74 school shootings in 77 weeks...Worth it's own thread.

[Meister]

Have I told you how much I love shooting my firearms? And again, as much as I love shooting them, they have never been pointed at another person.

 

[JoeB131]

Have I told you how much I love shooting my firearms? And again, as much as I love shooting them, they have never been pointed at another person.

Then why should you care if we perform real background checks and limit who can have guns if you are so sure your gun record is so impeccable, no one could argue with you having one?

Frankly, when I hear you gun nuts tell me how much you love your guns, it kind of makes me wonder about your mental stability.

 

[whitehall]

A lot of them seem to be anti-Christian. Most of them seem to be clinically insane democrats who were allowed to possess firearms as long as they voted for left wing candidates.

 

[Meister]

Have I told you how much I love shooting my firearms? And again, as much as I love shooting them, they have never been pointed at another person.

Then why should you care if we perform real background checks and limit who can have guns if you are so sure your gun record is so impeccable, no one could argue with you having one?

Frankly, when I hear you gun nuts tell me how much you love your guns, it kind of makes me wonder about your mental stability.

Outlier.....you want to rid us of our guns....that is what you have been posting over and over.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have.

Criminals who don't have easy access to guns can't commit crimes as easily.

It's really pretty fucking simple.

But I'm not even talking about the criminals. Yes, we have too many of those. We lock up millions of people and still have crime

I'm talking about the suicides and the accidents and the guy who shoots his wife during an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best. All those tragedies that could be avoided if we didn't let every asshole who wants a gun have one.

Criminals who can't get guns will still be criminals, Joe.
In Japan, the weapon of choice is a knife. Here in the States, mass murder with a knife is unheard of because of guns. Are you familiar with the advice: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?

Osaka school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.[2]

Wow.

So you had to go back THIRTEEN YEARS to find an example. You left that little detail out, that this happened in 2001.

We can't go a few weeks without a major school massacre with guns, guy.

So I'm wondering why you left this little detail out?

WTF does the date have to do with showing you what happens when there are zero guns in a society. Let's suppose there was an armed guard at that Japanese school. How many lives might have been saved?

 

[JoeB131]

Criminals who can't get guns will still be criminals, Joe.
In Japan, the weapon of choice is a knife. Here in the States, mass murder with a knife is unheard of because of guns. Are you familiar with the advice: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?

Osaka school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.[2]

Wow.

So you had to go back THIRTEEN YEARS to find an example. You left that little detail out, that this happened in 2001.

We can't go a few weeks without a major school massacre with guns, guy.

So I'm wondering why you left this little detail out?

WTF does the date have to do with showing you what happens when there are zero guns in a society. Let's suppose there was an armed guard at that Japanese school. How many lives might have been saved?

That's a good question.

THere were two armed Guards at Columbine. Didn't do a bit of good.
Virginia Tech had its own police force. Didn't do a bit of Good.

Fort Hood (TWICE!) and the Washington Naval Yard are MILITARY BASES. Didn't do a bit of good.

A good guy with a gun usually doesn't foil a bad guy with a gun because the Bad guy has a plan and he doesn't care about the consequences.

The best defense is never arming him to start with.

Then MAYBE you get one of these incidents every 13 years instead of every other week.

 

[Meister]

Wow.

So you had to go back THIRTEEN YEARS to find an example. You left that little detail out, that this happened in 2001.

We can't go a few weeks without a major school massacre with guns, guy.

So I'm wondering why you left this little detail out?

WTF does the date have to do with showing you what happens when there are zero guns in a society. Let's suppose there was an armed guard at that Japanese school. How many lives might have been saved?

That's a good question.

THere were two armed Guards at Columbine. Didn't do a bit of good.
Virginia Tech had its own police force. Didn't do a bit of Good.

Fort Hood (TWICE!) and the Washington Naval Yard are MILITARY BASES. Didn't do a bit of good.

A good guy with a gun usually doesn't foil a bad guy with a gun because the Bad guy has a plan and he doesn't care about the consequences.

The best defense is never arming him to start with.

Then MAYBE you get one of these incidents every 13 years instead of every other week.

The school and Fort Hood were gun free zones, hope that doesn't burst your bubble.

 

[JoeB131]

[
The school and Fort Hood were gun free zones, hope that doesn't burst your bubble.

Well, no, it's just not relevant to any point.

