NRA receives surge in donations.

[Taz]

I'm not allowed to drive a race car on the street. And there's a speed limit. And I wear a seatbelt by law. And my car can't be falling apart... or over crowded... or be drinking in the car... or simply drunk... You want all those laws repealed so it's a free-for-all? No thanks.

That isn't what I said. Nice try. Why do you own a car? Because you need one? No because it is your CHOICE to have one. Otherwise you could ride a bus, use the metro, or other means of public transportation. It is my Choice to have an AR-15 and it has YET to take a life...Are you jealous that I can have one, but you cant?

Actually, where I live, I NEED a car. No public transport... in my small town. You keep failing badly, please try again soon.

Why don't you just walk or ride a bicycle? A small town, you waste money just to putz around. Why do you want to infringe on my right to CHOOSE, what I want to purchase or not. You sure don't act like a libertarian but more like a Fascist..

You're right to choose what you want has already been infringed, as you can't buy an AA missile or a nuke or a cluster bomb or a mine or... So spare me the fake outrage.

And the liberals say i am extreme. I talk about a hunting rifle, and you a flaming liberal talk about nukes and missiles. You are the one showing indignation for people buying what they want to. You are the one who wants to take their right away. Libertarian? My ass, you are a liberal of the Nth degree.

You're pissed because I just showed that you agree with limiting the 2nd so that your arab neighbor can't own a nuke, or some other very nasty stuff, like chemical weapons, which the US government has themselves. So everyone is ok with a list of banned weapons for civilians, we're simply arguing over how long the list will be.

 

[Taz]

So with you it's either of only 2 choices, either sell everything or ban everything. There is a middle ground.

Why should they ban the AR-15? If there are only 2 choices, then it either gets banned or not? My AR-15 has yet to take a life.. Why should it be banned?

You don't need such a weapon, but those things are used in school shootings. So to help children stay alive, are you willing to give yours up? I would, because I'd still have other guns for protection and hunting.

Rifles are the least likely to be used in a mass shooting you dumb twit......

The AR-15 civilian rifle is the most common and most popular rifle in the country, so over 8,000,000 people think they need one....

Lawn mowers kill more people each year than mass shooters do and that includes the guys using rifles of any kind...

You're a fool who doesn't care how many school children get shot. We get it. You don't have to keep butting in to show us.

Just as a reminder?

So if one bad thing is allowed to happen, all the other bad things happening are ok as well?

 

[MindWars]

Thinks hogg!

REPORT: NRA Gets Flooded With Donations After Being Attacked


On Tuesday, a new report revealed that donations to the National Rifle Association's (NRA) political action committee significantly increased in February after they were attacked by the media and far-left activists in the wake of the Parkland shooting.

"The PAC raised a total of $779,063 in February and reported $247,985 in donations in January," an increase of over 300%, The Washington Free Beacon reported.

The massive surge in donations comes after the gun rights group has been viciously attacked by the media and far-left activists like Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg, who has referred to the NRA as "child murderers" on multiple occasions...

View attachment 185127


REPORT: NRA Gets Flooded With Donations After Being Attacked

Backfire works well doesn't it.

 

[Taz]

Why not? They were banned for 10 years before.....?

They were banned for 10 years before.....?

And?

FLASHBACK: CBS Reported Clinton’s ’94 Assault Weapons Ban Didn’t Prevent Columbine

Columbine shooters from using those weapons in the massacre:

“When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot their way into Columbine High School in Colorado a few months ago, one of the guns in their arsenal was a powerful pistol called a TEC-9. That’s one of the guns supposedly outlawed by the assault-weapons ban, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton back in 1994. So how were they able to get ahold of a banned gun? Well, as we found when we first aired this story in 1995, this ban wasn’t really a ban at all. One gun dealer in Kentucky, Bill Perkins, went so far as to call the law a joke.”

Liberals, are the Joke of the Universe...

View attachment 185140

Klarevas examined incidents before, during and after the assault weapons ban when six or more people were shot and killed.


• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents


• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents


• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents


That shows a 183 percent increase of incidents in the decade after the ban, compared to the years during the ban.

