SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Why nothing on the shooting?
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1577808912

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 08:15:12

Title: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 08:15:12

Is it because
Good Guy with a gun
Killed the fool
Too soon?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by WebsterMark on 12/31/19 at 08:43:02

It’s because the libs on here have given up I guess.

There were 4 or 5 men in there who drew weapons. Several were suspicious of the guy right away.

Personally, I think this event gives both support for concealed carry and support for not to concealed carry. It was an unusual situation that’s not likely to repeat itself very often. However, that in itself lends support to give people the option to conceal carry whenever and wherever they want.

I’ve been to a few places where I felt like I would’ve preferred to have a gun. But I don’t regularly go to places where I feel that way. And I don’t wanna carry every time I go out. I ran to the store a little while ago, do I want to carry a gun with me? No, I don’t. Maybe it’s like “all the gear all the time” people versus just throw on a helmet, jeans and some boots and you’re good to go, people. Depending on the situation, I do both. I can’t imagine ever caring a gun to church however. I’m glad that Guy did however. and if I were due in New York, I would seriously consider it.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 11:51:14

I shouldn't have made the topic obvious.
Lefties won't even read it now.
Looks a LOT like
Adding Guns to the equation
Solved the problem before it got
Worse.
I wonder how many would have died if dialing 911, so the cops could add guns to the equation had been the solution..

When will people see that being able to stop a madman is a good thing and not something that is the sole purview of a government employee?
Come on lefties,, let's hear it.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by MnSpring on 12/31/19 at 12:33:59

"... Come on lefties,, let's hear it. ...'

Never will happen, even from the UL, self admited Socalist, and clones.

No way will the, 'gun banners', say something.
(even though they say they have one, proving, 'THEY', should have one. And you, Can NOT !)

"... I wonder how many would have died if dialing 911 ..."

Well of course, had that happened, the UL FDS Socalists would have said: "see see see'.
Then cried for a ban, on the modal of firearm used, then there would NEVER be such a event again, using that banned firearm.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 13:20:09

They are the science deniers. Statistics show high rates of gun crime are where the most strict gun control is. Where people can defend themselves, there are fewer
Events
And LOOKIE here!!
A
Very
SHORT
Event..
Because GOOD Guys were armed.

And Bernie or Biden criticized the governor for signing the law that made armed guards in church legal.
It's just not rational
He said..
It's NOT..
It's not rational to disarm law abiding people.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 12/31/19 at 14:06:55

Who on here has said individuals should not be armed in any capacity?

I only recall arguments against high capacity weapons.

Also I have had no comments on certain topics I have posted so it's not like the radio silence on an issue is one-sided.

Is it any different than me asking why nobody made a thread commenting on how Alex jones was ordered to pay legal fees?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 15:53:05

So high capacity mags aren't for defense?
Bullshit..
Whgivesafukk about Jones?
He stopped being relevant years ago.

Must be pretty desperate to drag a completely tangential subject in.

YOU may believe people shouldn't have high capacity magazines.
You're wrong.
An INDIVIDUAL may be confronted by
Multiple attackers.
They, coff coff,may not be law abiding and may have higher capacity magazines.

The gun laws are proven losers.
Lefties need to STFU and allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves without fear of legal entanglements for being armed.

Now, it's time for all you good lefties to pretend I said halt the background checks and anyone who has never been convicted of a crime can start shooting people.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 12/31/19 at 16:33:53

5C7C7E766B7C190 wrote:

Who on here has said individuals should not be armed in any capacity?

Why should anyone have any influence on an individual's decision how they should protect their family, property, or themselves?

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 12/31/19 at 16:36:12

"I shouldn't have made the topic obvious.
Lefties won't even read it now"

No different than any topic any member has ever chose not to read. Until we read and reply to every topic posted what good does it do to talk about others not replying to this one?

"So high capacity mags aren't for defense?"

That's not what I said.