This would not have solved the problem.

 

[hunarcy]

WTF does the date have to do with showing you what happens when there are zero guns in a society. Let's suppose there was an armed guard at that Japanese school. How many lives might have been saved?

That's a good question.

THere were two armed Guards at Columbine. Didn't do a bit of good.
Virginia Tech had its own police force. Didn't do a bit of Good.

Fort Hood (TWICE!) and the Washington Naval Yard are MILITARY BASES. Didn't do a bit of good.

A good guy with a gun usually doesn't foil a bad guy with a gun because the Bad guy has a plan and he doesn't care about the consequences.

The best defense is never arming him to start with.

Then MAYBE you get one of these incidents every 13 years instead of every other week.

The school and Fort Hood were gun free zones, hope that doesn't burst your bubble.

And at Columbine, there was ONE armed guard at the high school and he was not inside. A motorcycle policeman responded to the guard's radio call and though he also fired a shot at Harris, he was not in the building either.

As it was illegal for Harris and Klebold to have ANY of the weapons they used, obviously the laws the Left DEMANDED didn't work. However, if the Sheriff's department had followed through on the complaint that the Brooks family had made, perhaps the boys might have been dealt with more effectively.

 

[hunarcy]

WTF does the date have to do with showing you what happens when there are zero guns in a society. Let's suppose there was an armed guard at that Japanese school. How many lives might have been saved?

That's a good question.

THere were two armed Guards at Columbine. Didn't do a bit of good.
Virginia Tech had its own police force. Didn't do a bit of Good.

Fort Hood (TWICE!) and the Washington Naval Yard are MILITARY BASES. Didn't do a bit of good.

A good guy with a gun usually doesn't foil a bad guy with a gun because the Bad guy has a plan and he doesn't care about the consequences.

The best defense is never arming him to start with.

Then MAYBE you get one of these incidents every 13 years instead of every other week.

The school and Fort Hood were gun free zones, hope that doesn't burst your bubble.

I doubt if JoeTroll can understand the point you're making. He seems to think that because they are military installations, everyone there is armed and you're making it up that they are gun free zones. It's sort of a mental illness on his part, I think.

 

[Politico]

Have I told you how much I love shooting my firearms? And again, as much as I love shooting them, they have never been pointed at another person.

Then why should you care if we perform real background checks and limit who can have guns if you are so sure your gun record is so impeccable, no one could argue with you having one?

Frankly, when I hear you gun nuts tell me how much you love your guns, it kind of makes me wonder about your mental stability.

Outlier.....you want to rid us of our guns....that is what you have been posting over and over.

That.

 

[JoeB131]

And at Columbine, there was ONE armed guard at the high school and he was not inside. A motorcycle policeman responded to the guard's radio call and though he also fired a shot at Harris, he was not in the building either.

As it was illegal for Harris and Klebold to have ANY of the weapons they used, obviously the laws the Left DEMANDED didn't work. However, if the Sheriff's department had followed through on the complaint that the Brooks family had made, perhaps the boys might have been dealt with more effectively.

Or Guns never could have been available to the irresponsible friends who purchased them at gun shows using the gun show loophole.

Columbine showed that the gun laws are inadequate, and that's really how the NRA wants it. Because while selling the the Nancy Lanza's of the world is good money, they really want to keep a lot of regular people scared.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I doubt if JoeTroll can understand the point you're making. He seems to think that because they are military installations, everyone there is armed and you're making it up that they are gun free zones. It's sort of a mental illness on his part, I think.

I've been to a bunch of military installations.

Of course, they aren't "gun free zones". They are actually just "Well-Regulated". You don't have a gun on you unless your duty responsibilities require it.

They have military police, they have civilian contractors. Fact was, in the Naval Yard shooting, the shooter took some of his guns off a security worker. So much for the "Good Guy with a gun" theory.

 

[skookerasbil]

Joe pulls numbers out his ass and posts them up in here!!!


But Spambot brings the real poop >>>>


Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


Where is this from?


Harvard University study completed in April of 2013 and published in the Journal of Law and Public Policy. It concluded that.........



more guns = less crime/murder



Here is the entire paper >>>>>


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf




The gun grabber crazies lose..........again!!!

It is kinda funny that the gun grabber assholes always ignore THIS ^^^^


Gun laws are ghey and everybody knows it.

