DaVinci

You just made the same BS claim you made earlier.... Making it twice does not make it any more true. People like you claimed that blood would run in the streets when CHL was allowed... It didn't People like you claimed that blood would run in the streets when more guns were available... It didn't (in fact gun crimes have gone DOWN). People like you claimed blood would run in the streets when VA allowed bar carry... It didn't. So your argument is old and tired... And proven false. One example does not make an argument. Now you have made the same BS claim three times..... It is still not supported by data.

Sure you can... you just don't like it because it beats your argument into the ground. And these are not MY numbers, nor my claim... It is from the CDC. I like how you ignore the vast majority of factors such as cultural factors.... Not very honest, but it is all you can do. Yes, and the CDC has said that AT LEAST as many DGU's happen... Don't like it, contact the CDC. News flash: People without bikes don't happen to die bike riding.

I already did... I knew about the serpa holster issue. You and he did not.

You are jumping to a conclusion based on lack of data. The fact is the lack of data could be from several reasons, you are assuming the one that fits your personal feelings. What are the odds that the only stories that DON'T fit the mother jones criteria are the same? As for your exact question... What are the odds a cop will be there? And with the current laws, it is much more likely that an off duty cop will be armed than a regular citizen.... ESPECIALLY in places where guns are not allowed for regular citizens. And that is most likely because in most cases mass shootings happen in places where only LEO's are allowed to carry. Schools? Cops = yes, civilians = no. Places of employment... Well my company does not let me carry while at work (even if LEO), I'd bet most places are the same. And you are ignoring the fact that just because someone carries a weapon - That does not make them responsible to try and stop a mass shooter. They are only allowed to defend themselves. COPS are supposed to try and stop a mass shooter, and they normally don't try without at least a 3 man team (until recently when the ROE changed based on the data that a mass shooter normally stops and either surrenders of kill himself at the first sign of armed resistance). Not if you are not the direct target or have cover.... and either is better than just sitting there and getting shot. I am ex military and until the recent ammo shortage fired about 1,000 rounds per month at ranges like IPDA, USPSA, and in training classes and with my ex military buddies for fun. Do you think police shoot 1,000 rounds per month? Well there is a great reason to allow civilian carry! You should hang out with more people who like to shoot other than at a box range. It is even more unrealistic to expect the police to be everywhere. It is also unrealistic to expect a civilian to fight for his life with his bare hands against an armed shooter.... But that is what you seem to want to make everyone do.... It's disingenuous to suggest that not arming them will do anything either... Other than make them easier to kill. The fact is that armed civilians HAVE stopped shooters. And the CDC just released a report saying that DGU's are AT LEAST as common as criminal uses.

One was a suggestion, the other law. But at any rate, it just shows that the military members are not armed like some are claiming.

So you are saying Pelosi, Feinstein, and Obama were all "bought lock stock and barrel"?

He opposes tightening background checks that have been proven to not stop criminals and only hurt law abiding citizens. You however have opposed real actions that would prevent killings. You have only advocated plans that would hurt law abiding citizens and that would do little if anything to stop criminals or the insane. Your agenda is clear - To make it difficult for citizens to own firearms.

Same to you I knew more about the topic than you and the other poster combined. See I KNEW the equipment. I have taken training very much like he was trying to show. I have taught that very scenario. The other poster didn't know about the equipment and didn't know the training.... to quote him: "I didn't know about the factors" So he rushed to judge without all the information... Kinda like you just did.Wink Irony score 10/10

You would have to ask those that are happy about it. Well, when the wealthy create jobs, stimulate the economy, and pay plenty of other taxes while using very little in services.... I'll admit I have less issue than people who vote to give themselves more benefits knowing they will not have to pay for any of them. It would be like me being more than willing to make you pay for my car payment... I'd be more likely to drive a new BMW than my 2006.

Cute... you still have nothing.

But you will also notice that he used a weapon that would not have been banned under any recently suggested law... In fact, he used the same weapon the VP said was a good choice for home defense.

Since Clinton military personnel are not allowed to carry loaded weapons. The same claim was made about the Ft hood shooting. I can tell you that when I was in the military and on post, I might have had a weapon, but we were not allowed ammunition except in very specific situations... Effectively making almost any military base a "gun fee zone"

And if the shooter was stopped by a citizen then it would not be taken into account. So your data set is off *by design*.

Nope, the report says that defensive gun uses are AT LEAST as common as offensive gun uses by criminals. “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”.... Uh that is a CRIMINAL offensive use. All your other points just show that the true number of DGU's are unknown, but the report states that they are AT LEAST as common as criminal offensive uses. "National Crime Victimization survey produced by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests that there are roughly 100,000 instances of defensive gun use per year. " - From you.... That number is STILL MORE than murders by gun in the US. So you just proved the point using your own numbers.

News flash, more kids are killed riding a bike than by cancer as well.

The old tired "blood in the streets" claim.... Never mind that it never happens.