You are right it did not stop mass shootings....

And Columbine had 30% less deaths, even with TWO people doing the shooting, with no assault weapons....vs the Valentine's Day school massacre....

more of an editorial on society than guns.

No matter how you slice it a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who can legally get a gun will kill with it.

Mass shootings while great press for liberal control efforts account for only about 1% of all murders

The vast majority of murders, 68%,occur in very small areas in 5 % of all the counties in the country and since those areas tend to historically urban and plagued by crime. We don't care about the murders that occur in them because they are mostly urban youths killing other urban youths.

it's not that people do not care, but it is the reason why any mass shootings in the counties and areas not plagued with gun crimes, stands out and people go bonkers over it....imo.

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Why should they ban the AR-15? If there are only 2 choices, then it either gets banned or not? My AR-15 has yet to take a life.. Why should it be banned?

You don't need such a weapon, but those things are used in school shootings. So to help children stay alive, are you willing to give yours up? I would, because I'd still have other guns for protection and hunting.

Rifles are the least likely to be used in a mass shooting you dumb twit......

The AR-15 civilian rifle is the most common and most popular rifle in the country, so over 8,000,000 people think they need one....

Lawn mowers kill more people each year than mass shooters do and that includes the guys using rifles of any kind...

You're a fool who doesn't care how many school children get shot. We get it. You don't have to keep butting in to show us.

Just as a reminder?

So if one bad thing is allowed to happen, all the other bad things happening are ok as well?

I am sorry, were you trying to say something? I was looking at this picture.

 

[Taz]

You don't need such a weapon, but those things are used in school shootings. So to help children stay alive, are you willing to give yours up? I would, because I'd still have other guns for protection and hunting.

Rifles are the least likely to be used in a mass shooting you dumb twit......

The AR-15 civilian rifle is the most common and most popular rifle in the country, so over 8,000,000 people think they need one....

Lawn mowers kill more people each year than mass shooters do and that includes the guys using rifles of any kind...

You're a fool who doesn't care how many school children get shot. We get it. You don't have to keep butting in to show us.

Just as a reminder?

So if one bad thing is allowed to happen, all the other bad things happening are ok as well?

I am sorry, were you trying to say something? I was looking at this picture.

It's not even relevant to what I said, but I'm glad that you could get that out of your system. Btw, what are all gun owners condemned to?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Rifles are the least likely to be used in a mass shooting you dumb twit......

The AR-15 civilian rifle is the most common and most popular rifle in the country, so over 8,000,000 people think they need one....

Lawn mowers kill more people each year than mass shooters do and that includes the guys using rifles of any kind...

You're a fool who doesn't care how many school children get shot. We get it. You don't have to keep butting in to show us.

Just as a reminder?

So if one bad thing is allowed to happen, all the other bad things happening are ok as well?

I am sorry, were you trying to say something? I was looking at this picture.

It's not even relevant to what I said, but I'm glad that you could get that out of your system. Btw, what are all gun owners condemned to?

Were you talking to me?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I will probably get watched. But i can legally own one.
Please, stop spreading your ignorance and learn from mistakes the first time.
I have to tell my 5 year old that all the time!

First of all, you can't buy one in the US and if you arrive at the border with one, well, it won't end well. Can you imagine Arab-Americans being legally able to possess a nuke in the US?

Thats because the us govt doesnt sell nuclear weapons, dude.
There is no law prohibiting citizens from owning nukes. It might as well be impossible but it is perfectly legal.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The US doesn't want COUNTRIES possessing nukes, you think they're going to let you Arab-Americans own some?

Not nukes maybe, but tanks and cannons and shit--he's right, apparently. At least when I asked Google the question a lot of sites said yes.

Can you imagine all the crazies sitting in the bushes near an airport with their AA shoulder fired missiles? lol. People planting mines in parks... Shooting off cruise missiles from the back of their pick-up? ...

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

 

[Taz]

First of all, you can't buy one in the US and if you arrive at the border with one, well, it won't end well. Can you imagine Arab-Americans being legally able to possess a nuke in the US?

