The biggest mass shooting in history

[Sanity Check]

This is the biggest mass shooting in history (as far as I know):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

130 confirmed fatalities.

Inside a "gun free" zone in france.

.

Those who support assault rifle bans or gun regulation cannot be on the right.

The idea that stripping people of rights and freedom to enslave everyone beneath the government equals progress is leftist ideology.

Gun regulation and bans are anti-constitutional and go against everything the USA stands for.

[d2bets]

Even Jibby is on board with banning assault rifles. You don't need them for protection.

And "regulated" is literally in the second amendment. Of course weapons can be regulated.

[Sanity Check]

Assault rifles are a deterrent against government and private sector abusing power and authority. Banning assault rifles is an open invitation for "greedy and corrupt" corporations to treat workers worse than they do now. Its an invitation for "corrupt government" to become more corrupt.

Regulation is what prevents many americans from directly betting on pinnacle, using fantasy sports sites like fanduel/draftkings and from trading crypto currencies on exchanges.

Regulation isn't designed to be fair, equal or balanced. Its designed to push regime change and political agendas. None of which are supposed to amend constitutional rights.

You can't be on the right and support things like gun bans / regulation which are purely leftist ideology.

[RoyBacon]

Assault rifles are a deterrent against government and private sector abusing power and authority. Banning assault rifles is an open invitation for "greedy and corrupt" corporations to treat workers worse than they do now. Its an invitation for "corrupt government" to become more corrupt.

Regulation is what prevents many americans from directly betting on pinnacle, using fantasy sports sites like fanduel/draftkings and from trading crypto currencies on exchanges.

Regulation isn't designed to be fair, equal or balanced. Its designed to push regime change and political agendas. None of which are supposed to amend constitutional rights.

You can't be on the right and support things like gun bans / regulation which are purely leftist ideology.

What's the difference between banning .50 calibers and assault rifles?

Banning weapons too dangerous for the ordinary citizen is consistent with current 2nd Amendment renditions. Banning AR's will not solve mass shootings but it's an important step.

[MinnesotaFats]

This is the biggest mass shooting in history (as far as I know):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

130 confirmed fatalities.

Inside a "gun free" zone in france.

.

Those who support assault rifle bans or gun regulation cannot be on the right.

The idea that stripping people of rights and freedom to enslave everyone beneath the government equals progress is leftist ideology.

Gun regulation and bans are anti-constitutional and go against everything the USA stands for.

Agree, but how many similarities do we have with modern law enforcement trying to slowly monopolize arms in various cities and locations? It's an ideology...a belief, that lefties try to scale to the smallest village

[Sanity Check]

What's the difference between banning .50 calibers and assault rifles?

Banning weapons too dangerous for the ordinary citizen is consistent with current 2nd Amendment renditions. Banning AR's will not solve mass shootings but it's an important step.

Imagine you were the government and your goal was to save lives. Step #1 is educating the public on 250,000 americans dying every year from preventable medical errors. Then formulating a viable strategy to mitigate that statistic of preventable fatalities. Guns would not be the #1 priority with roughly 30,000 US fatalities attributed to preventable gun deaths.

Prioritizing gun deaths above preventable medical errors reveals gun regulation is not about saving lives. It is politically motivated.

The right to own guns like assault rifles gives people power. The US as a country wields considerable political power through having one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Passing laws to reduce freedom to bear arms represents a reduction in the influence and political power of the average person. Bearing arms is one of method of keeping government power in check. Its a safeguard against totalitarianism and the evils of big government. Perhaps this is the real reason gun regulation and bans are pushed so hard by the fake news media.

[Nitrogen]

Assault rifles are a deterrent against government and private sector abusing power and authority. Banning assault rifles is an open invitation for "greedy and corrupt" corporations to treat workers worse than they do now. Its an invitation for "corrupt government" to become more corrupt.

Why aren't machine guns legal? Aren't they a deterrent? What if someone has the skill and resources to build their own nuke? That seems like a deterrent.

[Andy117]

This is the biggest mass shooting in history (as far as I know):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

130 confirmed fatalities.

Inside a "gun free" zone in france.

.

Those who support assault rifle bans or gun regulation cannot be on the right.

The idea that stripping people of rights and freedom to enslave everyone beneath the government equals progress is leftist ideology.

Gun regulation and bans are anti-constitutional and go against everything the USA stands for.

Read the 2nd amendment again. Specifically the regulation part.


Also

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1836949715

[guitarjosh]

Even Jibby is on board with banning assault rifles. You don't need them for protection.

And "regulated" is literally in the second amendment. Of course weapons can be regulated.

Yes you do. An Ar-15 is the best home defense weapon. It's easy to handle, has little recoil, and is easy to load. I don't know what gun training you've had, but the training I had told me to go for a controlled pair in the thoracic cavity, and if that doesn't work, fire a shot in the ocular cavity. You need to take into account that police miss most of the shots they take, and they train all the time. If you're trying to neutralize multiple attackers, and you need 2-3 well placed shots per attacker, you're going to miss a lot, and you're going to need a lot of bullets.

