if you were in that concert hall..would you want a gun...a poll

[westwall]

Ummmm, no. That is YOUR solution dumb ass. We are going to shoot back. You're going to try and dig a hole in the cement floor and hope they don't see you. Good luck with that...

So you would have shot at these cops huh?
Would you have waited for them to draw first? Or shoot first?

You can answer however you like -- I'm aware I'm dealing with Captain Roadster who can drive to St. Louis in two minutes...

When you are losing you resort to the most ridiculous lies. It's almost funny how bad you're flailing away. Pathetic too, but funny.

Still waiting for the definition of mass shooting from you.

I see you're stupid as well as blind. Check post number 169 for the SECOND TIME!

That's talking about "an active shooter incident". I asked you for the definition of a mass shooting.

That IS the definition of mass shooting tard. The family killers you are talking about are classified as mass killings. Look it up.

 

[ChrisL]

So you would have shot at these cops huh?
Would you have waited for them to draw first? Or shoot first?

You can answer however you like -- I'm aware I'm dealing with Captain Roadster who can drive to St. Louis in two minutes...

When you are losing you resort to the most ridiculous lies. It's almost funny how bad you're flailing away. Pathetic too, but funny.

Still waiting for the definition of mass shooting from you.

I see you're stupid as well as blind. Check post number 169 for the SECOND TIME!

That's talking about "an active shooter incident". I asked you for the definition of a mass shooting.

That IS the definition of mass shooting tard. The family killers you are talking about are classified as mass killings. Look it up.

What difference does it make anyways? None. Has this guy answered the OP question yet or is he just another shady guy trying to be clever and play games and semantic games that have no bearing on the original question posed to us?

 

[westwall]

When you are losing you resort to the most ridiculous lies. It's almost funny how bad you're flailing away. Pathetic too, but funny.

Still waiting for the definition of mass shooting from you.

I see you're stupid as well as blind. Check post number 169 for the SECOND TIME!

That's talking about "an active shooter incident". I asked you for the definition of a mass shooting.

That IS the definition of mass shooting tard. The family killers you are talking about are classified as mass killings. Look it up.

What difference does it make anyways? None. Has this guy answered the OP question yet or is he just another shady guy trying to be clever and play games and semantic games that have no bearing on the original question posed to us?

None at all. He's just another tard thinking he's clever.

 

[Yarddog]

When you are losing you resort to the most ridiculous lies. It's almost funny how bad you're flailing away. Pathetic too, but funny.

Still waiting for the definition of mass shooting from you.

I see you're stupid as well as blind. Check post number 169 for the SECOND TIME!

That's talking about "an active shooter incident". I asked you for the definition of a mass shooting.

That IS the definition of mass shooting tard. The family killers you are talking about are classified as mass killings. Look it up.

What difference does it make anyways? None. Has this guy answered the OP question yet or is he just another shady guy trying to be clever and play games and semantic games that have no bearing on the original question posed to us?

Yeah , its all about getting you wrapped up in semantics and minutia of definitions to pull away from the main point. kinda like lawyer speak

 

[ChrisL]

Yup, silly games and made up scenarios. Well, I'm calling it a night, so have fun trying to get straight answers out of them!

 

[westwall]

Yup, silly games and made up scenarios. Well, I'm calling it a night, so have fun trying to get straight answers out of them!

Good night. Sleep tight!

 

[aris2chat]

Since 9/11 passengers have been willing to take their own lives into their hands and resist terrorist or those who threaten them. They use what ever item or skill they have to "fight back" in the hope of saving lives. They don't jut sit passively and watch everyone die.

We can't just let terrorist control a situation. They are seeking death and want to take as many with them as possible.
Soldiers will often throw themselves on a grenade or bomb use their body as a shield so others might live. Terrorist are not like bank robbers that except to escape. There are situation when fight outweighs flight.

