If so, where is safe? They must have had some serious weaponry at the Navy Yard. It is so disgusting. Sandy hook, Columbine and the other mass killings seem to make no difference. Assault weapons need to be banned permanently.

I wish the NRA HQ would move to Loudoun or Mississippi or someplace. They definitely don't belong in Fairfax County.

Hell, you can't own a gun in dc, how could this happen?..
Look at baltimore, chicago, DC, no gun crimes happen..right? you cant own a gun in those cities, major felony offense..., how the fuck did this happen?

I think they have 50 or so laws for guns and ammo in DC, do you really think one more law would have prevented this bullshit?
Fucking joke.
Arm yourself, or become a victim.

I wish the NRA HQ would move to Loudoun or Mississippi or someplace. They definitely don't belong in Fairfax County.

sickening Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish the NRA HQ would move to Loudoun or
> Mississippi or someplace. They definitely don't
> belong in Fairfax County.


Imbecile, arm yourself? How many arms do you think they had at the Navy Yard?

The NRA sux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If so, where is safe? They must have had some
> serious weaponry at the Navy Yard. It is so
> disgusting. Sandy hook, Columbine and the other
> mass killings seem to make no difference. Assault
> weapons need to be banned permanently.


What exactly is an assault weapon ?

It is not defined on functionality. Most definitions are of guns that look like an AK47.

I suggest you learn the difference between an automatic, semi-automatic and single action gun. Then come back here cause you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

>
> Imbecile, arm yourself? How many arms do you
> think they had at the Navy Yard?


Listen faggot, the only guns they have at the Navy Yard are in the hands of MPs and security (the Police). Normal soldiers are not allowed to carry on any base. Get your facts straight before you get all high and mighty.

And for the girl complaining about 'assault rifles', please in your next post tell us what you think one is.

QUESTION FOR a company called "THE EXPERTS" :

I have an arrest record including gun crimes, evidence of PTSD, and was discharged from the military for violations of conduct. Can I get a job with your firm just like that other guy did?

The NRA sux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If so, where is safe? They must have had some
> serious weaponry at the Navy Yard. It is so
> disgusting. Sandy hook, Columbine and the other
> mass killings seem to make no difference. Assault
> weapons need to be banned permanently.


I dont even know where to begin with this emotionally driven post completely devoid of fact.

They dont have serious weaponry at the Navy Yard. They have a few armed security guards and thats it. The military isnt allowed to be armed on their bases unless doing a training exercise, thank Capitol Hill for that one. Its also a DC military base, not exactly home of Seal Team 6 and some Destroyer isnt going to roll up there and shoot it out.

None of those killings had anything to do with an assault weapons. They happened because of a person not a gun. The deadliest shooting in US History was VT tech who used two low powered hand guns.

Assault weapons are nothing more than a rifle with a scary name because of how they look. They arent the weapons the military uses and theyre no more dangerous than any other weapon. Banning those weapons doesnt stop shootings, neither does banning guns.

Any gun including a rifle is illegal to be carrying around DC, its illegal to bring it on the Navy Base, it illegal to point at people, illegal to shoot at people, illegal to discharge in public, illegal to murder people. I can go on and on and on, please tell me whats the law were missing that would stop it since in your mind criminals obey laws?

Besides it was the a gun that ended the shooter and the rampage.

White fear gave us the NRA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEVPSfJIQ84

explains it all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> White fear gave us the NRA.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEVPSfJIQ84

No minorities gave us the NRA. Look at all the police reports these days. Most are black and hispanics, very few whites. Doesn't matter what color though, guns in the hands of the victims (and proper training) would have eliminated those predators.

Dumb ass op should get his/her facts straight.

Shooter purchases shotgun

Shooter shot guard with shotgun taking his service weapon (handgun)

Shooter shot police officer and took his ar-15

Is this easy enough for a simple minded fool such as yourself to understand?

aolT. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumb ass op should get his/her facts straight.
>
> Shooter purchases shotgun
>
> Shooter shot guard with shotgun taking his service
> weapon (handgun)
>
> Shooter shot police officer and took his ar-15
>
> Is this easy enough for a simple minded fool such
> as yourself to understand?

Joe Biden told us all to buy a shotgun.

anguish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish the NRA HQ would move to Loudoun or
> Mississippi or someplace. They definitely don't
> belong in Fairfax County.

They contribute to the local economy so why dont you and your fellow ticks on welfare locate elsewhere.

sickening Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish the NRA HQ would move to Loudoun or
> Mississippi or someplace. They definitely don't
> belong in Fairfax County.


How about the ILLEGAL hispanics?

It is obvious we need new legislation to restrict these weapons of war from soldiers and those who are supposed to protect them on bases. If someone can shoot a guard and take his weapon, we need to solve the problem by making sure that guard doesn't have a weapon.

Holy shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sickening Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I wish the NRA HQ would move to Loudoun or
> > Mississippi or someplace. They definitely
> don't
> > belong in Fairfax County.
>
>
> Imbecile, arm yourself? How many arms do you
> think they had at the Navy Yard?


Thanks to Bill Clinton, they had NONE. Only the guards had guns, so all the nutcase had to do was overpower one and take theirs. This is how most FPS videogames start.

The network of Piers Morgan is trying to have it both ways.
Attachments:

Diane Feinstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is obvious we need new legislation to restrict
> these weapons of war from soldiers and those who
> are supposed to protect them on bases. If someone
> can shoot a guard and take his weapon, we need to
> solve the problem by making sure that guard
> doesn't have a weapon.


Gotta love the fucking Liberal Logic..

NBC4 kept reporting he had a AR14 yesterday. UFB

I wonder if some cop told the reporter that just to make him look stupid.

Dear OP. He had a handgun, a shotgun, and an AR-15 which is NOT an "assault" rifle. After you're done thanking the gun that shot the bastard, why don't you look up "assault weapon" on Google and find out what one actually is?

The "Assault Rifle" term has sadly fallen to the liberal media that misused the term for long enough that it is commonplace. Assault weapon no longer means fully automatic, it means it cosmetically looks like something in Call of Duty. That is the only requirement. A toilet paper roll that someone paints black and tapes a scope onto it is also an assault weapon, a weapon of war.

Also, he didn't "have" an AR-15 and a handgun. He had a shotgun, and during the attack obtained the other two. That is a totally different situation.

And now CNN reports there may not have been an AR-15 at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/?hpt=hp_t1

"However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when."

Yup, CNN says a shotgun and two pistols.

Liberal fearmongers hardest hit.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Maybe I was a little too strong with that buy a shotgun recommendation.

Update. I was wrong. It happens, rarely, but it does. He came with a shotgun and a shotgun only. He got the handgun from the security guard, and there was NO AR-15 or any other rifle. The person who killed him, however, still used a gun.

definitions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "Assault Rifle" term has sadly fallen to the
> liberal media that misused the term for long
> enough that it is commonplace. Assault weapon no
> longer means fully automatic, it means it
> cosmetically looks like something in Call of Duty.
> That is the only requirement. A toilet paper
> roll that someone paints black and tapes a scope
> onto it is also an assault weapon, a weapon of
> war.

Its just like how they always say semi-automatic hand gun to get the word automatic in there and get people riled up who dont have a clue about guns.

> Also, he didn't "have" an AR-15 and a handgun. He
> had a shotgun, and during the attack obtained the
> other two. That is a totally different situation.

