Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Violater1

Another empty stupid argument. I care a thimble full for your kind. Trying to convince me we can’t stop this. We can. Just get rid of republicans who can’t protect and govern.

What the heck do Republicans have to do with this mess?

Maybe we should disarm people who vote Democrat and see how that goes...

nice map
very interesting

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties

something about Hectorville, Hunt, and Wedderburn
something about 23 mil vs 320 mil
fair comparisons no?

Zero mass shootings since the restrictions.

Zero.

Those pesky facts eh?

a reply to: DanteGaland


"Considered" Ha ha sounds like a very formal declaration of war to me......

Takes a *bit* more than that to equal treason my friend. You should really investigate the USC and just how many cases/what circumstances treason has been prosecuted under.

You don't like Russia. We get it. You've all been pushing a bogus narrative about them and Trump for over a year now. Nothing will come of it though, I assure you

But by all means, keep wasting your time on Russia! We love you guys for it. Look how great our poll numbers are now. Even liberal MSM is admitting we've got our advantage back. Dems need a 7 point lead over GOP to be considered a 50:50 chance at taking the house back. We've got a 1 point lead.

You know what Von Clausewitz says though. Never stop your "enemy" from making a mistake. Or is that Sun Tzu. I'd rather the DNC go toes up than watch it taken over by a bunch of new-voter "progressives" who think they should run the party simply because they decided to get out of bed and vote ONE TIME. The millennials are *new* voters, therefore need to sit down, shut up and watch the adults work. They'll get their day eventually, but for now the party is still Schumer/Pelosi's show. Some friendly advice would be to let them do their jobs, instead of all this false outrage/whining about Russia.

But whatever floats your boat. I guess you guys enjoyed throwing the Presidential (and congress/statehouse) election(s) to the GOP. And watching GOP's massive tax cut success (among other victories) go entirely unopposed by Dems. Now we're seeing the REPUBLICANS taking a stand for immigrants/DACA, a huge constituency the Dems RELY on.

Things are looking great for 2018/2020 and beyond. So yes, keep on doing what you all have been doing. Maybe you can have another march where people wear their disgusting genital hats in typical moral destroy fashion. You know, because those have been so effective at countering the GOP's agenda. Right? So effective.

a reply to: Kryties

2011 and 2014 are now not after 1996?
i am confused

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Violater1


Damn right. None of this Band-Aid "Lets attack the very tool that could've stopped this psychopath" nonsense. Although liberals love to blame guns for all our problems, it is clearly a sign of the times and their destruction of our moral values. A total breakdown of norms.

Not to mention, this shooter was a communist/antifa revolutionary. He had ZERO to do with the right wing. The left owns this bastard entirely. They created him, pumped him full of ideology and Hussein Obama himself normalized the actions of communists/black revolutionaries by watching them riot and making excuses. "Well there community is in pain!" Obama proclaimed, while apparently ignoring the blood and bodies he and the Dems would have on their hands.

Every single gun-free zone, or person without the right to carry ANY weapon (including automatics and DDs) for personal defense puts a little extra blood on their hands.

School shootings have taken off exponentially since Obama's failed domestic policies and making excuses for violent revolutionaries (remember when he wanted to kiss Castro's a%% after he kicked off?).

18th century
During the 18th century there was 1 incident of a shooting during the year 1764 (by American Indians).

19th century
total
During the 19th century there were 28 shootings

break-down
The first shooting was during the year 1840, later shootings occurred during the years 53, 56, 58, 60, 64, 67 (3 shootings), 68, 71, 72, 73, 74 (2), 78, 79, 81 (2), 82 (2), 83 (2), 84 (3), 87, 89, 90 (2), 91 (2), 92 (2), 93, 94, 98.

20th century
total
There were 226 shootings during the 20th century:
break-down
During the first decade of the 20th century there were 15 (the first shooting was during 1903 (2), 1904 (3), 1905 (2), 1907 (2), 1908 (2), 1909 (4).
During the second decade there were 19. (1910 (3), 1911, 1912 (2), 1914, 1915 (2), 1916 (2), 1917 (2), 1918 (2), 1919 (3).
The 3rd : 10 (1920 (7), 22 (2), 26).
The 1930's : 9 (30, 31, 34, 35, 36 (2), 37 (2), 38).
The 5th decade: 8 (40 (2), 42, 46, 47, 48, 49 (2)).
The 6th : 17 (50, 51 (4), 52 (2), 53, 54 (2), 55, 56 (2), 57, 58 (2), 59).
During the 1960's : 18 (60 (3), 61 (2), 66 (4), 67, 68 (4), 69 (4)).
The 8th decade: 30 (70 (5), 71 (2), 73 (2), 74 (4), 75 (3), 76 (3), 77, 78 (7), 79 (3)).
The 9th : 39 (80 (4), 81 (3), 82 (3), 83, 84 (4), 85 (5), 86 (5), 87 (5), 88 (6), 89 (3)).
The 10th: 62 shootings (90 (2), 91 (6), 92 (5), 93 (9), 94 (10), 95 (4), 96 (7), 97 (6), 98 (7), 99 (6)).
21st century
total
From the commencement of the 21st century to the most recently occurring shooting (of February 14, 2018), the number of shootings is 212:
break-down
During the 1st decade there were 60 (2000 (5 shootings), 2001 (5), 02 (7), 03 (4), 05 (5), 06 (11), 07 (5), 08 (11), 09 (7))
During the 2010's (incl. February 14, 2018) there were 143 shootings (during 2010, 11 shootings, 2011 (7), 12 (11), 13 (26), 14 (36), 15 (21), 16 (15), 17 (9), 18 (7)).

