Gun registration in California? They just signed a law giving gun owner information to outside parties..

[2aguy]

He had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine....

Because that's what a well-regulated militia looks like... a guy who thinks he's the Joker with a Machine Gun.

That jammed...he also had a shotgun and pistol.......and went to the only theater in the area that banned concealed carry.....and surrendered as soon as he was confronted by someone with a gun....

the gun free zone attracted his attack...that's on you.

 

[JoeB131]

That jammed...he also had a shotgun and pistol.......and went to the only theater in the area that banned concealed carry.....and surrendered as soon as he was confronted by someone with a gun....

the gun free zone attracted his attack...that's on you.

Uh, yeah, that situation would have been made SOOOO much better if dozens of people were randomly firing in a darkened theater.

 

[2aguy]

Uh, yeah, that situation would have been made SOOOO much better if dozens of people were randomly firing in a darkened theater.

Yeah, in actual mass public shootings where the victims have guns that hasnt happened….so you dont know what you are talking about, and leave it to you to want people helpless facing-a killer rather than being able to stop him

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Naw,man, that's the definition of democracy.

The problem with you gun fetishists is you think that an amendment about militias (largely obsolete now because militias have been replaced by professional armies and police forces) applies to letting every crazy person have a gun. And we all scratch our heads and wring our hands when someone goes into a school and shoots up four people like happened yesterday, but the fetishists start screaming about their "rights" and nothing gets done.



Most gun deaths are domestic violence - either suicides or people murdering their friends or family. It's gun proliferation that's the problem, not "criminals".

If you really want to make a comparison to cars, that's fine. Cars are regulated, insured, policed, and licensed.
If we let the NRA run cars, your morning commute would look like a cross between The Road Warrior and a Fast and Furious film.

Guns don't kill people, people do.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't establish a militia...lol.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Gunny you list all these things, and never mention the Genocide of Native Americans in the United States or slavery.

Okay, news flash. Human being treat eachother pretty shabbily, and when governments pander to the worst in us, there's not much you can do about it.

Idiots with guns are not going to prevent government from acting badly... Germans owned lots of guns before WWII. Not a one of them rushed out and stopped the Nazis from carting off their Jewish neighbors. It was more like, "Can I have his stuff?"

Having guns in this country didn't stop the government from carting off hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans, either. (Yes, yes, you'll point out that FDR ordered that, while ignoring that Republicans like Earl Warren were completely on board. You are so fucking predictable that we can anticipate your sad arguments.

Here's the thing. Most people won't go out there and put their neck out for anyone. Period. Full stop.

View attachment 546724

Gee that is a lot of stupid that you have posted. Any time an area becomes DIVERSIFIED---the new immigrants especially illegal ones try to overthrow the current population. We see this now with the illegals flooding over....

Slavery was bad but only lasted here for a couple of hundred years, unlike AFRICA where it has never completely ended and has lasted thousands. With European Whites and Americans fighting to try to end it there. Even here since its inception, there were many americans fighting against slavery.

The nazis outlawed guns for jews right before shipping them off to the gas chambers---I'll keep my guns thank you very much...especially since the communist government is encouraging illegals who commit crimes and the usual woke communists to commit more and more crimes. People are going to have to defend themselves with the attacks on cops.....If you bother to read history, there were reasons why our founders insisted on citizens being armed-----it does slow down corrupt governments.

The US locked up Japanese, GERMANS, and Italians fool during WW2 to prevent terror attacks as the axis evil planned and committed here on US soil. The reason why no one tried to stop this was that they were all doing their best to keep the country safe. Having those who were loyal to a country that we were at war with run loose to continue terror attacks would have been beyond stupid-------like allowing muslims screaming for deaths to come in here stupid. People were smarter then.

And btw, Americans certainly put their neck on the line for others during WW2......the more diversified, the more druggy and welfare inclined people now don't have the moral fortitude to do what is right nor desire.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, in actual mass public shootings where the victims have guns that hasnt happened….so you dont know what you are talking about, and leave it to you to want people helpless facing-a killer rather than being able to stop him

Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.

For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.

Guns don't kill people, people do.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't establish a militia...lol.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias.

It wasn't about gun ownership, because very few colonial Americans owned guns or could afford them or even had much use for them. (The weren't accurate for anything other than using in volleys, didn't have a high rate of fire.)

At 1789 Mass shooting would have been over after the first shot because they'd have mobbed the guy while he was reloading his powder.