I have actually mentioned several times that I helped run a campaign to recall elected officials in CO for enacting law on this very issue.

I asked who on here has said people should not have any firearms.

That's what I am asking.

Who on here has said US citizens should not have any, zero, none, or any other descriptive factor of having no weapons available to them?

Who has said that?

Or are we pretending someone said US citizens can not be armed?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 12/31/19 at 16:44:55

"Why should anyone have any influence on an individual's decision how they should protect their family, property, or themselves?"

I think in the interest of public safety if someone is using compressed hydrogen cyanide, (yes this has happened in my neighborhood) as part of a home-invasion, local and Federal laws should apply so someone doesn't kill their neighbors.

Bombs, anthrax, bear traps, shotguns tied to strings that kill First Responders, flamethrowers on cars, all things that have happened, should possibly be considered when saying people should be able to use any means necessary to defend themselves.

That being said, the question was Who On Here, on this forum, has said US citizens should have zero access to firearms?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 12/31/19 at 16:58:21

5575777F6275100 wrote:

The premise of this thread was about firearms, not bear traps and cyanide. "Why should anyone have any influence on a law abiding individual's decision what firearm they should protect their family, property, or themselves?"

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 17:15:43

Until you lefties come out in favor of people carrying, you're wrong.
Good Guys protected a congregation from a bad guy.
Period

Absolutely disproving the obvious BULLSHIT that adding guns to the equation is a bad idea.
Are people too stupid to know
That's EXACTLY what cops do?
Except, they arrive after the damage is done.

Okay, let's play
Except when they were already there..

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by raydawg on 12/31/19 at 17:19:14

You guys are fighting over how to put on, or what kind of, band-aid....we need to use to stop the bleeding.

Maybe we should look to why so many are bleeding, to begin with.

You want to try and advance morality.....ya think that has anything to do with it?

Seems to me we have widened the acceptable behavior of society, that maybe, might, play a part, in lots of the decay around us....

HAPPY NEW YEAR.....tho :-*

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 18:00:50

People been killing for a while.
Only since idiots decided removing the sheep's teeth was how to protect them from wolves have we seen such indiscriminate killing.
It's time for people to wake up and realize making guns illegal isn't gonna work out in America.

See my posts above.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 12/31/19 at 19:36:22

"Until you lefties come out in favor of people carrying, you're wrong."

Who on this forum has said they are not in favor of US citizens carrying? I am only aware of people indicating that high-capacity firearms are an issue.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 12/31/19 at 19:40:36

"Why should anyone have any influence on a law abiding individual's decision what firearm they should protect their family, property, or themselves?""

I think with the exception of frangible ammo within dwellings like apartments etc. it could be up to the law abiding citizen. I've seen a lot of "wall shots" over the years where rounds penetrated a wall and hit people in other dwellings, so I'd be ok with local laws indicating that ammunition should be a type that reduces the chance of killing unintended targets.

Of course bad guys would get body armor so we should be able to have any type of ammo we want, just like how bad guys will get fast cars so we shouldn't have speed limits for law abiding citizens.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/19 at 20:59:56

Poor lefties..
Use a fifty caliber in an apartment
Bullet goes through the bad guy and ten apartments, killing five others.

Go to jail..

See, make people responsible for their behavior.
Then THEY get to decide how to do things.

You people are determined that you know better.
You believe in
Prior Restraint..
Look it up.
It's a legal concept.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by raydawg on 01/01/20 at 09:35:49

1F3F3D35283F5A0 wrote:

Wait a minute....I thought you had a different explanation as to the use/need of laws, their intentions, etc....

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by MnSpring on 01/01/20 at 15:21:35

4161636B7661040 wrote:

Who on here has said individuals should not be armed in any capacity?

Great deflection !!!!

What, has, been said by UL, FDS, self admitted Socialists, here and other places is, one can only have certain type/style/maker/capacity/caliber/etc/etc/etc, Firearm.

