After What Happened Today.Are We Thinking/Saying; "Well, So Much For Gun Control".

[theDoctorisIn]

As far as we know, the events of today have nothing to do with either guns or illegal immigration.

All of you stupid ***** who are trying to use this for your own pet issues should be ******* ashamed of yourselves.

 

[TemplarKormac]

After what happened today, shouldn't we be grieving instead of politicking?

 

[Saigon]

It makes no difference if they take our guns away! People will still get killed by other means.

Well, more than 50,000 Americans were deliberately shot last year.

How many would have been injured or killed if there were no guns in the US?

 

[idb]

In that case it also proves that guns are useless for self-defence.
So that argument is no longer valid.

no that is not a valid comparacy

every day a gun saves a life


Two armed men forced their way into a home in Fayetteville, NC.

They were met with armed resistance from the homeowner and a gun fight erupted.

When all of the shots had been fired both suspects fled the scene.

Both suspects were found dead from their injuries nearby.

Suspects dead after attempted home invasion in Fayetteville | MyFOX8.com

It's a perfectly valid comparison.
Every day guns take several lives.

If every time a gun prevents a crime it's proof that guns prevent crimes, why can't the opposite also be true?
Every time a crime happens where there are guns it's proof that guns don't stop crimes.

 

[jon_berzerk]

In that case it also proves that guns are useless for self-defence.
So that argument is no longer valid.

no that is not a valid comparacy

every day a gun saves a life


Two armed men forced their way into a home in Fayetteville, NC.

They were met with armed resistance from the homeowner and a gun fight erupted.

When all of the shots had been fired both suspects fled the scene.

Both suspects were found dead from their injuries nearby.

Suspects dead after attempted home invasion in Fayetteville | MyFOX8.com

It's a perfectly valid comparison.
Every day guns take several lives.

If every time a gun prevents a crime it's proof that guns prevent crimes, why can't the opposite also be true?
Every time a crime happens where there are guns it's proof that guns don't stop crimes.

who said there was guns there

who said someone with a gun

seen the perp planting bombs


nope still no comparacy

 

[Politico]

After What Happened Today.Are We Thinking/Saying; "Well, So Much For Gun Control".

No since one doesn't have shit to do with the other.

 

[ABikerSailor]

and just look at the timing. all this during the gun issue debates. like I said, so much for banning guns, maybe we need to ban terrorists from crossing legally in the country and building dirty bombs. right?

Quick question.................do you even know what a dirty bomb is?

Because I can sure as hell tell you that it wasn't in Boston.

As a matter of fact, I challenge you to provide a link that shows a dirty bomb has ever been detonated in the U.S.A.

Good luck..........................there aren't any.

 

[JoeB131]

Every one knew IED's would be coming to this country, it was just a matter of when. With our semi-open borders tons of explosives can be smuggled in as easily as marijuana. Border control is a national security issue that the left has get a handle on and it will cost more lives. Kind of makes you wonder where their heads are. okt


Which Ronald Reagan issued the first - and only - amnesty to illegals? Was it the one who promised the middle class better jobs, or the one who tripled the national debt creating fake prosperity?

Which Junebug Bush supported legislation enfranchising illegals? Was it the one who wanted more fences or the one who cut overtime for border patrol agents?

We also don't know who did this yet. It might be a domestic terrorist group.

The timing is suspicious. THis is the same week as the Waco Anniversery, the OK City Anniversery, the Columbine shootings, and Hitler's birthday, and we've seen an uptick of White Supremist violence of late.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you.

Advocating for the government to take your ability to protect yourself away from you is lunacy.

 

[Saigon]

We also don't know who did this yet. It might be a domestic terrorist group.

The timing is suspicious. THis is the same week as the Waco Anniversery, the OK City Anniversery, the Columbine shootings, and Hitler's birthday, and we've seen an uptick of White Supremist violence of late.

I thought the same - and for all we know at this stage the attack may have had something to do with the building the bomb was placed in or some factor other than simply the marathon itself. Most likely the marathon was the target, but we can't be sure. I imagine we'll know more in a few days.

For one thing - if the target was the marathon - why was the bomb detonated three hours after the leaders finished?

 

[JoeB131]

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you.

Advocating for the government to take your ability to protect yourself away from you is lunacy.

Sooooo....ummmm, how did a bunch of gun owners keep this from happening, exactly?

Three people died here, but we have 30,000 gun deaths a year in this country.

Seems to me your "cure" is worse than the "disease".

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you.

Advocating for the government to take your ability to protect yourself away from you is lunacy.

Sooooo....ummmm, how did a bunch of gun owners keep this from happening, exactly?

Three people died here, but we have 30,000 gun deaths a year in this country.

Seems to me your "cure" is worse than the "disease".

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you. Not from a bomb, not from a criminal, not from a rapist etc.