How many would step in front of a bullet or knife to protect a loved one? Pretending you won't be killed is from another century. Today we have to observe and when someone has a automatic weapon or a suicide vests, you have to take action. A terrorist does not care who they kill and the more the better. Charge him, throw things, shine a flash light in his eyes, make a spectacle and distract him away from others so they might get away. Anything is better than the surety of everyone dying.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

Mass shooters overwhelmingly choose their locations because they have a connection to it. Often times it's a school they have attended or know someone who has, their home or someone else they know, a movie theater for example because of the movie that is playing, a public figure in a grocery store parking lot (not so gun free though, eh?).

Really? What connection did the asshole who shot up the black church have to it? How about the theatre shooter? Both of them? You have no clue what you're speaking about.

it was an historic black church and the guy was a racist. The Aurora shooter was crazy, out of his mind, I don't think there is any evidence he chose the theater because of any gun free ordnance. He makes no mention of it, ever.

Nice swing and a miss though.

The theater shooter had notes...and in those notes he wanted to attack an airport but said there were too many people there with guns..so he chose the theater that was a gun free zone.....

The shooters who have left notes....they choose gun free,areas?.the Sandy Hook shooter..he went to the middle school and the high school there...they both had armed police resource officers...Sandy Hook didn't..........the Santa Barbara shooter...stated he wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair...but was afraid that the police there would stop his killing......


they choose gun free,zones...

and in the other cases....you anti gunners have mandated that the other targets are fun free zones with your gun control laws...so in most cases..the other shooters don't have to make a choice because their primary targets are,already gun free...

 

[2aguy]

Since 9/11 passengers have been willing to take their own lives into their hands and resist terrorist or those who threaten them. They use what ever item or skill they have to "fight back" in the hope of saving lives. They don't jut sit passively and watch everyone die.

We can't just let terrorist control a situation. They are seeking death and want to take as many with them as possible.
Soldiers will often throw themselves on a grenade or bomb use their body as a shield so others might live. Terrorist are not like bank robbers that except to escape. There are situation when fight outweighs flight.

How many would step in front of a bullet or knife to protect a loved one? Pretending you won't be killed is from another century. Today we have to observe and when someone has a automatic weapon or a suicide vests, you have to take action. A terrorist does not care who they kill and the more the better. Charge him, throw things, shine a flash light in his eyes, make a spectacle and distract him away from others so they might get away. Anything is better than the surety of everyone dying.

We armed pilots and we have armed Air Marshals on planes....on planes...everyone gets searched so the odds are everyone is actually disarmed on a plane...in the real world...gun free zones only disarm lawful gun owners...the bad guys carry guns into gun free zones.....

when you can disarm people going onto a plane...a very controlled environment...it works....and they still arm pilots and Air Marshals...so good guys on planes,actually are armed...

 

[2aguy]

Really? What connection did the asshole who shot up the black church have to it? How about the theatre shooter? Both of them? You have no clue what you're speaking about.

They just chose targets according to where they could kill the most amount of non-Muslims. That's why they chose crowded places.

They didn't have to choose in France...the entire country is a gun free zone...except for terrorists and criminals...they get guns easily in countries,with extreme gun control.

 

[2aguy]

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

Mass shooters overwhelmingly choose their locations because they have a connection to it. Often times it's a school they have attended or know someone who has, their home or someone else they know, a movie theater for example because of the movie that is playing, a public figure in a grocery store parking lot (not so gun free though, eh?).

Really? What connection did the asshole who shot up the black church have to it? How about the theatre shooter? Both of them? You have no clue what you're speaking about.

it was an historic black church and the guy was a racist. The Aurora shooter was crazy, out of his mind, I don't think there is any evidence he chose the theater because of any gun free ordnance. He makes no mention of it, ever.

Nice swing and a miss though.

And what was his connection to it? The swing and a miss is yours dude. There was NO prior connection.

Obviously the only answer you are going to accept is that the mass shooters, specifically the two you have chosen only connection to the location is their status as a gun free zone. There is no evidence what so ever that either one of them chose their targets based on that.

Hence, you striking out....again.

You should do your research...you are wrong...here is some actual research in the way shooters picked gun free zones....

Minnesota…...

