Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[OKTexas]

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.

It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person. The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos. This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.

1 guy out of position in a crowd, kind of like the cops just a few blocks away from the Aurora theater, help isn't always exactly where it is needed. The fact the you felt compelled to restate the obvious just shows a lack of knowledge on your part.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.

It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person. The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos. This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.

Assault weapons account for maybe 20 murders a year. They are seldom used in other crime either. There is no compelling reason to limit supposed assault weapons, large capacity magazines or rifles at all.

Background checks are already mandatory and that INCLUDES at gun shows. There is no reason to believe forcing private citizens to run background checks would in any way diminish homicides or crime with firearms.

The mentally incompetent are already forbidden by law from owning or possessing firearms of any kind. The problem is local authorities are not doing due diligence on mentally unstable people and probably because the left whines and threatens when they do.

Criminals are already barred by law from owning or possessing firearms.

NOTHING proposed by this administration or Congress would have had any effect on violence with firearms or murders. It would not have stopped a single one of the school shootings or mass shootings. None of the proposed changes would have slowed down or prevented the shootings.

Getting the point yet?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does not).

His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "almost" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander almost shot the wrong person....

Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider almost doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...

I haven't said to ban guns. I'm merely pointing to an example where your imaginary hero with a gun taking down the shooter didn't happen.

Correct.

One carries a concealed firearm for self-defense pursuant to the Second Amendment, not to act as ‘law enforcement’ or a ‘hero’ in the event of a gun violence event such as Tucson.

The vast majority of citizens who carry a concealed firearm lack both the training and experience to neutralize a criminal in those types of situations.

Moreover, the right to self-defense and the right to carry a concealed firearm do not require ‘justification’ to exercise, that a citizen carrying a concealed firearm night have stopped a gun violence incident or not is completely irrelevant, having nothing to do with those respective rights.

 

[Politico]

And still they don't have a plan.

 

[Brain357]

Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.

It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person. The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos. This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.

Assault weapons account for maybe 20 murders a year. They are seldom used in other crime either. There is no compelling reason to limit supposed assault weapons, large capacity magazines or rifles at all.

Background checks are already mandatory and that INCLUDES at gun shows. There is no reason to believe forcing private citizens to run background checks would in any way diminish homicides or crime with firearms.

The mentally incompetent are already forbidden by law from owning or possessing firearms of any kind. The problem is local authorities are not doing due diligence on mentally unstable people and probably because the left whines and threatens when they do.

Criminals are already barred by law from owning or possessing firearms.

NOTHING proposed by this administration or Congress would have had any effect on violence with firearms or murders. It would not have stopped a single one of the school shootings or mass shootings. None of the proposed changes would have slowed down or prevented the shootings.

Getting the point yet?

Get the point? Well it sounds like your putting together a good argument for no guns. I do disagree with much of what your saying however.

Limits on magazine capacity would for sure save some lives. The more often someone has to reload the more chances for a life saved. For example the Giffords shooter was stopped when he reloaded. There are of course many other examples also.

I think every gun sale should have a background check. What statistics are you using to say that they wouldn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Right now Bob can sell a gun to the guy down the street that he barely knows with no background check. That's a pretty big hole.

Our main problem is obviously irresponsible gun owners. I mean 232,000 guns stolen each year? That should be embarrassing for you. How can you guys run around saying people need guns to defend themselves and their stuff when you can't even keep criminals from stealing your guns?

 

[P@triot]

Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system? Really? Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.

Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)

So the point of your example was?

The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.

How many times has such things happened? I'm guessing once, but that doesn't stop your paranoia does it?

Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are guessing. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is once and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.

Second, home invasions happen every day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.

Wow you sure are a security expert.

To answer your question - yes - I actually am a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am literally a security expert. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?

Well I hate to break this to you but most people would call 911 right away when the alarm goes off with a break in.

Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?

Sorry but I'd take the security system over the gun.

Well of course you would - you're a ****'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "much more effective"?

