Mass Killings - You Get What You Want in Society

[Jim Naseum]

1. Politics is irrelevant. Sociopaths don't have a political view, and they do their work under both parties in power. No favorites there.

2. Sociopathic killers are not liberal or conservative, they're crazy.

3. Both political parties take all the money they can get from the arms industry.

No, there is something else creating these sociopaths.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Hello! Long time lurker. This topic has caused me to create an account and chime in. Firstly, I have much sorrow in my heart for the mass-shootings and deaths that have plagued our country for the last few years. It is clear that something has gone wrong. What is not clear is how we address this problem.

I'd like to start off by pointing out first that the Right to self defense is not negotiable. Period. And in this country that Right is afforded to all able bodied Men of age. So any talk to eliminate or curtail that basic human right should be off the table. Seriously, who would argue against self defensive measures?

When you are being assaulted what is the first reaction? Defense. Stop/mitigate/limit the damage. We aren't doing any of that. Instead we are bickering and arguing about guns. Which, as I just stated, is this nations chosen and well documented form of self-defense. So they aren't going away. If you want to be productive in this dilemma, provide a logical solution. All else is noise and frankly, a diversion that is keeping us from getting to the point where we can move forward with a solution to our problems. Help, or get out of the way so that we can start saving lives.

You might be arguing about guns. But that want the premise of the thread. The country is creating more sociopathic killers than statistics would predict for a rich country. The question is why is this happening, and of course how do we change it. We have an extraordinary tolerance for school shootings. What are we doing wrong?

Ft. Hood shooting. Military base... Hmm I wonder if there are any trained marksmen there with access to weapons? Damn.... If only a good guy with access to a gun was there on a MILITARY BASE!!!

they shot his *** as soon as they could or more would have died. Thank god the good guys had guns

this is ludicrous- gun nuts still skip over the point. I thought good guys with guns on site would prevent the shootings?

I thought gun free zones were the problem?!

Here "good guys with guns" were there and it did NOT prevent anything. Whatever the hell that is? Show me two guys with guns... Who's the good guy?

Have you ever served in the military? I'm guessing not as there are standing orders on separate storage of arms and ammunition at military bases. You will not see people serving there carrying around loaded rifles, etc..

According to the current US President the mass-murder that occurred on that horrific day at that base was merely 'workplace violence'.

Again--- it was workplace violence... The shooting was a place of significance to the shooter. Guns Being present on a military base did not sway his decision.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Bella]

1. Politics is irrelevant. Sociopaths don't have a political view, and they do their work under both parties in power. No favorites there.

2. Sociopathic killers are not liberal or conservative, they're crazy.

3. Both political parties take all the money they can get from the arms industry.

No, there is something else creating these sociopaths.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

1. yup.

2. yup.

3. yup.

4. yup.

 

There are always politics in the debate on how to deal with the issues however, and this one is no different. On the one side you've got demands for more control. Now depending on how you define 'control' it could be a very useful tool. But it could also be a slippery slope. And this is the rebuttal of the other side. They believe that if the door is opened to more control, it will simply lead to more... control. I think the middle ground here is everybody can agree crazy people should not own guns. It is a starting point. But it doesn't seem to be a political starting point, because I cannot find any reasonable person advocating for more control to admit that it isn't the tool the crazy person chooses, but that it is the crazy person we should be focusing on.

[Travis In Austin]

Hey--Chicago is a gun free zone--go live there--they have low gun crime rates.

No cities are gun free zones. McDonald v. Chicago was clear that the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment and makes it applicable to the states.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521

[Taz]

 

Imagine a society in which law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by armed criminals.

Like England, Germany, and Japan? Makes ya shudder.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

England requested the loan of American citizen's guns during WW2.  They PROMISED to return them after the war.

Did not keep their word.  Destroyed the firearms.

 

Germany one of the main instigators of WW2 as was Japan.

 

In this mobile world we can pretty much choose where in the world we want to live.   

 

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA. So, saying there is no way to prevent it misses the data. The USA is unique with thee number of these mass killing.

Therefore, what's different?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You sound dissatisfied.  Are you looking to immigrate to a country more in line with your beliefs? 

 

 

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA.

 

That's a myth.  For whatever reason, we want to perceive Europe as being more "civilized" than us.  Take a look at their track-record. 

 

Agree with you Jeff

 

 

Why are so many schools involved?