Some progressive probably threw it out there for political capital. How the hell do you get that so horribly wrong. Its only on probably 50 different security cameras

Well, that's an inconvenient development.

Was the shotgun black and scary looking with two or more of my cosmetic features which magically transform it into an 'assault weapon' at least?

I bet it had a pistol grip didn't it? Probably a barrel shroud too! I'm not even sure what that is but I know that it's evil!

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They dont have serious weaponry at the Navy Yard.
> They have a few armed security guards and thats
> it. The military isnt allowed to be armed on
> their bases unless doing a training exercise,

Or involved in base security. Base security at the Navy Yard is provided by lots of electronics and armed naval and civilian personnel. The base perimeter is enforced as is each individual building.

> Assault weapons are nothing more than a rifle with
> a scary name because of how they look. They arent
> the weapons the military uses and theyre no more
> dangerous than any other weapon.

The weapons at issue are called "military-style" weapons. They do not have to be in actual use by any branch of anybody's military in order to have the FAR GREATER LETHAL CAPACITY that comes from a weapon that can discharge many bullets in a single second as against a weapon that can discharge a single bullet over many seconds.

> I can go on and on and on, please tell me whats the
> law were missing that would stop it since in your mind
> criminals obey laws?

Criminals do not obey laws by definition. But people are not criminals until they break some law. Beforehand, they are just everyday IT techs working to upgrade the local intranet platform. Those are the people to be afraid of.

There are no laws today and there never will be that can prevent a determined individual from carrying out some form of attack. The idea here is to reduce the potential lethality that such an attack is likely to have. and to increase the number of places where a person preparing to act with such intent might slip up and come to the attention of authorities.

It is only common sense to take such precautions.

Bottom Line Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't matter what color though, guns in the hands
> of the victims (and proper training) would have
> eliminated those predators.

No, widespread possession (and hence instant availablity of guns) would greatly expand the loss of life for insignifcant reason. This is why a person living in a household that has guns is four times more likely to die of a gunshot wound than a person living in a household without guns. The purpose of guns is to cause death, and that's exactly what they do.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Or involved in base security. Base security at
> the Navy Yard is provided by lots of electronics
> and armed naval and civilian personnel. The base
> perimeter is enforced as is each individual
> building.

Security is light there for active shooters. Its mostly to keep people out, its not designed to deal with an active threat being in DC. The military who isnt allowed to carry any weapons is better trained

> The weapons at issue are called "military-style"
> weapons. They do not have to be in actual use by
> any branch of anybody's military in order to have
> the FAR GREATER LETHAL CAPACITY that comes from a
> weapon that can discharge many bullets in a single
> second as against a weapon that can discharge a
> single bullet over many seconds.

I see you have no knowledge of firearms at all.

Every gun can shoot many rounds over a short period of time or under a second if youre a fast shooter, we dont use muskets anymore.

He didnt bring a rifle with him. He brought a shotgun and killed the security and took their weapons. Im sure now youll argue that security shouldnt be armed so people cant take their weapons.

> Criminals do not obey laws by definition. But
> people are not criminals until they break some
> law. Beforehand, they are just everyday IT techs
> working to upgrade the local intranet platform.
> Those are the people to be afraid of.

What are you even rambling about with that? Do I need to post the laundry list of laws he broke again? How about just the ones hes broke before he even entered the base or fired a single shot?

> It is only common sense to take such precautions.

We have far different definitions of common sense if you think its common sense to only have criminals have guns. No wonder the rest of your crap is so misguided.

Gun free zones are the most dangerous places in the country by far.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No, widespread possession (and hence instant
> availablity of guns) would greatly expand the loss
> of life for insignifcant reason. This is why a
> person living in a household that has guns is four
> times more likely to die of a gunshot wound than a
> person living in a household without guns. The
> purpose of guns is to cause death, and that's
> exactly what they do.


That was fast. It took you two posts to just start making up bullshit.

Nice made up stat though. You left out the part how its not a statistically different risk, if you remove suicide its basically the exact same, and the rate is something like .000001 to .000004.

Areas with guns have lower crime, Harvard already blew up your bullshit about gun laws making people safer. Ask England how their violent crime rate is working out, or Australia.

How come you never mention that a few hundred thousand to a couple million people a year prevent crimes with guns or prevent themselves from being attacked/raped and thats just for private citizens.

RangerRikki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear OP. He had a handgun, a shotgun, and an
> AR-15 which is NOT an "assault" rifle. After
> you're done thanking the gun that shot the
> bastard, why don't you look up "assault weapon" on
> Google and find out what one actually is?


Wrong. He took a shotgun, shot a guard and stole his pistol. There was never an AR-15 involved until the liberal media said so.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bottom Line Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doesn't matter what color though, guns in the
> hands
> > of the victims (and proper training) would have
>
> > eliminated those predators.
>
> No, widespread possession (and hence instant
> availablity of guns) would greatly expand the loss
> of life for insignifcant reason. This is why a
> person living in a household that has guns is four
> times more likely to die of a gunshot wound than a
> person living in a household without guns. The
> purpose of guns is to cause death, and that's
> exactly what they do.


BS.

First, your disingenuous stats include suicides primarily.

Second, the reason that it's put on a "4X" basis is to make it appear more significant that it is. The actual rate still is relatively tiny and small even compared to death and accident rates related to many other common household items.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bottom Line Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doesn't matter what color though, guns in the
> hands
> > of the victims (and proper training) would have
>
> > eliminated those predators.
>
> No, widespread possession (and hence instant
> availablity of guns) would greatly expand the loss
> of life for insignifcant reason. This is why a
> person living in a household that has guns is four
> times more likely to die of a gunshot wound than a
> person living in a household without guns. The
> purpose of guns is to cause death, and that's
> exactly what they do.

I agree with you completely to a point. Unregulated gun possession would absolutely expand the loss of life. There are people that should never, ever possess any kind of weapon. The simple fact of the matter is, what are you going to do when you or a family member are attacked. By the time the police arrive it's too late. I've been involved in two incidents where a gun would have made a difference. Once was on a bike trail and another in an office environment with a disgruntled employee (guy slipped by security with a knife).

RangerRikki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear OP. He had a handgun, a shotgun, and an
> AR-15 which is NOT an "assault" rifle. After
> you're done thanking the gun that shot the
> bastard, why don't you look up "assault weapon" on
> Google and find out what one actually is?

Here is what one actually is according to D.C. Code § 7...

All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:
(1) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S;
(2) Norinco (all models);
(3) Poly Technologies (all models);
(4) MAADI AK47 and ARM; and
(5) Mitchell (all models).

UZI and Galil;
Beretta AR 70;
CETME Sporter;
Colt AR 15 series;
Daewoo K 1, K 2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR110 C;
Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC,308 Match, and Sporter;
MAS 223.
HK 91, HK 93, HK 94, and HK PSG 1;

The following MAC types:
(1) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11; and
(2) SWD Incorporated M11;

SKS with detachable magazine;
SIG AMT, PE 57, SG 550, and SG 551;
Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR 48;
Sterling MK 6;
Steyer AUG, Steyr AUG;
Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S;
Armalite AR 180;
Bushmaster Assault Rifle;
Calico —900;
J&R ENG —68; and
Weaver Arms Nighthawk.

