Jump to content

What is better, no guns, or more guns?


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, TH3 said:

only three were killed ... so....awesome? 

 

 

So what happened in Indiana was a good outcome because we don’t live in a fantasy world where everything can be perfectly scripted out.

 

Mass killers will continue to exist because the environment that spawns them will continue to exist. They will use long guns, pistols, cars, bombs, and any number of other devices to commit their crimes.

 

You can’t “ban” your way out of that reality. What you can do is enable law-abiding individuals to have a chance to assist.

 

That’s what happened in Indiana and it’s what happened in West Virginia recently.

 

Anyone suggesting that it would have been better to not have an armed “good samaritan” around is essentially stumping for a higher body count to support their political narrative.

 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/07/18/anti-gun-activist-rages-after-good-guy-with-a-gun-drops-mass-shooter-in-indiana-n596951

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In a world with zero bail laws, prosecutors who don’t prosecute, and cops who don’t protect civilians, if the idea that the average citizen is his own first responder really takes hold, that’s going to make it far more difficult for the gun-grabber community to sell the idea of “gun safety” through gun-free zones, waiting periods, magazine capacity limits and semi-auto firearm bans. They absolutely can’t have that happening.

 

What took place yesterday in that Indiana mall was the result of one man with a gun stopping a killer. While that certainly doesn’t happen in every similar situation, the infrequency doesn’t devalue the lives that were saved when it does.

 

And it demonstrates for more Americans, once again, that when seconds count, they are the people best able to defend themselves and save lives.

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

JIM TREACHER: Libs Seethe After Good Guy with Gun Stops Bad Guy with Gun.

 

It never happens, and also it’s bad that it happened.

 

“It would be better if nobody committed murder at all, of course. But when someone stops a murderer before he can kill again, here’s the proper response: 

 

Thank you.”

 

https://jimtreacher.substack.com/p/libs-seethe-after-good-guy-with-gun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet Another Good-Guy-With-Gun Story - This Time in Missouri

By Susie Moore 

 

https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2022/07/18/yet-another-good-guy-with-gun-story-this-time-in-missouri-n597036

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

JIM TREACHER: Libs Seethe After Good Guy with Gun Stops Bad Guy with Gun.

 

It never happens, and also it’s bad that it happened.

 

“It would be better if nobody committed murder at all, of course. But when someone stops a murderer before he can kill again, here’s the proper response: 

 

Thank you.”

 

https://jimtreacher.substack.com/p/libs-seethe-after-good-guy-with-gun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet Another Good-Guy-With-Gun Story - This Time in Missouri

By Susie Moore 

 

https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2022/07/18/yet-another-good-guy-with-gun-story-this-time-in-missouri-n597036

 

 

 

.

Yep. The lack of media attention on local news and radio has been noticeable. These outlets all read from the same script and that’s why public trust in them has diminished. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:


Interesting that the “by other means” number is generally consistent across states. 

It’s not interesting or surprising in the least. What method would you guess most people think ( though not always correctly )  is the easiest? Fastest? Not to disparage anyone, but let’s be realistic here. Ending it all isn’t exactly an act of bravery. Jumping off a bridge may not seem appealing. Still, it’s no reason to restrict gun access of law abiding citizens. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

It’s not interesting or surprising in the least. What method would you guess most people think ( though not always correctly )  is the easiest? Fastest? Not to disparage anyone, but let’s be realistic here. Ending it all isn’t exactly an act of bravery. Jumping off a bridge may not seem appealing. Still, it’s no reason to restrict gun access of law abiding citizens. 

 

Too bad. No one needs an AR-15.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


Interesting that the “by other means” number is generally consistent across states. 

Interesting that…generally….red states lead the league in suicide rates and the commie libtard states have the lowest…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

So what happened in Indiana was a good outcome because we don’t live in a fantasy world where everything can be perfectly scripted out.

 

Mass killers will continue to exist because the environment that spawns them will continue to exist. They will use long guns, pistols, cars, bombs, and any number of other devices to commit their crimes.

 

You can’t “ban” your way out of that reality. What you can do is enable law-abiding individuals to have a chance to assist.

 

That’s what happened in Indiana and it’s what happened in West Virginia recently.

 

Anyone suggesting that it would have been better to not have an armed “good samaritan” around is essentially stumping for a higher body count to support their political narrative.