Why so many males and so few females involved?

The age group is very narrow.

Most have a dozen guns, not just one.

 

 

Schools are involved because many of these shooters are disenchanted teenagers.  That's where they go to express themselves - i.e., to shoot all the people they hate every day.

 

Males have more testosterone than females.  That one's a no-brainer.

 

The age group is very narrow because most people grow into adulthood and adjust more normally to dealing with frustration and anger.

 

I don't know whether it's true that most have a dozen guns as opposed to one gun; however, the number of guns owned might be an indicator of obsessive-compulsive behavior in the individual.

 

The number of Stereos owned might be an indicator of obsessive compulsive behavior in the individual.

I have worked with people with "Obsessive compulsive disorder" and known others outside the mental health system that had OCD.

Having OCD does not mean someone will be violent.  If it did most of us on the forum need to get in line for mental health.

 

 

 

Mass shootings exist everywhere guns exist. Our per capita rate of incidents is significantly higher and that is unique.

 

Yes, I didn't mean that there were NO mass shootings in other countries of similar wealth. What is unique is the frequency and quantity.

 

Everyone focuses all the time on two points which have nothing to do with the problem, and it IS a problem. First, they focus endlessly into boredom about "the right to have a gun" and second, they obsess with the idea that it's all about "criminals with guns." Neither will uncover what is happening in the USA that is unique. The shooters are generally NOT criminals. I can't stress that enough. But somehow, and I suspect it is the result of propaganda, everyone wants to talk about CRIMINALS! It ain't Baby Face Nelson shooting up the schools, it's baby-faced little Joey Smith - Anykid, USA. In so many cases, the kid has never even seen the inside of a police station, let alone jail or prison. Might this be a clue to people that this transcends the criminal justice system?

 

And, it isn't a question of "Europe" in any way. Japan and Australia have miniscule amounts of this mass killing activity.  

 

Is there some reason we are scared to death to admit that "something is wrong here?"

 

"The shooters are generally NOT criminals. I can't stress that enough".  Really?  I thought planning a crime with intent to commit such crime, is in it's self is a crime.

 

 

All a Gun Free zone does is identify places where someone intent on shooting others is less likely to be immediately confronted with deadly force by someone else.  This gives them the chance to do harm to others before they die.

[Bella]

"You might be arguing about guns. But that want the premise of the thread. The country is creating more sociopathic killers than statistics would predict for a rich country. The question is why is this happening, and of course how do we change it. We have an extraordinary tolerance for school shootings. What are we doing wrong?"

 

Yes, and a great topic it is! But the thread is also laced with comments about guns and how they are the problem. My first post was just to point out that is just noise and not the root of the issue. We will not solve this by banning or limiting firearms. It is much, much deeper than that. And as I said, firearms are incorporated into the very fabric of our nation. They aren't going anywhere so best to focus on real, substantive solutions.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bella

[Travis In Austin]

Hello! Long time lurker. This topic has caused me to create an account and chime in.  Firstly, I have much sorrow in my heart for the mass-shootings and deaths that have plagued our country for the last few years. It is clear that something has gone wrong. What is not clear is how we address this problem. 

 

I'd like to start off by pointing out first that the Right to self defense is not negotiable. Period. And in this country that Right is afforded to all able bodied Men of age. So any talk to eliminate or curtail that basic human right should be off the table. Seriously, who would argue against self defensive measures?

 

When you are being assaulted what is the first reaction? Defense. Stop/mitigate/limit the damage. We aren't doing any of that. Instead we are bickering and arguing about guns. Which, as I just stated, is this nations chosen and well documented form of self-defense. So they aren't going away. If you want to be productive in this dilemma, provide a logical solution. All else is noise and frankly, a diversion that is keeping us from getting to the point where we can move forward with a solution to our problems. Help, or get out of the way so that we can start saving lives.

Well I am listening? What is the solution?

Welcome to the forum!

[Jim Naseum]

Imagine a society in which law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by armed criminals.

Like England, Germany, and Japan? Makes ya shudder.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

England requested the loan of American citizen's guns during WW2. They PROMISED to return them after the war.

Did not keep their word. Destroyed the firearms.

Germany one of the main instigators of WW2 as was Japan.

In this mobile world we can pretty much choose where in the world we want to live.

