Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

ap_adam_lanza_ll_121217_wg

Keep in mind, every single mass shooting in America, with the exception of the Tucson shooting of former Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords, has taken place in a “gun free zone.” Now, according to law enforcement sources, it seems Newtown shooter Adam Lanza picked his target to maximize his body count.

And what better target than a “gun free zone,” where law-abiding citizens will be disarmed?

The man who shot dead 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school wanted to kill more people than the 77 slain by a Norwegian man in a 2011 rampage, CBS News reported on Monday, citing unnamed law enforcement sources. …

Adam Lanza, 20, who killed himself as police closed in on him at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, saw himself in direct competition with Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bombing and shooting attack in Norway on July 22, 2011, CBS said.

Breivik surrendered to police. Citing two officials briefed on the Newtown investigation, CBS said Lanza targeted the elementary school because he saw it as the “easiest target” with the “largest cluster of people.”

The pro-gun control narrative would have us believe that these shootings happen because of our easy access to guns. But that just doesn’t pass the smell test. Criminals don’t commit crimes because they have a gun available to them. Criminals commit crimes for other reasons, and the guns are a means to an end.

The reason why these mass shooters have been as successful as they have been is because we insist on creating, with “gun free zones,” fertile grounds for their rampages.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Roy_Bean

    There has never been one of these in Switzerland where every adult male has a fully automatic weapon.

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      Hey Roy, didja know the easiest way to debunk a nutter’s claim is to look it up?

      Try it, it works!

      • mickey_moussaoui

        RBB,
        Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people’s militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
        Roy mispoke when he said “fully automatic” weapons. But other than that his point is that the Swiss understand the importance of personal protection and being well armed.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          Sounds good. We should have conscription here.

          All gun owners should be part of a well regulated militia.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            200,000,000 strong

          • two_amber_lamps

            All (retarded) leftists should be part (rather enclosed) of a well regulated mental institution.

            Shall we convene a constitutional convention and make this the 29th Amendment?

  • sbark

    In reallity, gun violence is a Democrat problem………almost 70% of gun violence occurs in decades long Democratic voting Blue cities/states.

    67% of firearm murders took place in the country’s 50 largest metro areas. The
    62 cities in those metro areas have a firearm murder rate of 9.7, more than
    twice the national average. Among teenagers the firearm murder rate is 14.6 or
    almost three times the national average.

    Those are the crowded cities of
    Obamerica. Those are the places with the most restrictive gun control laws and
    the highest crime rates. And many of them have been run by Democrats and their
    political machines for almost as long as they have been broken.

    Obama won every major city in the election, except for Jacksonville and
    Salt Lake City. And the higher the death rate, the bigger his victory.
    These are the locations where Democrats War on Poverty which begats a lifetime of welfare dependency has received the most spending…….

    • SusanBeehler

      It is not a liberal or conservative problem, it is an American problem. It is a violence problem and a problem responsible gun owners need to address.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        Responsible Americans Conceal and Carry. Douchebag liberals empower criminals and blame the victim.

      • Wayne

        Tell us Suzie, why is it a problem responsible gun owners need to address?

        • Wayne

          Responsible gun owners are not the cause of the violence problem. Please Suzie, leave us alone. We have done nothing wrong.

          • SusanBeehler

            If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. “We”, sounds like you are not speaking for yourself. “We” as a Americans need to come together to address the issues of gun violence.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            We have…it’s called Conceal, Carry and practice, practice, practice

          • SusanBeehler

            Concealers are failing

          • mickey_moussaoui

            not according to the stats

          • JoeMN

            Responsible gun owners ARE the solution

          • SusanBeehler

            You need to improve your skills because the problem is still very big

          • JoeMN

            Should all car drivers be blamed for an accident ?

            Should 9 irons be banned after the next lightning strike ?

            Should all water be a no-go to prevent drownings ?

            ______

            It is a violence problem and a problem responsible gun owners need to address.

            Susan

            I think we can both agree that the definition of law abiding is to follow the law.

            Also,
            that by nature the violent criminal will resist any and all cooperation
            in a collective action taken by lawmakers to reduce violent crime

            If violent crime now becomes the sole responsibility of all law
            abiding gun owners, how will banning or even limiting law abiding gun
            owners reduce violent crime ?

            I assert that the responsible gun owner is actually a viable solution to violent crime for the individual,

            and a deterrent to violent crime at a societal level

          • SusanBeehler

            Depends on if you are talking about the gun laws or many other laws, in determining whether someone is “law abiding” . Violent perpetrators have this commonalities: male, youth, paranoid, preoccupied with guns/weapons, into “control”.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            more reason for Americans to C&C, thanks

          • $16179444

            and by ‘addressing’ you mean ‘taking away my rights’ – um, no thank you.

          • SusanBeehler

            No right is unlimited and NO,I do not mean taking away your rights or sacrificing mine. Background checks for every gun purchase does not interfere with your rights, regulating the amount of ammunition, and many other things can be done. Your right and my right is preserved.

          • donwalk

            Exactly how and what is your plan to convince the criminal element of society to comply with background checks and gun registration? Please do present your ingenious ideas for this much needed accomplishment.
            What is exactly the amount of ammunition regulation that would work in your utopian society? Would a family be allowed two bullets, a dozen, or would it be rationed based upon the local violence rates in your city?
            Would Chicago and Washington D.C. be allowed a higher rationing due to their increased crime rates, or would they be allowed less because they have already instituted the strictest gun laws in the nation?
            Surely your plan is far enough advanced that you would be able to answer those questions!

          • SusanBeehler

            Background checks have kept guns out of 2 million people who did not meet the check. I never said anything about gun registration. The amount of ammunition I believe is regulated for certain hunting conditions, I am sure gun owners can come up with a workable quanitity to meet their sporting and defense needs. I suggest with limiting magazine and clip capacities, 10 to 15 ? Chicago and Washington DC would not get any more. The flow of guns from family, friends and traffickers needs to stop. Penalties and fines, prosecution would help to nab these dealers. We got to address the “law abiding” gun owners who are providing criminals with guns. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html

          • donwalk

            Normal capacity of a clip is ten rounds already. Now you are really showing that you know what you are talking about, (sarc.) Tell us how long it takes to exchange a clip, educate the readers please? What good does a background check do without registration?
            Prosecution is available for thousands of violations now, why isn’t it taking place? Everything you promote or endorse is nothing but “feel good” legislation or “feel good” babble that will do nothing. As asked before: Please tell the readers how you plan on getting the co-operation of criminals and the mentally deranged. Law abiding citizens don’t need new laws, the thousands on the books is sufficient for them already.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “Background checks have kept guns out of 2 million people who did not meet the check” They did not ingest them, you mean? Or simply, ‘out of their hands’?

            This particular statistic is about as bogus as a Michael Moore Miracle Diet plan. It implies that two million (or whatever figure the anti-gunnies are waving about this week) bad guys were flat out unable to get guns. This is bogus on many levels. First, is the assumption that someone who failed to pass the first time is a felon or otherwise disqualified person.

            It has been pointed out that when the late Senator Kennedy was mistakenly put on a “no fly” list, he was turned down from flying five different times before the matter was cleared. In the weird and wacky world of the gun banner, this would have been counted as five terrorists who were denied from flying. The bureaucratic snafu was resolved and Teddy was able to fly again. Five snafus did not equal five different individuals.

