More guns, more profiling

[LeftofLeft]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

 

[mudwhistle]

So the DemoRats are the party of Racism, Rape, Abortion, Open Borders, and Gun-Grabbing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So the DemoRats are the party of Racism, Rape, Abortion, Open Borders, and Gun-Grabbing.

Give it a break. It doesn't hold water anymore. Your Fear Tactics fail even worse each day. If that's the only message you have then you need to go back to school and learn better lessons. How about talking about the positives for a change. Who knows, instead of just pissing other off, you just might convince them of your views.

 

[mudwhistle]

So the DemoRats are the party of Racism, Rape, Abortion, Open Borders, and Gun-Grabbing.

Give it a break. It doesn't hold water anymore. Your Fear Tactics fail even worse each day. If that's the only message you have then you need to go back to school and learn better lessons. How about talking about the positives for a change. Who knows, instead of just pissing other off, you just might convince them of your views.

I'm a peacekeeper.
I don't incite violence.
The people that do usually don't know their head from their ass when it comes to guns and military tactics.
Bunch of wannabe dirtbags.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

I seriously doubt that. People with no training or practice are not likely to be better shooters than those that are. These are lowlifes with little money that won't spend a lot of it at the firing range, which is where most people in the city go to for shooting practice.

From time to time they may shoot off their guns in the street, but that's hardly what I call getting practice. They shoot several rounds and run like hell before the police show up. They also do drive by shootings which anybody experienced with a gun knows it's unlikely you will hit you target unless extremely close, and many times end up injuring or killing an innocent that has nothing to do with their matter.

 

[harmonica]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

yes--Texas is very gun friendly
how many more do we need? we have the HIGHEST gun ownership per capita

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

yes--Texas is very gun friendly
how many more do we need? we have the HIGHEST gun ownership per capita

I don't know much about the Texas one yet. First it was reported that it was several shooters, and recently I read they only have one person in custody that's responsible. He looked like an 18 year old kid, but he's actually 21. The shooter in our state was 24.

It's also reported that the guy over here was in body armor, but they didn't go into specifics of what that meant.

First reports are often misleading or plain wrong. We will learn exactly what happened and why throughout next week.

 

[mudwhistle]

Janet Thompson Retweeted

Emerald Robinson

@EmeraldRobinson
·
3h
The same people who tell you that Trump and his supporters are somehow "responsible" for mass shootings are the same people who told you blaming Obama for mass shootings during his presidency was racism.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

So the DemoRats are the party of Racism, Rape, Abortion, Open Borders, and Gun-Grabbing.

Give it a break. It doesn't hold water anymore. Your Fear Tactics fail even worse each day. If that's the only message you have then you need to go back to school and learn better lessons. How about talking about the positives for a change. Who knows, instead of just pissing other off, you just might convince them of your views.

I'm a peacekeeper.
I don't incite violence.
The people that do usually don't know their head from their ass when it comes to guns and military tactics.
Bunch of wannabe dirtbags.

INDEED
Its not in our nature to incite ....we 're here to finish it ....

Keep ammo'n up

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

yes--Texas is very gun friendly
how many more do we need? we have the HIGHEST gun ownership per capita

I don't know much about the Texas one yet. First it was reported that it was several shooters, and recently I read they only have one person in custody that's responsible. He looked like an 18 year old kid, but he's actually 21. The shooter in our state was 24.

It's also reported that the guy over here was in body armor, but they didn't go into specifics of what that meant.

First reports are often misleading or plain wrong. We will learn exactly what happened and why throughout next week.

There is one thing all of the ones you bring up had in common. The Weapon used. Ages, locals, reasons, and much more will differ but the weapon used has a common link. And all of them were legally purchased. No existing gun laws in those states would have prevented the high body count and the shear luck that it wasn't higher. The ONLY reason that the body counts weren't higher was that the Cops are trained and armed much better these days and ended them sooner.

Can you imagine if the California Former Marine Shooter had access to the same weapons with his skill sets? He used a semi auto handgun. He not only killed people at the club but killed 2 veteran armed cops that knew he was in there and armed. Now, arm him with an AR and give him 4 30 round mags. Luckily, on short notice, those were not available to him due to state laws that are enforced. With his skill sets, if there were over 60 people there (there were) He would have killed them all and then took out almost the entire cities police force in the process before he was bagged. Instead, he ended up killing 10 civilians, 1 cop and finally, killing himself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

Correct, but they don't want to risk a non life threatening injury by an armed citizen. They do want to die because they are cowards that can't face prison. So they do look for gun-free zones as their targets. They may be loony, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.