If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
What's relevant is the rights opposition to do something! I can't imagine why they don't want to do something.
You believe this because most of the media paints this picture endlessly in support of the left's wish to take away rights. Its all part of the left's superiority complex. They don't trust the citizen with real freedom, and wish to limit that and control every aspect they can.
There's plenty to right wants to do. Border security. Tighter immigration policy. Stronger sentencing for crimes committed with guns involved. Profiling to focus on the obvious threats. But all that runs smack into the PC fantasy the left want to impose on everyone. The left wants new voters more than they want to keep you safe. Why else would they want to let illegals or prisoners vote? How do you possibly defend that?
The Chicago example by the right is so weak. Obviously an inner city resident from the streets can get a gun with ease. But do you think a suburbanite has the same street smarts?
So a terrorist with training, interest, connections (possibly), and a specific agenda is not as capable in finding weapons as some street thug? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.
So republican lawmakers should make it easier for terrorists to get guns legally, thats the solution! got it.
Pops, Trump has met with Mr. Cox from the National Rifle Association to work on legislation to make it illegal for anyone on the Terrorism Watch List or No Fly List to be able to legally purchase a gun. he is the only person who is actually trying to do anything in response to the problem. The others want to debate it because that's what politicians do. One of the problems is the FBI and Homeland Security have more than 1,000,000 Americans on the watch list, so is it reasonable to tell them they cannot buy a gun, violating their Constitutional rights? They have not been proven to be guilty of anything. They are just under state surveillance, some of them because of their political views.
Where do the lines get drawn?
Do we ban all Muslims from obtaining guns since it is Muslims who are doing mass shootings due to religious beliefs? Some would say, yes for now.
We know the Democrats want to disarm all Americans so that no revolt can happen when the financial crash happens, but thankfully people are aware of that.
I do not think guns are the problem. If there were no guns, the Orlando shooter could have just hung a towel out of his gas tank, lit it up, drove thru the wall of the club effectively launching a huge Molotov cocktail when the gas tank would explode. Remember Oklahoma City? Fertilizer bomb. There will always be vehicles that can get past any checkpoint, ambulances (they can steal one), utility trucks, hurses, cabs, limos, etc. They can put ieds in briefcases, backpacks, a pizza delivery box, anything.
There is no way to stop someone who is determined to do something like that. The beliefs are what causes the killing, the weapon used is just the tool of aggression.
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
For those who think gun free zones are dangerous, do you think they should allow guns are airplanes?
So this kid displayed violent tendencies since 3rd grade but this is all about ISIS? Yeah right.
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Thanks liberals for what? Where is the problem with your post? Who is opposed to gun sales? Anti-gun crusaders such as myself, Obama, and I guess you mean liberals, would like to weed out the mentally unstable and terrorist sympathizers from getting guns.
[Edited on 6/17/2016 by BoytonBrother]
Speak for yourself. Obama cares mainly about not doing anything that might offend Muslims.
Makes it hard for the investigatory agencies to do their jobs as they normally would.Why is it people who dislike Obama have to lie about him to make their point? There is plenty for them to criticize, but then they go and say (or repeat) stupid made up stuff like this.
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
What about some resolve to fight terrorism? Not Obama, like any good liberal he ignores that
and chooses to blame the object.
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Thanks liberals for what? Where is the problem with your post? Who is opposed to gun sales? Anti-gun crusaders such as myself, Obama, and I guess you mean liberals, would like to weed out the mentally unstable and terrorist sympathizers from getting guns.
[Edited on 6/17/2016 by BoytonBrother]
Speak for yourself. Obama cares mainly about not doing anything that might offend Muslims.
Makes it hard for the investigatory agencies to do their jobs as they normally would.Why is it people who dislike Obama have to lie about him to make their point? There is plenty for them to criticize, but then they go and say (or repeat) stupid made up stuff like this.
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
What about some resolve to fight terrorism? Not Obama, like any good liberal he ignores that
and chooses to blame the object.
The only person who brings up "blaming the object" is you. Try to keep up with what is being said instead of your incorrect interpretation of the English language. You carry the NRA'a water very well.
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
Can you please describe, in detail, all of the direct gun control actions taken by Obama during his term as President?
Thank you in advance!
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
For those who think gun free zones are dangerous, do you think they should allow guns are airplanes?
Not exactly apples/apples, since you're going thru metal detectors prior to getting on the plane.
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
Can you please describe, in detail, all of the direct gun control actions taken by Obama during his term as President?
Thank you in advance!
You're welcome, and if your really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources
most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
For those who think gun free zones are dangerous, do you think they should allow guns are airplanes?
Ever heard of an air marshall?