            Many, if not most of that 2 million figure were simple clerical errors. Maybe John W. (for Wayne) Smith of Omaha was mistaken for John W. (for Wade) Smith of Albuquerque. How many times have you heard of someone’s credit rating having been hurt for having someone with a similar name who has bad credit?

            Once the clerical errors were resolved, the guns were purchased. If indeed these were people trying to purchase firearms illegally, there should have been nearly 2 million prosecutions for this. There were not. There were not hundreds of thousands. There were not thousands.

            Many criminals are stupid. But most of them are smart enough to know that if it is illegal for them to possess a firearm, it is also illegal for them to purchase one through a legal retail outlet.

            And even if all two million were indeed felons who were turned away and never prosecuted by lazy and incompetent prosecutors, to assume that someone who is determined to have a firearm would not then steal one or purchase one on the black market, is the sort of story you tell your children, who also might believe in Tinkerbell.

            You need to really examine the talking points of the anti-gun left, rather than just parrot them, Susan.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            what good does limiting ammo? that’s just silly. If the government can purchase 1.5 billion rounds so can we

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You don’t have a right to specifically own a semi-automatic assault rifle or a machine gun. You have a right to have a gun, which you will retain.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Actually, Numb Nuts, we have the same right to own a machine gun as we do to drive a car. We just have to procure the proper license first.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You don’t have a specific right to any and all types of guns. If the government decides to outlaw a specific type of gun, it’s doesn’t infringe on your right to own a gun. You idiot.

            Reagan decided to outlaw your right to own a machine gun, as an example, you fraggin twit.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your projection is duly noted, midget troll. My statement was and is 100% true. You, on the other hand, are 100% irrelevant. (and not too bright)

            “Reagan decided to outlaw your right to own a machine gun” So, according to you, Reagan passed the National Firearms Act of 1934? In what passes for the empty space between your ears, was he president then, too?

            And despite what the little voices in your head tell you, I have the right to own a machine gun. I just have to get the appropriate license first.

            Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong, dim witted troll? Apparently not.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            In your mind, which president signed and passed FOPA? Doh!!!! That would be Reagan.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You know, midget dwarf, you may have unwittingly helped me with a decision I’ve been needing to make. You see, I’ve got a lot of cash just sitting around in my checking account and I didn’t know what to do with it. The stock market is a good long term investment, but I don’t know if I want to wait out the next cycle after Obama bankrupts the other half of America, or devalues the dollar. My CDs and savings accounts are paying chump change and a few too many gold bugs are chasing precious metals for my liking.

            Maybe what I’ll do is invest a couple hundred bucks in an FFL, and buy myself a fully automatic rifle that will probably appreciate faster than real estate or the stock market, or at least hold its value. Then, every time I pull it out of the safe, I can just laugh myself silly thinking about the clueless noob who thinks I don’t have the right to own it! And then, I’ll take it down to the range and punch some holes in some paper, and think about the midget dwarf who wants to be me so badly he can taste it, and just how big a loser he is!

            And just because you’re short enough to walk under my locked front door without ducking your head, Tiny Sociopath, don’t come over uninvited.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You would never be able to purchase one. They don’t allow mentally unstable and deranged people like you to have them. But that doesn’t change the fact that Ronny Raygun changed the laws so people like you can’t buy them.

        • SusanBeehler

          If you care about your neighbors, your brothers, your sisters, your children it would be in your best interest to be concerned, think of it as the legacy of love.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            That’s why we conceal and carry, sweetheart

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Because they are no longer responsible the day they decide to be a gun spree shooting criminal. This usually happens when the “responsible gun owners” go bad.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            We wouldn’t know, it hasn’t happened yet

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Almost every citizen who used a gun they purchased legally was a “responsible gun owner” until they decided to commit murder with the gun. That’s happens tens of thousands of times in this country.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            yawn…if they were responsible they wouldn’t of killed anyone.
            Guns don’t make you commit crime. Spin it as you may but you are calling 250,000,000 legal gun owners “irresponsible”. The majority of us “pro gun” people are all for improved background checks.

            BTW, did you pay your property tax yet little surfer twink?

          • $16179444

            sure he pays….”MOM! My bills are due”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Where’s yours, kook?

          • $16179444

            kook – go tug at mommy’s apron strings kid.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Self made man….and I can surf. What’s your pathetic story?

            If you never boogie boarded before, it’s time to start….you can’t surf, kid.

          • guest

            Self made…brahahahahaha!!!
            Wow, you can surf, big woop!!!
            Too bad no decent woman wants to spend any time with you to have your kids, if you were actually able to reproduce. It must be tough living alone with just yourself and a surf board to sleep with, smallwillie..

          • two_amber_lamps

            Syphilis did what veterinarians couldn’t… fix Hanitard so he could not contaminate the world with his retarded offspring. Who says God doesn’t have a purpose for everything?

            Not that we’d have much to worry about… natural selection already determined that he live (alone) in his mom’s basement playing violent video game (utilizing SKS’s) and watching raunchy 70’s and 80’s porn.

          • $16179444

            really, this guy in the story was a gun owner? LOL – you’re an idiot.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Well, that’s why I used the words “almost every”….for dimwits, like you. And that STILL didn’t help you.

          • $16179444

            really? got a link to that? because that theory certainly doesn’t apply to the STORY AT HAND. derp.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Do you know what a capital letter is?

          • $16179444

            this coming from the ass hat that called Chicago a state….move along kid.

          • $16179444

            Truth

          • SusanBeehler

            His mother was supposedly a “responsible” gun owner. Where do you think alot of killers get there guns, from mothers, fathers, grandfathers and brothers and uncles who are irresponsible and allow their guns to be used or stolen or maybe they just give them to use, “blanket” permission

          • donwalk

            Did he not kill his Mother and steal her guns? So his Mother was irresponsible because she allowed him to kill her? Under that thinking, all of the victims who were killed were also irresponsible.
            Do you even think things through at all?

          • mickey_moussaoui

            no

          • SusanBeehler

            Don if you own guns and you have a son who is mentally ill and his hero is the Norwegian mass murders, common sense would tell you not to take him out target shooting and don’t keep guns where he could get at them ever. Stealing from someone in your same household I would think would not be very difficult especially if you leave that person home alone for a week or more at a time. It is like leaving a cookie in the cookie jar and telling the kid not to “steal” it. Do you even think things through at all? Where are your guns does any member of your family have access to YOUR guns?

          • donwalk

            He killed his Mother, it is kind of difficult to stop someone when you are dead. There are numerous forms of mental illness. Normal activities that normal people do on a daily basis are therapeutic in nature for many. You act as if the Mother purposely taught her son how to be a killer and you have no right to make that kind of judgement. Unless of course, God made you perfect and you have never made a mistake in your life. If your guns are locked up, or have trigger locks on them and someone breaks into your home, kills you and then tears the house apart until they find the keys and/or the guns then it is all your fault? Believe it or not, I have taken all of my boys shooting over the years, both in their early years and on hunting excursions. Not one of them has ever broken the law or shot at anything they weren’t supposed to. They were all raised around guns and also during a time frame in history prior to the availability of trigger locks. Now I understand in your Liberal mind that they should be penalized, their constitutional rights taken away and they must pay the price for the criminal activities that others committed. There is no justification for that type of action and only a person who has no faith in our constitutional rights could justify that. Also, not one of my guns over the years have ever got up on their own, walked out of the house and committed a crime. You need to focus on serving the mentally ill and also holding actual criminals responsible for their actions, rather than holding the public at large responsible. I understand that is against everything the liberal mind believes but give it a try. “Personal Responsibility” either you believe in it, and the Constitution (which made this country great), or you don’t! You have made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe in our Constitution, so give personal responsibility a try.