You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.

Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point. And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.

You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.

 

[Brain357]

Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system? Really? Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.

Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)

So the point of your example was?

The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.



Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are guessing. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is once and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.

Second, home invasions happen every day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.



To answer your question - yes - I actually am a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am literally a security expert. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?



Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?

Sorry but I'd take the security system over the gun.

Well of course you would - you're a ****'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "much more effective"?

You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.

Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point. And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.

You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.

Seriously, are you trying to be funny? Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff. Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911? Expert? Really?

How do you call 911 with a gun to your head? Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone. Pretty easy really. I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head? Oh security expert you are for sure. Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning. Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone? Really? haha Please explain that one to me mr expert.

With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong. In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny. Security expert. haha

 

[P@triot]

Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system? Really? Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.

Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)


The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.

Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are guessing. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is once and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.

Second, home invasions happen every day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.


To answer your question - yes - I actually am a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am literally a security expert. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?


Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?

Well of course you would - you're a ****'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "much more effective"?

You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.

Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point. And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.

You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.

Seriously, are you trying to be funny? Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff. Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911? Expert? Really?

How do you call 911 with a gun to your head? Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone. Pretty easy really. I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head? Oh security expert you are for sure. Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning. Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone? Really? haha Please explain that one to me mr expert.

With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong. In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny. Security expert. haha

Someone is starting to realize their ignorance has been exposed and is resulting to childish responses now....

You've yet to answer any questions. Gee, I wonder why that is (maybe brainless here finally realizes he wrong).

If the point of the alarm system is to bring people with guns, doesn't that prove that guns are more effective than alarm systems? And thus, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the 12-20 minute response time and just have the gun yourself?

If alarms are more effective, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't law enforcement carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns?

Finally, you falsely and ignorantly stated that a CCW bystander "almost" shot the wrong person. I provided the facts which indicate that did NOT happen and that there was no CCW bystander there when the shots were fired (he came running when he heard the shots and arrived after Loughner was tackled). Yet you haven't admitted you're a liar spreading ignorant Dumbocrat propaganda. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

 

[Brain357]

Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)


The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.

Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are guessing. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is once and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.

Second, home invasions happen every day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.


To answer your question - yes - I actually am a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am literally a security expert. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?


Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?

Well of course you would - you're a ****'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "much more effective"?

You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.



You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.

Seriously, are you trying to be funny? Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff. Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911? Expert? Really?

How do you call 911 with a gun to your head? Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone. Pretty easy really. I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head? Oh security expert you are for sure. Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning. Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone? Really? haha Please explain that one to me mr expert.

With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong. In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny. Security expert. haha

Someone is starting to realize their ignorance has been exposed and is resulting to childish responses now....

You've yet to answer any questions. Gee, I wonder why that is (maybe brainless here finally realizes he wrong).

If the point of the alarm system is to bring people with guns, doesn't that prove that guns are more effective than alarm systems? And thus, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the 12-20 minute response time and just have the gun yourself?

If alarms are more effective, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't law enforcement carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns?

Finally, you falsely and ignorantly stated that a CCW bystander "almost" shot the wrong person. I provided the facts which indicate that did NOT happen and that there was no CCW bystander there when the shots were fired (he came running when he heard the shots and arrived after Loughner was tackled). Yet you haven't admitted you're a liar spreading ignorant Dumbocrat propaganda. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

I see you failed to answer my questions. Lets go one at a time then. How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone. Please explain that one. You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.

Your questions are so dumb I didn't think they really needed to be answered. The point of the alarm system is to alert you to someone breaking in and protect you and your stuff. Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you. Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you? Are you some sort of criminal? So the alarm goes off and the criminal gets the heck out. In your gun example the gun owner is not alerted and wakes up with his gun stolen or in your example dead.

Ok so your a security expert and your seriously asking me why police don't carry alarms? A security expert who clearly doesn't even understand what alarms are for.

You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting. Provide some links or something. You've not provided anything actually. I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.