And said by the same people that believe, KILLING a human Baby, (before it leaves it's Mothers body), is perfectly OK.

As to, 'people should not have any firearms'
Yea, that has been said.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/01/20 at 15:27:55

"Wait a minute....I thought you had a different explanation as to the use/need of laws, their intentions, etc...."

My opinion of one law type is not identical to my opinion of every law type.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/01/20 at 15:28:36

"As to, 'people should not have any firearms'
Yea, that has been said."

I don't remember seeing that, but I don't read every post.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/01/20 at 15:41:38

"Poor lefties..
Use a fifty caliber in an apartment
Bullet goes through the bad guy and ten apartments, killing five others.

Go to jail.."

Right. I am stating I think local, as in voted on by humans in the area they are registered to vote, could have some say in the realm of personal responsibility. Instead of a zero compromise approach where one side says no guns ever, and another says any gun anytime anyplace.

I see it similar, not exactly like but similar, to having laws against drunk driving. Is it safer to prosecute someone for driving drunk, or letting them drive and prosecute them only if they are caught damaging property or persons?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/01/20 at 16:03:02

I've laid out perfect analogies you ignored.
Yours is Bullshit.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by raydawg on 01/01/20 at 16:46:06

I see it similar, not exactly like but similar, to having laws against drunk driving. Is it safer to prosecute someone for driving drunk, or letting them drive and prosecute them only if they are caught damaging property or persons?

Do you see the irony of what you write above, compared to how you have voiced other opinions re: laws?

It was you who said laws have not proven to be a deterrent .....

Once you enter into this reasoning, how do you ever put the Genie back into the bottle?

Laws will be based upon a majority want, no skirting that, and conflict will ensue....look how its playing out against anybody who would dare wear a MAGA cap, etc.....justified outrage, etc.....look at the reasoning behind sanctuary cities, which flies directly against our legislated laws via our Constitution responsibilities and protocols.

Please don't go.....huh?

Politico Correctness was promoted to stymie free speech, and not only that, used in punitive manners to rid society of folk in "power positions" from executing their own freedom of conscious and speech, that ran contrary to those entities that used it to further empower themselves....

Exactly as we see in the gun control issue.....
The law breakers are the cause....not a gun, or a bullet that can go through walls, and hurt unintended victims....

Keep the arguments real, and most of all....factual.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/02/20 at 16:38:16

"It was you who said laws have not proven to be a deterrent ....."

Incorrect.

I indicated the logic that if a law will be broken we should not even have law is flawed. The situation portrayed was that we should not pursue any gun law because criminals won't follow them.

My example was that by that logic there should be no child protection laws since people will still abuse children even though there are laws prohibiting it.

Law can be a deterrent, but it exists to punish crime. We enact law as a consequence, this works as a deterrent sometimes, but it is developed, interpreted in court, and designed as a means of enforcement. Court does not interpret, or enforce, what could have happened, so laws written exclusively as deterrent are practically non enforceable.

But we can treat this like you do my "words on a screen" comment and try to say that any one interpretation must apply equally to every post ever made after, instead of applying it in context to what the sentence was about, if that makes it easier for you.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/02/20 at 16:39:49

"I've laid out perfect analogies you ignored.
Yours is Bullshit. "

I keep asking a question you continue to ignore.

What would you call that?

Also I am not providing "analogy" I am using real things that actually happen. People get killed by bullets flying through apartment walls. That's not an analogy. We do have laws that protect the public from potential risk, that exists, it is not an analogy.

Who, on here, has said they want to remove every gun from all US citizens?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 01/02/20 at 17:04:31

6A4A48405D4A2F0 wrote:

Not a real sound argument, drunk driving vs: a constitutional right....

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by raydawg on 01/02/20 at 17:10:41

But we can treat this like you do my "words on a screen" comment and try to say that any one interpretation must apply equally to every post ever made after, instead of applying it in context to what the sentence was about, if that makes it easier for you.

visa versa

Veras visa ::)

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/02/20 at 17:26:57

"Not a real sound argument, drunk driving vs: a constitutional right.... "

This is why I attempted to indicate that the situation is similar, like, or in some capacity sharing some components of the conversation but not exactly, equal or otherwise considered to be identical in application.