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

          • SusanBeehler

            Big difference your sons were probably not mentally ill, you were present as their father, she taught him how to shoot and she probably provided all the video games and the materials he needed to carry out the act. Children cannot just acquire items without money, she provided the things he needed to carry out the act, she played a role in the act indirectly. Actually many of the school shooters used guns of their fathers, their grandfathers. If your boys would have had a mental lapse would you have recognized it and would you unknowingly being providing them with a tool to kill themselves or others? Would you know? If you couldn’t say for sure, then as a responsible gun owner this is education you would need to have, what are the signs of someone contemplating suicide or suffering from some type of issue? How do you serve the mentally ill? You first have to identify it. I believe in the constitution but the 2nd amendment right does not mean it cannot be regulated. It is not an all or nothing, never has been and people who are saying it is are being irresponsible. History has shown our guns have been regulated and now it is a matter of balancing safety and the type of weapons available. Murder did not become a problem until the 6 shooter was invented by Colt, this is when murder started its upward trend. Different times in our history we have had address the problem caused my new guns entering the market place.

          • donwalk

            “Actually many of the school shooters used guns of their fathers, their grandfathers. If your boys would have had a mental lapse would you have recognized it and would you unknowingly being providing them with a tool to kill themselves or others?”

            Please provide you sources for that statement above?

            And if they had suffered a mental lapse and attacked someone with knives, then I would have unknowingly provided them with a tool to kill others, also? And if they had purposely crashed the car into someone then I would have knowingly provided them with an additional tool to kill others, also? Where does it end in your Utopian World?
            Yes, children cannot acquire items without money, but in the real world that seem so far away from you they can acquire anything they want by stealing or killing the owners before they steal the items.

            “Murder did not become a problem until the 6 shooter was invented by Colt, this is when murder started its upward trend. Different times in our history we have had address the problem caused my new guns entering the market place.”
            Nice to know that nobody was ever murdered prior to the six shooter being developed – are there no bounds to the extent of your fabrications?
            I support our constitutional rights and the constitution that made this country great. You go ahead and continue trying to tear it down since that is your enjoyment and your goal.
            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “Murder did not become a problem until the 6 shooter was invented by Colt” And no one ever got fat before they invented Cool Whip. I’d ask where you went to school to learn such things, but perhaps I should ask if Spongebob was one of your classmates?

          • SusanBeehler

            Spongebob is very entertaining, you might not be so rigid if you watched it, you might even find you could relate to Patrick but you ar probably more a Squidward. Proof I think you may argue the sky is “cyan” color because I did not say it was “blue”. Your lack of knowledge of history of guns show you do not get out enough and live in a little world view. Watch this and you will see a “historian” make this comment. Of course if you are willing to spend 55 minutes not in a blog. http://video.pbs.org/video/2336640229

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Little Suzie, I am fairly well acquainted with history. If this source of yours is one of the places you’ve received your scatterbrain ideas, I think I’ll pass, at least until I need something for entertainment value.

            BTW, your ignorant characterization of my knowledge of gun history would be similar to me telling you I am more familiar with childbirth than you are. I can certainly say it, but that in no way makes it true.

            One of the nice things about the NRA, is they automatically subscribe you to one of their fine publications. One of the nice things about The American Rifleman, is the stories they do on gun history and historic firearms. This month for example, among other things, there’s an article on the Model 1860 Colt .44 cap and ball revolver. Although first delivered to the South, federal cavalry used them as well. There’s also an article on the Colt-Browning machine guns that Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders used in 1898 in Cuba.

            My father was a member of the NRA, before me, so I’ve been reading The American Rifleman for over half a century, now. Add to that a major in history in college, and I’d be happy to match what I know about gun history against anything you think you know after watching 55 minutes of public television, any day.

            Of course, perhaps you are not willing to spend 55 minutes outside the bubble of public broadcasting? Maybe you could forego the glowing screen altogether and actually …read a book? It wouldn’t kill you, you know! Well, maybe the novelty of it would?

          • SusanBeehler

            So are you saying you are too “bright” and too knowledgeable to watch this video? I am an avid reader and I love history, I was a founding member of my hometowns’ historical society. I choose to look at “gun” history and gun violence not just throw the eyes of a NRA publication. And you your narrative gives your age away which explains why you would not be open minded.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            No, dear dim wit. I said if that was the source f your misinformation I would be in no hurry to watch it.

            “I choose to look at “gun” history and gun violence not just throw (sic) the eyes of a NRA publication” or a second grade English primer, apparently! Have you ever looked at so much as a single copy of the American Rifleman, Suzie dear, to judge its contents? Shall we then assume that it is because PBS has made you so closed minded? Or are you still wet behind the ears as well? (See? Different judgements can be made about age. And, as the man said, no generalization is worth a thing. Including this one. )

            For you to base assumptions solely based on my age is no different than for me to make assumptions about you based solely on your uterus. Are you a make believe Christian like Hanni, or did you just miss that whole “age and wisdom” thing?

            Or is there any such thing as a “typical woman”?

          • Onslaught1066

            hanniturdlette, I see that begging for a position in the MaNDan Historical Society worked out much better for you than begging to be appointed to the Mandan Architectural Review Commission.

            Two possibilities occur to me that would serve to explain this:

            1) The MaNDan Historical Society has much lower standard requirements of aptitude, knowledge base and decorum than the Mandan Architectural Review Commission.

            2) The MaNDan Historical Society has no standards what-so-ever.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            They don’t want to admit that the majority of spree killers get their guns from those who obtained them legally, mostly their family members.

          • donwalk

            What is your plan for identifying your imaginary “responsible gun owners go bad” crowd? Surely you have that plan developed and ready to go.
            While you are at it, please reveal your plan for identifying and exposing the “irresponsible gun owners” who were bad before they stole their first gun to start committing crimes.
            If we are going to live in your imaginary world, then all violence could be stopped by identifying those prone to violence behavior, prior to their actual rampages.

      • retirenowconrad

        Why should responsible gun owners find the solution to violence?
        We know is punishing gun owners won’t fix the problem.

      • Hellboy

        Responsible gun owners do recognize what the problems are and do address it…… only to play on deaf ears. My guns have never killed or injured anyone and I am a responsible gun owner. The “mentally challenged,” however, have injured and killed people with guns….. why don’t you Libs work on that???

      • Jeremiah Glosenger

        If you would get rid of the “gun free zones,” we (the responsible gun owners) would be happy to help address the problem. Every time I have to disarm to go somewhere, I become that much less useful in addressing the problem.

      • donwalk

        It is a problem created by the Liberal Mentality, which is “It is always someone else s responsibility and/or fault.”