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA. So, saying there is no way to prevent it misses the data. The USA is unique with thee number of these mass killing.

Therefore, what's different?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You sound dissatisfied. Are you looking to immigrate to a country more in line with your beliefs?

Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA.

That's a myth. For whatever reason, we want to perceive Europe as being more "civilized" than us. Take a look at their track-record.

Agree with you Jeff

Why are so many schools involved?

Why so many males and so few females involved?

The age group is very narrow.

Most have a dozen guns, not just one.

Schools are involved because many of these shooters are disenchanted teenagers. That's where they go to express themselves - i.e., to shoot all the people they hate every day.

Males have more testosterone than females. That one's a no-brainer.

The age group is very narrow because most people grow into adulthood and adjust more normally to dealing with frustration and anger.

I don't know whether it's true that most have a dozen guns as opposed to one gun; however, the number of guns owned might be an indicator of obsessive-compulsive behavior in the individual.

The number of Stereos owned might be an indicator of obsessive compulsive behavior in the individual.

I have worked with people with "Obsessive compulsive disorder" and known others outside the mental health system that had OCD.

Having OCD does not mean someone will be violent. If it did most of us on the forum need to get in line for mental health.

Mass shootings exist everywhere guns exist. Our per capita rate of incidents is significantly higher and that is unique.

Yes, I didn't mean that there were NO mass shootings in other countries of similar wealth. What is unique is the frequency and quantity.

Everyone focuses all the time on two points which have nothing to do with the problem, and it IS a problem. First, they focus endlessly into boredom about "the right to have a gun" and second, they obsess with the idea that it's all about "criminals with guns." Neither will uncover what is happening in the USA that is unique. The shooters are generally NOT criminals. I can't stress that enough. But somehow, and I suspect it is the result of propaganda, everyone wants to talk about CRIMINALS! It ain't Baby Face Nelson shooting up the schools, it's baby-faced little Joey Smith - Anykid, USA. In so many cases, the kid has never even seen the inside of a police station, let alone jail or prison. Might this be a clue to people that this transcends the criminal justice system?

And, it isn't a question of "Europe" in any way. Japan and Australia have miniscule amounts of this mass killing activity.

Is there some reason we are scared to death to admit that "something is wrong here?"

"The shooters are generally NOT criminals. I can't stress that enough". Really? I thought planning a crime with intent to commit such crime, is in it's self is a crime.

All a Gun Free zone does is identify places where someone intent on shooting others is less likely to be immediately confronted with deadly force by someone else. This gives them the chance to do harm to others before they die.

You seem to misunderstand that the Oregon shooter bought all his guns legally. When I say they were not criminals, I mean they have no criminal record, and would not be caught by deeper back ground checks, or filters on gun buying. That's just a response t to people eh are forever saying only criminals will have fund, etc.

Nope. I'm not moving anywhere, sorry. My mode is spare to improve where I live already. And the big improvement that we need is to fix the error in our system that is creating the inordinate number of sociopathic killers.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Bella]

 

Hello! Long time lurker. This topic has caused me to create an account and chime in.  Firstly, I have much sorrow in my heart for the mass-shootings and deaths that have plagued our country for the last few years. It is clear that something has gone wrong. What is not clear is how we address this problem. 

 

I'd like to start off by pointing out first that the Right to self defense is not negotiable. Period. And in this country that Right is afforded to all able bodied Men of age. So any talk to eliminate or curtail that basic human right should be off the table. Seriously, who would argue against self defensive measures?

 

When you are being assaulted what is the first reaction? Defense. Stop/mitigate/limit the damage. We aren't doing any of that. Instead we are bickering and arguing about guns. Which, as I just stated, is this nations chosen and well documented form of self-defense. So they aren't going away. If you want to be productive in this dilemma, provide a logical solution. All else is noise and frankly, a diversion that is keeping us from getting to the point where we can move forward with a solution to our problems. Help, or get out of the way so that we can start saving lives.

Well I am listening? What is the solution?

Welcome to the forum!

 

 

Thank You!  I was hoping you would tell me. 

 

Well, as I said, we are being assaulted, so let's devise a defense to at least mitigate the damage. I think we could all agree that schools seem to be the favorite target right now. So let's devise a defense to keep our children safe, shall we? I propose immediate defensive measures to include additional police resources. Yes, defend the schools with armed guards. Permanently? Perhaps no. But at least until we can get our footing and identify what our issues are so that we can eventually work towards a workable solution. How do we fund this effort? Well our government spends billions on needless crap every year. I'm sure we can rummage up a few billion to finance this program. 