All of the following specified pistols:
UZI;
Encom MP 9 and MP 45;

The following MAC types:
(1) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11;
(2) SWD Incorporated 11;
(3) Advance Armament Inc. —11;
(4) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11;

Intratec TEC 9 and TEC DC9;
Sites Spectre;
Sterling MK 7;
Calico M-950; and
Bushmaster Pistol.

All of the following specified shotguns:
Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12;
Striker 12 The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12

Any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine
and any one of the following:
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
A thumbhole stock;
A folding or telescoping stock;
A grenade launcher or flare launcher;
A flash suppressor; or
A forward pistol grip;

A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
any one of the following:
A threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
A second handgrip;
A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the
barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or
her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel;
The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside
of the pistol grip;

A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock;
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
A thumbhole stock; or
A vertical handgrip; and

A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine; and
all other models within a series that are variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, regardless of the manufacturer.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The weapons at issue are called "military-style"
> weapons. They do not have to be in actual use by
> any branch of anybody's military in order to have
> the FAR GREATER LETHAL CAPACITY that comes from a
> weapon that can discharge many bullets in a single
> second as against a weapon that can discharge a
> single bullet over many seconds.
>

The rate of fire "in a single second" is trivially or no faster, and in many cases slower, than that from any other semi-automatic weapon. Further, rate of fire/second is a much less significant factor in such use and with respect to "lethal capacity" than is targeting and the round itself. In terms of lethality, aimed fire wins over rapid fire every time. Likewise, the 5.56 is less potentially lethal in such close quarters circumstances than many other rounds, e.g., a shotgun or larger caliber handgun.

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> How come you never mention that a few hundred
> thousand to a couple million people a year prevent
> crimes with guns or prevent themselves from being
> attacked/raped and thats just for private
> citizens.


Because this type of use of firearms cannot be captured in stats. It is impossible to say how a uniform police officer stopped a crime just because he walked past a bank and two robbers sitting in a car changed their mind upon seeing the police officer and drove away. Therefore liberals and anti gun folks use this to their advantage and will never acknowledge that guns prevent crime unless the weapon is actually used to shoot a criminal.

I was raised in a rural area. I do not recall one single home burglary. The reason was 99% of the residents owned guns and most definitely knew how to use them. To try to break into someone elses place was suicide. So yes you could say the rate of gun ownership most certainly prevented crime.

sickening Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish the NRA HQ would move to Loudoun or
> Mississippi or someplace. They definitely don't
> belong in Fairfax County.

Amen. NRA don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave Fairfax county!

You will NOT be missed!

Fred C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > How come you never mention that a few hundred
> > thousand to a couple million people a year
> prevent
> > crimes with guns or prevent themselves from
> being
> > attacked/raped and thats just for private
> > citizens.
>
>
> Because this type of use of firearms cannot be
> captured in stats. It is impossible to say how a
> uniform police officer stopped a crime just
> because he walked past a bank and two robbers
> sitting in a car changed their mind upon seeing
> the police officer and drove away. Therefore
> liberals and anti gun folks use this to their
> advantage and will never acknowledge that guns
> prevent crime unless the weapon is actually used
> to shoot a criminal.
>
> I was raised in a rural area. I do not recall one
> single home burglary. The reason was 99% of the
> residents owned guns and most definitely knew how
> to use them. To try to break into someone elses
> place was suicide. So yes you could say the rate
> of gun ownership most certainly prevented crime.


CDC did recently in response to an Executive Order which Obama issued post-Newtown:

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

It didn't get much press in most major media since it didn't really support and in many respects undercuts central tenets of the gun control argument. One of those being that guns are used defensively relatively often and effectively with "consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

I like video games, ones like Call of Duty or other shooter style games and I as in NYC adn responded to the World Trade Center and don't want to wipe out an office full of people. He has other factors at stake here.

What's a riffle? Does it have ridges like ruffles? I prefer Wavy Lay's.

Maybe it is too bad that the shooter didn't work at the NRA!!!

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Security is light there for active shooters. Its
> mostly to keep people out, its not designed to
> deal with an active threat being in DC. The
> military who isnt allowed to carry any weapons is
> better trained

The Navy Yard is staffed largely by civilians. Military personnel having any reason to be carrying a weapon are in fact carrying a weapon.

> I see you have no knowledge of firearms at all.
> Every gun can shoot many rounds over a short
> period of time or under a second if youre a fast
> shooter, we dont use muskets anymore.

I see you are a terminal pinhead. The group of weapons contemplated is vastly more lethal than the group of weapons not contemplated specifically because of their ability to fire more rounds over a shorter period of time. These weapons serve to maximize the toll that an attacker will be able to take before he can be stopped. Bigger body counts are not really a part of the answer to this problem.

> He didnt bring a rifle with him. He brought a
> shotgun and killed the security and took their
> weapons. Im sure now youll argue that security
> shouldnt be armed so people cant take their
> weapons.

None of that matters. There is no chance of preventing this particular incident. It has already occurred. The debate is over how to minimize the number and effects of similar events in the future. Is that something that you can comprehend?

> What are you even rambling about with that? Do I
> need to post the laundry list of laws he broke
> again? How about just the ones hes broke before
> he even entered the base or fired a single shot?

Since I have to explain it to you, there is not some recognizable group of people called "criminals" wandering around that we can simply monitor and guard against. Do you know the difference between "ex ante" and "ex post"? Until someone goes out and kills a bunch of people, you don't know that this person has the capacity to go out and kil a bunch of people. So simple, a caveman could grasp it.

> We have far different definitions of common sense

There is only one such definition. You have not discovered it yet.

> if you think its common sense to only have
> criminals have guns. No wonder the rest of your
> crap is so misguided.

If you are so totally binary in your thinking as to believe that one above is the logical alternative to the other, you are one totally fucked up dude.

> Gun free zones are the most dangerous places in the
> country by far.

You are pathologically misinformed. The top three sites of mass shootings over the past 20 years have been (in decreasing order) work places, schools, and churhces, with the generic "other places where crowds gather" actually being more likely than any of the others. You need to unplug from the garbage being fed to you by the right-wing disinformation media.

According to the news, the FBI will release more info re guns used at a press conference this afternoon.

Jack406 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it is too bad that the shooter didn't work
> at the NRA!!!


Youre an idiot. Its a shame Liberals feel the need to shoot places up because they cant control their anger.

Only liberals would make such an asinine comment like you did. Its disgusting you rejoice in things like this.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Since I have to explain it to you, there is not
> some recognizable group of people called
> "criminals" wandering around that we can simply
> monitor and guard against. Do you know the
> difference between "ex ante" and "ex post"? Until
> someone goes out and kills a bunch of people, you
> don't know that this person has the capacity to go
> out and kil a bunch of people. So simple, a
> caveman could grasp it.
>

So then we shouldn't have laws which restrict the ability of persons with demonstrated tendencies to do various things, e.g., drunk drivers, convicted felons, military dishonorably discharged, and mentally adjudicated to purchase weapons, etc.


> You are pathologically misinformed. The top three
> sites of mass shootings over the past 20 years
> have been (in decreasing order) work places,
> schools, and churhces, with the generic "other
> places where crowds gather" actually being more
> likely than any of the others. You need to unplug
> from the garbage being fed to you by the
> right-wing disinformation media.


