Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In fact, why does this country even have gun laws anyways?Good thing there was an armed and trained man at the site of the Oregon shooting.
So why do we advertise the vulnerability of our schools?It is easier for a mass shooter to get a gun in this country than any other country on the planet.
No...the average of all the studies done over 40 years, showed that Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack 2 million times a year....I post the 1.5 number because that is the number that bill clinton found through his anti gun study.....
I don't loe...I am not a lefty.
Mass shooters select familiar terrain. Every school shooter was a student at the school they shot up.
And as the previous poster just pointed out, Fort Hood was not a gun free zone.
The gun free zone meme is bullshit.
No...the average of all the studies done over 40 years, showed that Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack 2 million times a year....I post the 1.5 number because that is the number that bill clinton found through his anti gun study.....
I don't loe...I am not a lefty.
How many of the 2 million were police officers?
No...the average of all the studies done over 40 years, showed that Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack 2 million times a year....I post the 1.5 number because that is the number that bill clinton found through his anti gun study.....
I don't loe...I am not a lefty.
How many of the 2 million were police officers?
Now you're just babbling.They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
No it doesn't because the chance of dying quicker is very slim.
No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.
Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
It is always fascinating listing to RW gun nuts talk about how killers go to gun free zones, while ignoring the fact that they usually intend to shoot themselves when they get there......
You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
Read it again."... 16-year-old Luke Woodham entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., armed with his estranged father's hunting rifle and dozens of cartridges. When Woodham opened fire, vice principal Joel Myrick sprinted to the parking lot, grabbed a Colt .45 automatic pistol from his truck and forced the gunman to surrender by pointing the gun at his head. This limited the casualties to two students killed and seven wounded. In 1998, Andrew Wurst, 14, opened fire on an eighth-grade graduation dance in Edinboro, Pa. The owner of the banquet hall where the dance was being held grabbed a shotgun from his office and quickly confronted Wurst, who dropped his gun. The toll was thus limited to one slain teacher and two wounded students."
Arm Teachers To Stop Shootings
After he was already trying to leave.
I've read the actual story. Shooter was i car leaving.
Read it again."... 16-year-old Luke Woodham entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., armed with his estranged father's hunting rifle and dozens of cartridges. When Woodham opened fire, vice principal Joel Myrick sprinted to the parking lot, grabbed a Colt .45 automatic pistol from his truck and forced the gunman to surrender by pointing the gun at his head. This limited the casualties to two students killed and seven wounded. In 1998, Andrew Wurst, 14, opened fire on an eighth-grade graduation dance in Edinboro, Pa. The owner of the banquet hall where the dance was being held grabbed a shotgun from his office and quickly confronted Wurst, who dropped his gun. The toll was thus limited to one slain teacher and two wounded students."
Arm Teachers To Stop Shootings
After he was already trying to leave.
I've read the actual story. Shooter was i car leaving.
"... 16-year-old Luke Woodham entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., armed with his estranged father's hunting rifle and dozens of cartridges. When Woodham opened fire, vice principal Joel Myrick sprinted to the parking lot, grabbed a Colt .45 automatic pistol from his truck and forced the gunman to surrender by pointing the gun at his head. This limited the casualties to two students killed and seven wounded. In 1998, Andrew Wurst, 14, opened fire on an eighth-grade graduation dance in Edinboro, Pa. The owner of the banquet hall where the dance was being held grabbed a shotgun from his office and quickly confronted Wurst, who dropped his gun. The toll was thus limited to one slain teacher and two wounded students."
Arm Teachers To Stop Shootings
After he was already trying to leave.
Because an appeal to extremes does not a counter argument make...In fact, why does this country even have gun laws anyways?Good thing there was an armed and trained man at the site of the Oregon shooting.
So why do we advertise the vulnerability of our schools?It is easier for a mass shooter to get a gun in this country than any other country on the planet.
Okay. Same reason they have "drug free zone" signs at schools. To show that penalties are worse in that zone.
Even in the 3rd world, if a criminal wants to get a gun they have to walk into the dangerous underworld of the black market, overpay for a shoddy old gun, and have a limited amount of ammo.Nope it works in every thread. I believe we have more mass shootings than the next like 10 - 15 countries combined. Something you must be very proud of.
There are many countries you can get firearms more easily.
But of course you know that which is why you changed your spiel.
And of course you also know if we got rid of ghetto violence our murder rate would plummet.
Aside from the third world, there is nowhere in the world where it is easier to get a gun than it is in parts of the US.
There really is no legitimate argument about that.
In the U.S., you just drive to Wal-Mart.
One of my favorite arguments by the gun crazies is that everyone in London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Geneva, Berlin, Munich, Brussels, Sophia, Warsaw, etc... who has an itch to murder someone knows where this supposed "black market" is and has a guy they can call up to deliver any weapon they want immediately!!!!
I'm almost 40 years old. I have zero idea how to access the black market to buy a DVD of the new Hunger Games movie.
It's almost as if you have to have a degree in nonsense to have a conversation with the gun crazies.
I could easily find an illegal firearm.
It all boils down to how big of a risk you want to take to get one.
For you I'd imagine it would be more dangerous because of the part of town you'd have to enter. For the locals it's cake.
No...the average of all the studies done over 40 years, showed that Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack 2 million times a year....I post the 1.5 number because that is the number that bill clinton found through his anti gun study.....
I don't loe...I am not a lefty.
How many of the 2 million were police officers?
the studies that average comes from did not include miltary or police shootings, they were all,civilian shootings.
A favorite study of these advocates is 1995’s “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun” (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall/95), byGary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which found that guns were used defensively about 2.5 million times annually in the U.S.—or almost 7,000 times a day.
Researcher John Lott conducted another study favored by gun advocates, published in his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, which claimed that increasing numbers of concealed carry permits in a given area are associated with decreasing crime rates.
Both studies have been convincingly challenged in the scientific community. In a 2004 meta-study of gun research, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science found that Lott’s claims were not supported by his data. And when Lott misrepresented the report (New York Post, 12/29/04), the NAS published a letter (Deltoid, 1/26/05) listing his distortions. Shooting Down the More Guns Less Crime Hypothesis (11/02), a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found crime actually increased in states and locales where concealed carry laws had been adopted.
The Harvard School of Public Health’s David Hemenway took on Kleck in Survey Research and Self Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1997), demonstrating that because of the nature of the data, Kleck’s self-reported phone survey finding 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year was wildly exaggerated. For example, Kleck says guns were used to defend against 845,000 burglaries in 1992, a year in which the National Crime Victimization Survey says there were fewer than 6 million burglaries.