If you think it can then you are the one who is mentally ill.

 

[Circe]

Advocating for the government to take your ability to protect yourself away from you is lunacy.

We aren't. We are advocating for the government to take away the weapons people want to use to assault lots of other people at once. Whether it's bombs or the assault rifles designed to kill groups of people, nobody belongs to have that capacity.

Protecting yourself is one thing.

Arming up to assault people in large numbers is QUITE another thing.

Gun nuts are the same as the bombers, and may of course be the same type of people exactly, depending on what the police find out about who did it, bad rightists or bad Muslims. Gun nuts want to stockpile guns to kill lots of people. Bombers set bombs to kill lots of people.

Difference? Hard to tell. If people want to pretend to be good people, let them not defend the stockpiling of assault weapons of any kind. And quit doing the stockpiling.

 

[JoeB131]

We also don't know who did this yet. It might be a domestic terrorist group.

The timing is suspicious. THis is the same week as the Waco Anniversery, the OK City Anniversery, the Columbine shootings, and Hitler's birthday, and we've seen an uptick of White Supremist violence of late.

I thought the same - and for all we know at this stage the attack may have had something to do with the building the bomb was placed in or some factor other than simply the marathon itself. I imagine we'll know more in a few days.

For one thing - if the target was the marathon - why was the bomb detonated three hours after the leaders finished?

Maybe they were waiting for a bigger crowd. It does seem that everything they did was to maximize casualties, and while only a trickle of runners come in the lead, they might have figured they kill more people waiting for the "also rans".

Again, I think it's too early to speculate.

Since yesterday, we discovered the "Saudi person of interest" wasn't, the bomb at the JFK center wasn't, and there were reports of 12 fatalities when the number seems to (thankfully) only be three.

 

[JoeB131]

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you.

Advocating for the government to take your ability to protect yourself away from you is lunacy.

Sooooo....ummmm, how did a bunch of gun owners keep this from happening, exactly?

Three people died here, but we have 30,000 gun deaths a year in this country.

Seems to me your "cure" is worse than the "disease".

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you. Not from a bomb, not from a criminal, not from a rapist etc.

If you think it can then you are the one who is mentally ill.

Nor do I really expect it to, but I know I live a better life with a police presense that is 90% effective than one where everyone is on their own.

A gun in the household is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. You might as well fill your yard with rattlesnakes and hope one doesn't bite little Sally.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Advocating for the government to take your ability to protect yourself away from you is lunacy.

We aren't. We are advocating for the government to take away the weapons people want to use to assault lots of other people at once. Whether it's bombs or the assault rifles designed to kill groups of people, nobody belongs to have that capacity.

Protecting yourself is one thing.

Arming up to assault people in large numbers is QUITE another thing.

Gun nuts are the same as the bombers, and may of course be the same type of people exactly, depending on what the police find out about who did it, bad rightists or bad Muslims. Gun nuts want to stockpile guns to kill lots of people. Bombers set bombs to kill lots of people.

Difference? Hard to tell. If people want to pretend to be good people, let them not defend the stockpiling of assault weapons of any kind. And quit doing the stockpiling.

Please enlighten me as to how many gun owners, even those that own a so called although mislabeled "assault" rifle are, as you say, nuts?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sooooo....ummmm, how did a bunch of gun owners keep this from happening, exactly?

Three people died here, but we have 30,000 gun deaths a year in this country.

Seems to me your "cure" is worse than the "disease".

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you. Not from a bomb, not from a criminal, not from a rapist etc.

If you think it can then you are the one who is mentally ill.

Nor do I really expect it to, but I know I live a better life with a police presense that is 90% effective than one where everyone is on their own.

You expect it to and you will be disappointed.

A gun in the household is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. You might as well fill your yard with rattlesnakes and hope one doesn't bite little Sally.

people use guns 2.5 million times a year in self defense. See I can quote statistics too.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Please enlighten me as to how many gun owners, even those that own a so called although mislabeled "assault" rifle are, as you say, nuts?

Judging by the comments I see on these boards, of people who use gusn or people with guns or dogs with guns as avatars, I would say about 90%...

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is nuts to WANT to own assault weapons. It is nuts to get off on going to the range and shooting assault weapons. It is nuts to think that introducing more assault weapons into the mix will result in fewer incidents of gun violence.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The fact is that the ******* government cannot protect you. Not from a bomb, not from a criminal, not from a rapist etc.

If you think it can then you are the one who is mentally ill.

Nor do I really expect it to, but I know I live a better life with a police presense that is 90% effective than one where everyone is on their own.

You expect it to and you will be disappointed.

A gun in the household is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. You might as well fill your yard with rattlesnakes and hope one doesn't bite little Sally.

people use guns 2.5 million times a year in self defense. See I can quote statistics too.

2.5 million huh?

You will believe anything.