 

[JoeB131]

Gee that is a lot of stupid that you have posted. Any time an area becomes DIVERSIFIED---the new immigrants especially illegal ones try to overthrow the current population. We see this now with the illegals flooding over....

Um, yeah, the bigots said the same thing about the Irish 150 years ago, the Germans 100 years ago and the Polish 50 years ago. What actually happens... immigrants assimilate.

Slavery was bad but only lasted here for a couple of hundred years, unlike AFRICA where it has never completely ended and has lasted thousands. With European Whites and Americans fighting to try to end it there. Even here since its inception, there were many americans fighting against slavery.

It never should have happened here at all, period, full stop. We are still paying for the legacy of slavery.

The nazis outlawed guns for jews right before shipping them off to the gas chambers---I'll keep my guns thank you very much...especially since the communist government is encouraging illegals who commit crimes and the usual woke communists to commit more and more crimes. People are going to have to defend themselves with the attacks on cops.....If you bother to read history, there were reasons why our founders insisted on citizens being armed-----it does slow down corrupt governments.

Actually, the Nazis loosened gun laws imposed by the Weimar Republic, and rather than use them to overthrow Hitler, Germans went out and sent mobs of little boys and old men to fight last ditch efforts in the Volksgrenadiers.

The reason the founding slave rapists insisted on an armed citizenry was that they wanted to make sure people of privilege had the ability to put down the rabble. Gun ownership was an elite insitution when the founders started the country. You think Thomas Jefferson wanted Sally Hemmings to have a gun to protect herself from rape? He was the one doing the raping.

The reality- guns are more likely to kill people in the household than protect them.

The US locked up Japanese, GERMANS, and Italians fool during WW2 to prevent terror attacks as the axis evil planned and committed here on US soil. The reason why no one tried to stop this was that they were all doing their best to keep the country safe. Having those who were loyal to a country that we were at war with run loose to continue terror attacks would have been beyond stupid-------like allowing muslims screaming for deaths to come in here stupid. People were smarter then.

Again, you are a little confused. We locked up 110,000 Japanese-Americans, all the ones living on the West cost. Of the 10,000 Germans and 5,000 Italians who were locked up, these were only the ones who were hard core pro-Fascist like Ernst Kuhn (An American Nazi who was deported to Germany after the war despite being a citizen).

And btw, Americans certainly put their neck on the line for others during WW2......the more diversified, the more druggy and welfare inclined people now don't have the moral fortitude to do what is right nor desire.

We only got involved in WWII after we were attacked. We get no points for that.

 

[2aguy]

Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.

For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.



"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias.

It wasn't about gun ownership, because very few colonial Americans owned guns or could afford them or even had much use for them. (The weren't accurate for anything other than using in volleys, didn't have a high rate of fire.)

At 1789 Mass shooting would have been over after the first shot because they'd have mobbed the guy while he was reloading his powder.

Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.

Do you realize this is a lie?

Of course you do...but you simply want to troll...

There have been two shootings at Krogers...the one with the Asian attacker wasn't stopped, the other one had concealed carry gun owners there, and was stopped....

Plus...

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

BREAKING: Man Opens Fire At Oklahoma Walmart, Confronted By Armed Citizen, Report Says

Two people were killed at a Walmart in Oklahoma by a man who opened fire in the parking lot on Monday before turning the weapon on himself after an armed citizen confronted him.
------

The assailant, who has not yet been identified, shot and killed a man and a woman in the parking lot and when he was “confronted by an armed citizen, he then turned the gun on himself,” The Daily Mail reported.

 

[2aguy]

Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.

For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.



"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias.

It wasn't about gun ownership, because very few colonial Americans owned guns or could afford them or even had much use for them. (The weren't accurate for anything other than using in volleys, didn't have a high rate of fire.)

At 1789 Mass shooting would have been over after the first shot because they'd have mobbed the guy while he was reloading his powder.

The Gabby Giffords shooting...you moron.....nice lie...

Two concealed carry gun owners......by the time they were there, an old man had hit the attacker with a chair...after being shot, but only grazed, in the head...neither concealed carry gun owner fired a round, held their fire because they didn't need to shoot, and neither was shot by police...

The Tucson Atrocity: Joe Zamudio’s StoryAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner


from the article...


Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

----Aftermath/Afterthoughts
Joe was prepared to stop the killer with gunfire if he had to. He says today, “I was just truly blessed I didn’t have to pull my firearm. I didn’t have to go to that place

 

[2aguy]

Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.

For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.



"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias.