 

[RKMBrown]

Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.

It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person. The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos. This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.

Assault weapons account for maybe 20 murders a year. They are seldom used in other crime either. There is no compelling reason to limit supposed assault weapons, large capacity magazines or rifles at all.

Background checks are already mandatory and that INCLUDES at gun shows. There is no reason to believe forcing private citizens to run background checks would in any way diminish homicides or crime with firearms.

The mentally incompetent are already forbidden by law from owning or possessing firearms of any kind. The problem is local authorities are not doing due diligence on mentally unstable people and probably because the left whines and threatens when they do.

Criminals are already barred by law from owning or possessing firearms.

NOTHING proposed by this administration or Congress would have had any effect on violence with firearms or murders. It would not have stopped a single one of the school shootings or mass shootings. None of the proposed changes would have slowed down or prevented the shootings.

Getting the point yet?

It's not about stopping shootings, it's about stopping people from being able to defend themselves and family from the shootings. Why? Because then we are more dependent on government services... The reason liberals are they way they are is they have a deep seated desire to shed all personal responsibility for self preservation to some higher power. Evidently, they want to crawl back into the womb. In this case, they believe life will be better if govco is their mommy/daddy. Please take care of me, I don't know what to do... cry....

 

[hunarcy]

Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system? Really? Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.

Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)



The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.



Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are guessing. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is once and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.

Second, home invasions happen every day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.



To answer your question - yes - I actually am a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am literally a security expert. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?



Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?



Well of course you would - you're a ****'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "much more effective"?

You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.

Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point. And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.

You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.

Seriously, are you trying to be funny? Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff. Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911? Expert? Really?

How do you call 911 with a gun to your head? Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone. Pretty easy really. I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head? Oh security expert you are for sure. Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning. Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone? Really? haha Please explain that one to me mr expert.

With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong. In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny. Security expert. haha

Having read this thread and seen how increasingly false and ridiculous your argument has become, my only advice to you is that you should really stop posting. You hang your argument against armed people stopping active shootings is that an armed person didn't stop the Giffords shooting, but the fact is that the armed citizen was not on the scene at the time of the shooting. He responded to the shots (which he certainly didn't have to do, as he was not in immediate danger), evaluated the scene when he arrived and took appropriate actions (which was nothing as the event was over). You want to talk about alarms as if an alarm going off actually stops a crime, but we all know that just because an alarm goes off does not mean the bad actors retreat. You behave as if calling 911 stops a crime when we know be listening to some released 911 tapes that having the police on the line does not protect you. It merely tells the criminal to rob and kill you faster now because the police may get there in a few minutes.

The fact is that you have no argument, and all you do is respond with spurious comments when that fact is revealed.

Oh, and here's a link for you. http://ohioccw.org/200805303991/nevada-ccw-holder-stops-mass-shooting.html

 

[Brain357]

Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)



The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.



Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are guessing. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is once and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.

Second, home invasions happen every day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.



To answer your question - yes - I actually am a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am literally a security expert. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?



Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?



Well of course you would - you're a ****'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "much more effective"?

You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.



You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.

Seriously, are you trying to be funny? Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff. Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911? Expert? Really?

How do you call 911 with a gun to your head? Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone. Pretty easy really. I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head? Oh security expert you are for sure. Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning. Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone? Really? haha Please explain that one to me mr expert.

With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong. In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny. Security expert. haha

Having read this thread and seen how increasingly false and ridiculous your argument has become, my only advice to you is that you should really stop posting. You hang your argument against armed people stopping active shootings is that an armed person didn't stop the Giffords shooting, but the fact is that the armed citizen was not on the scene at the time of the shooting. He responded to the shots (which he certainly didn't have to do, as he was not in immediate danger), evaluated the scene when he arrived and took appropriate actions (which was nothing as the event was over). You want to talk about alarms as if an alarm going off actually stops a crime, but we all know that just because an alarm goes off does not mean the bad actors retreat. You behave as if calling 911 stops a crime when we know be listening to some released 911 tapes that having the police on the line does not protect you. It merely tells the criminal to rob and kill you faster now because the police may get there in a few minutes.

