Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What DIDN’T stop the recent Maryland school shooting:
So you don't think attempted murder should be a crime?What DIDN’T stop the recent Maryland school shooting:
- Maryland’s assault weapon ban
- Maryland’s 10-round magazine limit
- Maryland’s universal background check requirement
- Maryland’s law requiring an exhaustive application process to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun
- Maryland’s law prohibiting purchase of more than one firearm per month
- Maryland’s law requiring handgun registration
- Maryland’s law requiring licensing of handgun owners
- Maryland’s extremely limited approval of concealed carry permits
- Maryland’s refusal to honor any concealed carry permit from another state
- Federal law prohibiting handgun purchases for people under 21
- Laws against carrying without a permit
- Gun free zone laws
- Laws against discharging a firearm in public
- Laws against attempted murder
What DID stop today’s school shooting:
- An armed person at the scene who engaged the shooter in less than a minute
And there have been shootings, with student deaths, where an armed officer was on duty at the school. We literally just had one.What DIDN’T stop the recent Maryland school shooting:
- Maryland’s assault weapon ban
- Maryland’s 10-round magazine limit
- Maryland’s universal background check requirement
- Maryland’s law requiring an exhaustive application process to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun
- Maryland’s law prohibiting purchase of more than one firearm per month
- Maryland’s law requiring handgun registration
- Maryland’s law requiring licensing of handgun owners
- Maryland’s extremely limited approval of concealed carry permits
- Maryland’s refusal to honor any concealed carry permit from another state
- Federal law prohibiting handgun purchases for people under 21
- Laws against carrying without a permit
- Gun free zone laws
- Laws against discharging a firearm in public
- Laws against attempted murder
What DID stop today’s school shooting:
- An armed person at the scene who engaged the shooter in less than a minute
What DIDN’T stop the recent Maryland school shooting:
- Maryland’s assault weapon ban
- Maryland’s 10-round magazine limit
- Maryland’s universal background check requirement
- Maryland’s law requiring an exhaustive application process to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun
- Maryland’s law prohibiting purchase of more than one firearm per month
- Maryland’s law requiring handgun registration
- Maryland’s law requiring licensing of handgun owners
- Maryland’s extremely limited approval of concealed carry permits
- Maryland’s refusal to honor any concealed carry permit from another state
- Federal law prohibiting handgun purchases for people under 21
- Laws against carrying without a permit
- Gun free zone laws
- Laws against discharging a firearm in public
- Laws against attempted murder
What DID stop today’s school shooting:
- An armed person at the scene who engaged the shooter in less than a minute
So you don't think attempted murder should be a crime?
I don't think you know what "obfuscation" means.Obfuscation, its making you great... (sang to the ketchup jingle).
Or how many syllables it has.I don't think you know what "obfuscation" means.
I don't think you know what "obfuscation" means.
No, my comment was an attempt to figure out what the hell Ladoga's point is. Why's it important that some things didn't stop a shooting and others didn't? Isn't it most likely he's suggesting the first group of things are a waste of time? If not, what's the point? So, starting from the assumption there was a reason for him posting what he did, then I have to wonder, why include attempted murder on that list? Because if the obvious explanation for his post holds, that means he thinks laws against attempted murder are a waste of time. Since that sounds patently absurd, I flat out asked him if that's what he intended.How so? You comment was nothing but to attempt to create an unclear, non-related thought process. Do you have a better word to describe your non-response, response? (not that I didn't chuckle a little with your question).