It wasn't about gun ownership, because very few colonial Americans owned guns or could afford them or even had much use for them. (The weren't accurate for anything other than using in volleys, didn't have a high rate of fire.)

At 1789 Mass shooting would have been over after the first shot because they'd have mobbed the guy while he was reloading his powder.

Almost every colonist owned a gun, you idiot...it was the frontier and they had to fight off indians.....

 

[2aguy]

Um, yeah, the bigots said the same thing about the Irish 150 years ago, the Germans 100 years ago and the Polish 50 years ago. What actually happens... immigrants assimilate.



It never should have happened here at all, period, full stop. We are still paying for the legacy of slavery.

View attachment 549025




Actually, the Nazis loosened gun laws imposed by the Weimar Republic, and rather than use them to overthrow Hitler, Germans went out and sent mobs of little boys and old men to fight last ditch efforts in the Volksgrenadiers.

The reason the founding slave rapists insisted on an armed citizenry was that they wanted to make sure people of privilege had the ability to put down the rabble. Gun ownership was an elite insitution when the founders started the country. You think Thomas Jefferson wanted Sally Hemmings to have a gun to protect herself from rape? He was the one doing the raping.

The reality- guns are more likely to kill people in the household than protect them.




Again, you are a little confused. We locked up 110,000 Japanese-Americans, all the ones living on the West cost. Of the 10,000 Germans and 5,000 Italians who were locked up, these were only the ones who were hard core pro-Fascist like Ernst Kuhn (An American Nazi who was deported to Germany after the war despite being a citizen).



We only got involved in WWII after we were attacked. We get no points for that.

the founding slave rapists

Hey....shithead...you vote for the political party created by slave rapists...the democrat party....

The nazis loosened gun laws for nazi party members and took guns away from Jews and other political enemies, who they then sent to camps to be murdered, you idiot.

 

[2aguy]

Um, yeah, the bigots said the same thing about the Irish 150 years ago, the Germans 100 years ago and the Polish 50 years ago. What actually happens... immigrants assimilate.



It never should have happened here at all, period, full stop. We are still paying for the legacy of slavery.

View attachment 549025




Actually, the Nazis loosened gun laws imposed by the Weimar Republic, and rather than use them to overthrow Hitler, Germans went out and sent mobs of little boys and old men to fight last ditch efforts in the Volksgrenadiers.

The reason the founding slave rapists insisted on an armed citizenry was that they wanted to make sure people of privilege had the ability to put down the rabble. Gun ownership was an elite insitution when the founders started the country. You think Thomas Jefferson wanted Sally Hemmings to have a gun to protect herself from rape? He was the one doing the raping.

The reality- guns are more likely to kill people in the household than protect them.




Again, you are a little confused. We locked up 110,000 Japanese-Americans, all the ones living on the West cost. Of the 10,000 Germans and 5,000 Italians who were locked up, these were only the ones who were hard core pro-Fascist like Ernst Kuhn (An American Nazi who was deported to Germany after the war despite being a citizen).



We only got involved in WWII after we were attacked. We get no points for that.

Of course, you left out the fact that Africans sold the slaves, and Europeans brought the slaves to the new world....we ended slavery by shooting a lot of democrats...the democrat party, founded by slave owning rapists, started the Civil War to keep blacks as slaves...the party you now proudly vote for.....and the Republican party shot a bunch of democrats to end the war and free the slaves.....

Again......you vote for the slave rapist party...the democrat party...

 

[JoeB131]

Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.

Do you realize this is a lie?

Of course you do...but you simply want to troll...

There have been two shootings at Krogers...the one with the Asian attacker wasn't stopped, the other one had concealed carry gun owners there, and was stopped....

Except people still died in these incidents, so, um, no, they weren't successful at stopping them.

Almost every colonist owned a gun, you idiot...it was the frontier and they had to fight off indians.....

Few Colonists owned guns. We had to import guns from France, which nearly bankrupted itself supplying them.

The nazis loosened gun laws for nazi party members and took guns away from Jews and other political enemies, who they then sent to camps to be murdered, you idiot.

Actually, they were loosened for most Germans... Only 1% of the population of Germany was Jewish when the Nazis took power, it's why they made such a good target.

Ironically, most of the Jews of Austria and Germany survived the war, as they were able to leave before the war started. Most of the Jews who got to explore exciting new careers as lampshades and bars of soap were from Poland, Russia and other countries the German Conquered or German allies like Hungary trying to placate Hitler.

