Active shooter situation in Maine, hospital says 'mass casualty, mass shooter' event

Gondwanaland said:
All gun free zones, no surprise there. Plenty of targets, no one to fight back.
Click to expand...

Go shoot yourself!

You just want to shoot somebody!

If you'd been there, you would have more than likely killed more innocent people by friendly fire, or got more innocent people killed in a shootout with the gunman, and ended up getting yourself killed in the process.

The police hate people like you- FOR THIS VERY REASON!

And let me just go ahead and say it! You talk big now, but in reality, most GUNTARDS that carry guns are some of the biggest paranoid chicken shits of all people in the world, in the first place, and usually the first ones heading for cover to hide, when something like this happens.

Let me give you an example- The ARMED guard at the Florida High School, that was so scared to go in and face the challenge, when the mass shooting started, he went and hid- Because he knew he was OUT-ARMED BY AN AR weapon!

And then, down in Texas, while a teenager was shooting up an Elementary School, the entire police force of Armed men, were too scared to even go in and challenge the shooter- BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT-ARMED BY AN AR WEAPON AND SCARED!

NEXT!
 
Last edited:
"I urge Republican lawmakers in Congress to fulfill their duty to protect the American people. Work with us to pass a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to enact universal background checks, to require safe storage of guns, and end immunity from liability for gun manufacturers. This is the very least we owe every American who will now bear the scars — physical and mental — of this latest attack," Biden said. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/lewiston-maine-shootings-active-shooter-10-25-23/index.html
Click to expand...

Biden proposes ...

1. Banning "assault weapons" and high capacity mags - This has been done...and undone in this country. The misnomer "assault weapon" is often used but Bill Clinton was instrumental in banning such weapons during his tenure. It was undone during the GW Bush years. People think it only affects scarry, black guns, mostly rifles with pistol grips, but that is not true. I have a S&W 9 mm pistol that I call a Bill Clinton era pistol. It's a model 910 and the original mag only holds 10 rounds because of the era in which it was produced. I have two 15 round mags for it now. Nothing really earthshaking in this resonse, just pointing out that it is not a proposal to ban just the scary looking black "rifle guns," to use a term from my favorite war movie of all time, Seargant York.

2. Enacting universal background checks - Added cost. It is what most every gun law proposal would do, which is why in most countries the average citizen is left out of owning a weapon(s). No person-to-person sales unless a government created fee is paid to do a background check. While I will not sell a gun to a person whom I do not know without one, I reserve the right to pass the guns I own to my kid, neices and nephews who are in good standing with the law and to make trades with my friends who are also in good standing.

3. Requiring "safe storage" of guns - Another added cost. Who gets to decide what "safe storage" is? Are we going to go to extremes like some towns in the UK where you cannot keep your weapon in your house but have to store them at an approved "gun club" in that city and can only sign them out to use there?

4. Ending immunity for gun manufacturers - Another added cost as well as an effort to put gun manufacturers out of business. If we're going to allow this then we'd better be able to sue Anheuser-Busch, Jack Daniels, Crown Royal, et al into extinction as well since alcohol related deaths definitely outnumber gun related deaths. I mean, if it is really about preventing deaths then ...

No Mr. Biden, I reject your proposals.
 
I don’t know about everyone else, but I don’t feel very free right now. Texas, the state of the most mass shootings, leaves me checking my surroundings when I’m in public spaces. I check entrances and exists and I know subconsciously I am on high alert, more now than ever in my life. I don’t like being this way, but it’s the new reality.
 
domer76 said:
I’ll settle for out of the hands of everyone who doesn’t have a specific need for one. That includes all public carry.

Heller said one has a right to a weapon IN THE HOME for the purpose of personal protection. Specifically, Scalia pointed to handguns as the traditional weapon of personal protection. I’m good with that

Otherwise, a FEDERAL crime to possess a weapon anywhere else along with the most restrictive gun laws legally permissible works for me.
Click to expand...



have a specific need for one


To protect yourself is a specific need for one
 
Phantasmal said:
I need further explanation of this statement, do yiu mean elites own most of the guns or have private security? How does gun control = guns for elites only?
Click to expand...

I am surprised that you need free market principles explained to you.

gun control makes LEGAL guns more expensive. Therefore, only the wealthy would be able to afford them.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Go shoot yourself!

You just want to shoot somebody!

If you'd been there, you would have more than likely killed more innocent people by friendly fire, or got more innocent people killed in a shootout with the gunman, and ended up getting yourself killed in the process.

The police hate people like you- FOR THIS VERY REASON!

And let me just go ahead and say it! You talk big now, but in reality, most GUNTARDS that carry guns are some of the biggest paranoid chicken shits of all people in the world, in the first place, and usually the first ones heading for cover to hide, when something like this happens.

Let me give you an example- The ARMED guard at the Florida High School, that was so scared to go in and face the challenge, when the mass shooting started, he went and hid!

And then, down in Texas, while a teenager was shooting up an Elementary School, the entire police force of Armed men, were too scared to even go in and challenge the shooter- BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT-ARMED AND SCARED!

NEXT!
Click to expand...

I find anti gun fraidy cats assumptions amusing. thank you for the laugh.