 

[skookerasbil]

only gun grabber nutters want gun free zones!!! A huge majority of Americans say, "FUCK THAT!!"


Gallup Poll: Support for gun control is waning, opposition to handgun ban at all-time high

 

[JoeB131]

spambot wishes someone would pay attention to it.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, it's that the tool is available to a lot of people who shouldn't have it.

end of the day, every country that has limited gun ownership has solved this problem.

Except for ours.

Because the people who sell guns actually WANT crime. They want fear.

Uh huh.. because different tools do not lead to people using them for violence

I guess Cain did not kill Abel because he had no firearm.. .I guess the Christians were spared by the Romans thanks to no guns. I guess Shannon Tate is happy raising her child today because the Manson family did not use guns.

Fuck off, idiot

Cain and Abel Never existed. If you are going to use mythology to make your point, whatever that is, you really shouldn't waste my time.

Oh, yeah, the Romans never threw Christians to the Lions, either. (Too bad, I'd have paid good money to see that.) Christians made that shit up.

I love watching gun nuts stomp their little feet.

Uh huh... the point is the same, whether you believe in the bible or not, asswipe

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh huh.. because different tools do not lead to people using them for violence

I guess Cain did not kill Abel because he had no firearm.. .I guess the Christians were spared by the Romans thanks to no guns. I guess Shannon Tate is happy raising her child today because the Manson family did not use guns.

Fuck off, idiot

Cain and Abel Never existed. If you are going to use mythology to make your point, whatever that is, you really shouldn't waste my time.

Oh, yeah, the Romans never threw Christians to the Lions, either. (Too bad, I'd have paid good money to see that.) Christians made that shit up.

I love watching gun nuts stomp their little feet.

Uh huh... the point is the same, whether you believe in the bible or not, asswipe

True. Doesn't matter if you think Cain and Abel were the first murder, or you think they didn't exist. SOMEONE committed the first murder, and they for damned sure did it without a gun.

But then, Joe would be the expert of wastes of time, wouldn't he?

I love watching anti-religous bigots turn into screaming, frothing lunatics at the flip of their kneejerk switches.

Yeah, the Romans never brutally tortured and killed Christians. All those historians who say otherwise are secretly religious nuts.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh huh.. because different tools do not lead to people using them for violence

I guess Cain did not kill Abel because he had no firearm.. .I guess the Christians were spared by the Romans thanks to no guns. I guess Shannon Tate is happy raising her child today because the Manson family did not use guns.

Fuck off, idiot

Cain and Abel Never existed. If you are going to use mythology to make your point, whatever that is, you really shouldn't waste my time.

Oh, yeah, the Romans never threw Christians to the Lions, either. (Too bad, I'd have paid good money to see that.) Christians made that shit up.

I love watching gun nuts stomp their little feet.

Uh huh... the point is the same, whether you believe in the bible or not, asswipe

YOu don't have a point, and repeating mythologies isn't really making one.

Fact is, countries that dont' let their populations have guns have less murder. It's really that freakin' simple.

 

[JoeB131]

True. Doesn't matter if you think Cain and Abel were the first murder, or you think they didn't exist. SOMEONE committed the first murder, and they for damned sure did it without a gun.

But then, Joe would be the expert of wastes of time, wouldn't he?

Well, no, the fact that there was a first murder isn't the point. The point is, murders are a lot easier to commit with guns. And often more tragic when that argument that never should have turned into a murder became one because a gun was easily available.

I love watching anti-religous bigots turn into screaming, frothing lunatics at the flip of their kneejerk switches.

I'm sorry, where did I scream or froth? I merely said, logically, that the human race did not evolve from a bunch of incest committing myth people.

Yeah, the Romans never brutally tortured and killed Christians. All those historians who say otherwise are secretly religious nuts.

Maybe you need to read a book once in a while. In short, the Christians totally made that shit up, and there was not one credible contemporary account of Christians being thrown to Lions in the Colosseum.



?The Myth of Persecution?: Early Christians weren?t persecuted - Salon.com

Now, what I do find amusing is that Christians have spent hundreds of years murdering other Christians over such weighty issues such as did Jesus exist before he was born, was he a man or a God, and did he really turn the wafers into his own flesh, and whether he left the Popes in charge.

And hey, a lot of those murders were done without guns, so you guys could have made a totally compelling pointless argument about that.