|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 9, 2016 13:17:45 GMT -5
Had this man chosen a gun free location the death toll would have been far higher. Not necessarily... only those who were armed were targeted... the non-armed were not...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 9, 2016 13:19:16 GMT -5
Which is why they were able to keep the numbers where they were. They were able to shoot back, and stop him. An ambush will kill and wound people, because they aren't expecting it. However, if the ambushed are unarmed, no one can stop the shooter until he's done shooting whomever he wants. When the people are armed, they can reduce the damage. Weird that one should have to so thoroughly explain the most obvious things. Ain't it though... see my comments above...
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Jul 9, 2016 14:15:32 GMT -5
Which is why they were able to keep the numbers where they were. They were able to shoot back, and stop him. An ambush will kill and wound people, because they aren't expecting it. However, if the ambushed are unarmed, no one can stop the shooter until he's done shooting whomever he wants. When the people are armed, they can reduce the damage. When guns aren't as readily accessible as they are... and reasonable restrictions and regulations are place on their purchase and use... we can reduce the damge as well... New laws aren't needed, current laws are not even enforced. As a law abiding citizen I should have a right to buy what I want, when I want
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 9, 2016 15:58:29 GMT -5
Which is why they were able to keep the numbers where they were. They were able to shoot back, and stop him. An ambush will kill and wound people, because they aren't expecting it. However, if the ambushed are unarmed, no one can stop the shooter until he's done shooting whomever he wants. When the people are armed, they can reduce the damage. When guns aren't as readily accessible as they are... and reasonable restrictions and regulations are place on their purchase and use... we can reduce the damge as well... This is just silly. Someone who's willing to break laws against murder that carry the death penalty isn't going to be deterred by waiting periods or extra background checks, or any other useless regulatory nonsense you want to put up. They will steal their weapons, or even make one if they have to. It's not as though a gun is an especially complicated device.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 9, 2016 16:01:32 GMT -5
Had this man chosen a gun free location the death toll would have been far higher. Not necessarily... only those who were armed were targeted... the non-armed were not... Police were targeted. The choice of a different target location presumes a different agenda, similar to the criminals who have attacked such places. Keep reminding me not to assume that other people think logically and can fill in the blanks on their own. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 9, 2016 17:27:14 GMT -5
Which is why they were able to keep the numbers where they were. They were able to shoot back, and stop him. An ambush will kill and wound people, because they aren't expecting it. However, if the ambushed are unarmed, no one can stop the shooter until he's done shooting whomever he wants. When the people are armed, they can reduce the damage. When guns aren't as readily accessible as they are... and reasonable restrictions and regulations are place on their purchase and use... we can reduce the damge as well... Sorry, what are "reasonable restrictions"? Wouldn't those be infringements? And I'll bet, once the investigation is complete, we'll find out that he met all current regulations, and nothing proposed would stop it. Especially with The Puppet not only arming Mexican drug cartels, but terrorists as well. If we have "reasonable restrictions" on one enumerated right, why not the exact same restrictions on all of them? Like a background check on the "mother" before abortions? After all, every abortion takes a human life. Or on voting? Freedom to assemble, since most of these shootings happen at some sort of assembly?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 9, 2016 17:29:18 GMT -5
Had this man chosen a gun free location the death toll would have been far higher. Not necessarily... only those who were armed were targeted... the non-armed were not... And he was stopped by other armed individuals. If no one had been armed, the death toll could have been astronomic. And, as I said, ambushes work because they are a surprise. They are broken when the surprise is over, and armed men move to the sound of the guns. Of course an ambush causes casualties, they are sprung on the unsuspecting.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Jul 9, 2016 17:30:58 GMT -5
Had this man chosen a gun free location the death toll would have been far higher. You have zero proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Jul 9, 2016 17:33:14 GMT -5
When guns aren't as readily accessible as they are... and reasonable restrictions and regulations are place on their purchase and use... we can reduce the damge as well... New laws aren't needed, current laws are not even enforced. As a law abiding citizen I should have a right to buy what I want, when I want The killer was "law abiding" too.......right up until he pulled the trigger.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 9, 2016 17:50:19 GMT -5
Had this man chosen a gun free location the death toll would have been far higher. You have zero proof of that. And you have proof that 'gun' free zones work? When every, single mass shooting, except 3, since 1950 has happened in a "gun" free zone? And every mass shooting that is attempted where the targets are armed is stopped short?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 9, 2016 17:51:20 GMT -5
