on that base....didn't bring a gun onto the base and kill people.....it was one guy who ignored the law, over and over, who brought the illegal gun onto the base and killed people...

So if all those normal people had carried their legal guns with them on the base the day before...none of them would have used them to shoot anyone.......and if they brought their legal guns onto the base the day of the attack...none of them would have used them to shoot innocent people...

You really don't understand the dynamic.....
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?


See, what you don't understand? Normal people who own and carry guns for self defense are not the ones driving our gun crime and gun murder levels. The policies of democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians are driving our gun murder and gun crime levels. They keep releasing violent gun criminals on bail and insanely short prison sentences, and the democrat party politicians keep reducing the sentences for actual gun criminals.....that is our problem.

Total number of mass public shootings in 2018....12.

Total killed...93.

Total killed from all gun murder in 2018.... 10,265.

The majority of those who kill with a gun are repeat gun offenders released from prison by insane, democrat party policies..... fix that problem and our gun crime and gun murder rates go down 95%.
It's all the Democrats fault. LOL
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?


And this is another thing........all those normal people on that base....didn't bring a gun onto the base and kill people.....it was one guy who ignored the law, over and over, who brought the illegal gun onto the base and killed people...

So if all those normal people had carried their legal guns with them on the base the day before...none of them would have used them to shoot anyone.......and if they brought their legal guns onto the base the day of the attack...none of them would have used them to shoot innocent people...

You really don't understand the dynamic.....
I do understand it. And I understand that the guy had easy access to guns because he is in America and therefore when he went into a funk, or whatever ailed him, without breaking a sweat he procured a gun and commenced to shoot people at school.
I wonder if it was a personal vendetta--twenty of seven in the morning in a classroom building? Is that where most terrorists would choose to strike? I don't know, they're all insane anyway so why am I trying to make sense of any of it.
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?


And this is another thing........all those normal people on that base....didn't bring a gun onto the base and kill people.....it was one guy who ignored the law, over and over, who brought the illegal gun onto the base and killed people...

So if all those normal people had carried their legal guns with them on the base the day before...none of them would have used them to shoot anyone.......and if they brought their legal guns onto the base the day of the attack...none of them would have used them to shoot innocent people...

You really don't understand the dynamic.....
I do understand it. And I understand that the guy had easy access to guns because he is in America and therefore when he went into a funk, or whatever ailed him, without breaking a sweat he procured a gun and commenced to shoot people at school.
I wonder if it was a personal vendetta--twenty of seven in the morning in a classroom building? Is that where most terrorists would choose to strike? I don't know, they're all insane anyway so why am I trying to make sense of any of it.

So you think this Saudi guy bough his guns here in the US?

He was a Saudi soldier and he probably brought his kit with him.

We should not be training foreign military personnel in our bases here in the states
 
[QU

More guns is not the answer to out of control numbers of shootings. Just take a step back and LOOK at that statement. Hullo.

You are confused.

If one or more of the victims had the means to defend themselves then they might not be dead now. That is a clear cut example of how more guns would have helped.

The fact they were prevented from defending themselves by the filthy government prevented them from having the opportunity.

The law abiding victims that died today obeyed the stupid law. The terrorist didn't.

Shame on the government for not allowing the people to defend themselves if they chose to do so.

Same on Liberals for electing Left leaning assholes that are hell bent on taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If anybody should be allowed to carry concealed or other wise available weapons it should the military, shouldn't it? Trained mature disciplined troops. Especially on a base with Muslims.
I do understand your argument, Flash; I just can't get behind it.
You bring up a point that has always fascinated me: WHY aren't military personnel allowed to carry on base? What does the government know about easy access to guns that we don't?


See, what you don't understand? Normal people who own and carry guns for self defense are not the ones driving our gun crime and gun murder levels. The policies of democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians are driving our gun murder and gun crime levels. They keep releasing violent gun criminals on bail and insanely short prison sentences, and the democrat party politicians keep reducing the sentences for actual gun criminals.....that is our problem.

Total number of mass public shootings in 2018....12.

Total killed...93.

Total killed from all gun murder in 2018.... 10,265.

The majority of those who kill with a gun are repeat gun offenders released from prison by insane, democrat party policies..... fix that problem and our gun crime and gun murder rates go down 95%.
It's all the Democrats fault. LOL


Yes....as I just explained...they keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison...who then go on to use illegal guns for crime and murder....why do they keep doing that?
 

Forum List

Back
Top