The fact is that you have no argument, and all you do is respond with spurious comments when that fact is revealed.

Oh, and here's a link for you. Nevada CCW Holder Stops Mass Shooting | Concealed Carry | News

Oh you found an example. Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right? Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime. This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier. I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year. I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading. Good example for why magazine limits are important. I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?

 

[hunarcy]

Oh you found an example. Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right? Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime. This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier. I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year. I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading. Good example for why magazine limits are important. I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?

Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again.

But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.

 

[Brain357]

Oh you found an example. Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right? Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime. This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier. I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year. I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading. Good example for why magazine limits are important. I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?

Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again.

But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.

You link doesn't work.

So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that? Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?

So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner. Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News

Something tells me I can come up with more of these....

 

[hunarcy]

Oh you found an example. Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right? Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime. This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier. I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year. I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading. Good example for why magazine limits are important. I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?

Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again.

But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.

You link doesn't work.

So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that? Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?

So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner. Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News

Something tells me I can come up with more of these....

Didn't realize you couldn't use Google. Sorry, try this:

Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything, but I'm not surprised you didn't get it. You seem to be a very limited thinker.

And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people. That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.

And, since you want more: The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"

 

[Brain357]

Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again.

But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.

You link doesn't work.

So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that? Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?

So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner. Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News

Something tells me I can come up with more of these....

Didn't realize you couldn't use Google. Sorry, try this:

Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything, but I'm not surprised you didn't get it. You seem to be a very limited thinker.

And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people. That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.

And, since you want more: The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"

That's a good example. She stopped him, but he did kill 5 people first. I wonder what kind of ridiculously overpowered and hi capacity guns he used? Seems like CO has a lot of shootings, and they seem to have a lot of guns there....

Actually your article mentions he was shot after having to reload. That would have helped your hero. Again you don't want to help the hero? Better the bad guy can shoot as much as he wants without reloading eh? Interesting.

On the subject of churches here's one:
Teen Charged in North Carolina Church Shooting - ABC News
How the heck does a 17 year old get a gun? Now either he had irresponsible gun owner parents or it must be one of the 232,000 stolen from irresponsible gun owners.

 

[hunarcy]

You link doesn't work.

So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that? Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?

So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner. Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News

Something tells me I can come up with more of these....

Didn't realize you couldn't use Google. Sorry, try this:

Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything, but I'm not surprised you didn't get it. You seem to be a very limited thinker.

And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people. That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.

And, since you want more: The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"

That's a good example. She stopped him, but he did kill 5 people first. I wonder what kind of ridiculously overpowered and hi capacity guns he used? Seems like CO has a lot of shootings, and they seem to have a lot of guns there....

Actually your article mentions he was shot after having to reload. That would have helped your hero. Again you don't want to help the hero? Better the bad guy can shoot as much as he wants without reloading eh? Interesting.

On the subject of churches here's one:
Teen Charged in North Carolina Church Shooting - ABC News
How the heck does a 17 year old get a gun? Now either he had irresponsible gun owner parents or it must be one of the 232,000 stolen from irresponsible gun owners.

Obviously you're starting to understand that the laws you depended on don't save lives as they can't even keep a 17 year old from obtaining a firearm

Now, [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jk4D0THoU4]Armed Good Samaritan Praised for, Saving Policeman's Life in Shooting Standoff - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg]Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCmefD7Lio]Concealed carry kills robber at Dollar store - YouTube[/ame]

Thought I'd put up videos because I'm sure that reading is tiring you out. Besides, you invent things as you read, like the first story was in retaliation for a drive by when it said plainly it was a family dispute and miss out on facts as you didn't understand the shooter at the church had a shotgun.