 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/07/18/anti-gun-activist-rages-after-good-guy-with-a-gun-drops-mass-shooter-in-indiana-n596951

Only a diehard brainwashed cementhead would classify 3 innocent people dead a “good” outcome…

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear….we are talking about lives “saved” after a shooter has already killed someone …right?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 5:28 PM, TH3 said:

Only a diehard brainwashed cementhead would classify 3 innocent people dead a “good” outcome…

 

Just to be clear….we are talking about lives “saved” after a shooter has already killed someone …right?

 

You aren't very bright are you ?

 

You certainly can't read, this is just one of the responses that I gave. The shooting was not "good" but the result was  fortunately better than it might have been

 

On 7/18/2022 at 4:43 PM, B-Man said:

Libs Seethe After Good Guy with Gun Stops Bad Guy with Gun.

It never happens, and also it’s bad that it happened.

 

“It would be better if nobody committed murder at all, of course. But when someone stops a murderer before he can kill again, here’s the proper response: 

 

Thank you.”

 

 

 

 

BACK TO THE THREAD.

 

Watch: Armed ATF Agents Show up at Gun Owner's Home Unannounced, to Inspect Lawfully Purchased Guns

 

Screen-Shot-2022-07-19-at-2.31.55-PM-1-4

 

https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2022/07/19/watch-armed-atf-agents-show-up-at-gun-owners-home-unannounced-to-inspect-lawfully-purchased-guns-n598051

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Police update timeline, say man took down Greenwood Park Mall shooter in just 15 seconds

 

We’re not hearing a lot about this “good guy with a gun” story in the mainstream media — the bigger news seems to be that this hero was carrying in a mall that was a gun-free zone. And if there were no guns at all … nobody would need one. We’re now learning that Eli Dicken managed to take down the Greenwood Park Mall shooter in just 15 seconds … not two minutes as previously reported. That’s pretty amazing.

 

 

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/07/19/police-update-timeline-say-man-took-down-greenwood-park-mall-shooter-in-just-15-seconds/

 

 

Got right to work without hesitation, saving untold lives.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 11:43 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

So what happened in Indiana was a good outcome because we don’t live in a fantasy world where everything can be perfectly scripted out.

 

Mass killers will continue to exist because the environment that spawns them will continue to exist. They will use long guns, pistols, cars, bombs, and any number of other devices to commit their crimes.

 

You can’t “ban” your way out of that reality. What you can do is enable law-abiding individuals to have a chance to assist.

 

That’s what happened in Indiana and it’s what happened in West Virginia recently.

 

Anyone suggesting that it would have been better to not have an armed “good samaritan” around is essentially stumping for a higher body count to support their political narrative.

 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/07/18/anti-gun-activist-rages-after-good-guy-with-a-gun-drops-mass-shooter-in-indiana-n596951

This won’t change until the left admits that criminals are actually bad people. The outrage over using the term “ Good Samaritan “ is laughable if it weren’t so sad. Even invoking scripture: imagine that! I wonder what their take would be on “ The Good Samaritan Doctor performed the abortion for free” or “ The Good Samaritan Attorney defended the murderer pro bono” 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The outcome at the Greenwood Park Mall is more of a needle in a haystack . It would take a massive number of concealed carry in places that even now don't allow them to have any effect .  It's way too late to have the control like Japan here. If someone is not acting right here they need to be checked out for real is a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

This won’t change until the left admits that criminals are actually bad people. The outrage over using the term “ Good Samaritan “ is laughable if it weren’t so sad. Even invoking scripture: imagine that! I wonder what their take would be on “ The Good Samaritan Doctor performed the abortion for free” or “ The Good Samaritan Attorney defended the murderer pro bono” 

I’m betting that 99% of Americans don’t even understand the underlying teaching point of the story of the Good Samaritan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m betting that 99% of Americans don’t even understand the underlying teaching point of the story of the Good Samaritan. 

 

Or any of the parables attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 5:28 PM, TH3 said:

Only a diehard brainwashed cementhead would classify 3 innocent people dead a “good” outcome…

Just to be clear….we are talking about lives “saved” after a shooter has already killed someone …right?

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 4:28 PM, TH3 said:

Only a diehard brainwashed cementhead would classify 3 innocent people dead a “good” outcome…

Just to be clear….we are talking about lives “saved” after a shooter has already killed someone …right?

 

Let me start by saying any loss of life is tragic & is never looked at by most as a good thing ! With that being said .