The thing is, the 99% of Germans who could own guns.... none of them opposed HItler. They fought for him to the last old man and little boy.

 

[Abatis]

Naw,man, that's the definition of democracy.

But we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. That you refuse to address that, which was my argument in the post you replied to with the ridiculous "suicide pact" comment, proves you have no real argument that is grounded in the reality of what the US Constitution is and what it does.

The problem with you gun fetishists is you think that an amendment about militias (largely obsolete now because militias have been replaced by professional armies and police forces) applies to letting every crazy person have a gun.

And here you prove you rather argue wishful thinking, grounded in denial, argued from emotion and a belief that the Constitution is what you want it to be at any given moment in time. You need to reinforce the ridiculous assertion that gun rights rights people argue that gun rights secured in the Constitution "applies to every crazy person" . . .

Why do you feel this need to engage in such hyperbolic, completely detached from reality denial and negation of truth? Why this need to engage in such blatant, naked logical fallacy to make your points?

Do you realize how ridiculous, unhinged and unserious you sound saying crap like that?

And we all scratch our heads and wring our hands when someone goes into a school and shoots up four people like happened yesterday, but the fetishists start screaming about their "rights" and nothing gets done.

You know he's out on bail right? Leftist "prosecutors" and soft judges make hardened criminals by returning evil to society to wreak the havoc you then blame on the law-abiding. What a reprehensible, morally bankrupt program of societal destruction to impose on the USA.

It is very clear you don't support gun control because of this deep concern you feel for reducing crime, because your employment of crime incidents and citing of statistics is always an insult to people's intelligence and so obviously disingenuous.

Sometimes I think you are actually an agent provocateur, working to undermine and embarrass the gun control side.

 

[Abatis]

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias.

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment "do" that is "about" militias?

Has the 2nd ever been claimed as protection by a state to repel federal powers being exercised over the state's militia interests?

Why are all the Supreme Court's "2nd Amendment cases", instances of private citizens being granted standing to argue a rights injury?

Why aren't the Supreme Court cases that decided militia powers conflicts between the feds and the states known and recognized as our "2nd Amendment cases"?

The thing is, the 2nd Amendment has never been examined or held to offer any instruction or effect on militia issues . . . The 2nd was only mentioned once, in a dissent in an 1820 militia powers case, only to say the 2ndA offered nothing on the issue of deciding issues of militia order, training, organization and control -- (Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820) which held for federal preemption of claims of state militia powers).

You argue a myth --that in federal law-- was inserted in the federal courts in two lower court decisions handed down in 1942*. That was the genesis of the "collective right" theories in the federal system and for the "militia right", was nothing but a resurrection of a theory that justified racist gun control policies of the Southern states during the Civil War period.

* Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation, U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation and then the dozens of lower federal court and state court decisions citing Tot and Cases into the 1980's . . . Which of course were invalidated in 2008 by Heller.

 

[2aguy]

But we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. That you refuse to address that, which was my argument in the post you replied to with the ridiculous "suicide pact" comment, proves you have no real argument that is grounded in the reality of what the US Constitution is and what it does.



And here you prove you rather argue wishful thinking, grounded in denial, argued from emotion and a belief that the Constitution is what you want it to be at any given moment in time. You need to reinforce the ridiculous assertion that gun rights rights people argue that gun rights secured in the Constitution "applies to every crazy person" . . .

Why do you feel this need to engage in such hyperbolic, completely detached from reality denial and negation of truth? Why this need to engage in such blatant, naked logical fallacy to make your points?

Do you realize how ridiculous, unhinged and unserious you sound saying crap like that?



You know he's out on bail right? Leftist "prosecutors" and soft judges make hardened criminals by returning evil to society to wreak the havoc you then blame on the law-abiding. What a reprehensible, morally bankrupt program of societal destruction to impose on the USA.

It is very clear you don't support gun control because of this deep concern you feel for reducing crime, because your employment of crime incidents and citing of statistics is always an insult to people's intelligence and so obviously disingenuous.

Sometimes I think you are actually an agent provocateur, working to undermine and embarrass the gun control side.

Thank you. Please keep posting.

 

[2aguy]

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment "do" that is "about" militias?

Has the 2nd ever been claimed as protection by a state to repel federal powers being exercised over the state's militia interests?

Why are all the Supreme Court's "2nd Amendment cases", instances of private citizens being granted standing to argue a rights injury?

Why aren't the Supreme Court cases that decided militia powers conflicts between the feds and the states known and recognized as our "2nd Amendment cases"?

