User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:35:42 AM EDT
[#1]
"In 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime"
Yeah, by definition. If an armed person kills a shooter, he won't be able t keep killing anyone and it will be after his crimes. Nothing gets by Rolling Stone writers. Nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:36:53 AM EDT
[#2]
I bet their cohorts at Charlie Hebdo wished they would have had a few guns while they were getting their asses shot up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:41:50 AM EDT
[#3]
Here's a neat trick to allow you to deceive people about the effectiveness of handguns in stopping mass shootings - if four or more people weren't killed, they don't count it as a "mass shooting." Ergo, if you blow the murderer's brains out at the start of his rampage, you did not stop a mass shooting because only one person (the murderer) was killed. That's how Rolling Stone arrived at their retarded conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:43:33 AM EDT
[#4]
The entire left in the US is a fascist, progressive movement that will never rest until we have confiscation like UK does and Australia tried.
They are actually elated that this happened in Oregon; it gives them a change to get their scumbag on TV and have a temper tantrum while presenting extremely misleading statistics. The left is all about propaganda, lies and using false or very misleading statistics to try to sway public opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:44:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet if you have kids, they are in public education. THAT is your answer. Generations of leftist propaganda, from an early age. And no, my kids were NOT exposed to that trash. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just don't understand how we have become so weak minded. I'm so sick of all the anti gun liberal BS it just makes my blood boil I bet if you have kids, they are in public education. THAT is your answer. Generations of leftist propaganda, from an early age. And no, my kids were NOT exposed to that trash. Safety first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:45:42 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet if you have kids, they are in public education. THAT is your answer. Generations of leftist propaganda, from an early age. And no, my kids were NOT exposed to that trash. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just don't understand how we have become so weak minded. I'm so sick of all the anti gun liberal BS it just makes my blood boil I bet if you have kids, they are in public education. THAT is your answer. Generations of leftist propaganda, from an early age. And no, my kids were NOT exposed to that trash. Safety first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:49:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: False. Oregon Mall shooting a few years back; CHL holder stopped a massacre. I knew the shooter (bad guy) in passing.   Never saw it coming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:49:56 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"In 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime" Yeah, by definition. If an armed person kills a shooter, he won't be able t keep killing anyone and it will be after his crimes. Nothing gets by Rolling Stone writers. Nothing. It also seems that RS is critical of the armed civilian for not being able to prevent the shooting in the first place. And they give no credit to the armed civilian for preventing other deaths. And how would the armed civilian be able to prevent the shooting before it happened - is he supposed to be see into the future? RS writers don't even have a basic capacity for logical thought. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:50:57 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. Then why call the cops at all? Is their plan to just let the bad guy tire himself out and fall asleep? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:51:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It also seems that RS is critical of the armed civilian for not being able to prevent the shooting in the first place. And they give no credit to the armed civilian for preventing other deaths. And how would the armed civilian be able to prevent the shooting before it happened - is he supposed to be see into the future? RS writers don't even have a basic capacity for logical thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"In 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime" Yeah, by definition. If an armed person kills a shooter, he won't be able t keep killing anyone and it will be after his crimes. Nothing gets by Rolling Stone writers. Nothing. It also seems that RS is critical of the armed civilian for not being able to prevent the shooting in the first place. And they give no credit to the armed civilian for preventing other deaths. And how would the armed civilian be able to prevent the shooting before it happened - is he supposed to be see into the future? RS writers don't even have a basic capacity for logical thought. Their writers have a lot in common with their readers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:52:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 7:57:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The left wants you conditioned to accept your fate and take your bullet without resistance. "Just relax, it will all be over soon." It works for mass shootings and communist revolutions. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 8:07:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The left wants you conditioned to accept your fate and take your bullet without resistance. "Just relax, it will all be over soon." It works for mass shootings and communist revolutions. This Exactly that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:02:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"In 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime" Yeah, by definition. If an armed person kills a shooter, he won't be able t keep killing anyone and it will be after his crimes. Nothing gets by Rolling Stone writers. Nothing. No better testimony to value of Rolling Stone Magazine right there ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:07:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. And morons.