Less than half of the population. And 90% of police do not agree with you. I know many people who shoot that shoot better than police. In fact in most competitions it is not the police that shoot best. All this crying, but you don't see innocent people shot accidentally by civilians nearly as much as by the police... simply put, you are going of of a fear based on an emotional response. It does not happen as much as you would like, but you will not let that stop you from crying about it. He does not have to be good at conflict resolution... He has the option of walking away. People like you always try to claim that citizens with guns will just go around shooting innocent people... Yet that is such a rarity in reality. Sure, it has happened but in most cases armed citizens avoid conflict more than the police because they CAN.

And yet all of them know more about firearms and firearm training than you. You know, when a bunch of people who know more about a topic than you speak about that topic.... The wise listen. Instead you claim to know more than them.

And the US Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean: Miller 1939. Weapons 'suitable for use in a militia are protected' Heller 2008. Citizens are allowed to own firearms and do not have to be in a militia. They are allowed to use them for 'lawful purposes to INCLUDE self defense in the home". They also found that is is an INDIVIDUAL right. McDonald 2010. It is incorporated to the States. Also covered in Heller. Provisions against felons and the mentally ill. And provisions against carrying in sensitive places. Ironically one fo those places you can't carry is a school... How did that work out here? Bullshit, that was your strawman. The problem is you seem to think that if I am allowed in ANYWAY whatsoever then it is not a ban. But that is just crap. It was not that long ago that 'poll taxes' were considered legal to vote. It was not that long ago that tests were required prior to voting. Yet the Federal Govt saw those as bans against a group of people... No, the WORD ban was never used - But the actions made it clear that is what was happening. You latched onto the word, the only thing you could defend against, and ignored that it is in reality a ban. And like I said before, weapons are BANNED from schools... How did that work out in this case? And when out classed.... you go for personal attacks. Typical. And it is your OPINION that the proposals will "improve the situation in the US".... You have nothing to back that up. If these actions worked, then CA would not contribute 66% of all gun shot fatalities in the US. Typically, you hold a belief and no amount of data will shake you from that belief. You ignore all the data and instead latch onto emotion... As seem by your taking pot shots at me when your argument is proven to be false. Still waiting on you to educate me on what "Shall not be infringed" means. And I guess you would support poll taxes coming back... After all you could still vote.

And should we ground every 100 jump wonder? If we do that, then maybe we destroy the next Dan BC or Jefferies. He was an idiot using bad equipment. He *admitted* his error and he hurt no one but himself. ***I didn't know about the factors And yet you passed judgment on him.... Interesting. And you called him "idiot". Irony score 10/10 And I knew more about the topic than you and the other poster combined. See I KNEW the equipment. I have taken training very much like he was trying to show. I have taught that very scenario. The other poster didn't know about the equipment and didn't know the training.... to quote him: "I didn't know about the factors" So he rushed to judge without all the information... Kinda like you just did. Irony score 10/10

More like, "When you've got nothing to say, claim you're being attacked." Seriously? The thread was about Romney being mocked for saying everyone who doesn't pay income tax votes Democratic because they don't take personal responsibility. People who agree with that deserve mockery. got it...It is all you have.

Which supports GZ's position... And you can't find a SINGLE person to back your theory of events. There was also the physical evidence: 1. Zimmermans back was wet and had grass stains on it... Like he was on his back. 2. Zimmermans head had wounds consistent with being slammed into the concrete. 3. Martins gunshot wound was consistent with a person leaning over someone on the ground. IE: His shirt was hanging off of his body when he was shot. This would not happen with a person standing and wound never happen if he was on his back. So add all the eyewitness testimony AND the physical evidence and it supports the theory that GZ was being sat on on Martin and being attacked. Not ONE bit of physical evidence or testimony supports your position.... Not ONE. Based on your expert opinion? Tell ya what, how about we meet and you let me bash your head into the concrete for say 1 min and you tell me about how bad it was after? That's because only one guy called the police... Zimmerman. And he hung up with them after he agreed to meet the police by his truck. Martin didn't call the police. Have you even read the transcript of the call? Because from your arguments.... You clearly have not.

I don't shrug it off. Gun deaths are tragic.... I just know that making citizens jump through hoops are not really going to stop them. Mental health services might, better reporting might. I fight for those things while fighting against laws that will do nothing but make some people feel better. Driving accidents. I don't shrug those off either. I don't drink and drive, and I tell others not to do it. I wear my seat belt and I recommend others to do it. I support police when they stop reckless drivers. 9/11 was different than the other events. Just like people get upset about mass shootings, they should also get upset about a terrorist attack. The trick is to do the correct things, not the feel good things and not to violate the Constitution in the process.

FALSE... Seriously either know the subject or quit acting like you know the subject. There was witness testimony that the smaller guy was on top of the other guy doing a 'ground and pound'.... Your lack of knowledge on the topic is showing. Then you must be blind. Zimmerman had wounds consistent with being hit, Martin did not. Again, you are showing your ignorance on the topic.

You must be blind. I didn't support stop and frisk, so your claim just fell flat on your face. You seem to have blinders when it comes to this subject. ***>You have proposed that lawful sane citizens have to jump through hoops to be able to exercise a right. Yes/quote] Then I guess you would support proving you are a citizen before being allowed to vote? I guess you would approve of passing a test before you can exercise the right to free speech? I guess you would support paying a fee to be able to be secure from illegal searches?