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
Can you please describe, in detail, all of the direct gun control actions taken by Obama during his term as President?
Thank you in advance!
You're welcome, and if your really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources
most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
The answer is none. Nothing. No action.
So, how did this further his own gun control agenda? You know, since he hasn't had one.
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
For those who think gun free zones are dangerous, do you think they should allow guns are airplanes?
Ever heard of an air marshall?
No, I haven't. I have heard of air marshals and they are armed. But, as you know and are evading, should civilians be armed on airplanes. You know, as a deterrent.
[Edited on 6/19/2016 by jkeller]
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
For those who think gun free zones are dangerous, do you think they should allow guns are airplanes?
Not exactly apples/apples, since you're going thru metal detectors prior to getting on the plane.
But why not allow anybody to carry a gun on a plane? That way a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Wouldn't that be safer?
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted. It's not logical to believe that allowing unfettered possession of firearms in crowded places would increase public safety. It would make more sense to ensure there is an adequate presence of trained security personnel present in such situations.
For those who think gun free zones are dangerous, do you think they should allow guns are airplanes?
Not exactly apples/apples, since you're going thru metal detectors prior to getting on the plane.
But why not allow anybody to carry a gun on a plane? That way a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Wouldn't that be safer?
Passengers boarding an airliner have already been through security. There won't be any bad guy with a
gun to stop.
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
The mass shooter is there to murder as many people as he can. Why would he choose
a place where he could get killed after his fifth shot?
If these choices are so "easy for me" as you put it, then why isn't the simple fact that almost all of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones a concern? Why don't we just put up "Shoot Defenseless People Here" signs where we want the next massacre? That's exactly what's happening, so why can't we change that instead?
Ah, um, what exactly are you suggesting here?
You know exactly what I'm suggesting.
It's a proven fact that these mass shooters are cowards, targeting soft locations where they know they are unlikely to face anyone returning fire before they can kill many.
Place doubt in their minds about facing opposition, and it will act as a deterrent.
Being that most of the mass shooters die of suicide or envision paradise on the other side as a reward, maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
The mass shooter is there to murder as many people as he can. Why would he choose
a place where he could get killed after his fifth shot?
In another thread you mockingly asked someone how well they know Trump for presuming to know how he thinks...by that logic, you must know some terrorists pretty well in order to tell us what is in their heads.
And not for nuthin', but even the NRA says that people in the general public should not be allowed to bring guns into bars and clubs where alcohol is being served. Also worth noting that in Orlando, the shooter chose a place where he could get killed before firing his first shot...he had to shoot his way past an armed guard just to get in. Of course even a well trained guard (in Orlando the guard was a cop) with a handgun as a sidearm isn't much of match for someone with an AR-15 like weapon (in this case, it was a Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle with a 30-round quick-load magazine in addition to a Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol with a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds).
[Edited on 6/20/2016 by gondicar]
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
Can you please describe, in detail, all of the direct gun control actions taken by Obama during his term as President?
Thank you in advance!
You're welcome, and if your really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources
most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
I've done it before, it's all the same. A lot of suggestions and ideas and executive orders that are more like executive maybes.
As far as actual laws in regards to guns, he's only signed two...and thanks to those laws, a gun owner can now bring a gun into any of our National Parks and you can now ride Amtrak with a gun in your checked luggage. In that regard, Obama has actually expanded gun rights.
A few years ago, The Brady Campaign (I'm sure you've heard of them) gave Obama an 'F' in the matter of gun control.
Earlier in this very thread, you stated...
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Judging by your mathematical parameters above, we can assume that since Obama took office, around 100,000,000 new guns have been sold?
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
Can you please describe, in detail, all of the direct gun control actions taken by Obama during his term as President?
Thank you in advance!
You're welcome, and if your really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources
most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...I've done it before, it's all the same. A lot of suggestions and ideas and executive orders that are more like executive maybes.
As far as actual laws in regards to guns, he's only signed two...and thanks to those laws, a gun owner can now bring a gun into any of our National Parks and you can now ride Amtrak with a gun in your checked luggage. In that regard, Obama has actually expanded gun rights.
A few years ago, The Brady Campaign (I'm sure you've heard of them) gave Obama an 'F' in the matter of gun control.
Earlier in this very thread, you stated...
Boil it all down, and all the anti-gun crusaders have accomplished is causing firearm sales to
skyrocket. Before Obama came along gun sales might be 4 or 5 million annually. After rising
steadily throughout the past seven years, now somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000,000
new guns are sold yearly.The firearm industry thanks you!!!!
Judging by your mathematical parameters above, we can assume that since Obama took office, around 100,000,000 new guns have been sold?