All of which are, in some cases specifically gun-free zones and/or places with a low probability for presence of defensive weapons and more favorable for a shooter to be unopposed.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Navy Yard is staffed largely by civilians.
> Military personnel having any reason to be
> carrying a weapon are in fact carrying a weapon.

Theres no armed military at the Navy Yard. Had there been 12 people wouldnt have been murdered.


> I see you are a terminal pinhead. The group of
> weapons contemplated is vastly more lethal than
> the group of weapons not contemplated specifically
> because of their ability to fire more rounds over
> a shorter period of time. These weapons serve to
> maximize the toll that an attacker will be able to
> take before he can be stopped. Bigger body counts
> are not really a part of the answer to this
> problem.

There you go just making stuff up again. Let me know when you figure out their rate of fire is basically the same and has nothing to do with body counts. Hand guns are more lethal by the way than the assault rifle HE DIDNT EVEN BRING.


> None of that matters. There is no chance of
> preventing this particular incident. It has
> already occurred. The debate is over how to
> minimize the number and effects of similar events
> in the future. Is that something that you can
> comprehend?

Haha of course it doesnt matter to you. You want to ban something that was taken from the security and your law would have had no impact on. Silly me I forgot facts dont matter to you.


> Since I have to explain it to you, there is not
> some recognizable group of people called
> "criminals" wandering around that we can simply
> monitor and guard against. Do you know the
> difference between "ex ante" and "ex post"? Until
> someone goes out and kills a bunch of people, you
> don't know that this person has the capacity to go
> out and kil a bunch of people. So simple, a
> caveman could grasp it.

Again where are you trying to go with this, youre arguing against yourself again which is quite humorous to me.

Your own argument that you dont know who could commit such an act is an argument in favor of allowing people the means to defend themselves.


> There is only one such definition. You have not
> discovered it yet.

Common sense requires the use of facts, something youve proven over and over again to be allergic too.


> If you are so totally binary in your thinking as
> to believe that one above is the logical
> alternative to the other, you are one totally
> fucked up dude.

Thats not a response to the fact that you admit criminals dont care about laws but want to disarm the public anyway. Criminals will still have guns its just theyll have nothing to worry about when they use them.


> You are pathologically misinformed. The top three
> sites of mass shootings over the past 20 years
> have been (in decreasing order) work places,
> schools, and churhces, with the generic "other
> places where crowds gather" actually being more
> likely than any of the others. You need to unplug
> from the garbage being fed to you by the
> right-wing disinformation media.

Work Places gun free.

Schools gun free.

Churches gun free.

This is great I love when you make the point for me.

Ill also give you a clue about why mass shootings happen in those places, because when theres guns around the vast majority of the time the shooter is stopped BEFORE he can kill enough people for it to be a mass shooting.

Go travel around inner city Chicago at night and advertise you dont have a gun so youll be safe. Let me know how that works out.

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was fast. It took you two posts to just
> start making up bullshit. Nice made up stat though.
> You left out the part how its not a statistically
> different risk, if you remove suicide its basically
> the exact same, and the rate is something like
> .000001 to .000004.

So, not bullshit at all, then. Moron. And why would you exlude suicide? Everyone has both angry and depressed moments from time to time. The key is to keep people from being able to act in terrible ways because of something as simple and short-term as that.

> Areas with guns have lower crime, Harvard already
> blew up your bullshit about gun laws making people
> safer. Ask England how their violent crime rate
> is working out, or Australia.

Got links to your vaunted data, or are you simply too embarrassed to post them?

> How come you never mention that a few hundred
> thousand to a couple million people a year prevent
> crimes with guns or prevent themselves from being
> attacked/raped and thats just for private
> citizens.

Because I'm not foolish enough to refer to an article published in 1995 using now 20- to 30-year old data that come from an era with significantly higher crime rates than what we have today. I'm aslo aware of something called the "Fish Story Factor" which was not filtered for in any of the 13 separate studies that were combined in that 1995 analysis. And considering that at least some number of these macho defensive gun uses should result in the death of some intruder or other sort of wannabe harm-doer, I'm a little taken aback by the fact that the FBI reports only about 200 justifiable homicides per year.

Duggars wrote:
>
> Amen. NRA don't let the door hit you in the ass
> when you leave Fairfax county!
>
> You will NOT be missed!


Um, they're not leaving. It was a made-up scenario that in your mind has become fact. (must be a lib)

To answer the OP's question: 'No.'

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So, not bullshit at all, then. Moron. And why
> would you exlude suicide? Everyone has both angry
> and depressed moments from time to time. The key
> is to keep people from being able to act in
> terrible ways because of something as simple and
> short-term as that.

No not complete bullshit just completely disingenuous bullshit.

Yea youre right people can only kill themselves if they have a gun......

Suicides are someone ending their life, its not a danger to you unless you want to kill yourself moron.

> Got links to your vaunted data, or are you simply
> too embarrassed to post them?

You have google learn to use it for something other than the daily kos and media matters. Englands violent crime rate is higher than the US, Australia saw a huge spike since banning weapons.


> Because I'm not foolish enough to refer to an
> article published in 1995 using now 20- to 30-year
> old data that come from an era with significantly
> higher crime rates than what we have today. I'm
> aslo aware of something called the "Fish Story
> Factor" which was not filtered for in any of the
> 13 separate studies that were combined in that
> 1995 analysis. And considering that at least some
> number of these macho defensive gun uses should
> result in the death of some intruder or other sort
> of wannabe harm-doer, I'm a little taken aback by
> the fact that the FBI reports only about 200
> justifiable homicides per year.

Can I borrow your time machine? I assume you have one since you think 2013 reports are from 1995 based off dates from the 60s.

Im glad youre so concerned though that someone trying to rape someone could get killed if they defend themselves. The middle east sounds like a great place for you to live.

Fred C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was raised in a rural area. I do not recall one
> single home burglary. The reason was 99% of the
> residents owned guns and most definitely knew how
> to use them. To try to break into someone elses
> place was suicide. So yes you could say the rate
> of gun ownership most certainly prevented crime.

You've hit on a critical variable. The whole "guns" thing is a rural/urban issue which ought to be pretty obvious considering that there are nearly 7 people per square mile in Wyoming and nearly 70,000 people per square mile in Manhattan. A gun means something very different in those two places. Further, police can get to your Manhattan residence in a few minutes, while in rural areas, it can easily take half an hour. And then there's the somtime threat posed by marauding wildlife. So basically, rural folks have some good reasons to own guns that city folk simply don't have. Why should there not then be differing sets of rules based on locale but always respecting the essential right of self-defense?

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So, not bullshit at all, then. Moron. And why
> would you exlude suicide? Everyone has both angry
> and depressed moments from time to time. The key
> is to keep people from being able to act in
> terrible ways because of something as simple and
> short-term as that.
>

People don't kill themselves because they're just depressed and happen to have a gun. The general, objective, independent assessment of the impact of gun control laws on suicide rates, and only among what largely is restricted to middle-aged white men versus any other group, is on the order of up to ~5% at most with a not very strong correlation.

Other factors, in particular alcohol and other substance abuse specifically, tend to play a much larger role but with and without the presence of guns.

It's further disingenuous because the purpose and context in which such stats typically are used don't make that clear and such numbers aren't particularly relevant when talking about dangers presented to, for example children and average persons possessing a gun for home defense purposes as they often are cited.