 

Some might see armed guards at our schools as a drastic action. I would like to point out that we guard our courthouses with armed guards and metal detectors. We guard our state legislative buildings with armed guards. We guard our airports. Heck, I've even seen police officers sitting in their cars at road construction sites.  Now tell me, are our children any less valuable than these people? My child certainly is not.

 

It's a start. It's not necessarily the final result. And frankly, it's better than what we are doing now. 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bella

[vindeville]

Hello! Long time lurker. This topic has caused me to create an account and chime in.  Firstly, I have much sorrow in my heart for the mass-shootings and deaths that have plagued our country for the last few years. It is clear that something has gone wrong. What is not clear is how we address this problem. 

 

I'd like to start off by pointing out first that the Right to self defense is not negotiable. Period. And in this country that Right is afforded to all able bodied Men of age. So any talk to eliminate or curtail that basic human right should be off the table. Seriously, who would argue against self defensive measures?

 

When you are being assaulted what is the first reaction? Defense. Stop/mitigate/limit the damage. We aren't doing any of that. Instead we are bickering and arguing about guns. Which, as I just stated, is this nations chosen and well documented form of self-defense. So they aren't going away. If you want to be productive in this dilemma, provide a logical solution. All else is noise and frankly, a diversion that is keeping us from getting to the point where we can move forward with a solution to our problems. Help, or get out of the way so that we can start saving lives.

Well I am listening? What is the solution?

Welcome to the forum!

 

Thank You!  I was hoping you would tell me. 

 

Well, as I said, we are being assaulted, so let's devise a defense to at least mitigate the damage. I think we could all agree that schools seem to be the favorite target right now. So let's devise a defense to keep our children safe, shall we? I propose immediate defensive measures to include additional police resources. Yes, defend the schools with armed guards. Permanently? Perhaps no. But at least until we can get our footing and identify what our issues are so that we can eventually work towards a workable solution. How do we fund this effort? Well our government spends billions on needless crap every year. I'm sure we can rummage up a few billion to finance this program. 

 

Some might see armed guards at our schools as a drastic action. I would like to point out that we guard our courthouses with armed guards and metal detectors. We guard our state legislative buildings with armed guards. We guard our airports. Heck, I've even seen police officers sitting in their cars at road construction sites.  Now tell me, are our children any less valuable than these people? My child certainly is not.

 

It's a start. It's not necessarily the final result. And frankly, it's better than what we are doing now. 

sounds bout right. welcome

[Travis In Austin]

http://www.latimes.c...0824-story.html Five percent of the population, 35% of the mass shootings.

 

That's about on par with our wealth.  5% of the population, 25% of the wealth.  Wealth causes mass murder!

Well that Sheriff in Oregon reposted a video on his Facebook page that claimed Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy designed to result in legislation to away our guns.

I still think is much more likely that it is because of The Beatles.

[Travis In Austin]

Never. He's a talking head for fox "faux" "news".

I'd prefer to get my information from journalists.

Well he was in the Falkland Islands War covering that, and he did win a Peabody.

[Bella]

I still think is much more likely that it is because of The Beatles.

 

 

The demise of Lennon to be termed 'poetic justice'?

 

There is speak of cycles. Cycles of society; economics; politics; war. Perhaps it is the cycle we are in and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. The cycle must run its course, onto the next phase. Usually though, when there is this much disease (and I define that to include more than just crazy people shooting other people) the cycle ends with a cleansing. War.

[Paducah Home Theater]

Can anyone cite a reputable source where guns save lives when a mass shooting occurs? Just one?

 

 

New Life Church in Colorado is undeniable.  The Islamic guys in Texas that happened recently as well.  Otherwise:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

Edited October 6, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Travis In Austin]

Hello! Long time lurker. This topic has caused me to create an account and chime in.  Firstly, I have much sorrow in my heart for the mass-shootings and deaths that have plagued our country for the last few years. It is clear that something has gone wrong. What is not clear is how we address this problem. 

 

I'd like to start off by pointing out first that the Right to self defense is not negotiable. Period. And in this country that Right is afforded to all able bodied Men of age. So any talk to eliminate or curtail that basic human right should be off the table. Seriously, who would argue against self defensive measures?