NFL Football practices are well regulated, which is what the founders were saying. You can have a private militia and run regular combat drills to ensure you're ready for a fight. It also says, "The right (not privilege) of the people (not militia members only) to keep and bear(not borrow and return when you leave the militia) arms (not muskets) shall not be infringed.

What's the difference between banning .50 calibers and assault rifles?

Banning weapons too dangerous for the ordinary citizen is consistent with current 2nd Amendment renditions. Banning AR's will not solve mass shootings but it's an important step.

They're both bad. Back in 1791, you could legally own a cannon. The Constitution allows Congress to write letters of marquee and reprisal, aka hiring mercenaries. A citizen can't sink a British clipper with a rowboat and a musket. The battle ships we used in the Revolutionary War were actually merchant ships that were loaded with cannons.

Why aren't machine guns legal? Aren't they a deterrent? What if someone has the skill and resources to build their own nuke? That seems like a deterrent.

They should be. Getting a nuke will cost over 30 billion.

[rkelly110]

Anyone get that sorry lame ass excuse/ delivery from their prez yesterday? You know the instigator of the recent
uprising in race baiting, separation of parties and people? Let's see if he keeps his tone down after the shootings.

[L8night]

Yes you do. An Ar-15 is the best home defense weapon. It's easy to handle, has little recoil, and is easy to load. I don't know what gun training you've had, but the training I had told me to go for a controlled pair in the thoracic cavity, and if that doesn't work, fire a shot in the ocular cavity. You need to take into account that police miss most of the shots they take, and they train all the time. If you're trying to neutralize multiple attackers, and you need 2-3 well placed shots per attacker, you're going to miss a lot, and you're going to need a lot of bullets.

NFL Football practices are well regulated, which is what the founders were saying. You can have a private militia and run regular combat drills to ensure you're ready for a fight. It also says, "The right (not privilege) of the people (not militia members only) to keep and bear(not borrow and return when you leave the militia) arms (not muskets) shall not be infringed.

They're both bad. Back in 1791, you could legally own a cannon. The Constitution allows Congress to write letters of marquee and reprisal, aka hiring mercenaries. A citizen can't sink a British clipper with a rowboat and a musket. The battle ships we used in the Revolutionary War were actually merchant ships that were loaded with cannons.


They should be. Getting a nuke will cost over 30 billion.

No doubt if you are in a defensive mode you would want to have all the fire power you can, but that is not what this is about, this is about individuals that take an assault weapon and go on the offensive to inflict as much damage on unsuspecting targets as they can before they are stopped.

Are mass shootings going to stop if we take away assault weapons? probably not, but the amount of carnage will be less severe if the shooters are not armed with easy fast killing weaponry.

[Turd Ferguson]

[Sanity Check]

Why aren't machine guns legal? Aren't they a deterrent? What if someone has the skill and resources to build their own nuke? That seems like a deterrent.

Here's a 3 minute clip of people in the philippines manufacturing fully automatic firearms in a jungle using nothing but simple tools and scrap metal.

If a normal everyday person spent $1 trillion dollars towards helping the poor, they would probably use that money more ethically and responsibly than a government would.

People assume governments are trustworthy institutions who have the public's best interests at heart. Its not always the case. People need safeguards, checks and balances against government corruption. Owning machine guns, cannons and RPG's could represent a viable step in that direction.

Read the 2nd amendment again. Specifically the regulation part.

Whatever it says about regulation.

It referred to old school regulation protecting rights and freedoms.

Not today's progressive regulation which always does the opposite.

[Sanity Check]

Check out this guy's swag.

[guitarjosh]

No doubt if you are in a defensive mode you would want to have all the fire power you can, but that is not what this is about, this is about individuals that take an assault weapon and go on the offensive to inflict as much damage on unsuspecting targets as they can before they are stopped.

Are mass shootings going to stop if we take away assault weapons? probably not, but the amount of carnage will be less severe if the shooters are not armed with easy fast killing weaponry.

This is absolutely about being in defensive mode. I don't plan on ever being on offensive mode, and I'm sure the vast majority of gun owners agree with me on that one. There's really no evidence to back up your claims of less carnage. The fact is that most mass shootings are carried out with a hand gun, which are much easier to conceal.

[jtoler]

im convinced humans are dumber than robots might as well replace them so easy to manipulate u can build bots to problem solve humans have forgot they have a brain

[L8night]

This is absolutely about being in defensive mode. I don't plan on ever being on offensive mode, and I'm sure the vast majority of gun owners agree with me on that one. There's really no evidence to back up your claims of less carnage. The fact is that most mass shootings are carried out with a hand gun, which are much easier to conceal.