Let's choose something else like the Pursuit of Happiness. If talking sexually to children makes me happy, is it my right or are there restrictions in place in the interest of public safety? Can I own grenades, rocket launchers and anthrax?

Again this is not identical, this is an attempt to indicate that there are laws that exist to protect people prior to damage. They are implemented so that the act of putting others at unnecessary risk is enforceable and this maintains a safer environment than saying we only enforce murder charges, not any activity that has been proven to cause murder by means of personal neglect.

I bring this up only as an attempt to indicate that compromises can be made instead of saying there should be no limits to gun ownership and use, or there should be no guns allowed anywhere at any time.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/02/20 at 20:36:07

Nah BULLSHIT,,
Humans are born with the RIGHT to defend themselves.
The constitution Doesn't GIVE us that right.
It tells the government that They don't have the RIGHT to tell US otherwise.
Read the constitution.
Get over it.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/02/20 at 21:42:09

"Humans are born with the RIGHT to defend themselves.
The constitution Doesn't GIVE us that right."

I've never said we don't have the right to defend ourselves and saying I have is what shall we call it? Bullsh!t maybe?

So who, on here, has said they want to remove every gun from all US citizens?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/20 at 00:32:00

Not playing your game.

Unless you're on board with law abiding citizens being armed, you're not right.
No Gun Zone?
Bullshit..
Six
MOTHERFUKKING
Seconds..
Bad guy
Dead

Screw the idiots who don't agree with the right to self defense.
Don't agree?
STFU..
Don't carry.
Screw gunophopes

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by WebsterMark on 01/03/20 at 05:17:09

1E3E3C34293E5B0 wrote:

Eegore, for myself, I would point to abortion as an example. When it first was discussed and came out, no one dreamed we’d be where we are today. We went from a situation where very specific conditions were to be met to today where I read someone foolishly claiming we’re on the verge of eliminating Downs babies..... Abortion, especially in poor black neighborhoods, has become birth control which is exactly what was promised would never happen.

So, do I believe more restrictive gun laws are likely to be expanded? Given how things usually go? Yes I do. Imagine this, put Beto O’ROURKE in the White House and that would become a legitimate topic of discussion. Follow it up with 20 years of left leaning judges and bingo, there you go. Turn in your weapons or face a fine. Don’t pay the fine, say hello to your new 10x10 and your roommate.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 05:31:15

"Unless you're on board with law abiding citizens being armed, you're not right."

I am on board with law abiding citizens being armed. What you are doing by refusing to answer the question is an amateur attempt at saying anyone here has.

Who? Who has said no US citizens should ever be armed? Who has said people can not defend themselves?

Nobody here, that I know of, has said what happened in TX should not be allowed. You are creating an argument against a group here that doesn't exist.

"Screw the idiots who don't agree with the right to self defense."

Who here said that? Who are you addressing? Instead of complaining to me, who agrees with you, again, just answer the question.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 05:39:07

"So, do I believe more restrictive gun laws are likely to be expanded? Given how things usually go? Yes I do. Imagine this, put Beto O’ROURKE in the White House and that would become a legitimate topic of discussion. Follow it up with 20 years of left leaning judges and bingo, there you go. Turn in your weapons or face a fine. Don’t pay the fine, say hello to your new 10x10 and your roommate."

I understand the potential risk, and agree. I bring up constantly that I helped lead the official recall of political leaders in CO for enacting gun laws against the wishes of their constituency. This did more than any amount of typing on a forum will ever do.

My question is Who on here has said people should not be armed, or be able to defend themselves? Who is this thread being directed at?

