Yet another good guy with a gun saves the day..

a reply to: SlapMonkey


You can't go any farther South and as most KNOW, Snip rolls down hill...

If We do go further South, then We run into Mexico and they are still pissed off at the U.S. due to the guns We sent down that-a-way during the Fast&Furious Debacle...



It is after all, FLORI-DUH

originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:

Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.

LOl Portugal has 10 million people .. Greater Los Angeles has 19 million. One city here has twice as many people.

Then we still got New York and Chicago, san Diego, phoenix. Seattle, Houston, Dallas , Atlanta, Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland, Buffalo, Boston, Tulsa , Oklahoma city, Indianapolis , Kansas City, St Louis, Miami, Jacksonville, Nashville, San Antonio, Honolulu , Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,

And so many more.

Its just an idiotic comparison..

originally posted by: DAVID64

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Cool outcome for the normals......we can open carry now so we don't need a permit or a license..right in my front pocket with the shorter clip.....XDM by....Springfieltd

( deep breath ).....MAGAZINE!! NOT "CLIP"!

I'm better now.
Carry on.

Lmao thank you lol

originally posted by: JimNasium

originally posted by: DAVID64

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Cool outcome for the normals......we can open carry now so we don't need a permit or a license..right in my front pocket with the shorter clip.....XDM by....Springfieltd

( deep breath ).....MAGAZINE!! NOT "CLIP"!

I'm better now.
Carry on.

Perhaps He is typing about His 'long gun'? Whacha got for a pistol?

Except with minor exception of a few rifles, the majority of them are magazine feed, or tube feed (still referred to as magazine feed).

a reply to: JBurns

So this first guy discharged a firearm, but didn't actually hit anyone.

How do they know that the second shooter actually saved anyone?

It just looks to me that two gunmen got into a firefight and one was injured with life threatening injuries.

The sequence of gunshots recorded in the video is rather brief.

How did the second gunman have time to asses the situation, load and take the safety off, aim and fire in the time-frame? It is more likely he was prepared to fire before the first shot.

This report sounds more like pro-gun Fox News spin, in a city that is really suffering from a wave of gun injuries, than like a patriotic do-gooder.

Just another gun injury in the mass of shootings.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: JBurns

All this is such common sense... when you have seconds and the police are minutes away, the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Now if only the left in this country could be brought up to speed on it.

Of course, those self-proclaimed intellectually superior citizens can't understand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed", so probably not.

Kudos to the gentleman... who knows how many he saved.

The same laws that armed the second shooter, armed the first.

The pro gun laws don't protect anyone. They ensure the escalation of things up to gun fights.

originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:

Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.

This!

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:

Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.

LOl Portugal has 10 million people .. Greater Los Angeles has 19 million. One city here has twice as many people.

Then we still got New York and Chicago, san Diego, phoenix. Seattle, Houston, Dallas , Atlanta, Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland, Buffalo, Boston, Tulsa , Oklahoma city, Indianapolis , Kansas City, St Louis, Miami, Jacksonville, Nashville, San Antonio, Honolulu , Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,

And so many more.

Its just an idiotic comparison..

The US has an average of 11.96 gun deaths per 100,000 people.
Portugul has an average of 1.58 gun deaths per 100,000 people.

On a percentage of population comparison, Portugul has way fewer deaths.

Arguing total population numbers is irrelevant.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Oh, it was hot. I had to pick up the shell after...

I figured the sound was all I would actually need. It was a spur of the moment decision.

a reply to: JBurns

I haven't heard a peep about this until now.

a reply to: chr0naut

The difference being anyone who truly wishes to get a gun can do so for criminal activity. So in your preferred scenario the same law making it illegal for the mass shooter to own a gun made it illegal for the guy who could have stopped it if he was armed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: JBurns

All this is such common sense... when you have seconds and the police are minutes away, the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Now if only the left in this country could be brought up to speed on it.

Of course, those self-proclaimed intellectually superior citizens can't understand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed", so probably not.

Kudos to the gentleman... who knows how many he saved.

The same laws that armed the second shooter, armed the first.

The pro gun laws don't protect anyone. They ensure the escalation of things up to gun fights.

But you don't actually know that.