 

Only a complete & utter moron would twist this in such a way that what this young man did was a bad thing !

 

And what could have been if this guy didn't have a gun, if this young man wouldn't have taken the action he did & like most turned and ran the loss of life would have been 10 fold but thank god it wasn't because of what he did .

 

As i said any loss of live is terrible & as we all know guns in the wrong hands is not a good thing but as has been said "one way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" ! 

 

As it is said in the Bible "Greater love has no one than this to lay down ones life for ones friend" Sure this young man wasn't killed but could have been yet he was willing to put his life on the line to save others from being killed & not only in my eyes but in gods eyes that is a good thing .

 

But politics will not see this as the same thing there will be those that have come forth  called it what it is very brave & hero like then there will be those that call it what they need to feed their agenda .

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
17 hours ago, BillStime said:

Armpit of America living up to its rep 

 

 

 

Moronic tweet from an anti-gunner. 

 

If you buy a firearm, you have to be legal to do so. You can't own a firearm if you have a felony, use drugs, have a DV charge, protection order, etc. Murder is illegal. You can't buy a firearm from a dealer w/o completing a national background check. Since 1997 when the study of right-to-carry (both shall-issue and permitless carry) laws’ impact on crime began, 40 of the 52 studies showed that the implementation of right-to-carry laws either did not increase or coincided with a decrease in violent crime.

 

(and Florida is one of the best states to live in at this moment. WAAAY more than NY)

Edited by ArdmoreRyno
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Moronic tweet from an anti-gunner. 

 

If you buy a firearm, you have to be legal to do so. You can't own a firearm if you have a felony, use drugs, have a DV charge, protection order, etc. Murder is illegal. You can't buy a firearm from a dealer w/o completing a national background check. Since 1997 when the study of right-to-carry (both shall-issue and permitless carry) laws’ impact on crime began, 40 of the 52 studies showed that the implementation of right-to-carry laws either did not increase or coincided with a decrease in violent crime.

 

(and Florida is one of the best states to live in at this moment. WAAAY more than NY)


Florida is the armpit and manufactured tantrum of America.

 

Cant wait until we take all of your guns 

 

lolz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BillStime said:


Florida is the armpit and manufactured tantrum of America.

 

Cant wait until we take all of your guns 

 

lolz

 

Nice try troll. 

 

Florida is top 10 in best states to live. You can pretend the sky is purple all you want, doesn't make it true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court's Bruen Gun Decision Is Even Bigger Than You Think

BY VICTORIA TAFT AUG 04, 2022

 

 

d8c3308f-1e2a-4bba-af56-1139a3209cbe-860

 

Since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made crystal clear in his ruling in New York Pistol and Rifle v. Bruen that the Second Amendment is not a second-class civil right, the question becomes: how far does this decision go? After consulting several gun and constitutional lawyers, here’s the short answer: very far. Read on.

 

Thomas stated unequivocally that Americans’ right to carry a gun outside the home has been treated as a second-class right in modern times. Indeed, the whims of politicians have been treated with more respect than bedrock constitutional principles surrounding Americans’ right to defend themselves with guns.

 

Thomas wrote, “we know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

 

The decision didn’t touch on the issues of licensing, background checks, training requirements, or limiting who may have a gun permit in the case of felons and the mentally incapable.

 

Since the decision came out on June 23, I’ve sought the answer to the question I posed above. I’ve spoken to gun law experts around the country and sought to put things in perspective.

 

More questions arise. Does the decision affecting guns “in common use” also apply to bans on certain guns, such as AR-15s, that are owned by millions of American gun owners? What about parts you put on a gun? What about restrictions on what you put in a gun? Various states around the country limit gun accouterments such as ammunition, so-called “precursor [gun] parts,” magazine sizes, ammo size, stocks, sights, changeable lowers, and other parts. Four states require that special permits be obtained before being able to buy ammo. And there are several different kinds of permits for various bullet sizes. Clearly, these are attempts to create a barrier to defending yourself.

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/08/04/the-supreme-courts-bruen-gun-decision-is-even-bigger-than-you-think-n1608747

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point does the right to carry guns interfere with the rights of others to live a civil, peaceful life without the threat of violence? Do we want guns in our churches, bars, football stadiums, shopping malls, etc? Can I take my AR15 to Foxboro when the Bills are playing? Can crazy Dolphins fans bring theirs to Highmark? At some point, there has to be limits.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...