Because it looks to me that everyone agrees that what happened in TX is just fine, but an artificial argument is being made against ideals that have never been proposed. Its obvious that instead of identifying the actual argument its easier to say "bullshit" over and over.

MnSpring indicates members here have said no US citizen should ever be armed but I am having trouble finding that information.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/20 at 08:02:25

members here have said no US citizen should ever be armed

Not the argument..

Qualified on the range,Law abiding citizens should be free to carry.

When lefties say THAT, then I'll believe they aren't the tyrants I've come to despise.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 08:25:36

My understanding is that people on this forum do agree that law abiding US citizens should be allowed to carry, and defend themselves.

I am not aware of anyone that has stated otherwise.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/20 at 09:27:30

Not the take away I got.
I've seen lots of
Ban that gun...
Take guns away.
Red flag support

Unless I stop seeing the idiots and their proven failures in thinking STFU and get on board with people carrying, I'm gonna keep believing that the people I've argued with over the dummerdanfukk
No Gun Zone
Bullshit have not changed their thinking
Which means they don't believe as you say.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 10:23:33

"Not the take away I got.
I've seen lots of
Ban that gun...
Take guns away.
Red flag support"

So my interpretation is this thread is asking why nobody commented on the TX event, which is one where law abiding citizens, who were church security, utilized personally owned firearms to stop an active shooter in a location where firearms carry was allowed by the private owners of that property.

None of those law abiding private citizens used a high-capacity semi automatic weapon in rapid succession, so why would a "ban that gun" person protest this outcome?

I've not heard anyone say "Take guns away" meaning in the way you put it, every US citizen has every gun taken away. Who has said that?

There is a middle ground, and using an situation like the one in TX, where everyone agrees what happened is good, does nothing.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/20 at 10:31:47

You still don't understand the second amendment.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 11:13:32

So am I wrong regarding the following?

My interpretation is this thread is asking why nobody commented on the TX event, which is one where law abiding citizens, who were church security, utilized personally owned firearms to stop an active shooter in a location where firearms carry was allowed by the private owners of that property.

What am I missing?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 01/03/20 at 15:08:39

1D3D3F372A3D580 wrote:

None of those law abiding private citizens used a high-capacity semi automatic weapon in rapid succession, so why would a "ban that gun" person protest this outcome?

It does not support the left's narrative; first, the left supports a an assault weapons ban. Moreover, they want to get as many guns as they can. If you read what they are implementing in Virginia somewhere between 80 - 85 percent of weapons are now going to be illegal. Overnight, an enormous number of people are going to be criminals. Personally, I draw the line of what constitutes a military weapon as a small arms firearm that is belt-fed.

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/20 at 18:01:31

There is not only nothing wrong with citizens having military grade weapons, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
WTF is a 30-06?
You want to stop crazies from killing indiscriminately?
Allow the people to be armed.
Stop trying to make it WRONG for the average person to be able to at least shoot back.
Okay, I know, I said Joe blow needs a rocket launcher and a tank...

Not..
Though, I personally don't have a problem with that..
Pretty sure by the time they got done with that bg check, he'd be well vetted..

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 20:05:32

" If you read what they are implementing in Virginia somewhere between 80 - 85 percent of weapons are now going to be illegal."

How many people, on here, who this is directed at, support the Virginia law?

I've not heard anyone, on here, state that what happened in TX would not be allowed, should not be allowed or otherwise would be a violation of a law they suggested. This thread is very specifically asking people here, on this forum, why they are not commenting on the specific TX event.

Who here, on this forum, has indicate that what happened in TX should be illegal?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 20:07:36

"There is not only nothing wrong with citizens having military grade weapons, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
WTF is a 30-06?
You want to stop crazies from killing indiscriminately?
Allow the people to be armed.
Stop trying to make it WRONG for the average person to be able to at least shoot back.
Okay, I know, I said Joe blow needs a rocket launcher and a tank...

Not..
Though, I personally don't have a problem with that..
Pretty sure by the time they got done with that bg check, he'd be well vetted.. "

Maybe you misunderstand my question. You are asking people here, on this forum, why they are not commenting on the TX event, is this correct?