> Got links to your vaunted data, or are you simply
> too embarrassed to post them?

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

>
> Because I'm not foolish enough to refer to an
> article published in 1995 using now 20- to 30-year
> old data that come from an era with significantly
> higher crime rates than what we have today. I'm
> aslo aware of something called the "Fish Story
> Factor" which was not filtered for in any of the
> 13 separate studies that were combined in that
> 1995 analysis. And considering that at least some
> number of these macho defensive gun uses should
> result in the death of some intruder or other sort
> of wannabe harm-doer, I'm a little taken aback by
> the fact that the FBI reports only about 200
> justifiable homicides per year.



Justifiable homicides represent only a small number of total defensive uses and the FBI's reporting reflects a further subset so, again, a slanted basis.

A more current review if you're actually interested:

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

YHx97 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CDC did recently in response to an Executive Order
> which Obama issued post-Newtown:

Subsequent to an Executive Order issued in January of this year, CDC retained a contractor to design a research agenda that would improve the scope of data available in studying the impacts of gun-violence. In June of this year, the contractor released a consenus report of what it's agenda would be,

> It didn't get much press in most major media since
> it didn't really support and in many respects
> undercuts central tenets of the gun control
> argument. One of those being that guns are used
> defensively relatively often and effectively with
> "consistently lower injury rates among gun-using
> crime victims compared with victims who used other
> self-protective strategies."

It didn't support anybpdy's arguments because the planned research has not been conducted yet. You are either pretty dumb here or really dishonest.

Just saw the FBI Press Conference and NO AR-15 or any other rifle was used. Now where did that story originate? Hmmmm...????

wTk7j Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then we shouldn't have laws which restrict the
> ability of persons with demonstrated tendencies to
> do various things, e.g., drunk drivers, convicted
> felons, military dishonorably discharged, and
> mentally adjudicated to purchase weapons, etc.

Not relevant to the point. The group "criminals" cannot be known in advance of someone committing an offense that marks him or her as a member. It's the ex ante aspect of the earlier post that was problematic.

> All of which are, in some cases specifically
> gun-free zones and/or places with a low
> probability for presence of defensive weapons and
> more favorable for a shooter to be unopposed.

Goalpost shifting? What a HUGE surpise! The claim was for gun-free zones. Period. That claim was bogus.

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theres no armed military at the Navy Yard.

Lie. Naval and civilain security personnel are armed.

> There you go just making stuff up again. Let me
> know when you figure out their rate of fire is
> basically the same and has nothing to do with body
> counts.

It is not the same, and the more bullets you can pump out, the more bodies lying limp of the floor or pavement you can create.

> Haha of course it doesnt matter to you. You want
> to ban something that was taken from the security
> and your law would have had no impact on. Silly
> me I forgot facts dont matter to you.

I haven't proposed a law, you pathetic dumbfuck. And as you still stupidly refuse to recognize, the debate is not about THIS incident, but about how best to minimize the chances of and damage from similar events in the future.

> Again where are you trying to go with this, youre
> arguing against yourself again which is quite
> humorous to me.

I'm arguing against your stupid assertion that gun laws are useless because criminals don't obey laws. This is a vapid appeal to tautology. That's what ignorant dumbfucks do. You cannot know who "the criminals" are until they commit crimes, so the best you can do is work to limit the chances of and damage from any eventual commission of crimes. A lot of cavemen are seriously laughing at you right now.

> Your own argument that you dont know who could
> commit such an act is an argument in favor of
> allowing people the means to defend themselves.

What a total joke. Did you ever read Heller?

> Thats not a response to the fact that you admit
> criminals dont care about laws but want to disarm
> the public anyway. Criminals will still have guns
> its just theyll have nothing to worry about when
> they use them.

God, you're bumper-sticker stupid.

> Work Places gun free. Schools gun free. Churches gun free. This is great I love when you make the point for me.

First, you're fabricating, and second, in the 62 major mass killings perpetrated over the past 20 years, 36 of the shooters took their own lives at or near the scene, and 7 more were killed in shootouts with police that the shooter had no chance of survival. That's 43 out of 62, and you want to claim that these people choose their sites based on whether they feel it would be "safe" for them to shoot there? What a fucking moron.

> Ill also give you a clue about why mass shootings
> happen in those places, because when theres guns
> around the vast majority of the time the shooter
> is stopped BEFORE he can kill enough people for it
> to be a mass shooting.

Name a couple. Okay, name one.

> Go travel around inner city Chicago at night and
> advertise you dont have a gun so youll be safe.
> Let me know how that works out.

Does The Loop count? Grant Park? The Checkerboard Lounge?

You guys debate guns and video games when in reality we should be debating the mental health system in this country.

No assault rifle used, get over it.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YHx97 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > CDC did recently in response to an Executive
> Order
> > which Obama issued post-Newtown:
>
> Subsequent to an Executive Order issued in January
> of this year, CDC retained a contractor to design
> a research agenda that would improve the scope of
> data available in studying the impacts of
> gun-violence. In June of this year, the
> contractor released a consenus report of what it's
> agenda would be,
>
> > It didn't get much press in most major media
> since
> > it didn't really support and in many respects
> > undercuts central tenets of the gun control
> > argument. One of those being that guns are
> used
> > defensively relatively often and effectively
> with
> > "consistently lower injury rates among
> gun-using
> > crime victims compared with victims who used
> other
> > self-protective strategies."
>
> It didn't support anybpdy's arguments because the
> planned research has not been conducted yet. You
> are either pretty dumb here or really dishonest.


And, in the process, reviewed the existing information base in order to quantify such things and establish priority areas. Nobody said that it was the final results of ALL research efforts to be conducted by the CDC which, as the nature of such things go, won't ever really be done. It says what it says reflecting the best information currently available.

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No not complete bullshit just completely
> disingenuous bullshit.

It ain't bullshit if it's true, asswipe, and you've already admitted that in fact people living in a household with guns are four times more likely to die from a gunshot wound.

> Yea youre right people can only kill themselves if
> they have a gun......

Imbecile. Having a gun accessible makes suicide easier to do. Just like murdering your spouse in cold blood over some trivial family argument or killing your own son or daughter climbing back in a first floor window after sneaking out for an evening of teenage adventure, Thousands of lives are lost every year to the easy accessibility of guns, That's all blood on your disgusting hands, dumbfuck.

> Can I borrow your time machine? I assume you have
> one since you think 2013 reports are from 1995
> based off dates from the 60s.

Pathetic. Your NRA and Gun Owners of America claims are all based on that same 1995 article and the same early 80's to early 90's data. You just swallow this stuff whole. Too fucking stupid to look behind the curtain.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wTk7j Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So then we shouldn't have laws which restrict
> the
> > ability of persons with demonstrated tendencies
> to
> > do various things, e.g., drunk drivers,
> convicted
> > felons, military dishonorably discharged, and
> > mentally adjudicated to purchase weapons, etc.
>
> Not relevant to the point. The group "criminals"
> cannot be known in advance of someone committing
> an offense that marks him or her as a member.
> It's the ex ante aspect of the earlier post that
> was problematic.


Absolutely relevant in a practical sense.


>
> > All of which are, in some cases specifically
> > gun-free zones and/or places with a low
> > probability for presence of defensive weapons
> and
> > more favorable for a shooter to be unopposed.
>
> Goalpost shifting? What a HUGE surpise! The
> claim was for gun-free zones. Period. That claim
> was bogus.