Uhh... Why do they stop when the police show up... Cuz they are good guys with guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:18:08 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. So are they suggesting you just stand in line and wait for your bullet? If so, I have no problem with Libs following their advice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:22:41 AM EDT
[#17]
shooting back could make the situation worse, say if you shoot an innocent bystander.
it could also make things better if you put the bad guy down before he kills 20 people. doing nothing won't make it any worse. It will most certainly do nothing to improve the situation. follow your conscience and do what you think is right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:24:59 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. the Pearl, MS, school shooting was stopped by a vice principal who grabbed a 1911 from his car and confronted the shooter, who gave up . |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:29:32 AM EDT
[#19]
They're right, no sense in calling the cops since they would bring guns and make it worse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:38:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. This argument can be defeated with the simple fact it is far less likely that you will wind up as a casualty of a mass shooting if you yourself are armed. You may not be the hero type, but self preservation is a hell of a thing. "The life you save may be your own." Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:41:38 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Strawman argument. Since active shooters by nature choose areas that are offlimits to "good" guy law abiding folks I guess we'll never know. Also who do they think actually puts these fuckers down in the end? Oh, guess I saw that one coming, we can't paint the police in a positive manner since we're the MSM. They said, dare i say it, civillians. Nearly all of those spree killrs that were interdicted in th act were shot by on or off duty police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 9:43:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. Whenever I hear nonsense like this, I'm reminded of the scene in Life of Brian where the guy is going to be stoned for blasphemy and Cleese tells him he's going to make it worse if he doesn't shut up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 10:15:09 AM EDT
[#23]
there will always be men that will mock those "MEN" that risk it all for a stranger, it's not because they are superior, it's because they know they will never be those men
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 10:41:28 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The entire left in the US is a fascist, progressive movement that will never rest until we have confiscation like UK does and Australia tried. They are actually elated that this happened in Oregon; it gives them a change to get their scumbag on TV and have a temper tantrum while presenting extremely misleading statistics. The left is all about propaganda, lies and using false or very misleading statistics to try to sway public opinion. I have a feeling they will revel in the inevitable shitshow that outright confiscation orders would bring about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 10:50:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 The Left hates the police. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Strawman argument. Since active shooters by nature choose areas that are offlimits to "good" guy law abiding folks I guess we'll never know. Also who do they think actually puts these fuckers down in the end? Oh, guess I saw that one coming, we can't paint the police in a positive manner since we're the MSM. +1 The Left hates the police. Which begs the question.....how do they intend to enforce all of these laws they want to pass unless they have police. Unless they only think that the police should go after people who are law abiding, working, tax paying citizens and leave the rest of their protected classes alone? I just don't get it. The utopia they envision cannot exist so long as some of the people in society find ways to prey upon the law abiding. Which I don't know how we can get around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 10:53:17 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about pulling it but not firing? Theyre forgeting about the Clackamas Mall shooting. Or the movie theater in San Antonio... Or the church in CO... .....ohhh wait. The MSM never, NEVER gave those any coverage!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:16:46 AM EDT
[#27]
Nice to know Rolling Stone doesn't consider cops to be "good guys with guns"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:21:51 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about pulling it but not firing? Theyre forgeting about the Clackamas Mall shooting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting If it hasn't happened in the last 30 years, it because the scene of the crime (malls, etc) were posted GFZ's, and the victim were the only ones who obeyed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:23:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice to know Rolling Stone doesn't consider cops to be "good guys with guns" Well, there is certainly nothing new about that... isn't it funny though how the same group that tells you that cops are trigger-happy thugs who are looking for an excuse to shoot random citizens who aren't committing any serious crimes also pushes really hard for cops being the only people who can be legally armed? Talk about contradictions. And of course, when crime does strike them personally, who do they go running to for help? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:25:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, there is certainly nothing new about that... isn't it funny though how the same group that tells you that cops are trigger-happy thugs who are looking for an excuse to shoot random citizens who aren't committing any serious crimes also pushes really hard for cops being the only people who can be legally armed? Talk about contradictions. And of course, when crime does strike them personally, who do they go running to for help? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nice to know Rolling Stone doesn't consider cops to be "good guys with guns" Well, there is certainly nothing new about that... isn't it funny though how the same group that tells you that cops are trigger-happy thugs who are looking for an excuse to shoot random citizens who aren't committing any serious crimes also pushes really hard for cops being the only people who can be legally armed? Talk about contradictions. And of course, when crime does strike them personally, who do they go running to for help? It is fascinating. We have now fully forgotten about the demonization of cops and the BLM movement, and are back to the lionization of cops and the "disarm the populace" agenda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:27:17 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is fascinating. We have now fully forgotten about the demonization of cops and the BLM movement, and are back to the lionization of cops and the "disarm the populace" agenda. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nice to know Rolling Stone doesn't consider cops to be "good guys with guns" Well, there is certainly nothing new about that... isn't it funny though how the same group that tells you that cops are trigger-happy thugs who are looking for an excuse to shoot random citizens who aren't committing any serious crimes also pushes really hard for cops being the only people who can be legally armed? Talk about contradictions. And of course, when crime does strike them personally, who do they go running to for help? It is fascinating. We have now fully forgotten about the demonization of cops and the BLM movement, and are back to the lionization of cops and the "disarm the populace" agenda. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.  I can remember when they made us read 1984 in school and I read that line and thought "Well, that's stupid. Who would ever fall for that?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:27:21 AM EDT
[#32]
The kind of Slogans thrown by the mainstream press at The People are designed to take advanatge of peoples ignorance.