You need to take into account that police miss most of the shots they take, and they train all the time. If you're trying to neutralize multiple attackers, and you need 2-3 well placed shots per attacker, you're going to miss a lot, and you're going to need a lot of bullets.

You stated in the above quote, that even well trained police will miss, so if a shooter attacks with a nine clip 9mm, is it going to be more accurate than say a 20 clip AR-15, we know that the AR-15 has less recoil and is easier to acquire a target than a 9mm at lets say 20 feet.

If we take the Dayton shooter, he got off 41 shots in less than 30 secs., killing 9 and wounding 16, do you think you could have loaded 5 times and caused that much carnage with a 9mm, I know I couldn't and I have trained with that weapon, apparently he had a clip that held one hundred rounds, imagine what he would have done in a short period of time had he got into that full nightclub.

It's just common sense that assault weapons cause more harm faster than hand guns, but that still doesn't solve the question of why individuals decide to take lives, but taking away the preferred weapon is a start.

[guitarjosh]

You stated in the above quote, that even well trained police will miss, so if a shooter attacks with a nine clip 9mm, is it going to be more accurate than say a 20 clip AR-15, we know that the AR-15 has less recoil and is easier to acquire a target than a 9mm at lets say 20 feet.

If we take the Dayton shooter, he got off 41 shots in less than 30 secs., killing 9 and wounding 16, do you think you could have loaded 5 times and caused that much carnage with a 9mm, I know I couldn't and I have trained with that weapon, apparently he had a clip that held one hundred rounds, imagine what he would have done in a short period of time had he got into that full nightclub.

It's just common sense that assault weapons cause more harm faster than hand guns, but that still doesn't solve the question of why individuals decide to take lives, but taking away the preferred weapon is a start.

You're ignoring 2 things. First, the element of surprise. It is quite easy to to sneak a handgun or 2 plus several magazines into a crowded area undetected and then start firing away, but that is virtually impossible if you're using a long gun. If people see someone walking toward them with a AR-15, they'll probably run. Remember the South Carolina church shooting? He hid a gun in a fanny pack and sat through the entire church service and no one know he had a weapon.

Secondly, these mass shooters are dangerous whether they have a gun in their hands or not. The reality is that they can easily kill numerous people with explosives, a car, etc. With all this talk of background checks keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, my thought is that if they're too dangerous to have a gun in their hands, they're too dangerous to be out in public.

[L8night]

You're ignoring 2 things. First, the element of surprise. It is quite easy to to sneak a handgun or 2 plus several magazines into a crowded area undetected and then start firing away, but that is virtually impossible if you're using a long gun. If people see someone walking toward them with a AR-15, they'll probably run. Remember the South Carolina church shooting? He hid a gun in a fanny pack and sat through the entire church service and no one know he had a weapon.

Secondly, these mass shooters are dangerous whether they have a gun in their hands or not. The reality is that they can easily kill numerous people with explosives, a car, etc. With all this talk of background checks keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, my thought is that if they're too dangerous to have a gun in their hands, they're too dangerous to be out in public.

Well didn't Donnie rescind the law that kept guns out of the hands of wacko's? unfortunately we now live in an age where mass killing is an outrage and is happening at an accelerated rate,but nothing is being done about it, until it gets addressed by our elected officials we will be talking these same points after the next horrific event.

[dlowilly]

If you take my guns I will buy some of those flame throwing drones

[guitarjosh]

Well didn't Donnie rescind the law that kept guns out of the hands of wacko's? unfortunately we now live in an age where mass killing is an outrage and is happening at an accelerated rate,but nothing is being done about it, until it gets addressed by our elected officials we will be talking these same points after the next horrific event.

Was that the law that the ALCU & AARP also wanted rescinded?

Even if we could ensure that the only long guns people owned were hunting rifles and shotguns, it doesn't do anything about handguns, which are the cause of most mass shootings. These 2 incidents over the weekend could have still happened with handguns, explosives, or cars.

This is the problem I have with the whole gun banning argument, it won't stop. First they'll come for the semi automatic rifles, then the handguns, then the hunting rifles, then the shotguns. You won't be happy until there are no guns that are legal.

[L8night]

Was that the law that the ALCU & AARP also wanted rescinded?

Even if we could ensure that the only long guns people owned were hunting rifles and shotguns, it doesn't do anything about handguns, which are the cause of most mass shootings. These 2 incidents over the weekend could have still happened with handguns, explosives, or cars.

This is the problem I have with the whole gun banning argument, it won't stop. First they'll come for the semi automatic rifles, then the handguns, then the hunting rifles, then the shotguns. You won't be happy until there are no guns that are legal.

With this last statement you made it is time to end this conversation, I have heard it to many times and it is BS, I respected your view till you through this out....

[guitarjosh]

With this last statement you made it is time to end this conversation, I have heard it to many times and it is BS, I respected your view till you through this out....

yeah, no one wants to take your guns