New laws aren't needed, current laws are not even enforced. As a law abiding citizen I should have a right to buy what I want, when I want The killer was "law abiding" too.......right up until he pulled the trigger. Not exactly. He had meth and explosives in his apt, both of which are illegal. He was also being referred for chapter from the Reserves. Doesn't look like he was too much of a angel, now does it? Just a typical Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 9, 2016 18:01:40 GMT -5
Had this man chosen a gun free location the death toll would have been far higher. You have zero proof of that. Since he did not choose such a location, your statement is technically correct. But apparently you missed the speculative nature of my statement.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Jul 9, 2016 18:21:24 GMT -5
You have zero proof of that. And you have proof that 'gun' free zones work? When every, single mass shooting, except 3, since 1950 has happened in a "gun" free zone? And every mass shooting that is attempted where the targets are armed is stopped short? That's not even remotely true.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 9, 2016 19:02:16 GMT -5
New laws aren't needed, current laws are not even enforced. As a law abiding citizen I should have a right to buy what I want, when I want The killer was "law abiding" too.......right up until he pulled the trigger. So then you're saying background checks are worthless.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Jul 9, 2016 19:08:41 GMT -5
The killer was "law abiding" too.......right up until he pulled the trigger. So then you're saying background checks are worthless. I think, actually, he is saying that everything he says is...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 9, 2016 19:26:18 GMT -5
So then you're saying background checks are worthless. I think, actually, he is saying that everything he says is... He does back himself into some really amusing corners.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 9, 2016 19:51:18 GMT -5
And you have proof that 'gun' free zones work? When every, single mass shooting, except 3, since 1950 has happened in a "gun" free zone? And every mass shooting that is attempted where the targets are armed is stopped short? That's not even remotely true. Sorry, but yes it is. Look it up.
|
|
|
Post by niamhaine on Jul 10, 2016 2:11:20 GMT -5
One of the facts not discussed is that the police were not allowed to wear their bullet proof vests during the demonstration, since it has previously been determined that it makes people attending demonstrations uncomfortable. That policy definitely needs to be reviewed.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Jul 10, 2016 3:39:47 GMT -5
One of the facts not discussed is that the police were not allowed to wear their bullet proof vests during the demonstration, since it has previously been determined that it makes people attending demonstrations uncomfortable. That policy definitely needs to be reviewed. We must not offend the terminally offended!
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Jul 10, 2016 9:05:39 GMT -5
You knuckleheads would have thanked him for his service and called him a "Patriot" and a Oath keeper before he snapped.This is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting guns in the hands of these nutcases returning from multiple deployments isn't a good idea. The only people they have to fight is the `roided up Tacticool cops that were militarized by Bush. Who do you think is going to win?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2016 9:44:22 GMT -5
You knuckleheads would have thanked him for his service and called him a "Patriot" and a Oath keeper before he snapped.This is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting guns in the hands of these nutcases returning from multiple deployments isn't a good idea. The only people they have to fight is the `roided up Tacticool cops that were militarized by Bush. Who do you think is going to win? I still thank him for his service. That part of his life is separate from what he eventually became. As to what made him snap? We'll probably never know, because generally the only way to diagnose mental illness is to speak with the patient. Not only is that not possible, there's no real motivation since there's nothing practical to be done with the information. I read today that Philando Castile, at 32, had been pulled over 52 times prior to the ultimately fatal stop. I'm a little less than twice that age and haven't been pulled over half a dozen times, counting speeding stops. I predict we're going to discover there's more to that story before it's all over. Sometimes the people police shoot needed to be shot. Sometimes that's even true if they have black skin. But apparently, society has embraced a kind of racism that claims black people never do anything wrong, and it's always the police at fault when there's trouble.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Jul 10, 2016 9:49:11 GMT -5
Read where? Breitbart, Fox, or the American Stinker?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 10, 2016 16:32:21 GMT -5
Read where? Breitbart, Fox, or the American Stinker? Local paper. Did not see where they got the article, probably a wire service. Here's a link to the Tampa Bay Times, which is running substantially the same story.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 10, 2016 20:22:37 GMT -5
You knuckleheads would have thanked him for his service and called him a "Patriot" and a Oath keeper before he snapped.This is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting guns in the hands of these nutcases returning from multiple deployments isn't a good idea. The only people they have to fight is the `roided up Tacticool cops that were militarized by Bush. Who do you think is going to win? You mean Democrats? He was returned from Afghanistan to face charges of sexual harassment. He was a typical Democrat, no morals, no standards, and willing to simply shoot people he has a problem with. He's exactly the Democrat that The Puppet wants: one that will create fear in others, so The Puppet can force his agenda down our throats.
|
|
|
Post by somethingyoumissed on Jul 11, 2016 9:28:34 GMT -5
|
|