- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
uh not in Connecticut
Is this debate only narrowed down to Connecticut?
uh not in Connecticut
Is this debate only narrowed down to Connecticut?
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
"America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers."
"In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in other recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."
More Guns, More Mass Shootings
its because of CT that the anti gun loons have come out of the clouds. IN reality, Obumble, Biden and their toadies were planning on trying to ban guns all along once Obumble won the election
Sure they were you really know how Obama thinks deep down inside right? :roll:
MOther Jones-complete crap and you know it. there was a lady in a church who fired on an active shooter and he was wounded and killed himself. Nice try, but MJ is full of fertilizer of the bovine kind. and Charles Whitman Jr was pinned down by citizens with telescoping rifles who allowed another Non LEO civilian and a texas ranger to get to the shooter and kill him
I'll give you an opportunity to prove your claim. Show me evidence of how many of the 67 mass shootings in the last 30 years where the shooter was taken out by civilian using a gun?
why don't you explain why so many of those mass shootings were perpetrated in areas where the killers had a reasonable belief that there were no armed individuals present?
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
"America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers."
"In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in other recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."
More Guns, More Mass Shootings
I'll give you an opportunity to prove your claim. Show me evidence of how many of the 67 mass shootings in the last 30 years where the shooter was taken out by civilian using a gun?
I'll give you an opportunity to prove your claim. Show me evidence of how many of the 67 mass shootings in the last 30 years where the shooter was taken out by civilian using a gun?
There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that "the shooter took the lives of at least four people." So then, consider the followingMayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I'm sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian—or in some cases, an off duty cop—was present.
I'll give you an opportunity to prove your claim. Show me evidence of how many of the 67 mass shootings in the last 30 years where the shooter was taken out by civilian using a gun?
So you Mother Earth had it right, thanks for your admission that you were wrong about any of the shooters being taken out by a civilian with a gun. Now you want to make another claim you have no evidence of? How about you post your evidence and then we'll take a look at it?
In a related Weekly Standard article, as a commentary on the MJ article:
(point being- if there's an armed civilian, it's not nearly as likely to be a mass shooting)
In a related Weekly Standard article, as a commentary on the MJ article:
(point being- if there's an armed civilian, it's not nearly as likely to be a mass shooting)
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
"America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers."
"In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in other recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."
More Guns, More Mass Shootings
Who?
.
.
.
you didn't see Lizzie school Catawba who posted that idiocy from some far left loon site
In a related Weekly Standard article, as a commentary on the MJ article:
(point being- if there's an armed civilian, it's not nearly as likely to be a mass shooting)
We have a bigger population. More people... more shootings. Makes sense when you think about it. Is that the problem... the thinking?
In a related Weekly Standard article, as a commentary on the MJ article:
(point being- if there's an armed civilian, it's not nearly as likely to be a mass shooting)
killers target areas where gun possession is banned
they don't target areas where people are packing guns
Do you believe I will continue to play your silly game?