Not at all. Playing semantic games for a forum argument win doesn't change the reality beyond that. And again in most/many cases the examples provided are, in fact, specifically gun-free zones.

Washington navy yard killer Aaron Alexis arrested twice before over guns

Former reservist, who killed 12 people, had been arrested in 2004 and 2010 and was discharged from the navy over one incident
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/17/washington-naval-yard-shooting-suspect-arrested-guns

Authorities are investigating why a former US navy reservist walked on to a historic naval base in Washington DC, opened fire and killed 12 employees before police shot him dead.

Aaron Alexis, 34, started shooting at the Washington navy yard just after 8am on Monday as many employees were arriving for work on the base.

It was later revealed later that he had been discharged from the US navy in 2011 after being arrested for a shooting incident while he was stationed at Fort Worth, Texas. It was at least the second time Alexis had been arrested for a gun-related incident.

The computer firm Hewlett-Packard confirmed he was employed by one of its subcontractors on an IT project. At a late-night press conference, the FBI said Alexis had gained access to the base with his contractor's ID.

As authorities began to piece together the details of what happened, Barack Obama lamented "yet another mass shooting" and called it a "cowardly act".

Police released an initial list of seven people killed. They were Michael Arnold, 59; Sylvia Frasier, 53; Kathy Gaarde, 62; John Roger Johnson, 73; Frank Kohler, 50; Kenneth Bernard Proctor, 46; and Vishnu Pandit, 61. Other victims' names were being withheld until family were notified, officials said. All were civilian staff.

Doctors at the MedStar Washington hospital centre said they were treating three victims. The chief medical officer, Janis Orlowski, said one police officer had multiple gunshot wounds to his legs and was undergoing complex surgery. It was unclear whether he would walk again, she said. Two other civilian patients were women: one shot in her shoulder, the other in her head and hand. The second woman's head wound was not serious: "She is a very, very, lucky young lady," Orlowski said.

There was no indication of a motive. Addressing questions about whether it had been a terrorist attack, the mayor of Washington, Vincent Gray said: "We don't have any reason to think that at this stage."

On Monday night, officers from the New York police department cordoned off a section of the tree-lined street in Brooklyn, where relatives of Alexis lived in a brownstone apartment.

The navy yards incident began at about 8.15am, in building 197 of the complex, when many people were having breakfast in the basement cafeteria. The building houses the naval sea systems command headquarters, which employs 3,000 people.

A witness, Rick Mason, said a gunman was shooting from a fourth-floor overlook in the hallway outside his office. He said the gunman was aiming down at people in the cafeteria. Mason said he could hear the shots but could not see a gunman. He said there were multiple levels of security to reach his office. That "makes me think it might have been someone who works here", he told the Associated Press.

A lockdown remained in effect for hours after the shooting. Sailors and civilians assigned to the Washington navy yard, as well as all personnel assigned to the nearby joint base Anacostia-Bolling, were advised to stay put while authorities continued to investigate the scene.

In the confusion after the attack, police initially feared two other men dressed in "military-style" uniform had been involved, and launched a huge manhunt. They issued descriptions of two suspects, one said to have been a white man wearing a navy-style khaki uniform and carrying a pistol, the second described as black and wearing a drab olive military uniform and carrying a rifle.

One of the suspects was quickly identified and ruled out of the investigation. The second was not eliminated from inquiries until later in the evening. At a 10pm press conference, police said the manhunt was over and lifted remaining restrictions on residents.

Police in Seattle said Alexis was arrested in 2004 after an incident that he described to detectives as an anger-fuelled "blackout". Two workers on a construction site told police that Alexis walked out of a next-door home on 6 May 2004, pulled a pistol from his waistband and fired three shots into the rear tyres of their parked car. Alexis later told police he thought the victims had "disrespected him".

Court records reviewed by the Associated Press said he was released on the condition that he did not contact any of the workers.

According to a statement by Seattle police, Alexis's father told detectives his son had "anger management problems" associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. He had been an "active participant in rescue attempts on 11 September 2001", the Seattle police statement said.

Alexis signed up for the reserves in 2007. In 2010, while he was based at Fort Worth in Texas, he was arrested after discharging a firearm into the ceiling of his upstairs neighbour. Police accepted his explanation that it was an accident, but it appears that the incident led to Alexis's discharge from the navy in 2011.

After leaving the reserves, Alexis worked as a waiter and delivery driver at the Happy Bowl Thai restaurant in White Settlement, a suburb of Fort Worth, according to Afton Bradley, a former co-worker, quoted by the Associated Press.

A former acquaintance, Oui Suthametewakul, said Alexis lived with him and his wife from August 2012 to May 2013 in Fort Worth, but that they had to part ways because he was not paying his bills. Alexis was a "nice guy", Suthametewakul said, though he sometimes carried a gun and would frequently complain about being the victim of discrimination.

Suthametewakul said Alexis had converted to Buddhism and prayed at a local Buddhist temple. Ty Thairintr, who attended Wat Budsaya, a temple in Fort Worth, said: "We are all shocked. We are nonviolent. Aaron was a very good practitioner of Buddhism. He could chant better than even some of the Thai congregants."

Thairintr said that Alexis told him and others at the temple that he had taken a job as a contractor and he indicated to them he was going to go to Virginia. He last saw Alexis five weeks ago. "He was a very devoted Buddhist. There was no tell-tale sign of this behaviour," Thairintr said.

Hewlett-Packard said Alexis was employed as a subcontractor for The Experts, a professional services company based in Alexandria, Virginia. It said in a statement: "Aaron Alexis was an employee of a company called The Experts, a subcontractor to an HP Enterprise Services contract to refresh equipment used on the navy marine corps intranet (NMCI) network. HP is co-operating fully with law enforcement as requested."

On its website, The Experts describes itself as providing "innovative and mission-critical IT, engineering and litigation professional services for federal, state and local governments and departments".

It said in a statement: "The Experts would like to express our deepest condolences and sympathies regarding the incident that occurred at the DC naval yards. We are actively co-operating with the FBI and other authorities in relation to the investigation on the suspect."
Attachments:

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It ain't bullshit if it's true, asswipe, and
> you've already admitted that in fact people living
> in a household with guns are four times more
> likely to die from a gunshot wound.

Which still makes then less likely to die by a gun because they owned one then get hit by lightning, great argument.


> Imbecile. Having a gun accessible makes suicide
> easier to do. Just like murdering your spouse in
> cold blood over some trivial family argument or
> killing your own son or daughter climbing back in
> a first floor window after sneaking out for an
> evening of teenage adventure, Thousands of lives
> are lost every year to the easy accessibility of
> guns, That's all blood on your disgusting hands,
> dumbfuck.

No it doesnt. If you want to kill yourself you want to kill yourself. Its very easy to walk into traffic.

You also have a right to kill yourself if you want to and Id rather that than tramatizing people throwing yourself in front of the metro. It also only applies to men but again those pesky facts.

Far more peoples lives are saved by guns each year than die, its a positive net affect to quote you "dumbfuck".

Keep getting pissed off, I know it must be frustrating when your lies get shredded.


> Pathetic. Your NRA and Gun Owners of America
> claims are all based on that same 1995 article and
> the same early 80's to early 90's data. You just
> swallow this stuff whole. Too fucking stupid to
> look behind the curtain.