Teen made bombs, stockpiled guns in prep for Minnesota school massacre: police

************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

Lupica: Lanza plotted massacre for years

They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

The man paused and said, “They believe that (Lanza) believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points. It’s why he didn’t want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that’s why he killed himself.

-----

It really was like he was lost in one of his own sick games. That’s what we heard. That he learned something from his game that you learn in (police) school, about how if you’re moving from room to room — the way he was in that school — you have to reload before you get to the next room. Maybe he has a 30-round magazine clip, and he’s only used half of it. But he’s willing to dump 15 rounds and have a new clip before he arrives in the next room.”
*****************
MILLER: Adam Lanza shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown final report - Washington Times

The shooter only stopped when the police arrived. He had plenty of ammunition and was prepared to continue changing magazines and reloading.

The rifle found near Lanza had a magazine only half-empty. Police found two empty 30-round magazines duct-taped together in a tactical configuration at the scene.

Gun-control advocates often cite “high-capacity” magazines as a cause of gun violence, but the sophisticated way Lanza prepared his weapons showed how easy it is to change a magazine of any size and reload, even in an active shooter situation.

----------

However, Lanza planned this killing over a long period of time. He conducted drive-by runs to the school. He had a spreadsheet of mass murders and studied school shootings. Even if he didn’t have access to his mother’s guns, one can presume he would have stolen them from another home.

And if he had tried to buy a rifle, he would have passed the FBI background check because there’s nothing in his records preventing him from owning a firearm.

-------

Blame school security?

The school doors were locked and secure at 9:30 a.m. with a video camera and buzzer system that can allow entry after that time from three monitoring locations. Lanza simply shot through the plate-glass window next to the lobby door to enter the school.

A 911 call was made at 9:35 a.m. It took less than five minutes for the police to get to the school. About a minute later, Lanza shot and killed himself. The first officer entered the school at 9:44 a.m.

In that tight time frame, it seems the only thing that could have stopped Lanza was a good guy inside the school with a gun.

There were no armed security guards at Sandy Hook Elementary School, nor did any of the staff have a weapons.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

Mass shooters overwhelmingly choose their locations because they have a connection to it. Often times it's a school they have attended or know someone who has, their home or someone else they know, a movie theater for example because of the movie that is playing, a public figure in a grocery store parking lot (not so gun free though, eh?).

Really? What connection did the asshole who shot up the black church have to it? How about the theatre shooter? Both of them? You have no clue what you're speaking about.

it was an historic black church and the guy was a racist. The Aurora shooter was crazy, out of his mind, I don't think there is any evidence he chose the theater because of any gun free ordnance. He makes no mention of it, ever.

Nice swing and a miss though.

it was an historic black church and the guy was a racist.

Wrong again....his first target was a university..but he was afraid of the armed security..so he chose the church...please do some research into these things....

Dylann Roof 'wanted to target local university'

The man accused of massacring nine people at a church in Charleston intended to target a local university but could not get past security, friends have claimed.

 

[2aguy]

the theater in Colorado was a gun free zone too...notice the common thread...?

Yep, most public venues are gun free and 99.9999999999% of them haven't experienced what happened in Paris.

Notice the common thread?

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

Mass shooters overwhelmingly choose their locations because they have a connection to it. Often times it's a school they have attended or know someone who has, their home or someone else they know, a movie theater for example because of the movie that is playing, a public figure in a grocery store parking lot (not so gun free though, eh?).

Again....most of those areas where they have connections....have been already made into gun free zones...so they don't even have to choose.....work and schools are mostly gun free zones by law....as are churches......and the churches that are gun free experiene the most deaths during attacks, and those churches that buck the trend and allow their people to carry guns have the fewest casualties when they are targeted.....

How about we make a law getting rid of gun free zones as unconstitutional.....since they are.....and allow people to carry everywhere....then we will see what happens to mass shooters.

 

[2aguy]

These killers know they can go into any school or any "gun free zone" and they are going to be met with minimal resistance. Why wouldn't they choose such targets? Geez. Common sense seems so rare.