 

When you are being assaulted what is the first reaction? Defense. Stop/mitigate/limit the damage. We aren't doing any of that. Instead we are bickering and arguing about guns. Which, as I just stated, is this nations chosen and well documented form of self-defense. So they aren't going away. If you want to be productive in this dilemma, provide a logical solution. All else is noise and frankly, a diversion that is keeping us from getting to the point where we can move forward with a solution to our problems. Help, or get out of the way so that we can start saving lives.

Well I am listening? What is the solution?

Welcome to the forum!

 

Thank You!  I was hoping you would tell me. 

 

Well, as I said, we are being assaulted, so let's devise a defense to at least mitigate the damage. I think we could all agree that schools seem to be the favorite target right now. So let's devise a defense to keep our children safe, shall we? I propose immediate defensive measures to include additional police resources. Yes, defend the schools with armed guards. Permanently? Perhaps no. But at least until we can get our footing and identify what our issues are so that we can eventually work towards a workable solution. How do we fund this effort? Well our government spends billions on needless crap every year. I'm sure we can rummage up a few billion to finance this program. 

 

Some might see armed guards at our schools as a drastic action. I would like to point out that we guard our courthouses with armed guards and metal detectors. We guard our state legislative buildings with armed guards. We guard our airports. Heck, I've even seen police officers sitting in their cars at road construction sites.  Now tell me, are our children any less valuable than these people? My child certainly is not.

 

It's a start. It's not necessarily the final result. And frankly, it's better than what we are doing now. 

sounds bout right. welcome

It is simple. Arm the kids. Teach them gun safety and marksmanship in grades 1, 2 and 3. Start arming them in 4th, 5th and 6th. Instead of fire drills, you conduct shooter drills. By the time they are in Jr. and high school it would be the last place a crazy gunman would show up. They will have to concentrate on churchs, movie theaters and old folks homes. Kids who did well in marksmanship can get jobs sitting in churches, theaters and retirement homes ready to pounce.

It is a win-win. Keeps gun makers employed, kids learn learn math skills re: balastics, creates jobs, and the top shooters can compete against other schools. I think you could probably fund the whole thing by cutting just a sport or two.

In Texas our solution in this last legislature was to arm teachers and allow folks to openly carry guns on their person. They need to think bigger in my opinion.

[Bella]

 

 

 

 

Hello! Long time lurker. This topic has caused me to create an account and chime in.  Firstly, I have much sorrow in my heart for the mass-shootings and deaths that have plagued our country for the last few years. It is clear that something has gone wrong. What is not clear is how we address this problem. 

 

I'd like to start off by pointing out first that the Right to self defense is not negotiable. Period. And in this country that Right is afforded to all able bodied Men of age. So any talk to eliminate or curtail that basic human right should be off the table. Seriously, who would argue against self defensive measures?

 

When you are being assaulted what is the first reaction? Defense. Stop/mitigate/limit the damage. We aren't doing any of that. Instead we are bickering and arguing about guns. Which, as I just stated, is this nations chosen and well documented form of self-defense. So they aren't going away. If you want to be productive in this dilemma, provide a logical solution. All else is noise and frankly, a diversion that is keeping us from getting to the point where we can move forward with a solution to our problems. Help, or get out of the way so that we can start saving lives.

Well I am listening? What is the solution?

Welcome to the forum!

 

Thank You!  I was hoping you would tell me. 

 

Well, as I said, we are being assaulted, so let's devise a defense to at least mitigate the damage. I think we could all agree that schools seem to be the favorite target right now. So let's devise a defense to keep our children safe, shall we? I propose immediate defensive measures to include additional police resources. Yes, defend the schools with armed guards. Permanently? Perhaps no. But at least until we can get our footing and identify what our issues are so that we can eventually work towards a workable solution. How do we fund this effort? Well our government spends billions on needless crap every year. I'm sure we can rummage up a few billion to finance this program. 

 

Some might see armed guards at our schools as a drastic action. I would like to point out that we guard our courthouses with armed guards and metal detectors. We guard our state legislative buildings with armed guards. We guard our airports. Heck, I've even seen police officers sitting in their cars at road construction sites.  Now tell me, are our children any less valuable than these people? My child certainly is not.