My interpretation is this thread is asking why nobody, on this specific forum, commented on the TX event, which is one where law abiding citizens, who were church security, utilized personally owned firearms to stop an active shooter in a location where firearms carry was allowed by the private owners of that property.

Is this correct?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/20 at 20:15:24

I don't see people saying
Good Job!
They aren't saying squat.
Leftards on the news and a couple so called presidential candidates have stood in opposition.
Why no lefties congratulating the man who head shot the crazy?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 20:40:48

Are you referring to people here? Are you asking why nobody on this forum started a thread about this topic?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/03/20 at 21:31:08

445B5D5A4740714171495B571C2E0 wrote:

Figure it out

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/03/20 at 21:50:09

This is what you posted:

Is it because
Good Guy with a gun
Killed the fool
Too soon?

It is not clear if you are asking specifically people here.

Why you are unwilling to answer a straightforward question, like an adult, as I have always afforded you, is beyond me.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/04/20 at 01:56:20

You finally actually asked a question.
I was confused about your confusion

You saw I quoted my post, right?
So, you asked that question
Right After that post
And
Now you're asking a different one
But this one is a better question.

Kinda

Read what I said.
Look at past behavior from lefties here.
Shootings of strangers in public places usually get lefties in a twist .
So, I noticed nobody said anything...
And the post is self explanatory with that explanation for a foundation.
Helps?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by thumperclone on 01/04/20 at 03:18:54

the mirror will show who is twisted

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/04/20 at 09:35:53

"You finally actually asked a question."

Really? I don't see a difference between question 1 and question 16, all of them asked in this thread.

1. Who on here has said individuals should not be armed in any capacity?"

2. I asked who on here has said people should not have any firearms.

3. Who on here has said US citizens should not have any, zero, none, or any other descriptive factor of having no weapons available to them?

4. Who has said that?

5. That being said, the question was Who On Here, on this forum, has said US citizens should have zero access to firearms?

6. Who on this forum has said they are not in favor of US citizens carrying?

7. Who, on here, has said they want to remove every gun from all US citizens?

8. So who, on here, has said they want to remove every gun from all US citizens?

9. Who here said that? Who are you addressing? Instead of complaining to me, who agrees with you, again, just answer the question.

10. My question is Who on here has said people should not be armed, or be able to defend themselves? Who is this thread being directed at?

11. I've not heard anyone say "Take guns away" meaning in the way you put it, every US citizen has every gun taken away. Who has said that?

12. What am I missing?

13. Who here, on this forum, has indicate that what happened in TX should be illegal?

14. Maybe you misunderstand my question. You are asking people here, on this forum, why they are not commenting on the TX event, is this correct?

15. Is this correct?

16. Are you referring to people here? Are you asking why nobody on this forum started a thread about this topic?

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Serowbot on 01/04/20 at 13:00:58

Very fortunate circumstances but still left two innocent dead.

There have been 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days in the United States. You’ll note you don’t hear about mass shootings in Australia, Japan or for the most part the United Kingdom, or other civilized countries whose politicians have not been bought by 10 major gun manufacturers.

Great Britain has had 3 mass shootings in 30 years...

You know what's better than having a gun when you need one?...
Not needing one.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 01/04/20 at 14:08:26

or other civilized countries

Who says we or any of those countries are civilized?

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/04/20 at 14:23:53

"You know what's better than having a gun when you need one?...
Not needing one."

I agree with this but realistically I think the odds of one needing to protect themselves outweigh the odds of nobody ever using a gun in a crime.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/04/20 at 15:24:59

4254435E46535E45310 wrote:

Blade Britain: Knives were used in 14,000 robberies last year More than 350 people are the victim of knife assaults every day in England and Wales, the latest crime figures have revealed.

WTF is wrong with you??

