shooting Clackamas Mall, Portland, Oregon

Semantics more important than dead people. The standard of the NRA assholes. On a weekly basis now it seems some fruitloop is going off and killing a bunch of people with an assault weopon. And every week we have the same people defending the indefensable.

Every week people die in car accidents, a lot more people.

Every week more people get hIV despite all the education efforts being made.

Every week there's more domestic abuse.

Yet you only seem to have a problem with guns.

WHat is your issue with "assault" weapons besides HOW THE GUN LOOKS?

Why to libqueers want to ban a gun based upon what it looks like?
 
Until the Gun Grabbers got started in the mid 60's weapons training occurred regularly at middle school. I don't recall reading about mass shootings, accidental discharges or a rash of gang violence because of it. It is a statistical fact that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most weapon related crimes. It further is a statistical fact that those locations that change their laws to less restrictive see a drop in crimes across the board.

Here is what you said...

"In the 40's and 50's firearm safety was taught in elementary School. Now we have no training except to get a concealed carry permit."

Is it middle school or elementary school you want guns for kids?

Wow.

Middle school is elementary school in a lot of locations. Where I went you had 1st through 8th and then High School. There is no reason a 12 year old can not be taught the proper handling of firearms.

Yes, I had a gun at 12. And I was taught the proper handling of firearms by the adults in my family. They were hunting guns, not war weopons.

These guns being used by the friutloops are weopons meant for only one purpose, killing people. That was they sole intent in design and function. And the NRA and people like Sgt are all for flooding our streets with these assault rifles. And now we are seeing the result.

The Second Amendment has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Should we decide to ban assault weopons, that is perfectly legal. And why should we not ban these weopons designed only for killing people? What use have they in a civilised society? As for self defense, if you cannot defend yourself with a high powered hunting rifle with 5 rounds, you shouldn't have the gun in the first place.
 
Semantics more important than dead people. The standard of the NRA assholes. On a weekly basis now it seems some fruitloop is going off and killing a bunch of people with an assault weopon. And every week we have the same people defending the indefensable.

Every week people die in car accidents, a lot more people.

Every week more people get hIV despite all the education efforts being made.

Every week there's more domestic abuse.

Yet you only seem to have a problem with guns.

WHat is your issue with "assault" weapons besides HOW THE GUN LOOKS?

Why to libqueers want to ban a gun based upon what it looks like?

Well, asshole, if you have just a five shot clip, you can have your ugly, inaccurate peice of shit. It is the capacity for multiple shots that creates the problem. And, of course, the psychology of the gun itself, since these weopons were created specifically to kill other people and have no other use.
 
Someone just shot up the Macy's at the Clackamas Mall. Possibly 60 shots, two know dead so far, assault weopon, large magazine.

Define assault weapon in a meaningful realistic way. If you say semiautomatic, you are mistaken. If you say fully automatic then it is already illegal in 13 States to own them and anyone in the other 37 must get a Federal License to own each individual weapon.

As for high capacity be specific and then explain why having one 30 round magazine is more deadly then have 3 10 round magazines. As for the 50 and 100 round magazines they are crap your weapon will jam quickly and often resulting in less rounds fired and more hassles keeping the weapon in action.

First you explain why answering those questions is more important than "two dead"? Are you insane?
 
Here is what you said...

"In the 40's and 50's firearm safety was taught in elementary School. Now we have no training except to get a concealed carry permit."

Is it middle school or elementary school you want guns for kids?

Wow.

Middle school is elementary school in a lot of locations. Where I went you had 1st through 8th and then High School. There is no reason a 12 year old can not be taught the proper handling of firearms.

Quick question..................if you see no problem with teaching a 12 year old the proper use of firearms, then why is it such a problem to let 13-15 year old kids get sexual education?

Who is saying that?

I've heard push back for teaching at the elementary school level but not at 13 & 15 or older.... Hell, I lost my virginity at 13.
I could've used some instruction... :tongue:
 
Until the Gun Grabbers got started in the mid 60's weapons training occurred regularly at middle school. I don't recall reading about mass shootings, accidental discharges or a rash of gang violence because of it. It is a statistical fact that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most weapon related crimes. It further is a statistical fact that those locations that change their laws to less restrictive see a drop in crimes across the board.

Here is what you said...

"In the 40's and 50's firearm safety was taught in elementary School. Now we have no training except to get a concealed carry permit."

Is it middle school or elementary school you want guns for kids?

Wow.

Middle school is elementary school in a lot of locations. Where I went you had 1st through 8th and then High School. There is no reason a 12 year old can not be taught the proper handling of firearms.
Wouldn't that make them want to kill? You know, just like teaching proper use of condoms makes them want to have sex???
 
One more reason why everyone should carry a weapon.

This^^^^^^^^^:clap2:

What you Mighty Mouse types never take into consideration is that a shooting like this or the others that happen about once a week, are done and over with long before you could get your gun out of your pocket or purse.

The shooter has the element of total shock on his side. While you're telling your wife that no, it doesn't make her ass look like a double wide horse trailer, the shooter is done and has already shot himself.

