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.
Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.
The Colorado shooter did not attack in a gun free zone. There were people with guns in the theatre who did not use them because they couldn't see what was going on and it was too chaotic.
oh Rily?
John Lott's Website: No guns policy at Cinemark Theaters?
There were survivors interviewed who said they had their guns with them and couldn't see what was going on.
I doubt the theatre frisks those who enter.
Links?
It was four years ago. I don't remember whether this was a TV interview or a print report. I do remember that the the guy was either an off-duty cop or military. He said that the tear gas made it impossible to see, and it all happened too quickly to get a sense of what was going on.
There was a media barrage of reports and information in every newspaper and TV station. It's impossible to find much of it now without knowing exactly where to look.
Gun free meaning non-government actors were prevented from bringing their own firearms to the location.
You are incorrect.The students and teachers were unarmed. Had they been armed they could've defended themselves.
Or they could have panicked and randomly shot someone in the hall...
Look, guy, the Good Guy with a gun never shows up. If a mass shooter is stopped, he is either stopped by the cops or he stops himself.
One example and proof that dr who avatar guy is wrong. Good guys had guns in the movie theater and didn't panic and randomly shoot innocent people trying to get the perp.You said "no crime". Again, impossible bar, wanker.
Can you name a country with shitloads of guns and LITTLE crime.. or even less crime than a gun-controlling democracy... no, no, you can't.
Because everyone else realized what a terrible thing it is letting people who have no business owning guns have them.
He doesn't, or is incapable of, grasping, shall not be infringed
sure...it comes after WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
These guys are not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA
Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.
The Colorado shooter did not attack in a gun free zone. There were people with guns in the theatre who did not use them because they couldn't see what was going on and it was too chaotic.
Depends on the kid. I would go out in the woods and shoot a 12 gauge and a 22 when I was 14. I used to stand gator guard for the kids across the street when they went to the retention pond to take their baths because they didn't have running water in their house.Gun free meaning non-government actors were prevented from bringing their own firearms to the location.
Yup, somehow I don't think this would have stopped Sandy Hook.
Want me to paste and copy examples?
11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives - Photos - Washington Times
Gun free meaning non-government actors were prevented from bringing their own firearms to the location.
Yup, somehow I don't think this would have stopped Sandy Hook.
I figured you were scared of little girls.
I figured you were scared of little girls.
Yes, the hundreds of children who are shot with guns every year does scare me...
Why it doesn't bother you is another matter.
"Um, Founding Fathers. Second Amendment. Freedom!!!"
And the thousands who die in car accidents I guess don't count because they don't give you a political axe to grind.
And the thousands who die in car accidents I guess don't count because they don't give you a political axe to grind.
Here's the thing. Every year, the car industry does things to make the cars safer. they promote safety, they support things like seat belt laws and no small children in the front seat laws and other things that reduce fatalities that will probably follow when you have millions of vehicles on the road, every day. They conduct crash tests to make their cars safer.
And they do this because frankly, if someone dies in a car accident, the car companies can be held liable if is found to be their fault.
MEANWHILE, the gun companies are constantly pushing more powerful guns, bigger magazines, and they are marketing their products to the most unstable people in the country. It's not a conincidence that 50% of the guns are owned by 3% of the population. The gun industry isn't interested in the guy who buys a guy and sticks it in his closet for 20 years.
They want THIS guy as a repeat customer..
If the Auto industry acted like the gun industry, they'd market their products to speeders and drunk drivers, and demand all those pesky traffic signs be taken down because Founding Fathers or some such shit. Then insist on cutting the number of traffic cops.
They are held liable if the car is defective or a part of it is defective. Gun manufacturers are held to the same standard.
Drunk driving convictions do not lead to Ford being sued. Wreckless drivers do not lead to Chevy being sued.
You want to make gun companies liable for other's actions just because you see it as an end run around the 2nd amendment.
They are held liable if the car is defective or a part of it is defective. Gun manufacturers are held to the same standard.
Drunk driving convictions do not lead to Ford being sued. Wreckless drivers do not lead to Chevy being sued.
Because they actively discourage that kind of thing. As opposed to the gun industry, which tells gun nuts, "We needs us some guns because Obama is going to bring socialism!!!"
You want to make gun companies liable for other's actions just because you see it as an end run around the 2nd amendment.
I want the industry to change its behavior. FOr instance, WHEN Ford was found liable for its shenannigans with the Pinto (where they decided it would be cheaper to pay out a few dozen injury suits than recall millions of cars to fix them), they changed their behavior.
When you hold the gun industry liable for Adam Lanza, they will make damn sure the next Adam Lanza doesn't happen.
They are held liable if the car is defective or a part of it is defective. Gun manufacturers are held to the same standard.
Drunk driving convictions do not lead to Ford being sued. Wreckless drivers do not lead to Chevy being sued.
Because they actively discourage that kind of thing. As opposed to the gun industry, which tells gun nuts, "We needs us some guns because Obama is going to bring socialism!!!"
You want to make gun companies liable for other's actions just because you see it as an end run around the 2nd amendment.
I want the industry to change its behavior. FOr instance, WHEN Ford was found liable for its shenannigans with the Pinto (where they decided it would be cheaper to pay out a few dozen injury suits than recall millions of cars to fix them), they changed their behavior.
When you hold the gun industry liable for Adam Lanza, they will make damn sure the next Adam Lanza doesn't happen.
Considering there are people like you out there who DO want to ban guns for everyone, their fears are warranted.
Again, the Pinto was an actual defect with the vehicle. You want people to be able to sue Chevy because Camaros can go fast, and chevy advertises how Camaros can go fast.
Considering there are people like you out there who DO want to ban guns for everyone, their fears are warranted.
Again, the Pinto was an actual defect with the vehicle. You want people to be able to sue Chevy because Camaros can go fast, and chevy advertises how Camaros can go fast.
No, Dude, I want to sue Chevy for marketing Camaros to reckless drivers, if they did that... which is pretty much what the gun industry does.
They market the Camaro as a Sports Car, that implies fast driving and hard handling. So you would try to sue them for that?
Good luck.
They market the Camaro as a Sports Car, that implies fast driving and hard handling. So you would try to sue them for that?
Good luck.
I think there's a big difference between "our car is fast" and "Consider your Man Card Reissued", which is what the gun industry does.