Also, that 'guard' was actually a sheriffs deputy, i.e. a COP!!!!! that alone should tell you that you can't rely on cops for your protection.

NEXT!!!!
 
Phantasmal said:
I don’t know about everyone else, but I don’t feel very free right now. Texas, the state of the most mass shootings, leaves me checking my surroundings when I’m in public spaces. I check entrances and exists and I know subconsciously I am on high alert, more now than ever in my life. I don’t like being this way, but it’s the new reality.
Click to expand...

people should have been this way for decades, and not just in Texas. Those who walk around feeling safe in their communities are not brave or free, they're ignorant.
 
domer76 said:
I’ll settle for out of the hands of everyone who doesn’t have a specific need for one. That includes all public carry.

Heller said one has a right to a weapon IN THE HOME for the purpose of personal protection. Specifically, Scalia pointed to handguns as the traditional weapon of personal protection. I’m good with that

Otherwise, a FEDERAL crime to possess a weapon anywhere else along with the most restrictive gun laws legally permissible works for me.
Click to expand...

I decline. your move.
 
Phantasmal said:
I need further explanation of this statement, do yiu mean elites own most of the guns or have private security? How does gun control = guns for elites only?
Click to expand...

What I mean is that in most countries with the types of restrictive gun laws that most seem to want in this country, (specifically, to follow the European models) the hoops are so many and varied and require extra money to jump through that, for the most part, only the top 1/4 to 1/3 on the economic spectrum can afford to own weaponry.

"The stereotype of a UK gun owner is the rural rich. To be granted a gun license you have to be able to prove that you’re using it for sport (in contrast to the US, where 67 per cent of gun owners say they need it for protection). And the types of sports you’re going to need a gun for – think fox hunting, pigeon shooting kind of stuff – are definitely the ones you’d associate with wealthier people.

The data seems to fit that picture: the richer an area, the more guns it’s got. https://www.ecnmy.org/engage/the-uk-has-more-licensed-gun-owners-than-you-might-think/
Click to expand...

It is difficult to even own air rifles in the UK. Shotguns, which I use as a last resort when hunting, are more readily available...especially single shot varieties.
 
leaningright said:
What I mean is that in most countries with the types of restrictive gun laws that most seem to want in this country, (specifically, to follow the European models) the hoops are so many and varied and require extra money to jump through that, for the most part, only the top 1/4 to 1/3 on the economic spectrum can afford to own weaponry.



It is difficult to even own air rifles in the UK. Shotguns, which I use as a last resort when hunting, are more readily available...especially single shot varieties.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
SmarterthanYou said:
people should have been this way for decades, and not just in Texas. Those who walk around feeling safe in their communities are not brave or free, they're ignorant.
Click to expand...

When an alleged libertarian defines freedom, he/she is actually offering a textbook description of anarchy.
An intelligent person feels free when he/she is living well.

For people to live well, social civility cannot be merely voluntary.
It must be codified and enforced. We call that "government."
People who can't accept that are unnecessary to keep around in a civilized environment.
That would include STY.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I find anti gun fraidy cats assumptions amusing. thank you for the laugh.

Also, that 'guard' was actually a sheriffs deputy, i.e. a COP!!!!! that alone should tell you that you can't rely on cops for your protection.

NEXT!!!!
Click to expand...

Keep talking BIG guntard!

Yes, we can all imagine what you would do with your little 9mm peashooter, when an armored up gunman walks into your Bowling ALLY and starts firing an Assault weapon your way.

Sir, you would more than likely crawl into the Bowling Ball return to save yourself- Because even Guntards like you know when they are out-gunned!

aBYy9y2_460s.jpg
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
Yep, they are. Do I really have to use crayons and draw a picture fir you?

What is their gun violence compared to ours?
Click to expand...
No, but I love it when political extremists become so upset they are condescending and defensive. :)

Less than their suicide rate.
 
leaningright said:
What I mean is that in most countries with the types of restrictive gun laws that most seem to want in this country, (specifically, to follow the European models) the hoops are so many and varied and require extra money to jump through that, for the most part, only the top 1/4 to 1/3 on the economic spectrum can afford to own weaponry.



It is difficult to even own air rifles in the UK. Shotguns, which I use as a last resort when hunting, are more readily available...especially single shot varieties.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Democrats want only the rich to have guns. :thup:
 
The issue isn't really what "fucking idiot liberals" think, the issue is the multiple State and Fed laws which prevent confinement of mentally ill people in secure facilities.


In 1950 -1975, there were more than 500,000 state/county public psychiatric hospital beds in ... Hospitals for Mentally Ill. Persons...Now there are hardly ANY!

Anyone with eyes to see understands that the scale of the problem is off the charts comparing 2023 with 1955.

This cannot be changed without changing the laws.

And any time you bring up the obvious need to change the laws, someone brings up a stupid Jack Nicholson movie as a counter argument.

Mass stupidity and fantasy beliefs are fueling this problem, and it's not just "liberals" who are living in a fantasy world regarding the seriously mentally ill.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Yes, the Democrats want only the rich to have guns. :thup:
Click to expand...

I might change one thing in the above quote ... adding the word "legal" as an Adjective to "guns."

But I don't think that's what they really want. Well most of them anyway. But it would be the necessary result of many of the policies I've seen proposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top