Visited my local gun shop today...

I been asking the same question for over 50 years.

Just can't figure it out.

 

Reported for off-topic trolling.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=cou...ome..69i57.12045j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

They didn't "run away", they were detained by police who were already on site in great numbers.

The only person that ran in a mass shooting in Texas was Stephen Willeford, and he ran to it. Barefoot.

 

Except the people who legally carry firearms every day commit a fraction of the crime committed by the general public.

That group is far more rational than the one you belong to.

 

Would you care to address the actual topic or are you just here to flamebait?

Also, please cite the post in which I state I voted for Trump.

 

If you don’t want people to carry guns on your private property, I support your right to prevent it. Your property is your property and you can run it as you like. That’s the law in Texas and it works great. If you don’t want me or anybody else bringing guns in your business, post the proper sign and I am legally not allowed to wear my gun in your store.

Most businesses don’t post the signs because they don’t want to lose business, but they have that right.

 

all you really are saying is that you're lucky and you are betting on luck I the future. You know what I've never ever needed? CPR training homeowners insurance first aid kit. There's lots of things that I may never need that I hope I don't need but I have peace of mind when I purchase them or train for them.

Most people will never need CPR so nobody should be trained in that either right? Most people will never need homeowners insurance so we shouldn't be required to buy that either huh?

It's a hypothetical. You were being dishonest about it because the answer is very obvious and you don't want to say it.

It would involve you recognizing with a purpose of a gun the reason it was invented the reason armies in police carry them.

It's something I can Point At a threat and neutralize that threat. That's all they are that's all they ever have been nothing has changed the world has evolved to where that's not true.


And you can live on luck there's people that don't buy car insurance and never get in an accident or have the car stolen there's people that don't buy home insurance and their house never burns down. I buy homeowners insurance I insure my vehicle I carry a gun for the unlikely possibility that I will need it. You don't have to that's the beauty about individual liberty.

 

If you have the opportunity to run you should take it.

 

You made thus up.

 

Duty to retreat.
It's stupid, but in states that have not adopted SYG laws, you have a duty to retreat, if you can do so safely.

 

How many school shootings have been stopped by the fact it is illegal to bring a gun into a school and shoot people?

 

Since you are ignorant as to the particulars of guns shows, it's not a surprise you don't know this is an effort to prevent accidental discharges, and is likely required by insurance company as a term of coverage.

It takes a very, very special individual to think a zip tie will stop someone from committing a mass shooting.

 

that makes absolutely no sense. It goes back to the hypothetical with the bar of gold that you refused to acknowledge. It is not just by coincidence that 98% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. It is clearly by Design. So just put the hypothetical to you this way if you were planning on killing as many people possible would you do it in a place where you know you would get shot to death just by exposing the weapon or would you do it where you would receive absolutely no resistance at all?

98% of the examples show to the contrary so you've presented a fluke or a suicidal person.

Deterrent or not it doesn't make any difference could it shooter aim a gun and take out people if he has a piece of hot lead that split his skull open? If you have a gun you have the ability to do that from a considerable distance with the relative amount of ease if you don't you'll have to try and do it with considerably more strength and more danger to yourself.

well the good guy with a gun scenario is supported by everyone because police have guns body guards have guns the military has guns.

If good guys with guns were not capable of stopping bad people we wouldn't have harmed our police with them we wouldn't have armed bodyguards with them and we certainly wouldn't have armed our military with them.

 

What about mass shooting on Fort Hood? Oh wait....

 

Thousands.

 

Soldiers on all military installations, including Fort Hood, are not armed while on post, nor are they permitted to carry any privately owned firearms. Only law enforcement and security personnel are allowed to have weapons on post.
If it wasn't for the Fort Hood Military Police officer stopping Lopez, more than 3 people could have been killed.

 

Prove this to be true.

 

Didn't read my links did you?

And it becomes even less convincing that shooters target "gun free zones" whenyou realise that many of those places actually have armed guards

Now let us look at another except

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

 

So where is the good guy with the gun who is going to stop the mass shooter?

Answer there he is! See that arse disappearing over the horizon

 

The earlier Fort Hood shooting (by the Muslim psychiatrist) killed 17.

 

Yep what is the answer to mass shootings

More guns

 

With guns

So did the presence of multiple armed personnel stop the shooter from choosing that site to shoot?

 

I know. "Oh wait..." was my form of sarcasm.

 

No, because the shooter was trying to kill cops.

They were his targets.