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, school shootings had been carrying on at approximately a steady climb over the past century or so.

>There were 226 shootings during the 20th century

>From the commencement of the 21st century to the most recently occurring shooting (of February 14, 2018), the number of shootings is 212

>2018 has already had 18 school shootings

Clearly the availability of guns had not increased, but actually decreased. Note how there were ZERO gun laws in this nation before the NFA of 1934. Any explosives, rocket launchers, missiles, gravity bombs, artillery, tanks, machine guns, howitzer cannons and fire bombs were all lawful to own, build or otherwise use. Yet the passing of this highly unconstituional law did ZERO to stymie the increase in tragedies like school shootings. These are ALL still lawful to own, however you have to jump through hoops of Big Brother (AKA the infringers)

The NFA and subsequent infringing GCA is an exercise of taxation and infringment gone bad. But as you see by the numbers above, made zero difference. Like all gun control laws, they're based on ridiculous assumptions by those with zero knowledge of practical firearms application/use.

As you'll see, school shootings actually INCREASED after the passage of the NFA and then SKYROCKETED after the passing of the Gun Control Act. Gun Control Kills

20th CENTURY - 1900s

The 3rd : 10 (1920 (7), 22 (2), 26).
The 1930's : 9 (30, 31, 34, 35, 36 (2), 37 (2), 38).
The 5th decade: 8 (40 (2), 42, 46, 47, 48, 49 (2)).
The 6th : 17 (50, 51 (4), 52 (2), 53, 54 (2), 55, 56 (2), 57, 58 (2), 59).
During the 1960's : 18 (60 (3), 61 (2), 66 (4), 67, 68 (4), 69 (4)).
The 8th decade: 30 (70 (5), 71 (2), 73 (2), 74 (4), 75 (3), 76 (3), 77, 78 (7), 79 (3)).
The 9th : 39 (80 (4), 81 (3), 82 (3), 83, 84 (4), 85 (5), 86 (5), 87 (5), 88 (6), 89 (3)).
The 10th: 62 shootings (90 (2), 91 (6), 92 (5), 93 (9), 94 (10), 95 (4), 96 (7), 97 (6), 98 (7), 99 (6)).

So, if access to sophisticated weapons of war is so evil (which isn't a semi auto rifle), why were the school shootings/murder rates so low when actual weapons of war were freely available with zero regulation? This is the default position, and one we must return to. No matter what the cost.

More guns save lives. Less guns kill innocent people. Especially when a dangerous, extremist far-left revolutionary like Nik Cruz picks out a gun-free killzone.

What is clear is that the 21st century has already had nearly as many deaths as the entire 20th century. This is disturbing for obvious reasons. Access to guns hasn't increased. Total moral destruction, and liberals blaming everyone but the criminal for their crimes is the problem.

Does anybody think that if we reenacted the Assault Weapon Ban that these types of event's would go DOWN (I didn't say they wouldn't occur, but that the numbers would go down).

It's odd that from 1994-2004, only 2 of the top 33 "mass shootings" took place. The majority of "mass shootings", 8 or more deaths, have occurred outside of the Assault Weapons Ban.

a reply to: Kryties

Nope, I sure don't (or sure as he'll hope I dont!).

But then, the OP isn't about killing ducks or pigs either, now is it?

a reply to: JBurns

Our children have the constitutional right to not be slaughtered regularly by AR15s.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

All of them.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Teikiatsu

That's high population centers vs. low population.

Be intellectually honest, please.

High density population centers tend to have the highest incidence of gun violence, and tend to vote Democrat. I didn't say anything about disarming the people who vote non-Democrat in those areas.

But you are right, the criminal element may not be big on voting. I guess we could say to disarm people who don't vote Republican...

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JBurns

Our children have the constitutional right to not be slaughtered regularly by AR15s.