 

It's a start. It's not necessarily the final result. And frankly, it's better than what we are doing now. 

sounds bout right. welcome

It is simple. Arm the kids. Teach them gun safety and marksmanship in grades 1, 2 and 3. Start arming them in 4th, 5th and 6th. Instead of fire drills, you conduct shooter drills. By the time they are in Jr. and high school it would be the last place a crazy gunman would show up. They will have to concentrate on churchs, movie theaters and old folks homes. Kids who did well in marksmanship can get jobs sitting in churches, theaters and retirement homes ready to pounce.

It is a win-win. Keeps gun makers employed, kids learn learn math skills re: balastics, creates jobs, and the top shooters can compete against other schools. I think you could probably fund the whole thing by cutting just a sport or two.

In Texas our solution in this last legislature was to arm teachers and allow folks to openly carry guns on their person. They need to think bigger in my opinion.

 

 

 

Where I work there is a man who stands at the employee exit gate handing out a newsletter to the employees as they drive off. I've never taken one of them, but I can see the large print at the top: SOCIALIST NEWS LETTER. 

 

50 years ago such a position would be akin to treason. Today it is talked about openly. Your idea would have been perfectly acceptable nationwide 50 years ago. Today many would call you an extremist.  

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bella

[oldtimer]

It has never been considered treason to be a socialist.  Then and now we have candidates for office all the way up to the presidency on a socialist ticket.  Freedom of speech is in  the Bill of Rights.  Check it out.

[Taz]

^ That's cops being trigger happy- another problem in our society.

What's wrong with a taser!!??

So there are 100's if not 1,000's of examples, statistics, and case studies on why guns are the problem...

Can anyone cite a reputable source where guns save lives when a mass shooting occurs? Just one?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

 

 

bearingarms.com/yes-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/

 

 

For whatever bizarre reason, gun control proponents enjoy periodically trotting out the claim that concealed carriers have never stopped a mass shooting incident. The claim is of course a bald-faced lie, and the most recent proof of that being the Clackamas (OR) Mall shooting in December, where concealed carrier Nick Meli drew his weapon when he encountered the masked shooter.

 

Meli did not fire his .40 S&W Glock 22, even though he had the shooter’s head lined up in his sights as the shooter worked to clear his jammed weapon. Instead—and contrary to the of-stated hysteria of how gun-grabbers assert concealed carriers would act in such a situation—Meli decided not to immediately fire, fearing he might hit an innocent bystander. Instead, he moved to get into a better position.

It is believed that the mall shooter glanced up and saw Meli moving to cover as he brought his weapon back into action. Fearing that he was about to be taken, he instead chose to use his next bullet to commit suicide.

Meli’s actions are mentioned as one of nine potential mass shootings cut short by a concealed carrier in a surprisingly popular BuzzFeed post circulating today, which seems to have been culled from lists previously circulating around the Internet, some featuring as few as four incidents, some feature as many as 15.

Anti-gun Democrats of course, seek to dispute these successful stops by applying absurd qualifiers about who who really “counts” as a concealed carrier, excluding of-duty cops and  military veterans, or asserting that shootings were over because a shooter was taken down as he moved from one target to another. For the serially dishonest, it’s all about maintaining the narrative, no matter how devious they much be to maintain it.

In the end, we know the truth.

The majority of mass shootings end when the shooter is taken down by someone with a gun, or they see someone with a gun maneuvering on their position, and then commit suicide to avoid being taken alive.

It doesn’t matter to the prospective mass shooter if the good guy with a gun has a badge and arrives ten minutes late, or if he is a concealed carrier who happens to be on-scene before he can empty the first magazine at innocent victims, just that a good guy has a gun, and that his uncontested rampage is over.

Good guys with weapons are the only thing that stops bad guys with weapons.

That dynamic will never change.

[Bella]

It was not my intent to offend, but I sense you invited it without reservation. My post was simply to point out that what was once less accepted is now more mainstream, and the reverse being true also. I fear my example was poor in that it left room for literal interpretation.

 

Thanks for the advice to research Freedom of Speech more thoroughly. But I feel I've got a pretty good grasp already.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bella

[Jeff Matthews]

 

7 pages of posts so far, and at least we have one solid point to conclude:  

 

Gun-free zones cause mass murders.

 

Wow.    That "conclusion" makes it clear common sense has no place in this discussion.

 

 

You missed the sarcasm.