Wait I thought the 1995 article was based off information more than 30 years old, now its 80s and 90s which is it?

Oh right youre just making shit up again

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Lie. Naval and civilain security personnel are
> armed.

Civilain security are armed, base security has been outsourced for a while now.


> It is not the same, and the more bullets you can
> pump out, the more bodies lying limp of the floor
> or pavement you can create.

False. Accurate shots are far more deadly. Fully automatic machine guns would actually do far less damage being uncontrollable to someone without a lot of practice and constantly having to reload. But let me guess you saw it in a movie right where they didnt have to aim and hit everything?


> I haven't proposed a law, you pathetic dumbfuck.
> And as you still stupidly refuse to recognize, the
> debate is not about THIS incident, but about how
> best to minimize the chances of and damage from
> similar events in the future.

What is there to debate then?

He had a shotgun thats it. Anything else he got was from killing security and taking their weapons.

Unless youre proposing disarming the police youre just arguing to argue because youre such a partisan hack of a progressive and just hate guns.


> I'm arguing against your stupid assertion that gun
> laws are useless because criminals don't obey
> laws. This is a vapid appeal to tautology.
> That's what ignorant dumbfucks do. You cannot
> know who "the criminals" are until they commit
> crimes, so the best you can do is work to limit
> the chances of and damage from any eventual
> commission of crimes. A lot of cavemen are
> seriously laughing at you right now.

Thanks for making my point again.

You cant know who will do it so anyone could, therefore you need the ability to defend yourself.

You can imagine what you want but everyone reading this is laughing at you as always.


> What a total joke. Did you ever read Heller?

Thats not a response.


> God, you're bumper-sticker stupid.

Again avoiding the issue because it proves you wrong.


> First, you're fabricating, and second, in the 62
> major mass killings perpetrated over the past 20
> years, 36 of the shooters took their own lives at
> or near the scene, and 7 more were killed in
> shootouts with police that the shooter had no
> chance of survival. That's 43 out of 62, and you
> want to claim that these people choose their sites
> based on whether they feel it would be "safe" for
> them to shoot there? What a fucking moron.

Its not a fabrication, schools work places and churches are gun free zones. Some churches in the south may allow guns but thats it.

Yes they chose places where the police have to respond so they can cause their damage before going out in a blaze of glory instead of being killed before they accomplish their goal. Its really quite simple.

You avoided the fact about gun free zones again.


> Name a couple. Okay, name one.

Lets see December 2012 the movie theater shooting before they could kill anyone, the mall shooting on the west coast, Neveda 2008 Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant and was shot dead by some one carrying only 2 dead.

You said name one, I named three and can go on.

> Does The Loop count? Grant Park? The
> Checkerboard Lounge?

No, go to those nice neighborhoods the cops dont even want to go into and let them know you arent armed and hate guns so you dont want to see any around you.

The only way to stop thes shooting from happening is to make sure everyone has guns. instead of trying to ban guns we should be arming evry citizen with body armor ballistic helmets hand guns and high powered semiautomatic rifles. a armed socety is a polite socety. then we could save money by gitting rid of the police. just do security ourselves. we couldnt go to the supermarket without a SEAL team for backup anymore but at least our freedom to own as many guns as we want would not be infringed. thats really the important thing.

MORE GUNS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only way to stop thes shooting from happening
> is to make sure everyone has guns. instead of
> trying to ban guns we should be arming evry
> citizen with body armor ballistic helmets hand
> guns and high powered semiautomatic rifles. a
> armed socety is a polite socety. then we could
> save money by gitting rid of the police. just do
> security ourselves. we couldnt go to the
> supermarket without a SEAL team for backup anymore
> but at least our freedom to own as many guns as we
> want would not be infringed. thats really the
> important thing.

Or better yet, armored battlesuits like this...
Attachments:

NRA President and CEO, Wayne LaPierre has called for a "national registry of lunatics and monsters.” Would not the creation of a national firearm ownership licensing program accomplish the same thing??? Just askin'.

TedM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA President and CEO, Wayne LaPierre has called
> for a "national registry of lunatics and
> monsters.” Would not the creation of a national
> firearm ownership licensing program accomplish the
> same thing??? Just askin'.


I love the irony of the fact that people who think theyre better and smarter than everyone are by far and away the most uninformed.

Thats the best you could come up with? While you may think thats clever that just makes you look like you have the mental capacity of a 12 year old.

Ill let you get back to trying to use tragic events for cheap political gain now

NRA President and CEO, Wayne LaPierre called for a "national registry of lunatics and monsters.” Would not the creation of a national firearm ownership licensing program accomplish the same thing??? Just askin'.

TedM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA President and CEO, Wayne LaPierre called for a
> "national registry of lunatics and monsters.”
> Would not the creation of a national firearm
> ownership licensing program accomplish the same
> thing??? Just askin'.

Does this mean that Bigfoot, Mothman, Werewolves, Vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster wouldn't be able to buy guns to protect themselves from the hillbillies on Destination America?

TedM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA President and CEO, Wayne LaPierre called for a
> "national registry of lunatics and monsters.”
> Would not the creation of a national firearm
> ownership licensing program accomplish the same
> thing??? Just askin'.


Source??? Just askin.

As a liberal, I hate to say that I agree with Liberal Logic 28. Wayne LaPierre does think he's better and smarter than everyone else. Can't wait to hear next NRA ad, if only those victims had been armed...

Ludwig asks for a source of quote by LaPierre. Here it is:

http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/12/nra-fights-for-national-mental-illness-registry-after-fighting-against-gun-registry-for-years.html

My experience is those on the conservative side don't let factual statements get in the way of their beliefs, however ignorant and misguided they may be.

TedM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a liberal, I hate to say that I agree with
> Liberal Logic 28. Wayne LaPierre does think he's
> better and smarter than everyone else. Can't wait
> to hear next NRA ad, if only those victims had
> been armed...


Good one mental midget. Like I said its quite said you think your responses are intellectual. Such a registry would prevent people on it from buying guns but hey why let facts get in the way its never stopped you anti gun progressive before

Clarification Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Does this mean that Bigfoot, Mothman, Werewolves,
> Vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster wouldn't be
> able to buy guns to protect themselves from the
> hillbillies on Destination America?



The Mothman does not need a gun, The Mothman could fuck up chuck Norris.

TLTR- Yet another reason why human mimicking apes should not be allowed to own anything that can harm a human.

LOL! This thread reminds me of the latest episode of It's always sunny in Philadelphia about gun control.

Those stats about people are 4 times more likely to do themselves in with guns in the house are from San Francisco Ca. When Dianne Feinstein was mayor

But the rest of the stat was left out. People there without guns in their homes are 10 times more likely to jump from the Golden Gate Bridge.

Clarification Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TedM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NRA President and CEO, Wayne LaPierre called for
> a
> > "national registry of lunatics and monsters.”
> > Would not the creation of a national firearm
> > ownership licensing program accomplish the same
> > thing??? Just askin'.
>
> Does this mean that Bigfoot, Mothman, Werewolves,
> Vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster wouldn't be
> able to buy guns to protect themselves from the
> hillbillies on Destination America?