Do you really think that him not having a semi-automatic, high-powered rifle didn’t reduce the body count? Weren’t you an analyst in the military? You must’ve been awful at it.What DIDN’T stop the recent Maryland school shooting:
- Maryland’s assault weapon ban
- Maryland’s 10-round magazine limit
- Maryland’s universal background check requirement
- Maryland’s law requiring an exhaustive application process to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun
- Maryland’s law prohibiting purchase of more than one firearm per month
- Maryland’s law requiring handgun registration
- Maryland’s law requiring licensing of handgun owners
- Maryland’s extremely limited approval of concealed carry permits
- Maryland’s refusal to honor any concealed carry permit from another state
- Federal law prohibiting handgun purchases for people under 21
- Laws against carrying without a permit
- Gun free zone laws
- Laws against discharging a firearm in public
- Laws against attempted murder
What DID stop today’s school shooting:
- An armed person at the scene who engaged the shooter in less than a minute
No, my comment was an attempt to figure out what the hell Ladoga's point is. Why's it important that some things didn't stop a shooting and others didn't? Isn't it most likely he's suggesting the first group of things are a waste of time? If not, what's the point? So, starting from the assumption there was a reason for him posting what he did, then I have to wonder, why include attempted murder on that list? Because if the obvious explanation for his post holds, that means he thinks laws against attempted murder are a waste of time. Since that sounds patently absurd, I flat out asked him if that's what he intended.
It's exactly the opposite of obfuscation. It's an attempt at clarification.
Do you really think that him not having a semi-automatic, high-powered rifle didn’t reduce the body count? Weren’t you an analyst in the military? You must’ve been awful at it.
I'm speechless.You have helped add to some understanding that I have been working on. Now that I have googled the word Obtuse, you, Ziz and RBB fit that definition.
I don't think you are being genuine with this answer, btw. There is no way to not "see" that what Ladoga was saying was that if murder laws didn't stop this guy(or others) there's no need for another law that saw "REALLY REALLY" don't kill someone else. OR a new rider type law that says, "all these other laws that are on the books, WE ARE REALLY REALLY Serious!! don't do it".
But if you honestly can't "see" that, then I need to study people more.
Oh it has 3 syllables.
You have no idea what the differences are. Time to step out.He had a Semi-automatic high powered pistol. What's your point?
I feel like the hours upon hours we spent talking about this a few weeks ago was all for naught.You have no idea what the differences are. Time to step out.
Stop that crap you bleat around here. I said nothing of the sort. It IS a crime and that status of being criminal didn't stop a shooter who doesn't care one whit what laws are on the books. Stop putting words in posters posts that aren't there. If you can't discuss what they actually say, perhaps you are in the wrong place.So you don't think attempted murder should be a crime?
You have no idea what the differences are. Time to step out.
If you own both and don’t understand the lethality differences of each and why front line infantry soldiers don’t arm themselves with “high powered” sidearms then you’re either a) unqualified to own both, b) an idiot, or c) both.Well I currently own, several of both. So please enlighten me what I don't know. When you are done, then answer what actually limited this shooters killed count, or step out.
You seem to have difficulty understanding what a question mark is and does. See, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was trying to figure out what your point was. To that end, I asked you a question, in order to clarify what it is you are trying to get at. That's why there was a question mark at the end of it. See how that works?Stop that crap you bleat around here. I said nothing of the sort. It IS a crime and that status of being criminal didn't stop a shooter who doesn't care one whit what laws are on the books. Stop putting words in posters posts that aren't there. If you can't discuss what they actually say, perhaps you are in the wrong place.
He could just be flat out lying.If you own both and don’t understand the lethality differences of each and why front line infantry soldiers don’t arm themselves with “high powered” sidearms then you’re either a) unqualified to own both, b) an idiot, or c) both.
No its not. You know precisely what my point is. The first list is literally the left's firearms legislative agenda almost verbatim and all of it fails every time its tested. You're the mouth of that pack on this board - along with a couple others. That list is the agenda your lefties want to enact or - as in Maryland among other places - have already enacted and the enactment for this circumstance is as worthless as your opinion.No, my comment was an attempt to figure out what the hell Ladoga's point is. Why's it important that some things didn't stop a shooting and others didn't? Isn't it most likely he's suggesting the first group of things are a waste of time? If not, what's the point? So, starting from the assumption there was a reason for him posting what he did, then I have to wonder, why include attempted murder on that list? Because if the obvious explanation for his post holds, that means he thinks laws against attempted murder are a waste of time. Since that sounds patently absurd, I flat out asked him if that's what he intended.
It's exactly the opposite of obfuscation. It's an attempt at clarification.