Carry a gun if you want but you might want to take notice that in none of these shootings do we ever hear of Mighty Mouse mowing down the shooter. Week after week, mass shootings, dead people, shock and horror but not one Mighty Mouse saved the day.

1291+-+Mighty+Mouse+Sticker+Color.jpg

Provide evidence that such shootings occur every week. I will make it easy we will start 3 months ago. Provide evidence that in the last 3 months there has been such a shooting every week in the last 3 months.
 
In 2007, in a Utah mall, one man, carrying a concealed weapon, took out a shooter and stopped the rampage.

Police: Off-Duty Cop Saved Lives In Mall - CBS News

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited Tuesday with helping stop a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who killed five people before he was cut down.

A day after the shooting, investigators struggled to figure out why a trench-coated Sulejmen Talovic opened fire on shoppers with a supremely calm look on his face.

The teenager wanted to "to kill a large number of people" and probably would have killed many more if not for the off-duty officer, Police Chief Chris Burbank said.

Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived, Burbank said.

"There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

There would be more instances of shooters being stopped, like this one was stopped, but we have elected to be a disarmed society.
 
And you sidestep my point that, is a time of a national upsurge in gun ownership because the nutters actually believe Obama coming after their guns, no one has ever shot one of these shooters.

Not even the goofball in Tucson who was buying cigs at the Walgreen's. He stayed inside the store while unarmed women took down Loughner.

Yeah and if he had hit any of those women he would have been sued to the point of extinction. I would have done the same thing. If I carry a gun it is to defend me not some stranger.

After the big brave he-men gun nuts saying mass shootings wouldn't happen if everyone had guns, it's a breath of fresh air that one admits he would hide out in a store while unarmed women took down the shooter and wrestle his gun away - as it went in Tucson. :lol::clap2:
 
In 2007, in a Utah mall, one man, carrying a concealed weapon, took out a shooter and stopped the rampage.

Police: Off-Duty Cop Saved Lives In Mall - CBS News

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited Tuesday with helping stop a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who killed five people before he was cut down.

A day after the shooting, investigators struggled to figure out why a trench-coated Sulejmen Talovic opened fire on shoppers with a supremely calm look on his face.

The teenager wanted to "to kill a large number of people" and probably would have killed many more if not for the off-duty officer, Police Chief Chris Burbank said.

Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived, Burbank said.

"There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

There would be more instances of shooters being stopped, like this one was stopped, but we have elected to be a disarmed society.

Too bad off duty cops can't be everywhere, huh?

As another nutter has said, the shooting stops when the (cops) guns arrive.

It seems like its either the cops or the shooter himself who ends it. Maybe it has happened that an armed civilian has shot the mass killer but its certainly not the norm that the nutter say it is.

More and more people are carrying guns but they're not stopping mass shootings like the say they could.

Why not?

Why are they hiding out away from the action?
 
In 2007, in a Utah mall, one man, carrying a concealed weapon, took out a shooter and stopped the rampage.

Police: Off-Duty Cop Saved Lives In Mall - CBS News

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited Tuesday with helping stop a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who killed five people before he was cut down.

A day after the shooting, investigators struggled to figure out why a trench-coated Sulejmen Talovic opened fire on shoppers with a supremely calm look on his face.

The teenager wanted to "to kill a large number of people" and probably would have killed many more if not for the off-duty officer, Police Chief Chris Burbank said.

Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived, Burbank said.

"There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

There would be more instances of shooters being stopped, like this one was stopped, but we have elected to be a disarmed society.

Too bad off duty cops can't be everywhere, huh?

As another nutter has said, the shooting stops when the (cops) guns arrive.

It seems like its either the cops or the shooter himself who ends it. Maybe it has happened that an armed civilian has shot the mass killer but its certainly not the norm that the nutter say it is.

More and more people are carrying guns but they're not stopping mass shootings like the say they could.

Why not?

Why are they hiding out away from the action?

More than likely this mall was one of those "gun free zones", and any concealed carry permit holder inside, being a law abiding citizen, left his weapon at home or in his car.

To me if you declare an area a "gun free zone" you then become responsible for the safety of anyone in the area, and should provide armed protection at all times.
 
One more reason why everyone should carry a weapon.

This^^^^^^^^^:clap2:

What you Mighty Mouse types never take into consideration is that a shooting like this or the others that happen about once a week, are done and over with long before you could get your gun out of your pocket or purse.

The shooter has the element of total shock on his side. While you're telling your wife that no, it doesn't make her ass look like a double wide horse trailer, the shooter is done and has already shot himself.

Carry a gun if you want but you might want to take notice that in none of these shootings do we ever hear of Mighty Mouse mowing down the shooter. Week after week, mass shootings, dead people, shock and horror but not one Mighty Mouse saved the day.

1291+-+Mighty+Mouse+Sticker+Color.jpg
So being gunned down like cattle led to the slaughter with no recourse is preferential?

Maybe to cowardly nothings like you that is okay.
 

Forum List

Back
Top