That's another common myth mongered by mythmongers.
You seem to be vulnerable to that sort of thing.

the theater in Colorado was a gun free zone too...notice the common thread...?

Yep, most public venues are gun free and 99.9999999999% of them haven't experienced what happened in Paris.

Notice the common thread?

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

Uh .... because they're perpetrated by students with big time social problems, out for revenge.
This some kind of trick question?

I have listed several shooters who left notes or talked to police after their capture......sandy hook, the only school without an armed police resource officer, the middle school and the high school which he attended had armed resource officers...I posted what they found in his home....

Santa Barbara....wanted to target an out door fair, but said there would be too many armed police...so he chose an unarmed sorortity....he said this in his videos...

Colorado theater shooter...in his notes he said he wanted to target an airport but there was too much armed security..so he chose a gun free zone theater.....

The South Carolina church shooter...wanted to target a university..but there was too much armed security..so he chose the church instead...

And there were a couple of kids who were caught before their shootings...I listed the info. from one...he was going to create a gun free zone at his school by drawing police away from the school by setting a fire in field...and then murdering the only armed guy on the school grounds..the police resource officer......I listed those in another post...look them up....

 

[2aguy]

It occurred to me...not a lot of calls for more gun control...some...Everytown for gun control stupidity chimed in but not as vocal....

and the posts of Kaz and others made it clear.....

France has every single gun control law the anti gun extremists want....no handguns allowed, extreme control over hunting shotguns...no magazines let alone 10 round magazines.....no background checks needed because normal,people can't own or carry guns.......absolute "assault weapon ban"

and none of it stopped these attacks with fully automatic military rifles...and most of these guys are recent immigrants without deep roots in France, and one of them was arrested 8 times for terrorist sympathetic activities and he was on a watch list at that......

and they easily got all of their guns and bombs......,

this is an epic...massive....complete repudiation of every stupid gun law the anti gunners keep telling us will stop these attacks........

that is why they are so silent....the twits....

Non sequitur.
This was terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have jack shit to do with gun laws.

FRance is a gun free country....you cannot legally own pistols, military rifles or bombs....and the terrorists were able to all of them....in a country that bans them altogether, they don't license for them they don't register them...you cannot own them at all and there are no gun stores to buy them in....

And terrorists, at least one with 8 arrests and on a government terrorist watch list got all of that stuff...and lots of it....

And the 3 terrorists who shot up the cartoonists in January...2 of them were on terrorist watch lists and one was a convcited cirminal...and they too easily got fully automatic rifles in a gun free, gun controlled country...

And that same week as the cartoonist shooting....gang members in marseilles shot up the neigbhorhood with fully automatic rifles...

the guy on the train in Belgium...stopped by the guy on Dancing with the Stars...fully automatic rifle.....

The others in Denmark, Sweden and Belgium (the cafe shooting) ....all got fully automatic rifles in extreme gun controlled countries.....


They have absolute gun control on fully automatic rifles, and pistols in these countries and extreme gun control for even hunting shotguns.....

And none of those laws stopped these guys from getting their guns....

This is completely about gun control and how it does not work for criminals and terrorists....only normal people can't get guns...

 

[2aguy]

Adding this post to your previous illogical post, isnt helping you look any less insane and naive.

So your only rebuttal to that logic is childish ad hominem.

It figures.

You are accusing us of wanting to "play dress-up". What sort of response did you expect? Your post is loony.

No, your position is being correctly and factually condemned as devoid of merit, foundation, and evidence in support; it's an unwarranted fantasy predicated on a errant perception of what constitutes a 'gun fight.'

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

Civilians with guns stop armed criminals every day. When you see the guy with a bomb vest and a AK-47 yelling "Allahu Akbar", you point your gun at him and pull the trigger. This isnt rocket science, for most of us anyway. You seem like you are easilly confused, so yeah, maybe YOU shouldnt have a gun, but the rest of us would do just fine.

And the thing is....it is better to shoot them at a distance...possibly making them detonate their bomb before they planned on it, rather than letting them get closer to you....