        Reasonable gun owners address the problem by protecting themselves and their families. If that protection requires owning a gun, then they are certainly within their constitutional rights in owning one.
        Declaring your own home as a “Gun Free Zone” doesn’t protect your family in time of need.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Most gun violence occurs in Red States, they are the most violent when it comes to gun homicides.

      • sbark

        I take it you live in Chicago or south central LA?….those peacefull cities of ObamaVille……

        via frongpage mag…..Chicago, the capital of Obamerica, is a city run by gangs and politicians. It has 68,000 gang members, four times the number of police officers. Chicago politicians solicit the support of gang members in their campaigns, accepting laundered contributions from them, hiring their members and tipping them off about upcoming police raids. And their biggest favor to the gang bosses is doing nothing about the epidemic of gang violence.
        80% of Chicago’s murders are gang-related. But in 1999 when a bill came up in the Illinois State Senate to charge anyone carrying out a firearm attack on school property as an adult, a law that would have largely affected gang members, the future leader of Obamerica voted present. Had he not voted present, it is doubtful that he would have been reelected in an area where gang leaders wield a great deal of influence.
        The majority of murders in the cities with the worst homicide rates are gang-related. And while it isn’t always possible to be certain whether a killing was gang-related, the majority of homicide victims in city after city have been found to have criminal records.
        In 2010, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in the United States and over 2,000 known gang-related killings, over 90% of which are carried out with firearms. Since 1981, Los Angeles alone has had 16,000 gang related homicides. That’s more than twice the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        This is what Obamerica looks like

        Gun Violence is a dem’cat constituent probelm…….not all dem’cats are criminals, but the vast vast majority of criminals vote dem’cat

        Liberals have long encouraged the marginalized self Indiv.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Chicago is an exception, always has been….even before you made it a black thing. The red states are still the most violent.

          • sbark

            Ohhh, you mean like ND,SD Neb, Kansas?…….

            classic case of confirmation bias……or delusion—or combo of both

            confirmation bias. Confirmation bias occurs when people look for evidence that confirms their preconceived notions, while ignoring evidence that is contrary to their already held beliefs. It can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence for ideas that they already hold. These two theories might explain why so many people cannot seem to believe that politicians they support might be acting out of malice and be purposely working to weaken America.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What confirmation bias allowed you to ignore this factual data?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You certainly have a knack for finding charts without any dates or corroboration to back them up, Tiny Sociopath! Afraid someone will double check your data? What year does that chart represent? Do you have a link to the source of those figures?

            Or are you just the King of Google, and anytime you find something you think proves your case, you simply fling it against the wall and hope that it sticks?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession
          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You really are a witless tool, aren’t you Hannitwit? Neither one of those links is to the source of your charts, and the second one is from 2002.

            “DEFINITION: Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.”

            If the data is truly “all over the place” as you suggest, then it should not be hard for you to produce the link that was the source of your graphic. Why is getting you to source any of your lame ass assertions like dealing with a petulant two year old, Hanni Boo Boo?

            How ’bout the next time you Google something, you actually read it before posting the link?

            BTW, the “statemaster” link I linked to was from 2010

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Asked and answered. The source was provided long ago, and then I provided more data to support my statement. There are multiple sources that prove me correct.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your ADD is kicking in. You never supplied a link to the Gallup poll you first posted. I asked, but you never answered. Ask the little voices in your head for a transcript.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You don’t understand what you are reading. How difficult is it for you to understand the Polls that were posted?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I understand you didn’t post a link. That puts me one up on you, Hanni Boo Boo.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You are conflating issues. But watching you claim one Gallup poll is authentic and another is a forgery is hysterical. There is no conspiracy you wont create, in your imagination.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You are inflating your pathetic Googling abilities. I linked to a Gallup poll at the Gallup website. You linked to a pdf with no link to the source material. Give it up Tiny Loser. You failed.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I gave you the link, you are just denying it. You aren’t fooling anyone, except yourself. Stop digging and clinging to conspiracies.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            If you aren’t lying about it, then you can certainly produce it a second time then, couldn’t you? I predict you will not (re*) post the link and will just natter on about nothing at all, while making gratuitous insults, to cover the fact that you were lying. In 3-2-1…

            *(Stop laughing!)

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I provided it and you stamped your feet and made fun of the website name. Here’s yet more evidence showing those figures were accurate: and actually reference the polls used in the PDF you keep denying:

            http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining

            Now go ahead and claim CNN is in on the conspiracy.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Tiny Ignorant Infant: Saying you have “more evidence” about the supposed accuracy of the original graph has nothing to do with the source data for that original graph. Which, as I predicted you didn’t post and still cannot because you are a lying, incompetent dweeb.

            As far as any “conspiracy” goes, unless you are saying your Mom and Dad conspired to make you a lying moron, I don’t think we need to look any further than that.

            If you actually did post a link to the source of the data from that original graph, and are not lying about it (stop laughing!), then simply post it so we can examine the source of the (outdated) data, and then we can compare it to the trend towards more gun ownership from 2010 to the present (what we adults might call “current”), as the Gallup poll I linked to suggests.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Give it up Poof, the preponderance of evidence sides with me. Just because you don’t like the website that originated the graph I posted is not an excuse for you to create conspiracy theories. You never could understand the graph I provided, which was data from two polls, not one. Both polls are referenced in multiple articles by CNN, WAPO, NYT and many, many others. Even your Gallup results show gun ownership, per home, in America is declining and shows the same decline figures in my Gallup poll. You’re just a liar.

          • two_amber_lamps

            I told you little Kahuna… your original (uncited) graph has as much veracity as the one below. “It’s all over the internet, you obviously aren’t looking hard enough.”

            See logical fallacy: “Burden of Proof.”

            Did your mom inform you who your father is yet or is “Father’s Day” still an enigma to you?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            So, what you are saying is that even though there is source data for those two polls on the original graph, you can’t find it. And when you say that you did post it, then you were lying? Got it!

            Your projection is duly noted.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Nope. I keep posting the link, you keep ignoring it, just as you did the CNN data and all others that you keep ignoring and denying.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Sorry, loser! That’s the link I posted, which extends beyond 2010, where your original chart concluded, which must have been based on an earlier poll than the one I linked to. You still have not provided a link to either poll upon which that chart was based. Must really suck to be you, eh, Losertized?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So you deny the CNN data TOO? Good lord, Poof, there is no data or fact that you wont deny.

            I keep providing the link, you keep ignoring it.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Sorry, loser. That’s the link I posted. The Gallup poll referred to in the chart you posted must have been an earlier one, since it the chart was only through 2010.

            I don’t deny the CNN data. I do laugh at your impotence in being unable to substantiate the “evidence” you Google and put forth, without being able to substantiate it.

            So, since you can only come up with my link, will you admit now that you were lying when you said repeatedly that you had posted the link?

            And though you haven’t lied about posting it, you never posted a link to the data behind the second poll on the chart either.

            Toddle off to the kiddie pool, infant dweeb, until you can converse as an adult.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So if you don’t deny the CNN data then you have to admit that gun ownership has steadily gone down, per household since the 70s, with minor upticks here and there as the overall number continues to dwindle downward. Hell, even your own Gallup poll, which includes all the older Gallup results shows this.