Thats because the us govt doesnt sell nuclear weapons, dude.
There is no law prohibiting citizens from owning nukes. It might as well be impossible but it is perfectly legal.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The US doesn't want COUNTRIES possessing nukes, you think they're going to let you Arab-Americans own some?

Not nukes maybe, but tanks and cannons and shit--he's right, apparently. At least when I asked Google the question a lot of sites said yes.

Can you imagine all the crazies sitting in the bushes near an airport with their AA shoulder fired missiles? lol. People planting mines in parks... Shooting off cruise missiles from the back of their pick-up? ...

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Thats because the us govt doesnt sell nuclear weapons, dude.
There is no law prohibiting citizens from owning nukes. It might as well be impossible but it is perfectly legal.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The US doesn't want COUNTRIES possessing nukes, you think they're going to let you Arab-Americans own some?

Not nukes maybe, but tanks and cannons and shit--he's right, apparently. At least when I asked Google the question a lot of sites said yes.

Can you imagine all the crazies sitting in the bushes near an airport with their AA shoulder fired missiles? lol. People planting mines in parks... Shooting off cruise missiles from the back of their pick-up? ...

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

I'm stating the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain these weapons platform. I know of no 2nd Amendment supporter who could afford the cost. Using a SAM or Nuke as a point in the 2nd Amendment debate is ******* stupid.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm not allowed to drive a race car on the street. And there's a speed limit. And I wear a seatbelt by law. And my car can't be falling apart... or over crowded... or be drinking in the car... or simply drunk... You want all those laws repealed so it's a free-for-all? No thanks.

That isn't what I said. Nice try. Why do you own a car? Because you need one? No because it is your CHOICE to have one. Otherwise you could ride a bus, use the metro, or other means of public transportation. It is my Choice to have an AR-15 and it has YET to take a life...Are you jealous that I can have one, but you cant?

Actually, where I live, I NEED a car. No public transport... in my small town. You keep failing badly, please try again soon.

Why don't you just walk or ride a bicycle? A small town, you waste money just to putz around. Why do you want to infringe on my right to CHOOSE, what I want to purchase or not. You sure don't act like a libertarian but more like a Fascist..

You're right to choose what you want has already been infringed, as you can't buy an AA missile or a nuke or a cluster bomb or a mine or... So spare me the fake outrage.

And the liberals say i am extreme. I talk about a hunting rifle, and you a flaming liberal talk about nukes and missiles. You are the one showing indignation for people buying what they want to. You are the one who wants to take their right away. Libertarian? My ass, you are a liberal of the Nth degree.

You're arguing with a racist troll who isn't worth reading. He's always trying to play up the "arab terrorist" angle because he's so full of hate.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And?

FLASHBACK: CBS Reported Clinton’s ’94 Assault Weapons Ban Didn’t Prevent Columbine Liberals, are the Joke of the Universe...

View attachment 185140

Klarevas examined incidents before, during and after the assault weapons ban when six or more people were shot and killed.


• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents


• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents


• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents


That shows a 183 percent increase of incidents in the decade after the ban, compared to the years during the ban.

You are right it did not stop mass shootings....

And Columbine had 30% less deaths, even with TWO people doing the shooting, with no assault weapons....vs the Valentine's Day school massacre....

more of an editorial on society than guns.

No matter how you slice it a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who can legally get a gun will kill with it.

Mass shootings while great press for liberal control efforts account for only about 1% of all murders

The vast majority of murders, 68%,occur in very small areas in 5 % of all the counties in the country and since those areas tend to historically urban and plagued by crime. We don't care about the murders that occur in them because they are mostly urban youths killing other urban youths.

it's not that people do not care, but it is the reason why any mass shootings in the counties and areas not plagued with gun crimes, stands out and people go bonkers over it....imo.

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

No it's not

Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws and hasn't dropped to a level lower than they were before all their gun laws were passed

So how do you explain that one?