You have no idea if the shooter was a legal gun owner.

But let's take your argument to the logical conclusion and ban all guns.

Then only criminals would have them.

Should really stop mass shootings, right?

As opposed to a good guy stopping a bad guy because he had a gun.

So your logic is a fail and have a nice night.

originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:

Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.

This happened in Portugal , Florida ?
Or Florida , Portugal ?
Or The US State of Florida not connected in any major way to Portugal ?

a reply to: chr0naut

Statistics are fun.

Portugal, per capita, has 23% more opiate use than the United States.

You also have, per capita, 79% more police officers than the United States.

So you use a lot more drugs and have a lot more policemen.

Standard of living index?

The bottom 10% in the US have better lives than the top 10% in Portugal .

I've visited there, not thinking of moving there anytime soon.

So go shoot some heroin and hide from the cops... you'll be OK.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: JBurns

All this is such common sense... when you have seconds and the police are minutes away, the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Now if only the left in this country could be brought up to speed on it.

Of course, those self-proclaimed intellectually superior citizens can't understand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed", so probably not.

Kudos to the gentleman... who knows how many he saved.

The same laws that armed the second shooter, armed the first.

The pro gun laws don't protect anyone. They ensure the escalation of things up to gun fights.

But you don't actually know that.

You have no idea if the shooter was a legal gun owner.

But let's take your argument to the logical conclusion and ban all guns.

Then only criminals would have them.

Should really stop mass shootings, right?

As opposed to a good guy stopping a bad guy because he had a gun.

So your logic is a fail and have a nice night.

Only some criminals would have them, not all criminals.

Right now, the laws potentially arm ALL criminals and the insane, and the upset, and the terrorists.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut

Statistics are fun.

Portugal, per capita, has 23% more opiate use than the United States.

You also have, per capita, 79% more police officers than the United States.

So you use a lot more drugs and have a lot more policemen.

Standard of living index?

The bottom 10% in the US have better lives than the top 10% in Portugal .

I've visited there, not thinking of moving there anytime soon.

So go shoot some heroin and hide from the cops... you'll be OK.

Nah, I'm from New Zealand. We have even a lower gun death rate per 100,000 than Portugal. And I think our standard of living isn't too bad.

Also, NZ has 232 police per 100,000 population. The US, 284 per 100,000 population. List of countries and dependencies by number of police officers - Wikipedia, so we are 'a little bit' less of a police state than you. Not to mention: List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia, where you guys win the 'World Incarceration' 1st prize.

Also, the US has the third highest prevalence of opiate use in the world and higher than Portugal, according to Wikipedia. Again, obviously, New Zealand has way less prevalence that Portugal and the US.

a reply to: chr0naut

~Yawn~

You are comparing apples to candy bars.

If you want to compare apples to apples, if you as an adult spend your entire life in a US Federal prison, your chances of being shot are about 0%.

Care to change where you live again to make the numbers better?

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut

~Yawn~

You are comparing apples to candy bars.

If you want to compare apples to apples, if you as an adult spend your entire life in a US Federal prison, your chances of being shot are about 0%.

Care to change where you live again to make the numbers better?

You can still get shot in prison, it's just more likely that it would be with rubber bullets.

But, apparently if you reside inside a nuclear reactor, anywhere in the world, no-one, not even Americans, will shoot at you.



Not really sure how that relates to anything, but if you can throw around irrelevant numbers, why not?

What I was talking about was that the gun laws in the US cannot do what the gun lobby says they do.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut

~Yawn~

You are comparing apples to candy bars.

If you want to compare apples to apples, if you as an adult spend your entire life in a US Federal prison, your chances of being shot are about 0%.

Care to change where you live again to make the numbers better?

You can still get shot in prison, it's just more likely that it would be with rubber bullets.

But, apparently if you reside inside a nuclear reactor, anywhere in the world, no-one, not even Americans, will shoot at you.

Not really sure how that relates to anything, but if you can throw around irrelevant numbers, why not?

What I was talking about was that the gun laws in the US cannot do what the gun lobby says they do.

And the anti-gun lobby, are their goals practical and achievable? Do you honestly believe that gun control would make a significant difference?

a reply to: notsure1

You missed...DETROIT!