Coming soon...The petting zoo massacre. They took his land, then his mate, now he's taking them all back...IN SPADES.
Attachments:

Assault rifles are the things that were banned before Columbine, Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook, etc. Having an assault riffle will not make you safer. If someone comes at you with an assault rifle you won't have time to pick yours up.

To Liberal Logic 28, it's quite "sad" not "said". Who's the mental midget?

How soon you forget that when Obama suggested after Sandy Hook that doctors be inquired on the gun ownership of those diagnosed with mental problems, then suddenly this point about mental health being a problem was dropped, and the gun obsessionists were screaming about how doctors had no right to advise on guns.

Only in America does one have to worry about being gunned down while at school or work. And why? Because we're "exceptional".

The original man versus nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SZMn_711s4&feature=player_embedded
Attachments:

TedM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To Liberal Logic 28, it's quite "sad" not "said".
> Who's the mental midget?

Still you.

> How soon you forget that when Obama suggested
> after Sandy Hook that doctors be inquired on the
> gun ownership of those diagnosed with mental
> problems, then suddenly this point about mental
> health being a problem was dropped, and the gun
> obsessionists were screaming about how doctors had
> no right to advise on guns.

Thank the ACLU for mental health being sealed.

Once again you show no understanding of what youre talking about and just spouting off at the mouth thinking youre being cute and smart.

No ones opposed to mental health problems excluding you from a gun if theyre serious. The outrage was over your PRIMARY CARE doctor being instructed to ask about guns in the house but again those pesky facts ruining a good bullshit diatribe.

What are you going to make up next?

> Only in America does one have to worry about being
> gunned down while at school or work. And why?
> Because we're "exceptional".

If you worry about that then you must be absolutely horrified by lightning which has a much greater chance of hitting you than that happening. Yea your right theres never been a mass killing anywhere but America...........

Trending now: mass deaths

LIFE & Liberty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Assault rifles are the things that were banned
> before Columbine, Colorado movie theater, Sandy
> Hook, etc. Having an assault riffle will not make
> you safer. If someone comes at you with an
> assault rifle you won't have time to pick yours
> up.


Not if you're The Mothman. The Mothman laughs at assault rifles, not one fuck givin.

Sad to think that your spouse or child won't be coming home.

Heartbreaking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sad to think that your spouse or child won't be
> coming home.


Yes, ..It's fucked up! I see it daily here, Traffic accidents, domestic killings, It's getting worse, people are breaking. My heart goes out to the people who lost family,loved ones.

TedM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Only in America does one have to worry about being
> gunned down while at school or work. And why?
> Because we're "exceptional".


March 13, 1996

Dunblane, Scotland 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.

March 1997

Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.

April 28, 1999

Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.

Dec. 7, 1999

Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.

March 2000

Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.

Jan. 18, 2001

Jan, Sweden One student killed by two boys, ages 17 and 19.

Feb. 19, 2002

Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.

April 26, 2002

Erfurt, Germany 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.

April 29, 2002

Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina One teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.

Sept. 28, 2004

Carmen de Patagones, Argentina Three students killed and 6 wounded by a 15-year-old Argentininan student in a town 620 miles south of Buenos Aires.

Sept. 13, 2006

Montreal, Canada Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself.

Nov. 7, 2007

Tuusula, Finland An 18-year-old student in southern Finland shot and killed five boys, two girls, and the female principal at Jokela High School. At least 10 others were injured. The gunman shot himself and died from his wounds in the hospital.

Sept. 23, 2008

Kauhajoki, Finland A 20-year-old male student shot and killed at least nine students and himself at a vocational college in Kauhajok, 330km (205 miles) north of the capital, Helsinki.

March 11, 2009

Winnenden, Germany Fifteen people were shot and killed at Albertville Technical High School in southwestern Germany by a 17-year-old boy who attended the same school.

April 30, 2009

Azerbaijan, Baku A Georgian citizen of Azerbaijani descent killed 12 students and staff at Azerbaijan State Oil Academy. Several others were wounded.

April 7, 2011

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil A 23-year-old former student returned to his public elementary school in Rio de Janeiro and began firing, killing 12 children and seriously wounding more than a dozen others, before shooting himself in the head. While Brazil has seen gang-related violence in urban areas, this was the worst school shooting the country has ever seen.

July 22, 2011

Tyrifjorden, Buskerud, Norway A gunman disguised as a policeman opened fire at a camp for young political activists on the island of Utoya. The gunman kills 68 campers, including personal friends of Prime Minister Stoltenberg. Police arrested Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old Norwegian who had been been linked to an anti-Islamic group.

March 19, 2012

Toulouse, France Mohammed Merah, a French man of Algerian descent, shot and killed a rabbi, two of his children, and another child at a Jewish school. Police believe he had earlier shot and killed three paratroopers. Merah said he was a member of Al Qaeda and that he was seeking revenge for the killing of Palestinian children.

Harry is pissed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Coming soon...The petting zoo massacre. They took
> his land, then his mate, now he's taking them all
> back...IN SPADES.


Great B movie concept, kinda like sharknado.

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Wait I thought the 1995 article was based off
> information more than 30 years old, now its 80s
> and 90s which is it?
>
> Oh right youre just making shit up again


Just a case of a Liberal repeating the same old talking points. They certainly can't have an original thought of their own, yet love to keep repeating what they hear. Also, this was coming from LoL! of all people. We all know that he has so many of Obama's butt hairs up his nose that he can no longer breath.

Facts are facts. More people die in this country from guns than anything else combined. This debate is over assault weapons, and I don't think anyone should be able to walk into a WalMart and buy a fully automatic weapon.





>
> Just a case of a Liberal repeating the same old
> talking points. They certainly can't have an
> original thought of their own, yet love to keep
> repeating what they hear. Also, this was coming
> from LoL! of all people. We all know that he has
> so many of Obama's butt hairs up his nose that he
> can no longer breath.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Facts are facts. More people die in this country
> from guns than anything else combined. This
> debate is over assault weapons, and I don't think
> anyone should be able to walk into a WalMart and
> buy a fully automatic weapons.


Well lets check out your so called facts..

"More people in this county die from guns then anything else combined" Where did you find this "fact"? It is complete made up bullshit.

"able to walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a fully automatic weapon" Wow...this "fact" is so false its funny. Please found any link or proof of being able to buy a "fully automatic weapon" in a Wal-Mart. Airsoft toys do not count.

You are a stupid silly person.

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Facts are facts. More people die in this country
> from guns than anything else combined.
>

No, they don't. Not even close.


> This debate is over assault weapons, and I don't think
> anyone should be able to walk into a WalMart and
> buy a fully automatic weapon.
>

They can't.

So I expect the liberals here in this thread will be here soon to retract their statements, now that they know he used a hunting shotgun, and took the pistols off the donut munchers he shot.

Looks like we should ban police having pistols. Ban the FOP! No police unions in Fairfax!

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Facts are facts. More people die in this country
> from guns than anything else combined.


No, Fuck Face, The Mothman is the leading cause of Death than anything else combined...Facts are Facts...

There was no AR-15 used at the Navy Yard. Yesterday afternoon an FBI spokeswoman said so at a press conference. However, liberals are jumping on the bandwagon again as usual. Stuck on stupid.

msds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was no AR-15 used at the Navy Yard.
> Yesterday afternoon an FBI spokeswoman said so at
> a press conference. However, liberals are jumping
> on the bandwagon again as usual. Stuck on stupid.
Attachments: