John Parker is a student at Umpqua Community College and a military veteran. He is a highly trained and qualified person who was carrying a concealed weapon on campus Thursday when shots rang out and the “active shooter” situation began.
Parker explained in an interview with MSNBC, why he and other vets who were carrying made the decision not to go running into the building where the shooter was wreaking havoc. While it must have been devastating to know that he may have been able to help, Parker kept his calm and stayed where he was — prepared to defend the room he was in, if necessary.
Since the shooting, gun nuts have declared that yet another “gun free zone” was responsible for the deaths of nine people. They have declared that had they been there rather than playing HALO in their Mom’s basement, that things would have been much different. As Parker explained, they are right. They could have caused more harm than good by rushing into a situation they were in the dark about, ultimately getting themselves and others killed in the crossfire with a shooter, or with police who would have had no idea they were “good guys.”
Parker makes it known that he has the right to carry. He obviously believes in the Second Amendment. There is little doubt that had the shooter happened to have come into the room he was in that he would have responded with lethal force, being fully trained to do so. He would also have made sure the other occupants were securely hidden behind him and that he was in control of the situation.
That’s what training and competence accomplish.
The ammosexuals of America aren’t highly trained military veterans for the most part. They’re glory-hound meat heads who think because they have a gun no crime will be committed within a mile of their location. John Parker is, unfortunately, the exception to the rule rather than the standard. Gun nuts will say that if there was a Parker in every classroom this wouldn’t have happened. To them, that will sound reasonable — as if hiring millions of trained people and arming our schools like military installations is the answer to our problems.
Related: Bernie Sanders is irate that this keeps happening: ‘We’re tired of sending condolences’
Watch a reasonable concealed carry gun owner explain why running into a gun fight is a bad idea.
Featured image via screen capture
Sadly this video is of little use to people using reason logic because there was a time or two that the video skipped for just a split second. The NRA mouth pieces will use that to claim someone pulled a planned parenthood on the video and in that split second the man had said “I love the NRA, more guns is the answer.” But it had been cleverly edited out and spliced back together!
The problems is the guy does not argue anything. It’s his opinion without any proof.
“News” Not to be confused with anything factual.
How exactly does this guy “destroy” the “good guy with a gun” theory? He IS a good guy with a gun, and he was prevented by school personnel from going to help. I notice your little “story” here leaves that part out, and your “evidence” is actually cherry-picked parts from this guy’s interviews. Were the other vet who was shot 7 times (was VERY lucky to have survive, he just as easily might not have) armed, he would have been able to end the situation with far fewer people dying. But you libturds would rather regular people be disarmed.
As usual, STFU Chuckie you despicable libturd hack.
how about no one should have guns
Deep, nice. You know nothing, clearly
At least she uses her own name …not her Grindr handle ..
How would you know. She might be Barack Obama. The use of a name says nothing
uh huh …
Yeah, that’s gonna happen.
You are kidding right?
Dude, if you’re gonna troll, at least do it with some sort of humor. Geez.
Pointing out deliberate lies and deception is not “trolling” you fool. If you find a situation in which so many people are killed, especially when that situation was preventable were it not for the nonsensical “gun free” policies of college campuses like this, to be funny, you’ve got serious problems. Try thinking for yourself for a change, ok?
Spoken like a true troll :). Although, you may want to make more use of all caps to better get your point across.
He is busy assembling his lego army to come get you …..
Legos are actually fairly tough to really put together intricate things like an army. You need plans, and there are none. So I doubt if that’s the case in this instance.
But I’ll keep a wary eye, thanks for the tip!
So can you supply us with details of “non gun free zones” that have stopped this type of massacres ?
Sure.
1. Arapahoe High School (Dec 2013) - school shooter killed one person before being stopped by an armed resource officer.
2. New Life Church (Dec 2007) - An armed security guard and church member stopped a shooter armed with an “assault” weapon before he could commit a massacre. After he had shot two church-goers, Jeanne Assam kills him before he can release a grenade.
3. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital (July 2014) - A mentally-disturbed patient killed his social worker, then tried to kill his doctor. Luckily, the doctor had ignored the hospital’s “gun free” policy and armed himself. The doctor killed the shooter before he could hurt anyone else.
Here are a few more: http://controversialtimes.Com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
Troll confirmed. At Arapoe, the guy killed one student and committed suicide. At New Life Church, he killed four people, wounded four others, permanently disabling one, before getting shot and then committing suicide (so, still a mass shooting and still not being stopped by a good guy, he still killed himself), and at Mercy Fitzgerald, the patient killed one and wounded another before actually being shot by his doctor (so, killed by a good guy, but not stopped before murdering someone else).
Religion and Politics is obviously a Liberal giving stupid examples to make gun nuts look bad. Don’t be fooled.
He sounds like a conservative gun nut to me…
At Arapahoe, just WHY did the shooter commit suicide? Because he was confronted by an armed resource officer moments after he started shooting. The kid came loaded for bear, he clearly would have tried to kill more were he no confronted by someone with a gun.
At New Life Church, this guy was stopped before he could murder others, stopped by an armed parishoner. This lady turned a double murder into what would have been another Charleston.
Whether a shooter commits suicide or is shot by someone else, the effect is the same, the threat is ended by someone else with a gun. Are you really so ignorant that you don’t realize this? Are you really so determined to believe what you want to believe that you can’t see these simple facts?
I love this!
Our arguement is that without access to guns these killers wouldn’t be able to kill anyone at all and the troll is calling us ‘ignorant’ because with his method, ‘yeah, he still becomes a mass murderer, but with more guns around, he kills a few less people!’
Listen, troll, we understand that murderers with guns are cowards that blow their own brains out when the slightest hint of resistance occurs. In most cases, these armed morons are planning on dying regardless of what happens. We aren’t surprised by that; one of our chief arguments is that people want guns in the first place because they have really tiny penises and are terrified people will find out, so they overcompensate with a few rifles. Committing suicide because killers don’t want to face what they have done plays right into that fear.
But, troll, when our side has the notion that these murderers won’t be able to kill anyone (Australia has gone from one or two mass murders a year down to ZERO since enacting much stricter gun laws and every other advanced, Western country has deaths in the tens per year against our well over 10,000+ a year) and all you have is, ‘you’re ignorant! My way we’re still gonna have mass murders every month, but one or two less people are gonna die because gun owners wet themselves easy and they’ll shoot themselves because … look out, good guy with a gun!’
Excuse me, troll, if none of us are swayed by this notion devoid of intelligence or merit. I don’t think you’re gonna get elementary school kids to arm themselves for protection today.
Hey libturd, your argument is dead WRONG if you think that “without access to guns these killers wouldn’t be able to kill anyone at all.”
Hey libturd, did you know that in countries where civilians are not allowed access to guns, they use knives??: http://www.rfa.Org/english/news/uyghur/attack-09302015174319.html
Oh, you’re going to bust out the Australia example there libturd? Shows exactly how ignorant you are. Australia has indeed had mass shootings since their gun buyback program. Here are three examples:
http://www.smh.Com.Au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561430158.html
https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
http://www.dailymail.Co.Uk/news/article-2906200/Farmer-DID-shoot-three-children-wife-years-immense-stress-recovery-brain-injury-murder-suicide-shocked-quiet-community.html
You ARE ignorant, not to mention childish and creepy with your fixation on other people’s genitals, talking about arming children. Sounds like you’re scared to death of us. Good.
Oh, and I love how you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that I just proved you dead wrong yet again. A good guy with a gun DID stop each of these shooters before they could harm others, in each case there is strong evidence that they WOULD have tried to harm others. You just deflect, change the subject, and hope no one will notice. You’re pathetic.
Yeah, troll, I think we are all convinced you’re a Liberal posing as a gun-nut now. Everyone else happy?
I point out that mass murderers in his examples still manage to kill a group of people before being ‘stopped’ by a good guy with a gun by committing suicide and he states that I’m ignoring they were stopped at all?
And then he says I deflect and change the subject. We happy with the evidence? Yes, we are all sure you’re a liberal troll tossing up softball arguments to make other liberals look good.
Lol, tell me I fixate on genitals and then say I’m deflecting … I love it! Good job, troll. Tip that fedora…
You can’t refute my argument, so you’re attempting to change it? Very nice. In each case a massacre was prevented because a good guy with a gun stopped a single (or double) murder from turning into a massacre like Charleston or Oregon. This is what I said in the beginning, your pathetic attempt to change the argument aside.
Yes, you DO fixate on genitals, which is why you said: one of our chief arguments is that people want guns in the first place because they have really tiny penises and are terrified people will find out, so they overcompensate with a few rifles.
Plus, you don’t even take a stab at answering my other post. I wonder why that is?
Holy crap! He even notes that I referenced his genital comment in that other post and then asked why I didn’t try and talk about it!
Liberal troll, you are precious. I need to get to work, but it was fun playing. If you’re wondering why I’m not refuting your arguement that mass shootings won’t stop because people have knives … guys, you see the level of opponent we are dealing with here. Have fun, all!
Yes libturd, why didn’t you attempt to answer to the actual content of the other post? Your Australia example is crap, and your “people can’t kill without guns” argument is also crap. I just proved your LIE on fixating on gun owners’ genitals. Wow, you’re a hot mess, you should quit while you’re ahead. Go ahead and go back to “work,” I’m done owning your sorry a s s anyway.
Whatever happened to “Thou Shalt Not Kill” ?
Huh? Why do you libturds always assume that everyone that disagrees with you is some sort of evangelical Christian whackjob? Gun rights are important to a majority of Americans, and most of us are NOT evangelicals, or even Christians at all.
Well the Christians have been killing for 2000 years trying to convince us “Thou Shall Not Kill”. Baby Steps my friend. Baby Steps!!!
Went the same place that “Thou Shalt not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”.
Both involved cops NOT some random whack job carrying a gun in the hope’s of being “hailed a hero” by the media …try again …
“Both”? You mean “all three”?? Did you even read my post?
At Arapahoe HS, the resource officer was also a sheriff’s deputy, but the other two people were not police. One was a private security guard, and a small woman, and the other was a doctor. Plus, it doesn’t matter if the “good guy” was a cop or a civilian, I only want SOMEONE around to protect innocent people. Schools need some form of protection, and cops would be ideal.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your preconceptions.
It does really …as cops are part of a civilized society not some john wayne fantasist who would most likely shoot the darkest person in the room to defend others ..
Concealed carriers are ALSO “part of a civilized society” and commit fewer crimes with their guns than even do police officers.
“Darkest person in the room,” huh? You getting so desperate and pathetic now that you’re trying to paint concealed carriers as racists?? You sir can kiss my a s s.
I don’t have the time to stand in line for you a s s ….
Yet you DO have time to sling baseless accusations of racism and pointedly ignore simple facts and clear evidence. Nice.
Yes - it’s a much shorter line to post …
Really, this artcle is pointless. However your behavior is a bit …let’s say childish. It’s obvious your a Republican and it’s obvious you need to improve your social skills.
I tend to respond in kind. The authors and commentators on this site are deserving of nothing but disdain. At MediaMatters and Breitbart they deserve better, so they get better from me. This site does nothing but spread hatred and bile towards conservatives.
As a nurse, I can tell you that a great MANY veterans have PTSD, much of it undiagnosed.
so you’re admitting that your behavior is unacceptable. There’s a difference between being conservative and and acting like a child. By the way, many conservatives have been spreading more hate and bile than anyone else. kKK is full of conservatives, tea party is full of conservatives , GOP has their share of disrespectful conservatives and that’s why others have so much disdain for them. Many conservatives have been found to embrace bigotry of just about any other race but their own so it’s no wonder people feel disdain for their actions.
My behavior would be acceptable in decent company. However, take a look around you at both the other commentators on this site, as well as the stories this site publishes as well. Both are full of hatred, bile, and a whole lot of unacceptable behavior.
You libturds are every bit as hateful and bigoted as any conservative, albeit in slightly different ways. Just look at this site for a number of prime examples.
The KKK is a despicable hate group yes, but the Tea Party is not, and does not spread “hatred” and “bile” of anything other than excessive government spending and waste. Plus, they tend to be wealthier and better-educated that then general public. I’m afraid you’ve got your lines crossed there bub.
you’re. Just saying
If he had a gun and they did not how exactly was he “prevented” from going to help?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.Com/2015/10/foghorn/update-armed-veteran-prevented-from-stopping-oregon-shooter-by-school-staff-video/
ha ha …come on …how about a “real” source not something written by a basement dwelling 500ld douche …
Watch the video dumba ss. I would never link to any biased resource that didn’t also offer concrete proof. Something tells me you’re too cowardly to actually challenge your preconceptions and look though. That’s ok.
Yes - we can tell by the domain name what an unbiased source it is ….might well have been .tinypeckers.com
Too cowardly to actually watch the video. Why am I not surprised? Ok, here is the transcript:
Straight from the guy’s own mouth:
There was (sic) a few people in the vet center, and when we heard the shooting happen, we got up and we were gonna (sic) go out and see what we could do. Immediately the staff, the school staff, stopped us and told us to get inside the building […] essentially the staff wouldn’t let us go assist.
Like I said, try actually WATCHING the video of the news report.
Where did he mention he had a weapon and could help?
Literally at the very beginning of the video. You didn’t actually watch it, did you? Too cowardly to challenge your preconceptions, huh? I thought so.
IN your transcript?
yawn … seriously?
But of course …your wrote what was said ? Or do you not remember what nonsense fall out of your ah sole …?
I realize that you’re super lazy and all, but I’m pretty sure you could have figured this out on your own if you would actually have watched the video. Course that would require courage, a quality you clearly lack.
How super …..you really did not go back and read did you?
Trolling gun nut. Guess the article hit a nerve.
Yup, blatant lies and misdirection DO tend to hit a nerve or two.
Gun owners with common sense are rarely heard from and even more rarely listened to these days.
You can always tell the ones who have never, ever been in a life threatening situation. They are the ones talking about, “Iff’n ah’d uh ben thar, it woulda been dif’rent, you betcha…”
Oh STFU doofus. Your blatant, ignorant stereotyping is imminently unhelpful. You DO realize that a large percentage of legal concealed carry holders are former military, just like this guy, right? You DO realize that, as a group, concealed carriers are among the most law-abiding groups of people there is, committing fewer crimes with their weapons than even police officers. Sure, there are a few bad apples out there, just as there are in every group, but your ridiculous, completely ignorant stereotyping is both inaccurate and entirely unhelpful. So, I repeat, STFU you moron.
I don’t think I will, but thank you for your input.
Where is the evidence to back this up?
There are a number of recent studies that show this clearly. I’m not your nanny or your mother. Google it.
You made the initial claim; the burden of proof is on your shoulders. If you can prove that most legal concealed carry holders are law-abiding former military personnel who commit fewer gun crimes than cops, then we will believe you and apologize. The issue? There is no evidence and you made it up.
Ok then. However, I did not say that “most” legal concealed carry holders are former military, I said “a large percentage.” No one has exact stats on how many are former military. What we DO know is that legal concealed carriers commit fewer crimes than the police.
According to a study in Police Quarterly, the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 saw an average of 113 crimes by police involving firearms per year. With about 685,464 full-time police officers in the US at that time, that translates into about 103 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers.
Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding. Between October 1, 1987 and June 30, 2015, Florida revoked 9,999 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.8 per 100,000 permit holders. In Texas in 2013, the last year the data is available, 158 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 22.3 per 100,000.10 Combining the Florida and Texas data together implies that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers.
Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Combining the data for permit holders in Florida and Texas, it is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is only 1/7th the rate for police officers. The data are similar in other states.
http://concealednation.Org/2015/07/report-1-in-20-adults-have-a-concealed-carry-permit-in-the-us-and-theyre-extremely-law-abiding/
Their permits were revoked - does that mean their weapons were confiscated? Should we believe that all those folks who had their permits revoked will voluntarily stop carrying? If they are criminals, I kind of doubt that losing a permit will deter them from anything.
A legal concealed carry permit is revoked when a person commits a crime. The point here is that those that carry concealed are very unlikely to turn from law-abiding citizens into criminals, although it does happen sometimes.
I agree that people are unlikely to turn from law-abiding citizens into criminals, but that is not what I was asking. IF someone who has a legal permit commits and crime and has his/her permit revoked, do they still get to keep their gun, just not concealed carry it? My point is that a criminal would not hesitate to keep carrying it, even if his permit was revoked and he was thus breaking the law.
A reasonable question. It depends on the jurisdiction and the specific case, but sometimes people do get to keep their guns, yes. If they continue to carry concealed without a permit, then, yes, they are breaking the law.
In my state yes they will lose the gun. If it is Felony
It is ridiculous to confiscate guns over a misdemeanor traffic violation.
How is a large percentage different than most? Either it’s not that large a percentage or you’re just backtracking because you realize you’re wrong.
yaaaawn … troll much? You know full well that these two things are not the same. I notice you have NOTHING at all to say on the more weighty matter in my post. Typical.
You got owned lol
LOL … I’m still waiting on that “apology.” Not holding my breath.
Hey, religion-you made the claim, you substantiate it or the assumption is that you can’t.
Yup, I did in a different post:
According to a study in Police Quarterly, the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 saw an average of 113 crimes by police involving firearms per year. With about 685,464 full-time police officers in the US at that time, that translates into about 103 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers.
Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding. Between October 1, 1987 and June 30, 2015, Florida revoked 9,999 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.8 per 100,000 permit holders. In Texas in 2013, the last year the data is available, 158 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 22.3 per 100,000.10 Combining the Florida and Texas data together implies that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers.
Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Combining the data for permit holders in Florida and Texas, it is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is only 1/7th the rate for police officers. The data are similar in other states.
http://concealednation.Org/2015/07/report-1-in-20-adults-have-a-concealed-carry-permit-in-the-us-and-theyre-extremely-law-abiding/
You guys gotta avoid feeding the troll.
They don’t go away otherwise.
^^ Hey STFU, nice rant for a bully and a loon. Your “facts” are concocted bs. U.S. gun culture is insane, and you are likely are one of the idiots who should be disarmed.
“Concocted BS,” eh? Just because you don’t like a certain fact, doesn’t make that fact ‘concocted.’
For example, In 2012 there were about 8.2 million people with concealed carry permits/licenses in the U.S. Of those, 18 committed a murder with their firearm while carrying concealed. You’re approximately 30 times more likely to be murdered by someone in the general population, than you are BY someone legally carrying a concealed weapon, with that weapon. Those of us who legally carry concealed aren’t the ones you need to worry about..
http://concealednation.Org/2015/07/report-1-in-20-adults-have-a-concealed-carry-permit-in-the-us-and-theyre-extremely-law-abiding/dd
The problem isn’t those with legal guns. The problem is the illegal guns. And the right wing obsession with arming every American so we all shoot each other every time there’s an argument. Maybe we should just arm congress and see what happens next time there’s dissent.
Congress IS protected by men armed with guns.
“right wing obsession with arming every American so we all shoot each other every time there’s an argument”??? yaaaaaaaaaawn, nice straw man you’ve got there. Try staying honest and on point, would you?
Committing fewer crimes than the police is nothing to brag about.
Ain’t that the truth!!!
Actually, it is. Statistically the police, charged with enforcing the law, commit very few crimes. Your busting out with some “Black Lies Matter’ BS at this juncture represents mixing your metaphors far too deeply.
Legal concealed carriers are among the most lawful segment of the population, end of story.
I’m a gun owner with common sense.
I want assault weapons banned, universal background checks, and required training for gun ownership.
I’ve also had people try to blow me up on more than one occasion.
“I’m a gun owner with common sense.”
Yes you are, and thank you for your response. While I am on the fence about assault weapons bans I am with you 100% on everything else you said.
You’re on the fence about “assault” weapons? Wow, you’ve surprised me Lincoln! Good for you actually thinking for yourself!
Unlike persons such as yourself, I have been able to think for myself for many a decade.
It is a natural result of avoiding knee-jerk reactions to life. You should look into that.
“Knee-jerk,” eh? Kinda like you libbys immediately after every time a crazy nut job uses a gun for something evil? Tell me again, how would ANY of your knee-jerk gun law proposals have prevented even ONE of these mass shootings? Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Well, you silly little person, probably thousands, if not tens of thousands.
We’ll never really know because crimes prevented are hard, if not impossible, to track. Sort of like how many lives do suicide prevention hotlines save.
As for your infantile characterization of “libbies,” that just shows how truly clueless you are.
Allow me to explain the situation you have put yourself in. You, being limited in imagination, think only in terms of (L)iberal or (C)onservative. Self imposed classifications that limit your responses and ability to think for yourself in every situation.
Whereas I, being somewhat of a Renaissance Man thanks to a classical education, do not suffer that limitation. I look at each situation and form a position based on the merits, or lack thereof, of each individual situation. Simply put, so you can understand it, some people identify as (L)iberals, some as (C)onservatives. I, on the other hand, am liberal on some issues, conservative on other issues, and apathetic on a wide variety of issues.
In every sense I am an extended length, double album set with bonus poster and song lyrics. You, and people like you, are a promotional 45 with the same song on both sides.
Sure, you have a mix of views, we all do. However, you didn’t even come close to explaining how even ONE of your knee-jerk reactionary gun laws could reasonably have been expected to stop any of these shootings. Remember, all of these guys either passed a background check or stole their guns. Before we had background checks, you know, before the 90s, where was the “epidemic” of mass shootings that these checks suddenly prevented? Oh yea, it doesn’t exist. These laws are pointless, and only affect the law-abiding. No thank you sir.
Too bad “assault” weapons bans and universal background checks will have no effect whatsoever on gun death rates. No one uses “assault” weapons in crimes, and more people kill each other with sticks, stones, their fists, and feet than they do with long guns of all kinds, including “assault” weapons. Your “common” sense is anything but.
He does not “explain” anything, he just says it is so. I don’t see any argument to support that.
A badass will stop an active shooter weather he has a gun or not.
In other accounts, Parker said he didn’t rush in because innocents could have gotten caught in the crossfire and cops wouldn’t have been able to tell who the shooter was when they arrived. Also, the shooter identified as conservative, republican not an Islam sympathizer. His mom, who told neighbors that he was mentally off, was a gun “enthusiast” who took him to ranges to shoot. She looked for those ranges where they could shoot unsupervised. Lovely.
your statement of, “The only reason we have this nation we call home and you have your freedom to write this ignorance is because of good guys with guns.” is wholly inaccurate. The only reason we have this nation, we call home, and you have freedom to write this ignorance is because of BAD guys with guns! The Europeans came over and slaughtered the American Indians to take over the land. So before making a blank statement like that, please make sure you have done your research. Politics, nowadays, does not work. It is not politicians that write laws, but outsiders. As for “good guys with guns backing it up”, I am still waiting for YOUR good guys with guns to introduce some reasonable legislation on how to limit the access of guns to the mentally incapable, or those that have shown a tendency of violence ( multiple assaults, multiple dui’s, spousal abuse) I put DUI’s in there, because not everyone is sane when they are completely drunk. They are willing to tempt killing someone when they get behind the wheel. And you have NO clue what you are talking about when you bring in WWII. You just thought you could throw something in there at the end to possible sound smart. Shows how little you know of history. We were dragged into the war via Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, which had signed a treaty with Germany (Hitler). And Hitler had stated that he would use any and all means to conquer the world. So again, before you go spouting off your incorrect history, do your research.
The NRA has backed a number of bills that would do exactly what you’re asking for here. You really should pay more attention.
Are you claiming that Hilter and the Japanese WEREN’T defeated through strength of arms? Just what ARE you claiming then?
ok, moron, you have JUST proved my point. I said, “Politics, nowadays, does not work. It is not politicians that write laws, but outsiders.” and you go and spout off a non politician group. Wow. And show proof that the nra has introduced any reasonable gun control laws in the past 3 years.
Wow, look at all those mental gymnastics you go through to avoid admitting that our strength of arms is what keeps us safe.
Hitler committed suicide, by the way. We didn’t defeat him.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
What a freaking TOOL you are!! I suppose that ol Hilter woke up one day and said “gee, I guess I’ll kill myself today,” and that it had nothing to do with the fact that the allies were about to take Berlin and capture him, huh? Gawd, I’ve seen some loons in my day, but you sir take the cake!
It appears we had more common sense in the 1800’s than we do today.
I expect his being a white man made his interaction with police considerably easier.
I think Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield’s example already demonstrated, unfortunately, that a good guy with a gun — or even two good guys with guns, one of them a Navy SEAL — cannot generally stop a bad guy with a gun.
You have a typo there: It’s “cannot always stop a bad guy with a gun.”
Don’t use Chris Kyle as an example, it doesn’t fit at all and is disrespectful to that great man’s memory.
No, “generally” is correct, and the truth is never disrespectful: it’s just the truth. And the truth is that a guy that Kyle and Littlefield had noted was acting erratically shot and killed them both before they could even unholster the 1911 pistols they both were armed with. Don’t disrespect the memory of the man by pretending it didn’t happen.
The dude was in the back seat of the pickup, and there was no way they could have known or reacted. They were trying to HELP the guy. Your claiming that good people with guns can almost never stop bad guys with guns, based on this example, is completely ridiculous, and deeply disrespectful of Kyle. I wouldn’t really expect better from posters on this little hack site though.
If you have to make up facts to support your argument, you’re probably wrong. They were out on the shooting range when they were shot, not sitting in a pickup with their murderer behind them, as you falsely claim. Look it up.
Kyle was shot in the back. I read somewhere that the killer was in the back seat of his pickup, but it could also have been at the rage, makes no difference. Anyone, even the Legend himself, is going to be killed by someone they don’t suspect shooting them in the back. Stop using Kyle’s death as a political weapon, it’s despicable, especially when you’re being so dishonest.
Well, you read wrong, didn’t you?
And Kyle did suspect his assassin, far more I would guess than most people who end up getting shot when they’re armed.
What’s despicable is you having to pretend that the facts are not what they are, so that you can pretend that it was only because of unusual circumstances that one idiot was able to take out two armed, alerted men, one of them a Navy SEAL.
Don’t disgrace Kyle’s memory by pretending he didn’t die the way he did just so you can hold onto your gun fantasy. The fact of the matter is, when someone decides he’s going to shoot you, the fact that you’re armed, the fact that you’re with your friend who is also armed, the fact that you’re a Navy SEAL, the fact that you have an inkling that something’s wrong with the guy and you know he’s armed, doesn’t do you a whole lot of good.
What would have saved Kyle and Littlefield? Making sure their murderer didn’t have a gun. They probably had an opportunity to do that, but failed to do so. It was a fatal mistake.
But being armed and even being armed and alert didn’t save them. Facts are facts.
And, just like with Kyle and Littlefield, having armed good people around isn’t going to save very many lives. Keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people is what will save lives, your fantasies notwithstanding.
Now go back to rainbow unicorn land, or whatever fantasy planet you live on. You’re too dishonest or delusional to be worth my time.
Keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people is what will save lives
I agree with this 100%. The problem is that I have yet to see a realistic plan that would actually work to accomplish this. So-called “universal” background checks will accomplish nothing, and have accomplished nothing so far. Enhanced mental health screening and treatment is what we really need, but this is such a difficult area to diagnose and detect that neither side can agree on how to proceed.
Ever looked at the ARMSLIST website? There you can find any of the weapons that doufus in Oregon used for sale by a private owner, with no screening whatsoever.
You’re A-OK with that???!
Yup, the type of private transactions that this site enables are completely legal in most of the country, and do not represent any sort of threat to public safety. The ATF reports that the majority of illegal guns come from straw purchases (already illegal) and from illegal arms trafficking by a small number of legit gun dealers. Private transactions don’t even make their list. Almost NO criminals get their guns through private transactions.
Think about it, if I sell someone a gun in person after finding them through armslist (remember that sending someone a firearm through the mail is 100% illegal), and that gun is later linked to a crime, how long do you think it will take me to flip on the person I sold it to? I will provide the police with a physical description, make and model of the car they were driving, and any other info I can remember. Actual criminals get their guns from friends and family who are much less likely to turn them in. This is just the plain truth. This doesn’t come from me or from any other pro-gun lobby, this comes from the ATF, hardly friends to gun owners.
I’m sure it will come as great solace to people shot to death with a gun sold without any background check via ARMSLIST that the seller will (probably) be helpful to the police. FAIL (again)
We can NEVER stop all bad things from happening, and you know it. Why should we penalize millions of regular people just because some guy at some point MIGHT purchase an illegal gun this way? Makes no sense. What does make sense is to target the root of the problem: straw purchasing, gun trafficking and mental health. These actually stand a chance of truly making things better. Trying to pass “universal” background checks or “assault” weapons bans will accomplish almost nothing, and will unfairly penalize milllions and millions of regular people. Why on earth should we do it this way? We need to target the problem, not the people NOT breaking the law.
Remove the ban on gun sellers’ liability for crimes committed with guns they sell. Problem solves itself.
Yea right. Problem “solves itself” by opening the gun industry to another coordinated campaign of purely political anti-gun lawsuits claiming gun manufacturers and dealers are responsible for the criminal acts of third parties who were unknown to them and totally beyond their control? What a load of crap. You know as well as I do that this would raise the price of guns and ammo for everyone, which is precisely what you want. The idea that a gun manufacturer can be found “negligent” on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use is complete and utter BULLS**T.
If a bar serves a patron a drink, and the patron goes out and plows into a crowd of people, we look at whether the bar was responsible in deciding to serve the patron a drink.
Why should guns have better treatment than alcohol or anything else, bulls**t man?
The price of guns and ammo right now includes that every few weeks a crowd of innocent people gets shot up, and every day people are murdered with, accidentally killed by, or commit suicide with guns.
Oh … but I guess the monetary price is more important to you, a$$#0l3.
Yea, nice try. but your comparison doesn’t work. We don’t sue distilleries for drunk drivers, now do we?
I could totally get behind suing a gun DEALER for selling to someone who they suspected was a criminal, etc, but not manufacturers. How does that make any sense at all? How can a distillery or a gun manufacturer be held responsible for how people use their products? Perhaps the law could be updated to not shield dealers from prosecution, as this would at least make some sense.
And where are all the people whining and complaining about the destruction that alcohol has caused in this country?? Alcohol has killed FAR more people and destroyed far more families that guns ever will, by factors of magnitude, yet no one is calling for alcohol bans, now are they? Just like alcohol, Americans value our freedom over your nanny-state security.
YES, my freedom to keep and bear arms is more important to me than your empty, false promises. Making guns more expensive takes them away from those that need them the most, the poor and minorities. Repealing this law would be yet another blatant attempt to make gun ownership more onerous and difficult, which is precisely what your ilk are looking to accomplish.
Could you get behind suing an individual for selling a gun to someone he suspected was a criminal? Because right now, it doesn’t happen.
And, @$$#0l3, what I would like to see happen is fewer people getting gunned down. You apparently don’t think that’s too big a concern. Go fahq yourself.
Well, it is explicitly against the law for any individual, dealer or otherwise, to sell to someone they know to be a criminal. But suing someone for merely SUSPECTING that person? Nah, that is neither fair nor feasible.
I want to see fewer people shot too, so how about we target the criminals instead of the law-abiding? Criminals will always find ways to get a hold of guns (in Australia they’ve been recovering all kinds of home-based made guns) and all your measures would accomplish would be to make or harder for regular people to defend themselves.
Yet somehow it’s feasible to sue a bartender for selling a drink to someone he suspects has had too much, @$$#0l3.
Our prisons are already over-filled, @$$#0l3, and yet your dumbass rainbow lollipop solution is to have more people in them. What a fahqing dumbass you are! Have you no fahqing shame, parroting your gun lobby masters like an obedient lackey!
Go fahq yourself, @$$#0l3.
Yet somehow it’s feasible to sue a bartender for selling a drink to someone he suspects has had too much
No, I don’t agree with these laws either, and they are actually VERY difficult to get convictions under, as juries tend to believe that people should be responsible for their own actions. These are terrible laws, as were laws that allowed gun manufacturers to be sued just because one of their millions of customers used their gun in a crime.
Wow, now you’re getting super desperate: “let’s not target criminals because our jails are already too full”??? Really?!?!. How many times do I have to prove your lies wrong before you just STFU and crawl back under your rock?
GFYS
Awwwwww … poor little libturd. I win, you lose. Thanks for playing.
GFYS
Chris Kyle gets shot in the back, and you interpret this as “good guys can’t stop bad guys with guns”?? Did you hurt yourself making that logical leap? Good freaking lord.
lol
So, you’re thinking in your rainbow lollipop land that in the typical shooting situation, a good guy with a gun will have more warning than Kyle and Littlefield did?
What a dumbass you are! lol
So, you’re thinking in your rainbow unicorn land that a little “No guns!” sign is going to keep anybody safe within an area where no one can carry legally? What a dumbass you are!
There are plenty of instances of regular people stopping mass shootings. The problem is that these are rarely covered in the media because they don’t actually BECOME mass shootings.
http://controversialtimes.Com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
You hear about this Uber driver who stopped a mass shooter recently?
http://chicago.suntimes.Com/news-chicago/7/71/532869/uber-driver-shoots-man-who-allegdly-shot-group-logan-square-sidewalk
Had to dig back 18 years to get 12 examples, eh? How far back do you suppose we’d have to go to get 12 examples of some would-be Rambo having his right-to-carry gun go off by accident?
I dunno. How about you provide at least one example where this happened and someone got hurt? I wonder how far back you’ll have to go. And how about an example of a legal concealed carry holder shooting a bystander by accident? This is always the gun grabber line, yet it has NEVER happened. Go figure.
Google “houston carjacking shooting”
Don’t know what kind of carry license the “good guy with a gun” had because he was a little more adept at fleeing and cleaning up the crime scene than he was at hitting his target. But that was nine days ago.
“houston carjacking shooting” - guy fought back against a carjacker and was injured, no innocent bystanders injured. No evidence this guy was a legal concealed carrier. He did stop the bad guy
“negligent discharge wedding” - no one was injured, except by flying marble, not a shooting
“off duty negligent discharge injures six” - This was a COP. I thought we were talking about legal concealed carriers.