            You have no point except to stamp your feet like a child. And you believe all your noise making changes the facts, it doesn’t.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            *Yawn* You are too incompetent to provide the source of the data for a chart you yourself posted as evidence, and then clowned around for 24 hours alternately saying you did and then admitting you didn’t, and calling names and Googling new stuff that you hope will get you off the hook for posting a chart with data that no one could verify.

            Please stop clogging up my inbox unless your next comment contains a link to one or both of the polls cited on your original graph. Your attempts to cover your incompetence are getting quite boring.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            “Sugarmann agreed. “There is a myth pushed by the gun industry, the NRA and the trade associations for gun makers that gun ownership is up,” he said. “[That] there are more gun owners, when the opposite is true, gun ownership is declining.””

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            That myth is probably “shared” by every local television station, newspaper and news outlet across the country. I’ve lost track of how many anecdotal accounts I’ve heard about people buying guns, about more women buying guns than ever.

            BTW, I have no idea who “Sugarmann” is, since in your careless, rude, and juvenile manner, you once again do not link to the source of your “evidence”, so that I might find out why I or anyone else should give a flying frack what he (or she) thinks about anything.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The same gun owners are buying more guns. I keep pointing that out to you but you keep ignoring it. That’s what you do, ignore facts and data.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “That’s what you do, ignore facts and data.” says the dweeb who posts a chart, purportedly from two different polls, but is too incompetent to link to the source of the data.

            Your projection and your incompetence are both duly noted

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I posted the source of the graph, you don’t like it. What more can I do for you than keep providing substantiating data that shows the graphs are correct?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You posted the source of the graph? Give yourself a cookie! But what is the source for the data on the graph? That’s what I asked for and you were and still are too incompetent to provide, or possibly even know the difference!

            Anyone can make a graph, numb nuts. If the data is to be of any real use, we need to be able to analyze it.

            What more can you do? Prove that you are not totally incompetent and post the source for the data from those two polls on the chart YOU posted as evidence of a point your brain was too lame to make without visual aids. If you can’t run with the big dogs, Hanni, stay on the porch. (Or you can just run like a scalded dog, as you do most of the time.)
            Your choice, flea bag.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Again, I already posted the source for the data on the graph, and also the source of the data for the graph was on the graph.

            You’re just too stupid to have figured that out for yourself or to look it up. If you want to challenge it, it’s up to you to find contentious data, you haven’t done so.

            Now quite acting like another right-wing loon who latches on to conspiracy theories.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Poor stupid Hannitized! He has to lie about links he didn’t post and try to smear his betters with libels of conspiracies that only take place among the little voices inside the vast, empty canyons of his head!

            Toddle off now, little Kahuna, before anyone else finds out how your damp, yellow stained “boardies” got that way.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Poof, if you don’t have any data that can be linked to a source to contradict my graph just say so.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            The problem isn’t contradicting your graph, witless child (the graph which data you ever linked to) the problem is the graph never defended your original point. It was just something you Googled, hoping to cover your cluelessness. It obviously failed, as have you, CluelessDweebitized.

            If you haven’t the brains or the balls to provide the data to back up your ‘evidence”, just say so. (Actually, you don’t have to say so. Everybody here already knows you don’t.) Now stop clogging my inbox with your mindless dreck, ScheißeForBrainsitized. Toddle off to your kiddie pool, little Kahuna. Ask Mommy if you can take your water wings off someday?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The information is provided by a reliable source and well known poll. If you don’t have contradictory data, just say so.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “Well known”? So well known that you who cannot find your arse with both hands can’t find a link to it? Too funny!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Again, and AGAIN…I posted the source of the data. Stop moving the goal posts. If you don’t have any contradictory data….just say so.

            In the meantime, until you can come up with a reliable source that provides a contradictory graph…..game over.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Infant child, you didn’t post the source of the data, unless “post”, “source” and “data” are yet three more English words that you have no clue as to the meaning.

            BTW, the game was over yesterday when you said you were posting the link “again”, but merely reposted the link I had posted, from a newer poll, to which I wanted to compare the data from your poll, should you ever have the brains or balls to find and post it. You didn’t. Game, set and match for the adult. Loser takes his damp, yellow stained “boardies” back to the kiddie pool.

            It must really suck to be you, Losertized!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Poof, you are insufferable. AGAIN…I linked you to the source of the data AND the poll. Is source another word you don’t understand? Stop moving the goal posts.

            Also, your link didn’t offer any different data on time frame of my Gallup poll, so stop pretending that your data was different. If you have evidence that the same time period show gun ownership going up, by all means please step up. But we know you can’t…..so step OFF.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “your link didn’t offer any different data on time frame of my Gallup poll”

            (the one you never linked to)

            Really? Which part of “2011” didn’t you understand? If you linked to this poll, what was the date the poll was taken, Clueless Dwarf? The 2011 poll I linked to showed a rise in (self admitted) firearm ownership.

            Your original lame argument, to which you could not find verifiable evidence, was that “current” statistics showed a decrease in handgun ownership. The 2010 Gallup portion of your chart did not make that distinction and you have never linked to the data from the other poll.

            Hanni, the hole you’ve dug for yourself is exceedingly deep. You can stop digging now.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thank you for confirming that your poll offered the same data showing gun ownership steadily going down, from the time period that was covered in my poll.

            Again, if you have another Gallup poll that shows different data, showing gun ownership going up during the same time period….give it up. Until you do that….game over.

          • Mack

            Mean while in the real world, gun sales (and ownership) are increasing at such a high rate that the gun manufacturers can’t keep up with demand.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I didn’t “confirm” it, you moron. There were differences between the poll which I could verify and the one you merely posted a chart of, the figures which it was based on is questionable, and since you are incompetent to provide the source, unverifiable.

            We’ll just add “confirm” to the long, long, ever growing list of English words that you simply cannot comprehend.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yes, you accidentally confirmed my Gallup poll data was accurate. If your Gallup poll shows something different on the time frame I covered, please show us. (laughing) I’ll be waiting, but not expecting you to do the heavy lifting. You’re all gums, no teeth.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof
          • Onslaught1066

            The only “Accident” here centers around the circumstances of your conception.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            lol, what an assclown surfer twink

          • SusanBeehler

            And Chicago is not a state.

          • donwalk

            Isn’t it known as “The Perpetual State of Violence?”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Exactly. Although it still rolls up to Chicago. But still, it’s an anomaly. Comparatively, red states are where the violent gun murders happen most.

          • SusanBeehler
          • JoeMN

            Well at least they don’t bring them back to Chicago.
            That would be “illegal”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yes, it’s hard for gun control laws to work when neighboring states or other states make it so easy for people to obtain them. Further, we saw once it’s known homeowners have guns, it doesn’t prohibit criminals from robbing their home, it increases the likelihood they would be robbed because criminals want those guns they can’t obtain anywhere else.

          • Onslaught1066

            OMFG! our girl hanniturdlette has exhibited intelligence on a plane one level above the original hanniturd.

            Relax everybody, this is not the end of the world as we know it. Soon Miz Beehler will display her usual level of imbecility and the planet will resume its natural course about the sun.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I just had a daytime nightmare: Suzy Bimbo & hanniwipe get together and breed.

          • $16179444

            everything is suddenly an exception for you when you get your ass handed to you.

        • SusanBeehler
      • mickey_moussaoui

        Sorry dumdum, Chicago is the murder capitol. Illinois is a blue state.