Only a simpleton thinks guns are the only variable in the differing murder rates

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

That isn't what I said. Nice try. Why do you own a car? Because you need one? No because it is your CHOICE to have one. Otherwise you could ride a bus, use the metro, or other means of public transportation. It is my Choice to have an AR-15 and it has YET to take a life...Are you jealous that I can have one, but you cant?

Actually, where I live, I NEED a car. No public transport... in my small town. You keep failing badly, please try again soon.

Why don't you just walk or ride a bicycle? A small town, you waste money just to putz around. Why do you want to infringe on my right to CHOOSE, what I want to purchase or not. You sure don't act like a libertarian but more like a Fascist..

You're right to choose what you want has already been infringed, as you can't buy an AA missile or a nuke or a cluster bomb or a mine or... So spare me the fake outrage.

And the liberals say i am extreme. I talk about a hunting rifle, and you a flaming liberal talk about nukes and missiles. You are the one showing indignation for people buying what they want to. You are the one who wants to take their right away. Libertarian? My ass, you are a liberal of the Nth degree.

You're pissed because I just showed that you agree with limiting the 2nd so that your arab neighbor can't own a nuke, or some other very nasty stuff, like chemical weapons, which the US government has themselves. So everyone is ok with a list of banned weapons for civilians, we're simply arguing over how long the list will be.

Chemical or Biological are notoriously unreliable weapons and are as likely to kill your own people as they are the targets.

 

[badger2]

No, dipstick #150, it's not stupid, because nukes represent the end of all things, the apocalypse, and whereas drug money buys guns, inventions will continue to be produced that kill despite gun control. Machete Breath Goes to Germany.

 

[2aguy]

And?

FLASHBACK: CBS Reported Clinton’s ’94 Assault Weapons Ban Didn’t Prevent Columbine Liberals, are the Joke of the Universe...

View attachment 185140

Klarevas examined incidents before, during and after the assault weapons ban when six or more people were shot and killed.


• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents


• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents


• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents


That shows a 183 percent increase of incidents in the decade after the ban, compared to the years during the ban.

You are right it did not stop mass shootings....

And Columbine had 30% less deaths, even with TWO people doing the shooting, with no assault weapons....vs the Valentine's Day school massacre....

more of an editorial on society than guns.

No matter how you slice it a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who can legally get a gun will kill with it.

Mass shootings while great press for liberal control efforts account for only about 1% of all murders

The vast majority of murders, 68%,occur in very small areas in 5 % of all the counties in the country and since those areas tend to historically urban and plagued by crime. We don't care about the murders that occur in them because they are mostly urban youths killing other urban youths.

it's not that people do not care, but it is the reason why any mass shootings in the counties and areas not plagued with gun crimes, stands out and people go bonkers over it....imo.

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

Wrong.......Britain banned and confiscated guns, their gun crime rates are up....up 23% across England and Wales, up 42% in London, and up 30% in Yorkshire....violent crime is also up all over the country.....

Our gun crime rate has gone down......as more people own and carry guns.....Which means you are wrong....you don't know what you are talking about, you belief about gun ownership and crime is incorrect....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

And?

FLASHBACK: CBS Reported Clinton’s ’94 Assault Weapons Ban Didn’t Prevent Columbine Liberals, are the Joke of the Universe...

View attachment 185140

Klarevas examined incidents before, during and after the assault weapons ban when six or more people were shot and killed.


• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents


• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents


• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents


That shows a 183 percent increase of incidents in the decade after the ban, compared to the years during the ban.

You are right it did not stop mass shootings....

And Columbine had 30% less deaths, even with TWO people doing the shooting, with no assault weapons....vs the Valentine's Day school massacre....

more of an editorial on society than guns.

No matter how you slice it a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who can legally get a gun will kill with it.

Mass shootings while great press for liberal control efforts account for only about 1% of all murders

The vast majority of murders, 68%,occur in very small areas in 5 % of all the counties in the country and since those areas tend to historically urban and plagued by crime. We don't care about the murders that occur in them because they are mostly urban youths killing other urban youths.

it's not that people do not care, but it is the reason why any mass shootings in the counties and areas not plagued with gun crimes, stands out and people go bonkers over it....imo.