Now you're just flat out lying. Begone, troll.No its not. You know precisely what my point is. The first list is literally the left's firearms legislative agenda almost verbatim and all of it fails every time its tested. You're the mouth of that pack on this board - along with a couple others. That list is the agenda your lefties want to enact or - as in Maryland among other places - have already enacted and the enactment for this circumstance is as worthless as your opinion.
We've asked and asked here - for someone to proposed detailed legislation which would have effectively prevented these events. So far not a word has been forthcoming that I have seen. Tell us what would prevent some bad guy from killing people if he won't obey any existing law? I doubt you can propose anything that would be even slightly useful.
If you own both and don’t understand the lethality differences of each and why front line infantry soldiers don’t arm themselves with “high powered” sidearms then you’re either a) unqualified to own both, b) an idiot, or c) both.
So our goal is not to stop school shootings, only limit the body count to a couple?Or if you try to put front line infantry topics into a hallway of a school, to poorly attempt to OBFUSCATE from why this body count/ injured count is smaller, then with all disrespect intended sir, you are a phony with an agenda.
My point is that you and your lefties - all across this country - favor policies that have no possible chance of preventing these events. NONE.You seem to have difficulty understanding what a question mark is and does. See, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was trying to figure out what your point was. To that end, I asked you a question, in order to clarify what it is you are trying to get at. That's why there was a question mark at the end of it. See how that works?
So what was your point, then?
That’s actually a far more reasonable position - and is my stated position. We’re never going to stop shootings. Limiting their damage should be stated objectives.So our goal is not to stop school shootings, only limit the body count to a couple?
Stop that crap I didn't say that.Do you really think that him not having a semi-automatic, high-powered rifle didn’t reduce the body count? Weren’t you an analyst in the military? You must’ve been awful at it.
That’s actually a far more reasonable position - and is my stated position. We’re never going to stop shootings. Limiting their damage should be stated objectives.
And that's exactly why people like Joe and Ladoga are full of it. "If you can't prevent all deaths, you shouldn't do anything" is essentially what they are arguing.That’s actually a far more reasonable position - and is my stated position. We’re never going to stop shootings. Limiting their damage should be stated objectives.
Then your post was utterly useless.Stop that crap I didn't say that.
That implies a full gun ban which is never going to happen.Never is a long time. But here is the part side misses, if we make people who shouldn't have guns buy them illegally, there is always a chance they get caught at that point. The same person is then caught and prevented from shooting up a school/mall/church. But instead they fought long and hard to make sure terrorists had a right to buy guns in America. See their failure to include the no fly list in the forbidden category.
Then your post was utterly useless.
That implies a full gun ban which is never going to happen.
And that's exactly why people like Joe and Ladoga are full of it. "If you can't prevent all deaths, you shouldn't do anything" is essentially what they are arguing.
It still doesn’t change the fact that shootings will still happen. Remember that most of these mass shooters are law-abiding gun owners...until they’re not.And I don't favor a full gun ban. That isn't to say technology won't come up with something (eventually guns that have palm readers and the palm has to be in the database of people eligible to have/use a gun for example). Right now, such technology would be dicey. In 20 years?
Right now with the default being anyone can walk out and buy a semi-auto rifle, we have a VERY small window of opportunity to catch that someone shouldn't be doing that. If we required people pass gun safety classes and the like, the opportunity they screw up goes up. A well-regulated militia requires the people be well-trained in the use of firearms. So yes, they can still walk in with their handgun, but for more powerful weaponry we stand a chance at catching them beforehand.
Gawd. It’s disgusting that people like you play the ROI card when countering reasonable gun policy.WRONG. Again, show me something that would work. Your esteemed self, practicing student of law, show me the law goat SHOW me the law. Show me how its the guns fault. Show me something that is more than just making the control folks fell all warm and cozy, while spending millions of my money to enact (and then not enforce). Show me goat.
Huh? Can you ask me a genuine question without peppering it with meaningless platitudes and cliches like "Show me how its the guns fault?" Please? Give me a grown-up question, and I'll give you a grown-up answer.WRONG. Again, show me something that would work. Your esteemed self, practicing student of law, show me the law goat SHOW me the law. Show me how its the guns fault. Show me something that is more than just making the control folks fell all warm and cozy, while spending millions of my money to enact (and then not enforce). Show me goat.