        Thanks for playing, try again sometime

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Sorry dummy, but red states take the cake when it comes to gun violence. Here’s the facts:

          • mickey_moussaoui

            That’s firearm deaths. Now separate the suicide and accidental from the homicide you dope.
            Then come back and play some more.

          • guest

            As usual, no source or date for your little chart, smallwillie.

      • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

        More violent than any red state is the District of Columbia with a higher per capita gun homicide rate than any state.

        “Gun violence > % Gun (most recent) by state”, shows four out of the top six are blue states

        http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_gun-crime-gun-violence

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Gun violence is a red state problem. Here’s the facts:

      • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

        Three times you’ve posted a chart without a date and without a source for where the data came from. If you want to put something forth as evidence, it must meet certain criteria. If you are unable (or too stupid) to link back to where you got it, it is worthless (much like you) for the sake of honest and reasonable discussion.

        If you want to keep posting charts that we cannot verify, then toddle off and let the adults converse.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          It meets the acceptable level of criteria. You’re the guy who said “provide any statistic that shows hand gun ownership has gone down”, then cried when I provided verifiable proof that hand gun ownership has gone down over the last 40 years…..and when you stamped your feet about those facts you tried to move the goal posts.

          You have NO credibility.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            It meets no acceptable level of criteria, except maybe to the little voices in your head, Tiny Sociopath. If you cannot link to the source of the data, just say so.

            Your projection is duly noted.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession
          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You keep posting a link to 2002 statistics. Is it because you’re too mind numbingly stupid to actually read the stuff you Google, or you just couldn’t find anything current?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I knew you would keep pushing it. You never accept facts. Here it is, he (Princeton Prof) also predicted every single stat that voted for Obama. The guy knows how to read stats.

            http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/12/guns-and-gun-deaths-state-by-state.html

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Angry Bear Blog, eh? Really piling on the authoritative sources, eh, Hanni Boo Boo? I drilled down several layers on one of his charts. The data on gun ownership was from a 2001 poll

            “In 2001 the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in North Carolina surveyed 201,881 respondents nationwide”

            200K residents out nearly 300 million, probably a phone survey, with nothing about their methodology. That’s enough to convince me! After all, no one ever lies to pollsters! /sarc

            If you’re not going to bother to read the damn stuff you link to, neither will I.

            And, for the ADD afflicted among us, even if that hodgepodge of statistics were true (stop laughing!) it still doesn’t tell us where you got the original chart, or which Gallup survey it supposedly represented, or any information to verify it.

            It just tells us that, backed against a wall, you exercise mad Google skills rather than ever admit you were wrong. Which you are. Often.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Brahaha. See, even after I provided the link, you still don’t get it.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Sorry, fool. That was my link and there were small discrepancies between the poll at my link, which provides actual information and your link which resembles a crayon drawing on your Mom’s fridge. That’s why I wanted to see the data that was used to make that graph. You didn’t provide the link I asked for, so, every time you say you did, you are either lying or delusional (or both). Toddle off now. I think your Mom is calling you.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The overall data is the same; it shows Gallop shows a trend in constant gun ownership decreasing in America. It’s widely known that the paranoid cranks who already own guns are stockpiling out of fear and paranoia, which is why there is an increase in 2010,2011, which your chart doesn’t even show.

            Your conspiracy theories aside, if you don’t like the GSS polls, then take it up with every major news organization that is using the data and respects is finding.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            If it is the “same”, Assclownitized, why is the data different on this chart that you posted from the Monkey Cage blog and what Gallup is willing to stand behind on their website? It cites two polls, neither of which you or your other friends in the monkey cage seem to be able to.

            And even if the data were the same, which I am not saying they are, why are you so incompetent that you cannot even provide verification for the “evidence” you casually Google and post ( without reading or comprehending)?
            http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/guns.png

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Oh, so you finally admit I linked to the source of the graph, the graph of which you still have never been able to understand. Got it.

            If you want to believe the polls are a conspiracy, go for it. It’s not like you haven’t bitten down on stupid assed conspiracies before.

            LOL.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I never said you didn’t link to the graph, ScheißeForBrainsitized. I’ve asked you repeatedly for the source for that data on the graph. You have not linked to that. If you can not tell the differrence, then you truly are a witless child.

            Babble on about the conspiracies that only you can see. All the little voices in your head applaud you when you do!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You asked me for the source of that graph, which I provided. Then you failed to understand that the sources for the graph were listed on the graph.

            If you don’t know what GSS or Gallup is, that’s on you.

            http://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/general-social-survey.aspx

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Poor Pathetic Loser: I asked for the source of the data, or at least the date the poll was taken.

            “the sources for the graph were listed on the graph”

            That’s lame even for an immature, juvenile POS like you, Scheißekopfitized. Yes, I could read what was written on the graph. That is not a link to the data on the graph. The data that you put forth as evidence. Since it is your argument, and your evidence, the onus is on you to back it up. At least it would be if you were an adult. You prove that wrong daily.

            If you cannot link to the data upon which that graph was drawn, just say so. Trying to impugn your betters convinces no one, impudent, infant, ignoramus Hanni Boo Boo Child.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You need to cut back on the dope and quit inventing conspiracy theories, you idiot. The GSS polls are referenced all over the place, if you believe it’s a hoax it’s up to you to prove it. The data is widely accepted by many companies and organizations throughout the country.

            I even provided a link to the GSS website. If you also ignore the Gallup poll data and it’s similarity to the Gallup poll figures I linked to, that’s on you. You’re a truth denier.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You’re a funny little troll! You keep bleating “conspiracy”, although nothing I’ve said suggests one. Have you ever considered electroshock treatment? You should.

            You haven’t provided a link specifically to the data on the chart, which you provided as “evidence” of “current” statistics showing a decrease in handgun ownership. It was neither current nor conclusive.

            We all accept here your shortcomings as a debater and, yes, your shortcomings as a human being. Keep pretending that you proved your point or provided links you didn’t if it help you sleep at night.

            Maybe if your Mom left the sides of the crib down, you wouldn’t feel so closed in? Just a suggestion.

          • Guest

            “If you can not tell the differrence (sic), then you truly are a witless child.”

            Goof is not a smart man. Moreover, with his chronic impotence, its doubtful whether he’s a man as well.

            What a Goof!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your projection, Gusty, and delusions of adequacy, are duly noted.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            The guy you say “knows how to read stats” should try some simple math. (And you should try “second grade”) His poll of gun ownership (2001) sampled more people in Alaska than they did in Alabama, even though, according to the 2000 census, Alabama had eight times as many people as Alaska.

            They surveyed 8474 people in Massachusetts, which has highly restrictive gun laws (and where people who own guns would probably not admit it to an anonymous phone poll), against 2716 in Alaska.

            So they surveyed three times as many people in Massachusetts than they did Alaska, despite Massachusetts having ten times the population of Alaska.

            I will assume that you know nothing about polling methodology, Hanni Boo Boo, because assuming you know nothing is a generally safe bet.

            Now Google something else you know nothing about and pretend you actually read it.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            WTF are you talking about, loony bird. The PDF I provided was in regards to gun violence by state, per 100,000.00.