The thing is, the 2nd Amendment has never been examined or held to offer any instruction or effect on militia issues . . . The 2nd was only mentioned once, in a dissent in an 1820 militia powers case, only to say the 2ndA offered nothing on the issue of deciding issues of militia order, training, organization and control -- (Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820) which held for federal preemption of claims of state militia powers).

You argue a myth --that in federal law-- was inserted in the federal courts in two lower court decisions handed down in 1942*. That was the genesis of the "collective right" theories in the federal system and for the "militia right", was nothing but a resurrection of a theory that justified racist gun control policies of the Southern states during the Civil War period.

* Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation, U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation and then the dozens of lower federal court and state court decisions citing Tot and Cases into the 1980's . . . Which of course were invalidated in 2008 by Heller.

Wow. Thank you. Much needed commentary, thank you.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.

For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.



"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias.

It wasn't about gun ownership, because very few colonial Americans owned guns or could afford them or even had much use for them. (The weren't accurate for anything other than using in volleys, didn't have a high rate of fire.)

At 1789 Mass shooting would have been over after the first shot because they'd have mobbed the guy while he was reloading his powder.

Every mass shooting has been ended by good guys with guns. Either cops, or civilians.

The 2A specifically states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[JoeB131]

But we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. That you refuse to address that, which was my argument in the post you replied to with the ridiculous "suicide pact" comment, proves you have no real argument that is grounded in the reality of what the US Constitution is and what it does.

Again, go up to a Sandy Hook or Stoneman Parent and make the argument that Lanza or Cruz had a right to own a gun because the constitution said so... It would be amusing.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. You have to apply a little common sense. Some people just plain old shouldn't have guns just because a Slave Rapist 200 years ago couldn't define a militia clearly.

And here you prove you rather argue wishful thinking, grounded in denial, argued from emotion and a belief that the Constitution is what you want it to be at any given moment in time. You need to reinforce the ridiculous assertion that gun rights rights people argue that gun rights secured in the Constitution "applies to every crazy person" . . .

No, I just point out that the assertation that every crazy person should be able to get a Gun because it's his God Given Right is kind of absurd. the one thing we find out after every mass shooting is EVERYONE KNEW this person was nuts, but he had no problem getting a gun anyway.

Why do you feel this need to engage in such hyperbolic, completely detached from reality denial and negation of truth? Why this need to engage in such blatant, naked logical fallacy to make your points?

I just point out the obvious. There is really no good reason for an average citizen to have a gun, much less an assault rifle. The Army made sure I had weeks of training before the issued me a gun, and even then, it was under very controlled circumstance - hence- WELL REGULATED.

The idea you can give James Holmes that same gun and he can shoot up a theater because he thinks he's The Joker from the comic books is just... nuts.

You know he's out on bail right? Leftist "prosecutors" and soft judges make hardened criminals by returning evil to society to wreak the havoc you then blame on the law-abiding. What a reprehensible, morally bankrupt program of societal destruction to impose on the USA.

Um, guy, I've been over this, but I'll go over this again.

The United States locks up 2 million of it's citizens. We have another 7 million on probation or parole. By comparison, China (A communist dictatorship with a billion people) only locks up 1.3 Million people and Russia locks up about a million. Most of the other G-7 countries (our economic/social peers) lock up less than 100K people.

They have no where near our crime rates. Why? Because they treat addiction as a medical issue, they have programs for poverty and mental illness and, oh, yeah, they don't let every crazy person who wants to get a gun have one.

If we are a crime-ridden society, it's because conservatives have gotten their way with gun proliferation, the War on Drugs and slashing poverty programs to give tax cuts to rich people. Not to mention a Prison-Industrial Complex that breeds career criminals.

It is very clear you don't support gun control because of this deep concern you feel for reducing crime, because your employment of crime incidents and citing of statistics is always an insult to people's intelligence and so obviously disingenuous.

I support gun control because I really don't think most people should own guns... Gun proliferation causes 43,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries, 400,000 crimes, and 213 BILLION in economic losses. We have to build our whole society around a very small slice of the population who have a gun fetish and a bizarre interpretation of the Militia Amendment.

Sometimes I think you are actually an agent provocateur, working to undermine and embarrass the gun control side.

Actually, you guys embarrass yourselves by going out there and saying, "Why of course, Adam Lanza should have been able to have a gun!!!"

 

[JoeB131]

Every mass shooting has been ended by good guys with guns. Either cops, or civilians.

Not true. Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.