If shooting back would "only make things worse" why is it the first guy who shoots back who alays stops the incident? Regardless whether it is Police of citizens? Also most gun carryijng citizens tend to be better shots than most police because for them it is a job for the "gun guys" it is a passion as a result they shoot better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:48:39 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, [SNIP] in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. Would they prefer we shoot someone before that someone commits a crime?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 11:59:59 AM EDT
[#34]
Everything liberals say is either
1) wrong due to ignorance and stupidity, or 2) a lie |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 12:38:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
shooting back could make the situation worse, say if you shoot an innocent bystander. it could also make things better if you put the bad guy down before he kills 20 people. doing nothing won't make it any worse. It will most certainly do nothing to improve the situation. follow your conscience and do what you think is right. Me dying could make it worse for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 12:49:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Only way to break an ambush is counter assault..... VOA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 12:52:41 PM EDT
[#37]
"Even if it saves just one life" I'll continue to carry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 12:58:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.) What a bunch of fucking jackoffs. Totally false. Armed citizen stopped a bloodbath at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Patrick |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 12:59:21 PM EDT
[#39]
From the Clakamas Mall shooting
At this point, hundreds of people fled the mall after hearing the gunshots, but many remained inside and dashed to cover. Roberts headed further toward the food court, firing at 16-year-old employee Alina Pavlenko, who was over 100 feet away, but missed. He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1] He then turned back and headed toward a JCPenney store. He attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts. Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide. In Colorado Springs at a church: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/ The list goes on and on but our liberal MSM doesn't want to hear it or report it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:22:42 PM EDT
[#40]
"...pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse"
Only for the perp and the blood dancing gun grabbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:36:26 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jeanee Assan stopped a mass shooting at a Colorado church some years ago. The article is a proven lie. BTW how can you determine that a mass shooting wasn't stopped when someone stops it before it begins? Yep. Was going to post this. Same with OR mall shooter. Probably more out there, but positive stories about guns do not get much love from the media. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:39:27 PM EDT
[#42]
There is some comedian who had a chance to shoot a mall shooter, but instead of firing he ordered the guy to stop or something and was shot. If he had his head out of his ass he could have stopped the guy.
Rolling Stone is just a propaganda piece anyway, between the fake rape stories and the glamour shot cover of the Boston Bomber, they are just scum |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:47:03 PM EDT
[#43]
Yes, but he didn't shoot the wrong guy. Also they forgot to mention that after the shooting he took it upon himself to get training and he attended a MAG 20 with Massad Ayoob in FL for free. Its on the Gundudes podcast from that year. So long story short, fuck them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:49:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
False. Oregon Mall shooting a few years back; CHL holder stopped a massacre. That's the irony of how they get their stats....because if you stop it, or keep the victims shot to a low # then it doesn't count.
Cognitive dissonance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:49:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Can''t be a mass shooting if the shooter is shot before killing a bunch of people
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:53:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Since this was a response to the recent shootings of students in a "Gun Free Zone" .....
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a guy (when good guys aren't allowed to have guns) is the bad guy running out of ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:56:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Pulling out a gun and shooting back in the midst of the chaos is precisely what the responding officers did. And guess what.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 1:58:03 PM EDT
[#48]
"No mass shootings have been stopped in the last thirty years due to an armed civilian."
Bullshit. Sprinfield hospital of Springfield PA had a man come in and start shooting. One of the doctors was carrying and killed the shooter. The psycho was only able to injur one person. Jeez, where do they get these "facts?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 2:07:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"No mass shootings have been stopped in the last thirty years due to an armed civilian." Bullshit. Sprinfield hospital of Springfield PA had a man come in and start shooting. One of the doctors was carrying and killed the shooter. The psycho was only able to injur one person. Jeez, where do they get these "facts?" It wouldn't be considered a "mass shooting" since the killer was killed before killing enough people for it to qualify as one. Liberals are some twisted motherfuckers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2015 2:09:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"No mass shootings have been stopped in the last thirty years due to an armed civilian." Bullshit. Sprinfield hospital of Springfield PA had a man come in and start shooting. One of the doctors was carrying and killed the shooter. The psycho was only able to injur one person. Jeez, where do they get these "facts?" As Bartholomew_Roberts pointed out, it's not a mass shooting unless a mass of people have been killed, see? If you sample only mass killings by that criteria, killings stopped before they got that bad are automatically excluded. It's abuse of statistics to confirm your pre-determined conclusion. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