Pretty thin and weak, especially since you have to use a cop as an example. You’ve been wrong more than I have, especially with your dishonest use of a police officer as an example. Pathetic.
Wrong one on houston carjacking. Bystander apparently tried to stop carjacking; ended up shooting victim in the head; fled scene:
“Houston police responded to a shooting call around 11:15 p.m. Saturday at a Valero gas station on Jensen Drive at Reid Street in north Houston. Officials say two men jumped another man in the gas station parking lot and took the victim’s Chevrolet pickup truck. Police say a witness then pulled out a gun and began shooting at the suspects, accidentally hitting the carjacking victim in the head.”
Refresh my memory on why there was flying marble at the wedding. Did it have something to do with, um, a shooting?
Is it true that the NRA bans guns from its annual meetings? That’s too funny. And these are the leaders of your “tribe!” lol
Perhaps I found the wrong Houston carjacking shooting. They do carjack and shoot each other a lot in Houston after all … lol … and the “witness”?? No proof this person was a legal concealed carrier, much more likely to be carrying without a permit, as he “picked up shell casings and left the scene.” Why would he do that if he weren’t a criminal?
No, the wedding was an accidental discharge in which no one was hurt.
No, the NRA does not ban guns from its national meetings. Last year they met an a venue that bans guns (a stadium if memory serves). They obey the law, so they did not take their guns into the stadium. Most years they do not meet in places like this, so they do take their guns. I’m not actually an NRA member, but I am seriously considering becoming a lifetime member and donating all my wealth to them when I die, thanks to people like you.
You’ve still got NOTHING. You’re free to try again of course.
Riiight. Mr. “They were shot by a passenger in the backseat of their pickup” is telling me I have nothing. lol
Here’s a quote from the wedding discharge, you lying dumbass: “One guest’s head was grazed by the bullet itself.”
Yup, that’s right, you DO have nothibg at all. Your central premise has been that because someone like Chris Kyle can be shot in the back by a fellow veteran with PTSD that he was trying to help, that “good guys” can never stop “bad guys” with guns. The facts show otherwise, as I have clearly laid out. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of examples out there of regular people successfully defending themselves with guns against criminals. Sure, sometimes they are injured or killed, but at least they have the CHANCE to defend themselves, which is the only thing we want.
A bullet graze is not a serious injury, you lying dumbass.
No, you lying dumbass, what I wrote, CORRECTLY, was that good guys with a gun cannot GENERALLY stop bad guys with guns.
You’re obviously a nihilist, for whom facts and evidence carry no weight. So go enjoy magic rainbow unicorn land while you can; eventually the facts you ignore will bite you in the rear, you lying dumbass.
“Never” and “generally” are the exact same thing in your book, especially when your messed-up worldview leads you to try and restrict our freedoms and our right to self-defense. If you’re too scared to own and/or carry a weapon yourself, that’s fine, then don’t, but leave me the h e l l alone to do as I please, as a legal concealed carrier I’m absolutely no danger to you or to anyone else who is not trying to do me or my family harm.
You want to talk about “magic rainbow unicorn land”?? Remember your gun-free zones and their magical ability to keep out deranged killers willing to conduct a mass killing, yet law-abiding enough to see that sign and pick a different spot to shoot up innocent people.
Now you’re telling me what I mean with what I write. Wow. Just wow.
Yup, just like you’re doing to me. So what? You dishonest libturds come up with straw man arguments all the time, it’s one of the most frustrating things about dealing with people like you, the inability to engage in intellectually honest discourse.
Never done that to you, lying dumbass.
I guess, given your gross misunderstanding of the facts, you now concur that “generally” is correct, just as I wrote.
Silence implies consent. 😉
I guess old religion&politics has left the building. Apparently he thought Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield were shot in the back by the passenger in the back seat of their pickup, so their murders would not be representative of how good guys with guns can defend themselves.
In fact, Kyle and Littlefield had texted back and forth about their eventual murderer that “He’s straight up nuts,” and “watch my six;” and they were out on the platform of a shooting range with him when he murdered them before they could even draw their weapons in defense.
Of course not every situation is the same, but the Kyle and Littlefield murders show that even two armed people, one of them a Navy SEAL and both of them aware in advance of the potential danger of their assailant, could not defend themselves against a bad man with a gun.
And it just makes sense: a good guy with a gun will not fire his gun or even threaten with it until life is clearly in danger, which unfortunately is usually not until the bad guy with the gun already has his gun out. And if the bad guy draws and immediately fires … that doesn’t leave much hope for the good guy, even if there are two of them and even if one of them is a Navy SEAL.
Facts are facts.
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn … lying dumbass
Your link is a stand up comedian?? LOL, STFU douchenozzle.
Said “right wing gun loon page” links to formal studies by police organizations and law enforcement. These facts are not in question. If you’re not too cowardly to challenge your preconceptions, you should actually check it out. The truth is the truth, for as much as you wish it weren’t.
http://concealednation.Org/2015/07/report-1-in-20-adults-have-a-concealed-carry-permit-in-the-us-and-theyre-extremely-law-abiding/