People kill people.
Religious zealots who are sworn to kill
Infidels KILL PEOPLE
....

It's great to not need a helmet, seat belt, gun, spare tire,,,

But when you need one,it's a bit late in the game to run get one.

Ask the people in that church..

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Serowbot on 01/04/20 at 16:27:52

Same ol' back n' forth....

Call me when you hear of a mass stabbing that kills 50 people...
Pepper spray will quickly disable a man with a knife...

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/04/20 at 16:47:54

Britain doesn't have millions, yes millions of guns in the hands of organized crime.

It's not a fair comparison by any means. If I turn my weapons in am I to use pepper spray against SoS and Bloods in my area? They carry all the time.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/04/20 at 16:54:12

"Read what I said.
Look at past behavior from lefties here.
Shootings of strangers in public places usually get lefties in a twist .
So, I noticed nobody said anything...
And the post is self explanatory with that explanation for a foundation.
Helps? "

It sort of helps, yet you use the term "nobody" which could mean nobody on this forum or nobody in the world, like on the "news". I am asking if your intent is to ask specifically, people here, why they did not make a post about the event in TX. I asked for clarification on that 16 times.

Very specifically, the people on this forum is what I am asking.

If that is what you are addressing, then I would say nobody here has indicated that security on private property carrying pistols is anything that has been suggested as being restricted, illegal or otherwise stopped in any capacity.

So it would seem normal to me, that nobody here, on this forum, would argue against a situation they have always indicated is completely appropriate from the beginning.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Serowbot on 01/04/20 at 17:32:55

09292B233E294C0 wrote:

Comparing urban centers with strict guns laws to rural and suburban areas is not a fair comparison either.
Especially when guns are readily available just a few miles away.

... but eventually, something here must change.
We are more wild west than the wild west eve was....
Our stats are more in line with Afghanistan or Colombia than any civilized countries.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/04/20 at 17:45:12

Very fortunate circumstances but still left two innocent dead.

Yep, convicts with guns,,
Calling the cops would be the only option if lefties were deciding, because the people in church would not be armed..

It's irrational to be armed in church, right?

You do understand that mean people Target the most vulnerable, right?
Schoolyard bullies don't attack the big guy, they attack the weak.

People who want to kill go where they think they can get away with it.
When it's ILLEGAL to own and carry guns, knives become handy for killers.

Look at where gun laws are most restrictive.
Look at gun crime there.
Now, study Maine.

See what differences exist?

So, change your attitude to align with reality..
Because you're WRONG.

Very fortunate circumstances but still left two innocent dead.

Helmets, seat belts, guns,
Good ideas
But reality is kinda mean.
You want 100% before you believe it's good to be armed?

That's a real question.
Please, tell us what needs to happen before you support concealed carry for every law abiding citizen who can pass safety and marksmanship courses equal to what cops do.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/04/20 at 18:43:00

Naaah, lefties don't want every gun..

We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!

Charles Schumer

Mr. And Mrs. America
Turn them
ALL in..

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by Eegore on 01/04/20 at 23:05:30

I think taking anything of what Schumer says as an accurate prediction of the US political landscape will become is a bad idea.

That's no different than taking everything Trump says as fact.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 01/05/20 at 06:05:31

Naaah, lefties don't want every gun..

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s

“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein

“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”
Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke, who sought the Democrat Party’s nomination for president in 2020 in reply to a moderator’s question about his “mandatory gun buyback plan” during a primary debate

My personal favorite....
“Our power does not know liberty or justice. It is established on the destruction of the individual will.”
Vladimir Lenin

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by srinath on 01/05/20 at 14:17:51

Hey pg - when the gubbamint wanna take all your nuts, its easier if they know you cant shoot at them, then they can send 1-2 men to do it, instead of a 20-30 people strong swat team armed with shields and body armor. That just takes too many people, and is much slower, and in case some were to get shot, it makes a mess to clean up.
Please watch a few episodes of the show made by libtards in fact - I know this for a fact, look up the credits and their political stands, Show's called revolution BTW, a few episodes will do if you don't want to watch all of it.