With bombs...being farther away is better than being closer......and guns allow you that chance.

If people had guns in there, theres a good chance they would have never been able to detonate their bombs. Since their hands were shooting AKs, the bombs werent on a dead mans switch.They only detonated their bombs when the cops came storming in and the end was upon them. One guy with a pistol could have dramatically reduced the loss of life inside that concert hall.

Look Rambo.... first shot every one will be a massive panic and confusion. People will running all over the place. Do you expect a person who brought a gun start charging firing at the crowd? Let say 3 of these Rambo red neck start firing inside a crowd. How do they know who is the good guy or the bad guy.

Do your research....study the shooting at the Klackamas mall....and gabby giffords....and pearl mississipi, and the appalchian law school...all those scenarios and the armed normal people actually handled the situation properly....you are wrong...again....

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

NO....Because I don't want a Rambo red neck start firing at crowd. As I previously mentioned. First shot everyone will be running a panic at massive scale. I will be running by like everyone else. Even if I brought my gun with me I do not expect myself to be charging and start firing. If 2 or 3 of these Rambo start firing how would they know who is the bad guy or good guy? That's the reality. Not a fantasy.

You don't have to be rambo.....why do you guys not think before you post......you take your people in your immediate area and try to escape...if you encounter a killer in your way you use your pistol to clear your path...no one says to go and be John McClain.....but you have a pistol...you can find a room and pull poeple into it and hide their until the police...with guns....arrive and clear the building....

Watch "Terror in the Mall" and you will see how wrong you are...

 

[2aguy]

I suppose you think gun free zones save lives too? You think criminals say, Oops, a gun free zone. Better not commit my crimes there with my guns!

I'm not sure they make a difference one way or the other without additional security.

They are like an open invitation to any mad men in the vicinity.

Right and according to you, a racist little ***** of a kid shooting up a black church is proof of that.

Missed again.

Are you kidding? If you were the gunman, where would you choose to carry out your crime? A place where there are no guns of course! Duh.

You're repeating that same meme again, apparently just because you're told to. Aren't you easy.

The NRA's Myth of "Gun-Free Zones"

Please. Don't just swallow everything you're told to.

You are the one swallowing something and it is being sold by the anti gun extremists......I have listed the shooters who specifically chose gun free zones over places they would have preferred to attack but didn't..because they had armed people there.....

And when all the places a person experiences have been made by law into gun free zones......most of the time they don't have to bother choosing..because you made them gun free killing zones for them.....

You are wrong...again.

 

[2aguy]

I'm not sure they make a difference one way or the other without additional security.

They are like an open invitation to any mad men in the vicinity.

Right and according to you, a racist little ***** of a kid shooting up a black church is proof of that.

Missed again.

Are you kidding? If you were the gunman, where would you choose to carry out your crime? A place where there are no guns of course! Duh.

Where is your evidence? Mass shooters usually have a personal reason for the location. Whether it's a convenient store, school, parking lot or their own home.

Or their former place of employment, with which they are no longer gruntled.

And most of those places are gun free zones, made so by the employer....no choice was needed...

And the construction business where the owner was armed..shot the mass shooter...

And the business where the muslim came in and chopped off the head of the woman..the owner had his gun and shot him...

The hospital where the Psychiatrist broke the gun free zone policy....when a shooter actually came to his office he had his gun...had he obeyed his employers gun free zone policy he would have died......

When businesses aren't gun free zones...killers are stopped....

 

[2aguy]

They are like an open invitation to any mad men in the vicinity.

Right and according to you, a racist little ***** of a kid shooting up a black church is proof of that.

Missed again.

Are you kidding? If you were the gunman, where would you choose to carry out your crime? A place where there are no guns of course! Duh.

Where is your evidence? Mass shooters usually have a personal reason for the location. Whether it's a convenient store, school, parking lot or their own home.

Or their former place of employment, with which they are no longer gruntled.

Of course, where the term "going postal" was coined.

Yes....federal post offices are by federal law...gun free zones......for everyone...