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Nice try, Bhawk, but none of what you say fits the conservative narrative therefore none of it can be believed.
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
The Daily Signal?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! 😛
maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted.
So you could look someone in the eye and tell them a mass shooting is just as likely to
occur at a gun target range as anywhere else that people congregate?
maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted.
So you could look someone in the eye and tell them a mass shooting is just as likely to
occur at a gun target range as anywhere else that people congregate?
Now you are just being obtuse.
maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted.
So you could look someone in the eye and tell them a mass shooting is just as likely to
occur at a gun target range as anywhere else that people congregate?
Now you are just being obtuse.
Of course he was. That said, where was the "American Sniper" Chris Kyle killed? He's not the only one, people are shot at gun ranges more often than alloak might think...
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-check-vermont-gun-range/
[Edited on 6/21/2016 by gondicar]
maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted.
So you could look someone in the eye and tell them a mass shooting is just as likely to
occur at a gun target range as anywhere else that people congregate?Now you are just being obtuse.
Of course he was. That said, where was the "American Sniper" Chris Kyle killed? He's not the only one, people are shot at gun ranges more often than alloak might think...
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-check-vermont-gun-range/
[Edited on 6/21/2016 by gondicar]
Where did I ever say that nobody is ever shot at a gun range? Go ahead and put some wheels
on the goalpost.... But in a mass killing scenario? Look back through all the cases of mass killing
with a firearm and you will find that NONE have occurred at a gun range. Probably just a coincidence?
maybe that kind of deterrent would have limited effect.
But, you do seem be advocating more people carrying more guns. Doesn't make that shining city on the hill sound all that exceptional.
There is a simple reason why many mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" and it has nothing to do with guns as a deterrence. These shooters tend to target areas where many people congregate in a public area, i.e. theaters, malls, schools, nightclubs, etc., because this is where they find the highest concentration of targets and they'll get more bang for their buck so to speak. They would target these areas regardless of whether or not they were "gun-free". You can't have a mass shooting without a mass of people. It is true that these same places tend to not allow guns in the interest of public safety, but that is not the primary reason they are targeted.
So you could look someone in the eye and tell them a mass shooting is just as likely to
occur at a gun target range as anywhere else that people congregate?Now you are just being obtuse.
Of course he was. That said, where was the "American Sniper" Chris Kyle killed? He's not the only one, people are shot at gun ranges more often than alloak might think...
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-check-vermont-gun-range/
[Edited on 6/21/2016 by gondicar]
Where did I ever say that nobody is ever shot at a gun range? Go ahead and put some wheels
on the goalpost.... But in a mass killing scenario? Look back through all the cases of mass killing
with a firearm and you will find that NONE have occurred at a gun range. Probably just a coincidence?
I was merely pointing out that murders via shooting occur at gun ranges pretty regularly...they are not exempt from gun violence and are not the safe havens from gun violence that you are making them out to be.
As far as anything being a coincidence, well I work in a furniture factory and as far as I can tell there has never been a mass shooting in a furniture factory. What kind of coincidence is that?
[Edited on 6/21/2016 by gondicar]
Not at all surprising that Obama would use this incident to further his own gun control agenda.
Can you please describe, in detail, all of the direct gun control actions taken by Obama during his term as President?
Thank you in advance!
You're welcome, and if your really interested just Google it. This way you can choose the sources
most suitable to your liking. Plenty to choose from...
Then name one.
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Anybody's guess what this has to do with Gun Free Zones..............anyway
Each time a mass shooting takes place, going straight to the podium to blame an object? You
expect success with this? Does it surprise you he's a failure?
All his anti-gun rhetoric accomplishes is selling more guns. Obama abhors the fact that citizens are
allowed to own firearms.
If public safety is actually your true concern with regard to mass shootings, you should
agree that "Gun Free Zones" are a stupid idea and should be done away with...http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
If Obama has a gun control agenda, wouldn't you say it's quite a failure? Wouldn't you also agree that with less than a year to go, he will complete his term by doing effectively nothing on the matter of gun control?
Anybody's guess what this has to do with Gun Free Zones..............anyway
Each time a mass shooting takes place, going straight to the podium to blame an object? You
expect success with this? Does it surprise you he's a failure?All his anti-gun rhetoric accomplishes is selling more guns. Obama abhors the fact that citizens are
allowed to own firearms.
No matter how many times you say "blaming the object" it won't ever be true.
You seem to know more about what Obama thinks than sixty8 seems to know about Trump, yet you asked sixty8 "You have a lot of inside info about Mr. Trump and his makeup. How long have you known him and where did you all meet?" So how many times have you met Obama.