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

Gun crime is also up in Australia.....and Sweden....criminals in France prefer to use fully automatic military rifles, not AR-15 civilian rifles......you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Thats because the us govt doesnt sell nuclear weapons, dude.
There is no law prohibiting citizens from owning nukes. It might as well be impossible but it is perfectly legal.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The US doesn't want COUNTRIES possessing nukes, you think they're going to let you Arab-Americans own some?

Not nukes maybe, but tanks and cannons and shit--he's right, apparently. At least when I asked Google the question a lot of sites said yes.

Can you imagine all the crazies sitting in the bushes near an airport with their AA shoulder fired missiles? lol. People planting mines in parks... Shooting off cruise missiles from the back of their pick-up? ...

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

Nukes are not bearable arms.....they are also dangerous and unusual in that they are area effect weapons on a large scale.......please...read Heller, that Supreme Court decision would save you a lot of time spent typing...

 

[Taz]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The US doesn't want COUNTRIES possessing nukes, you think they're going to let you Arab-Americans own some?

Not nukes maybe, but tanks and cannons and shit--he's right, apparently. At least when I asked Google the question a lot of sites said yes.

Can you imagine all the crazies sitting in the bushes near an airport with their AA shoulder fired missiles? lol. People planting mines in parks... Shooting off cruise missiles from the back of their pick-up? ...

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

I'm stating the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain these weapons platform. I know of no 2nd Amendment supporter who could afford the cost. Using a SAM or Nuke as a point in the 2nd Amendment debate is ******* stupid.

It's not about cost though, is it, it's about my 2nd A right to legally possess one if I want to. Do you agree that I should be able to have one or... ten?

 

[Taz]

That isn't what I said. Nice try. Why do you own a car? Because you need one? No because it is your CHOICE to have one. Otherwise you could ride a bus, use the metro, or other means of public transportation. It is my Choice to have an AR-15 and it has YET to take a life...Are you jealous that I can have one, but you cant?

Actually, where I live, I NEED a car. No public transport... in my small town. You keep failing badly, please try again soon.

Why don't you just walk or ride a bicycle? A small town, you waste money just to putz around. Why do you want to infringe on my right to CHOOSE, what I want to purchase or not. You sure don't act like a libertarian but more like a Fascist..

You're right to choose what you want has already been infringed, as you can't buy an AA missile or a nuke or a cluster bomb or a mine or... So spare me the fake outrage.

And the liberals say i am extreme. I talk about a hunting rifle, and you a flaming liberal talk about nukes and missiles. You are the one showing indignation for people buying what they want to. You are the one who wants to take their right away. Libertarian? My ass, you are a liberal of the Nth degree.

You're arguing with a racist troll who isn't worth reading. He's always trying to play up the "arab terrorist" angle because he's so full of hate.

It's an EXAMPLE, you ******* doofus. And I never said "arab terrorist" I said "Arab-American". You stand corrected.

 

[Taz]

Klarevas examined incidents before, during and after the assault weapons ban when six or more people were shot and killed.


• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents


• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents


• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents


That shows a 183 percent increase of incidents in the decade after the ban, compared to the years during the ban.

You are right it did not stop mass shootings....

And Columbine had 30% less deaths, even with TWO people doing the shooting, with no assault weapons....vs the Valentine's Day school massacre....

more of an editorial on society than guns.

No matter how you slice it a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who can legally get a gun will kill with it.

Mass shootings while great press for liberal control efforts account for only about 1% of all murders

The vast majority of murders, 68%,occur in very small areas in 5 % of all the counties in the country and since those areas tend to historically urban and plagued by crime. We don't care about the murders that occur in them because they are mostly urban youths killing other urban youths.

it's not that people do not care, but it is the reason why any mass shootings in the counties and areas not plagued with gun crimes, stands out and people go bonkers over it....imo.

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

No it's not

Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws and hasn't dropped to a level lower than they were before all their gun laws were passed

So how do you explain that one?

Only a simpleton thinks guns are the only variable in the differing murder rates

I said "gun murder rate". Please pay attention.