Why Weren't Annapolis Victims Armed ?

[protectionist]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

 

[del]

they weren't paranoid nutbars like the op

you're welcome

 

[protectionist]

they weren't paranoid nutbars like the op

you're welcome

Wow. Is anything dumber than this ? Hey dum dum, you know the definition of "paranoid" ? It means fearing something without a good reason. How is now being DEAD, for a good reason ? God, you're stupid.

 

[BlackFlag]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

Good idea. In Trump's Amerika, journalists need to arm themselves or hire security. Probably better off with both.

 

[Pogo]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

Who the fuck are you even talking about? Link? Reference? Anything?

You have my pity that you self-imprison to the point where you walk around armed. How pathetic.

 

[harmonica]

in a civilized society, people should not need weapons
I lived in a ''not good'' 'hood, and never needed a weapon
.....France, Germany, England [ countries most comparable to the US ] have much, many times lower murder rates with strict gun laws---period
..if guns deter murder, than the US should have one of the lowest murder rates- ...especially in the developed countries--the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates
but the US has one of the highest murder rates--especially in the developed countries
...period

please explain??--period

 

[Pogo]

they weren't paranoid nutbars like the op

you're welcome

Wow. Is anything dumber than this ? Hey dum dum, you know the definition of "paranoid" ? It means fearing something without a good reason. How is now being DEAD, for a good reason ? God, you're stupid.

You're saying you're "dead"?

That does explain a hell of a lot of your posts actually.

 

[Pilot1]

Maryland has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet cities like Baltimore have very high Black, on Black murder rates. Criminals can get guns, but the law abiding can not get a permit to carry, and must buy a license just to own a gun. Many guns are banned. It is a socialist HELL HOLE.

 

[night_son]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organizati...singDivision/Firearms/WearandCarryPermit.aspx

All good points. Unfortunately our cultural majority still want to depend on sheep dogs to save them from the wolf. I'm in MD. If you've been a good boy it's easy enough to qualify. That said, the first mistake most shooting victims make is mass reactive panic to the shooter's weapon. That's what the shooter expects and his reaction is no different than a prey response.

 

[Pilot1]

You can be a good boy all you want, but you still won't get a permit to carry in Maryland.

 

[bodecea]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

Would the OP have been able to react in time? Hmmmmm

 

[Montrovant]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

There are plenty of possible reasons the people in the newsroom were not armed. Personal preference, state laws, past history, company policy; I don't know why they were unarmed. Many people do not carry any sort of weaponry on their person regularly.

Your 3 scenarios, while possible, certainly do not encompass all possible outcomes with someone in the newsroom being armed.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

Good idea. In Trump's Amerika, journalists need to arm themselves or hire security. Probably better off with both.

When mobs with pitchforks and torches approach, good luck with that.

 

[bodecea]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

Good idea. In Trump's Amerika, journalists need to arm themselves or hire security. Probably better off with both.

Certainly what the OP is implying, isn't it?

 

[WinterBorn]

they weren't paranoid nutbars like the op

you're welcome

Wow. Is anything dumber than this ? Hey dum dum, you know the definition of "paranoid" ? It means fearing something without a good reason. How is now being DEAD, for a good reason ? God, you're stupid.

Because they CHOSE not to carry a firearm? Would you force them to go armed?

 

[protectionist]

Who the fuck are you even talking about? Link? Reference? Anything?

You have my pity that you self-imprison to the point where you walk around armed. How pathetic.

What's the matter ? You don't understand plain American English ? What is there in the OP to not understand ? Maybe you could read slower.

And you call walking around armed "pathetic" ? And "self-imprison" Uh huh. And so when this guy (or his equivalent) comes at you, you offer him a lollipop, is that right ?

You libs are basket cases. Truly.

 

[protectionist]

Because they CHOSE not to carry a firearm? Would you force them to go armed?

Do you KNOW they "CHOSE", or were they obliged to be unarmed, by law ?

 

[Lysistrata]

Are you suggesting that all Americans be armed with loaded guns. Staff at women's clinics? Ushers in predominantly black churches? Jews at synagogues? Muslims at mosques? Sikhs and Buddhists at temples?

 

[protectionist]

in a civilized society, people should not need weapons
I lived in a ''not good'' 'hood, and never needed a weapon
.....France, Germany, England [ countries most comparable to the US ] have much, many times lower murder rates with strict gun laws---period
..if guns deter murder, than the US should have one of the lowest murder rates- ...especially in the developed countries--the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates
but the US has one of the highest murder rates--especially in the developed countries
...period

please explain??--period

You can post as many graphs as you like, but when the bad guy comes at you with a knife, a tire iron, a pitch fork, whatever, you're gonna need that gun. ..period

PS -the US has one of the lowest homicide rates in the western hemisphere. The 4.7 your cherry-pick graph shows is relatively tiny.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

 

[WinterBorn]

Because they CHOSE not to carry a firearm? Would you force them to go armed?

Do you KNOW they "CHOSE", or were they obliged to be unarmed, by law ?

Learning to read might help you. Did I say that they chose? Or did I pose a question in response to your question.

The simple fact is, you don't know either.