STEM School Shooting, Kids Fought Back and reduced Casulaties.

[Crepitus]

By taking them away from people and criminalizing ownership.

But that isn't really where I was going with that.

So your solution is to disarm the law abiding and leaving all the illegal firearms in criminal hands. Check out England which did that crime UP use of firearms in crime UP. Meanwhile in the US more concealed carry less crime more open carry less crime More firearms in law abiding citizens hands less crime.

That's nice honey.

It is true and you know it.

View attachment 260019

Can't argue with facts or reality so resort to stupid pictures, I get it really, you were beaten and can not handle it.

Lol, that was me showing you I'm rolling my eyes.

It's not that hard to figure out.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Q. Will Donald Trump award a posthumous medal of freedom to the student murdered, or was Tiger Woods a more important person than the hero who acted to save lives yesterday

The kid should be. I bet he will honor his parents.

He wasn't the only one to rush the Trump/Christ hater. Unfortunately, he lost his life to the Trum/Christ hater.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You know, my Grandmother used to be a sharpshooter in high school, and the rifles were stored on campus for the Girl's Skeet Shooting Team.

I hear the kids today at STEM actively resisted, attacked and tackled the punk shooter.

Imagine if they had guns, or at the very least one of the teachers?

These shooters seem to love gun free zones.

Imagine how many would have did if NOBODY there had guns, including the bad guys....

BE VERY SPECIFIC and explain how you intend to get rid of all firearms......

Hillary will come to your house at midnight, sneak into your bedroom, where Obama has been hiding under your bed, and he will hand them to her, and she will take them away from you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

BE VERY SPECIFIC and cite for us any common sense law that would have matter to these two...

No, because that is a stupid, anti intellectual exercise. Just as murder laws dont prevent all murders, gun control doesnt prevent all gun crime. That is not a good argument against either type of law.

In OTHER WORDS there are no further laws that impede law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights that would have prevented this crime. You see MORON they were ALREADY breaking the law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You freely admit murder laws do not prevent murders.

Liar. I said they dont prevent all murders. You, as you usually do, misrepresented me to make yourself some low hanging fruit that you actually have the mental tools to pick.

Of course gun control laws will prevent some crime, and some severity of committed crimes.

THE FACTS are that MORE firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens has resulted in LESS crime. Check the stats from 1991 to present. The FACTS are more concealed carry has resulted in less crime, again check the stats from 1991 to present. The FACT is more open carry has resulted in less crime, check the stats from 1991 to present.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Meanwhile in the US more concealed carry less crime more open carry less crime More firearms in law abiding citizens hands less crime.

I just ran the numbers and I'm seeing close to no correlation between concealed carry rates and crime rates. What numbers are you using?

However, there is a very clear upward correlation between gun ownership and gun-related deaths (including negligence, suicide, accident). In general, more gun ownership = more gun-related deaths.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

This young man definitely should be awarded the Medal of Freedom for what he did.....

He was a great kid, had a great future and will be a great loss -- he was an award-winning, four-year member of the school’s robotics team with multiple scholarships waiting for him.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

A student reported today that one of her classmates, the one who was murdered, charged the perp and was shot to death, but the commotion allowed her and others to escape, and three other male students to tackled the shooter and held him for the police.

Q. Will Donald Trump award a posthumous medal of freedom to the student murdered, or was Tiger Woods a more important person than the hero who acted to save lives yesterday.

Did you really need to take a shot at Trump because a kid in Colorado did something heroic? You're getting pathetically desperate, Catcher!

Don't feel bad...someone took a shot at Clinton, no not Hillary, Bill......even tho the topic was about a mother mourning the death of her son.


Talk about desperate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think the salient point you are tap dancing around is that it's a logical fallacy to think more laws will result in less crime.

Explain how it is a fallacy. You use a lot of words you dont really understand, but you never really explain yourself. Which, i suppose, is redundant.

I wonder why the shooters didn't use fully automatic weapons and grenades? Do you think they would have killed more or fewer people, if they had fully automatic weapons and grenades?

See, you went and stepped in it and used a big word you don't really understand and are not prepared to argue. And you are about to fall right on your face because of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are lots of gun studies that show states with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest incidents of gun violence

Now THAT is what a fallacy looks like. Pay attention:

You are implying causality without any basis. You have not demonstrated or even attempted to demonstrate that there would be less violence without those laws. You have not bothered to look at why those places have more violence, or what effects the laws actually have. You simply saw 2 numbers and vomited them with no understanding whatsoever. Then, you specioisly implied direct causation.

See, you think in fallacies, which goes hand in hand with you not understanding what a fallacy is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In OTHER WORDS there are no further laws that impede law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights that would have prevented this crime.

Of course there are. Any law that would have made the weapons harder to get may have prevented it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Now THAT is what a fallacy looks like. Pay attention:

You are implying causality without any basis. You have not demonstrated or even attempted to demonstrate that there would be less violence without those laws. You have not bothered to look at why those places have more violence, or what effects the laws actually have. You simply saw 2 numbers and vomited them with no understanding whatsoever. Then, you specioisly implied direct causation.

See, you think in fallacies, which goes hand in hand with you not understanding what a fallacy is.

No fallacy involved. The statement- areas with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun violence- is absolutely factual and true. A simply fact that's simply true!

Regardless of whatever ancillary factors you imagine shape that fact, but never demonstrate what the factors are or how they effect the overall statement, restrictive gun laws have not lowered gun violence in places like Chicago.

I stated fact. It's up to you to demonstrate those facts are somehow misleading. Good luck with that.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Explain how it is a fallacy. You use a lot of words you dont really understand, but you never really explain yourself. Which, i suppose, is redundant.

It's you who don't seem to understand the words I use.Too many syllables for you to handle perhaps.
One of those words you don't seem to understand is "redundant".

I wonder why the shooters didn't use fully automatic weapons and grenades? Do you think they would have killed more or fewer people, if they had fully automatic weapons and grenades?

More undoubtedly.

See, you went and stepped in it and used a big word you don't really understand and are not prepared to argue. And you are about to fall right on your face because of it.

I understand what redundant means. Why are you
assuming you do?