Honestly, you'd be much better served by just abandoning the thread and not exposing yourself to further ridicule.

 

[P@triot]

I see you failed to answer my questions. Lets go one at a time then. How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone. Please explain that one. You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.

Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.

First of all, I have never said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is ****'n useless.

Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).

Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?

Your questions are so dumb I didn't think they really needed to be answered.

Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been owned. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.

The point of the alarm system is to alert you to someone breaking in and protect you and your stuff.

Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a **** about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.

Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you. Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you? Are you some sort of criminal? So the alarm goes off and the criminal gets the heck out. In your gun example the gun owner is not alerted and wakes up with his gun stolen or in your example dead.

My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is ******* comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.

Ok so your a security expert and your seriously asking me why police don't carry alarms? A security expert who clearly doesn't even understand what alarms are for.

So what is an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff"

You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"...

You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting. Provide some links or something. You've not provided anything actually. I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.

First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so ****'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?

 

[Brain357]

Didn't realize you couldn't use Google. Sorry, try this:

Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything, but I'm not surprised you didn't get it. You seem to be a very limited thinker.

And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people. That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.

And, since you want more: The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"

That's a good example. She stopped him, but he did kill 5 people first. I wonder what kind of ridiculously overpowered and hi capacity guns he used? Seems like CO has a lot of shootings, and they seem to have a lot of guns there....

Actually your article mentions he was shot after having to reload. That would have helped your hero. Again you don't want to help the hero? Better the bad guy can shoot as much as he wants without reloading eh? Interesting.

On the subject of churches here's one:
Teen Charged in North Carolina Church Shooting - ABC News
How the heck does a 17 year old get a gun? Now either he had irresponsible gun owner parents or it must be one of the 232,000 stolen from irresponsible gun owners.

Obviously you're starting to understand that the laws you depended on don't save lives as they can't even keep a 17 year old from obtaining a firearm

Now, [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jk4D0THoU4]Armed Good Samaritan Praised for, Saving Policeman's Life in Shooting Standoff - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg]Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCmefD7Lio]Concealed carry kills robber at Dollar store - YouTube[/ame]

Thought I'd put up videos because I'm sure that reading is tiring you out. Besides, you invent things as you read, like the first story was in retaliation for a drive by when it said plainly it was a family dispute and miss out on facts as you didn't understand the shooter at the church had a shotgun.

Honestly, you'd be much better served by just abandoning the thread and not exposing yourself to further ridicule.

Yes it's sad that 232,000 guns are stolen from gun owners each year and get into the hands of 17 year olds.

Now your first video. Nice that guy was there to shoot him I guess. But the bad guy shot and killed two neighbors over dogs? Was this guy one of those responsible gun owners?

Now the rapist he obviously deserved what he got. Now of course if the woman had a good security system she wouldn't have been raped in the first place...

Ok now the last one he shot and killed a kid with a fake gun? That's your example? Sorry but I don't see how anyone was in danger from the toy guns...

 

[P@triot]

Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you. Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?

Don't you love how brainless here literally makes stuff up as he goes? He has not data, no links, no facts, has never worked in law enforcement, or even owned a gun, yet he ignorantly declares "most criminals are trying to steal your stuff". Oh really? And you're basis for that outrageous claim is.......????

First of all, millions of criminals have entered a home for one purpose and one purpose only - to rape a woman. They could care less about your "stuff". So how is that 15-30 minute response time going to work out while you're being raped, junior? While the alarm company tries to reach you on your various numbers to alert you to the fact that they have an alarm showing?

Second, there are endless murders in houses with alarm systems. How do you explain that, stupid? I know a case where the son of the family turned the alarm system off so that the person they hired to do the job could kill his parents while he was at a public place with his girlfriend so that he had an alibi. Oops! Another example of how being armed provides exponentially more security over an alarm system. Dumb ass.

And you still haven't answered the biggest question - since an alarm system is designed to alert the people with guns that you need help, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the response time, and just have a gun yourself?