            You really aren’t very good at this.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I apologize for using math, Hanni Boo Boo. No one expects you to understand simple English, much less math!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The PDF that you took issue with was not about gun ownership, but gun violence. You idiot!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I apologize for treating you like an adult. To recap: You posted two graphs, which you cannot seem to keep straight in what passes for your mind. The first one you posted was supposedly to support your assertion that current statistics showed a decrease in handgun sales which you asserted was responsible for a corresponding decrease in violence. However, it was not current, nor did you provide link or even a date by which the data on the graph could be verified or compared to other polls, such as the one on the Gallup site, which seemed to contradict some of the data on your chart.

            I also took exception to the second graph you posted which had neither a date nor a source for the data, as is your rude and sloppy custom. An in depth examination of the underlying data used by that left of center blogger raises questions about the validity of the data, which you are apparently intellectually unable to fathom.

            But, keep up that name calling, Hanni Boo Boo! It really makes you sound like…yourself. And if you’re not going to provide a link to the original chart, then do me a favor and stop filling my inbox with your meaningless and nonsensical attempts at obfuscation. You’re fooling no one.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            This entire thread started from you talking about the chart proving red states have more gun violence then blue states, per capita. The fact that you can’t keep your arguments straight is not my fault, but you made it my problem. The chart that you can’t figure out it’s source is your problem. The chart shows the sources on the bottom of the chart, you idiot.

            If you can’t figure it out….that’s on you.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            Hanni Boo Boo…lol
            that’s funny stuff
            bet he wears his mommas moo moo, too too.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession
          • SusanBeehler

            Proof still believes Sandy Hook was a hoax and likes to stitch videos to together to prove the guns used were not the guns used. His proof is subjective, believes only what he wants to believe.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Poor Suzie! There’s as much evidence online that you are a transgendered Smurf as there is that I believe Sandy Hook was a hoax. If you are stooping to the Hannitized School of Making Cr*p Up, expect what little credibility you have to tank as well.

          • SusanBeehler

            I did not know a transgendered Smurf could birth to children, I have 5 beautiful children and none of them have blue skin. I would sure like a link to this interesting website featuring transgendered Smurfs, I love them they are so cute. You finally believe the guns used were the guns used or are you still peddling your you tube videos, or did they go poof!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I never said anything about Sandy Hook being a hoax. They must have given you your fifth epidural between C7 and C8.

          • SusanBeehler

            So what was that all about the weapons used in Sandy hook.

            No epidural for me, all natural.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            It was a video about the quality of reporting by the networks. Do try to keep up!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Oh, you fell for that initial video where they thought the Bushmaster was in the trunk, and so the conspiracy theorists never accepted the final report, which shows it was a shotgun and the Bushmaster was mostly used to slaughter kids.

            Typical! He probably tried to push the conspiracy and now covers up under the guise of it being about “media reporting”.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Hanni Boo Boo, you have no evidence of me “falling” for anything, assclown. Bleating on about conspiracies that only you can see does not help those people who are trying to view you as sane.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Poof, did you also fall for the lie that the bushmaster was in the trunk and not used to shoot up children? You know, the gun that you want to make sure is in the hands of Americans so they can butcher children again, with great efficiency.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I haven’t fallen for any lies, ScheißeForBrainsitized. I posted a video which stated that the:

            “Big 3 Networks All Admit “Assault Rifle” Not Used in Newtown Shooting”

            Which appears to be a direct contradiction of the reporting they had done before. If you did not have ScheißeForBrains, you might be able to make an argument in favor of gun control that was not based on incredible ignorance about firearms or evil libels about your opponents, whom you cannot come close to matching in intellectual debate.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            BRAHAHA! Hey, guess what, Poof. There is also video out there showing the news organizations reporting about a car chase with O.J. Simpson being pursued for possible murder charges. I suppose one could also forget he went to trial and was not found guilty for the murders, and only talk about the car chase as if he never went to court and received a verdict, but that would be just about as stupid as pretending there wasn’t a final police report confirming the shotgun was in the car and the bushmaster was used to butcher children.

            But then again, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy if you didn’t want to make it one….which is your MO.

            Carry on…..ya twit.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You seem infatuated with the phrase “butcher children”. Is this on your mind a lot? Do you fantasize about it, too, sicko?

            You keep bleating about conspiracies, but other than your rambling bleats, you haven’t demonstrated that I have promoted one, mentioned one, or even referenced one apart from debunking your lies, nonsense and libels.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Poof, you don’t have to announce that you buy into conspiracy theories to solidify the fact that you buy into conspiracy theories.

            You buy into many, some in fact you invent, on your own. You’re a regular right wing loon, all on your own. You’re not just a sheep, but a shepherd for the deluded and dysfunctional.

            The Bushmaster conspiracy is yet another wing-nut conspiracy you lapped up.

            Now go play in the street with the rest of the nutters.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Poor tiny twerpitized! You have no evidence of anything you say and yet seem blissfully unaware of it! You are short on evidence, short on brains and short enough to walk under a closed door without ducking your head. You’ve hit the trifecta of short, Midget Dwarf!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            This just in:

            O.J. on the run for murdering Nicole, which appears to be a direct contradiction of the reporting they had done before…

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcyyCi2b2AY

            That’s how stupid you look to adults who know the difference between old video and the final analysis, which included the police report conclusions.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            LOL! You can’t find a link to back up your argument so you stumble across a video of OJ, and say, “Oooh! Shiny!” and post that instead?? Too funny!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Give us another conspiracy theory, Poof. Tell us about the twin towers again, and how metal could not melt. That’s a good one.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You may be the most ignorant person on the planet, ScheißeForBrainsitized. I’ll give you the link, since you have shown yourself to be a totally inept fool about finding things on the Internet. Please point out the “conspiracy” of anything I said. I was debunking the conspiracy theorists like Rosie O’Donnell who said that fire doesn’t melt steel. Could it be, like everything else, that you’ve gotten this backwards, too, Numb Nuts? No doubt.

            http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/2012/02/fire-melts-steel.html

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s just one of his fantasies, which is usually accompanied by a phtotoshopped picture of me. I’m his favorite obsession.

          • guest

            Like the photoshopped picture you post of yourself allegedly surfing, smallwillie.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Transgendered smurfs… you may want to talk to your pal Gay Bob or maybe Ellinasty might have a line for you. They’re both into the “alternative” lifestyles… that is if you call pederasty an alternative lifestyle in Elli’s case.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            she may be one of hanni Boo Boo’s personalities

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Between the two of them they almost have enough smarts to be one person!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You mean like you making stuff up to distract from my PDF that proves red states are the more violent states compared to blue?

            You know, how you keep trying to change the subject to the other PDF that proves you were wrong about hand gun ownership too?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You provided no link to verify the chart you linked to . Again, I apologize for treating you like an adult. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I provided 3 links, all of which supported my chart that red states are more violent than blue states, and one of which showed the chart and where it originated. You’re just a liar.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Juvenile infant, you are changing the subject. The link you never provided was to the first graph you posted. You know, the one to the outdated information you said was “current”. The one that purported to have information from a Gallup poll and one other, but without links to those who created the polls, how the data was gathered or when the polls supposedly took place.