Right, got it, good.

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 01/05/20 at 14:21:36

Where can I find that show?

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/05/20 at 17:27:45

Never heard of it.
I'll hit
Search
On the channels we get on Romulus.

Revolution (TV Series 2012–2014) - IMDb
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2070791
Sep 17, 2012 · Created by Eric Kripke. With Billy Burke, Tracy Spiridakos, Giancarlo Esposito, Zak Orth. Fifteen years after a permanent global blackout, a group of revolutionaries seeks to drive out an occupying force posing as the United States Government.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by srinath on 01/05/20 at 17:50:15

312E282F32350434043C2E22695B0 wrote:

Yea I better crawl out from the rock I've been hiding under … 10 mins and you'd be addicted to watching it. The show was made in 2009 if I recall, and its all about some seriors crap like electronic take over of the wprld, girl power and how guns are evil, except, the plot twists reveal that - well if you had a gun you'd get killed, and well, the fear of guns by the "gubbamint" - sorry guys its been 7-8 yrs since we curled up with that show - what can I say wifey turned on by nuts getting shot up, people getting shot up or ripped in 1/2 or some alien nuts getting shredded … Find that crap on VHS if you have to, seriously dystopian nuts, and why no one is getting the guns or the bullets outta my hand, I may be 6' under but some fool tries to take my gun, he's getting it bullets first.

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by pg on 01/06/20 at 02:35:58

It looks like the first season is available on Amazon if you have prime, I will check it out.

Best regards,

Title: Re: Why nothing on the shooting?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/06/20 at 21:01:38

Well,, Bloomberg sure had something to say.

Can you find it??

MENU
NRA ILA
Search
×
APPEARS IN NEWS
Bloomberg Dismisses Texas Hero, Insists It Wasn’t His “Job” to Have a Gun or Decide to Shoot
MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2020 Bloomberg Dismisses Texas Hero, Insists It Wasn’t His “Job” to Have a Gun or Decide to Shoot
SUPPORT NRA-ILA
Jack Wilson – a 71-year-old congregant of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Tex. – is a hero to most Americans. When a deranged man savagely murdered two of Mr. Wilson’s fellow worshippers during a service at the church on Dec. 30, Wilson took swift action. He exposed himself to danger to deliver a single shot from his lawfully carried handgun that instantly ended what undoubtedly would have been even more terrible carnage among the hundreds present.

View Related Articles
Other congregants were also seen producing lawfully carried handguns in response to the threat. Several closed in on the fallen assailant to ensure he was neutralized. None of them panicked or acted rashly and no errant shots were fired.

The entire episode was over in six seconds and was captured on the church’s livestream.

The evidence is inescapable and available to anyone who cares to view it. Anybody who has ever tried to justify a public policy proposal on the grounds that it could save “just one life” is now on notice that lawful concealed carry saved many lives in just that one episode.

Yet one person who did not bother to watch the video or acquaint himself with the facts is Democrat presidential contender Michael Bloomberg. Commenting on the incident at a campaign stop in Montgomery Ala., Bloomberg did not mention Jack Wilson’s name. Bloomberg did not even acknowledge that the events depicted in video and widely reported in the media – including on Bloomberg’s self-named news site – were authentic.

But if they were, he huffed, it didn’t change his mind that only the police (which apparently include the current and former officers on his own armed protection detail) should be able to carry firearms in public.

“It may true, I wasn’t there, I don’t know the facts, that somebody in the congregation had their own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people,” he said. “But it’s the job of law enforcement to, uh, have guns and to decide when to shoot.” He continued, “You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”

Just exactly what makes a cop better?
Training?
Uhh, cops aren't exactly the IQ reservoir of America.
If someone passes the class and qualifies at the range, then they are as trained to shoot as cops are..

Bloomberg can suck my tushy till my head caves in.