But hand pistols and bombs are okay? (EDIT: and trucks)

a reply to: MOMof3

thats why people like you are ignored when it comes to firearms debate... because you lack basic knowledge

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


Who else buys a new "assault weapon" (not really assault weapons, those are select-fire) every time someone makes an asinine suggestion like this? Your hysteria/tear jerking funds the gun industry, FYI.

Getting ready to head to my local FFL and grab one of those Anderson's for ~450. Same day transfer, of course. Takes about ~25-30 mins to walk in-walk out. Very convenient. Not quite as convenient as buying online though, from private sellers. Which is also legal.

a reply to: Jiggly

Haven’t noticed. But feel free to move along.

a reply to: EternalSolace

You buy an AR-15. The fire the exact same round.
The M4 carbine is a variant of the M16A2. It is an air cooled, gas operated weapon.
Funny you mentioned about the M4, as it came from the M16, which ironically came from the AR-15.

Now the M4 uses a 5.56 X45 mm cartridge, as the primary bullet.
Now the M16 fires a 5.56 mm round.
The AR-15 fires a 5.56 X 45 mm.

So if the AR is a civilian weapon, then why does it fire a round that is designed for a military weapon?

a reply to: MOMof3

Our children have the constitutional right to not be slaughtered regularly by AR15s.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But that comes at a price. That price is having the right and the MEANS to protect yourself from violent attackers with AR-15s and whatever other weapons they choose. Nobody is responsible for your protection or the protection of our children except us and those we entrust to care for them. WE are responsible for them, as are the teachers/etc we entrust their care to so commonly. The government, above all else, is not responsible for your/our personal defense. They will simply never be close enough when you need help. And since we know criminals will always acquire and misuse weapons against us, it makes no sense to not take some very basic measures to protect yourself, including: getting/carrying/practicing with a quality firearm, considering if body armor (soft) applies to your risk analysis, and determining whether or not there are additional more esoteric measures you can take (armored vehicles, long gun in a trunk safe, select fire weapons - very expensive, etc)

Security is your responsibility. And so is developing a solid security response plan for you and your family To do that, we need guns and the best possible guns available. Anything less is giving the criminal/terrorist/tyrannical government an unfair advantage. Something the Constitution specifically sought to avoid (ie: prohibiting standing armies, unorganized vs organized militia, 2A, etc)

Of course they do, so allow responsible law abiding adults to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms and defeat criminals. Clearly everyone here has already admitted the criminals still get their hands on the weapons, and that laws against murder/having those weapons make no difference in their determination to carry out an attack

My daughter carries on her college campus, which unfortuantely is against their rules and could get her expelled. Fortunately gun free zones have no force of law here, with the exception of certain places (like a court house). And she's never harmed a soul. But would be able to offer meaningful resistance against a deadly attacker, unlike every single person at that school yesterday tragically.

Why did that coach have to use his body to shield those students? Why won't people like you let him have a firearm to offer meaningful resistance? Especially with an attacker who utilized a firearm/programmed response (to exit the building) to amplify his attack. Clearly his intent was to cause maximum harm/death, and no law/gun ban was going to change that. He would've gotten his hands on weaponry one way or the other, even if he ordered it via the dark web.

More guns, more training and more accountability is the solution. Not less guns for law abiding citizens and still the same number for criminals.

I refuse to be a sheeple.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JBurns

Our children have the constitutional right to not be slaughtered regularly by AR15s.

Except when it comes to abortion.

Then it's a different story.

originally posted by: Violater1
The lessons are clear. One fights fire with fire,

Or maybe you don't give criminally violent or mentally unstable people a pack of matches and a can of gasoline to begin with?

The idea that everyone should be armed and ready to start shooting at any minute is STUPID.

And I am a proud gun owner and advocate for the second amendment.

Regulating what idiots are able to purchase guns is a GOOD idea. FULL STOP.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties

2011 and 2014 are now not after 1996?
i am confused

None of those you listed is defined as a mass shooting as per the official definition....

From: en.m.wikipedia.org...

defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed

a reply to: soberbacchus


Sure, as long as they are afforded due process..

Otherwise you're infringing on Constitutional rights for arbitrary reasons.

Do you believe mental illness didn't exist in the founder's day? It was far more misunderstood then, actually. Yet, the second amendment is CONSPICUOUSLY silent when it comes to mentally ill, felons, etc.

Obviously I have no problem with felons losing their gun rights, simply because they're afforded due process. Provided the "mentally ill" are also afforded those same protections, I say go for it.

Otherwise, infringing on anyone's rights is unacceptable for any reason. Why should one group of people lose their rights simply to protect the rights of another group? That isn't how the Constitution works my friend. There is no equity built in to those equations.

It is individual rights and rugged individualism. One for one, and you for you. Friends, family and neighbors pulling together to accomplish great things, and our nation achieving at the highest level compared to other nations.

We are exceptional. We are great. And it is this way because of our Constitution.