            Your projection is once again duly noted. Congratulations on finally being able to count as high as three. Keep practicing, and maybe someday you’ll make it into double digits?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            LOL, Poof, you moron. I only provided on graph on this thread, you’re changing the subject. And I also provided links to the graph you claim I hadn’t. You lie and obfuscate. That’s all you do.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your projection, dishonesty and incompetence are all duly noted.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Show me where on this page I posted another graph! I only posted one, YOU ARE CHANGING THE SUBJECT because you are getting your arse handed to you.

            You dishonest twit.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Are you telling me now that you can’t successfully count as high as “2”, or has your ADD kicked in to where you just can’t remember?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I only posted one graph, before you tried to change the subject. But I never posted the graph you are babbling about in this thread.’

            Quit changing the subject, of which you are losing.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Sorry, loser. I keep trying to get you to link to the data on the two polls on the graph you posted from Monkey Brains, or Monkey Feces or Monkey Feces for Brains, whatever it was. I posted a link to a later Gallup poll, which contradicted at least a portion of that graph, and half the time you claim you’ve posted such a link (you haven’t), part of the time you try to claim the link I posted as your own (it is not), and part of the time you lamely claim that you posted a link to the source of the graph (and not the data it reported) as if that were the same thing (it is not).

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Again, quit trying to change the subject from red states being more violent than blue states, by referring to a graph I never posted on this thread.

            If you want to dig into another conspiracy theory, take it up with CNN, or HuffPo, or WAPO or any of the other media companies that do not believe the GSS poll is a conspiracy.

            Also, please identify what portion of my Gallup poll is different from yours. I’ll be waiting, even though you will never provide it.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Still bleating about imaginary conspiracies, eh, Tiny Twerp? Is this because of your fixation on me or your fixation on conspiracies in general? I suppose, considering the source, that illicit drug use could explain your blathering as well, Tiny Sociopath.

            I would be happy to identify which part of your Gallup poll is different from the one I linked to, just as soon as you link to it. Oh, and if you ever grow a pair of balls, link to the other poll as well, not just the organization. The onus is on you Tiny Twit, when you offer evidence to back it up. But, had you been an adult, you would have known that.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I know, he has a thing for conspiracies. After Obama released his long form BC, Poof had thought he discovered the document was a forgery, but never was willing to admit that in order for it to be a forgery an entire group of people had to be involved in a conspiracy in order for that document to be fake. He has a hard time understanding what words mean, like conspiracy. That’s why he says he’s not fond of them, because he doesn’t know what a conspiracy is.

          • SusanBeehler

            Actually his brain may process information differently so when he sees red he actually thinks it is blue.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            DOH!!

          • mickey_moussaoui

            acceptable level of criteria for a reading comprehension retarded lying POS lib maybe

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh, well look at this chart I found on the interwebz! It also meets the acceptable level of criteria…

            You have LESS THAN NO credibility here Tranny-ol’ boy… now go choom with your beach-buddy twinks, and try not to step on any more dirty syringes.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Lay off the booze, pussycat. Nobody debates you. You offer nothing.

            The graph i used is all over the place, used in many articles regarding gun ownership. The polls are well known and listed on the PDF.

          • two_amber_lamps

            My graph offers all the veracity that yours does, it’s all over the internet, you just need to look a little harder. Sort of like trying to find out who Tranny’s Dad is… Tranny CLAIMS to have all the answers but can’t produce a verifiable DNA test or even a tolken paper trail… only the great trailer park God knows for sure, because Tranny’s Mom sure doesn’t know the answer to that great riddle…

            But I’m sure she may be able to narrow down the possibilities to a few dozen…. assuming the meth and booze hasn’t eroded her memory too far.

        • SusanBeehler
          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Thanks, Suzie, for linking to the same 2002 stats Hanni Boo Boo did. If you drill down through the links of the blogger where Hanni found that chart, you find that the “gun ownership” stats may have been based on flawed methodology.

          • SusanBeehler
          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Saw that link, too, Little Suzie. Drill down to the sources for the stats to see where they got the data from. Or just go back to sleep.

          • SusanBeehler

            You really are not looking for any proof are you! Keep drillin’

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You and Hanni show a remarkable lack of curiosity when it comes to where any of your sources get their sources. I guess so long as it fits your narrative, you’re happy with them, eh?

          • SusanBeehler
          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I do.

          • two_amber_lamps

            You and Hanni show a remarkable lack of curiosity when it comes to where any of your sources get their sources.

            Two peas in a pod… I’d refer them to the definition of “confirmation bias” but I’m also quite sure neither of them could wrap their little pea-brains around the concept.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I had to laugh. The idea that Hanni or Suzie could have “pea brains”, when what they use to “think”, makes a “pea” look more like a Death Star compared to their Tie fighters.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh, you DO give them credit! Tie Fighter size as compared to the Death Star?

            I was thinking something the size of a Higgs Boson Particle as compared to said Death Star.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            LOL. I agree, but neither of them would have gotten the insult if I’d said that!

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    “This is not official Connecticut State Police information and is someone’s speculation regarding the case,” Connecticut State Police Lieutenant Paul Vance told Reuters in an email statement.

    When asked if the CBS report was in any way accurate, Vance responded, “No.”

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Yes, officially they’re denying it, but Reuters (a reputable news service, and certainly not one with a pro-conservative or pro-gun bent) finds their sources credible.

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        Interesting.

        What was the credible source Reuters used?

        • Davo

          LOL. Last name Bias, first name Confirmation.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          The article is linked, Boob.

          You don’t know how to read?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            If you can’t bring yourself to write the name of the credible source, just say so.

            It’s CBS, by the way.

            Thank you for associating yourself with the credibility of CBS.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            Rob
            It’s that reading comprehension block that they all share. I blame it on the public school system

  • mikemc1970

    The most disarmed people he could find that was closest to his location. It’s only common sense, but I forget that liberals don’t have any.

  • toomuchguvmint

    So there is a reason these guys don’t decide to go shoot up police stations.

    • two_amber_lamps

      Random chance I’m sure…. (/sarc)

  • Guest

    LOL @ ROB!! Ft. Hood was a “gun free zone”? What a hack!

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      It might surprise you, but yes gun ownership and carry is restricted on military bases.

      • AntiRobPort

        Rob you are making Hitler proud!

        • mickey_moussaoui

          …and you make Alfred E Newman proud

          • Onslaught1066

            That, sir, is slander most foul, totally uncalled for and incred… Oh, wait, were you referring to Ted Koppel?

            Never mind.

      • Hellboy

        You are correct, Rob….. There were no guns to defend the troops against this knuckle dragger except for security…… Workplace incident….. my rear end !!!!!!! Opportunity for the rag head???? You bet!!!

        • mickey_moussaoui

          …as he yelled “allahu akbar” and began shooting

  • Anon

    It’s so funny to see Rob argue that the solution to gun violence is more guns when fact is the United States has nearly ten times the per capita gun related deaths than countries with much stricter gun regulations such as in Europe and Australia despite the US having many more guns per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Under Rob’s logic, the solution to alcohol poisoning is more alcohol, lol.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Is America more violent because we have more guns, or is it for other reasons?

      The problem is that you’re allowing correlation to suggest causation, which isn’t necessarily true. I’d argue that we’d be more violent than other countries even absent guns. Which is to say, if we were somehow able to uninvent gun powder and the firearm, I think Americans would still be killing one another at rates faster than other countries.

      • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

        We also have a higher rate of non gun use crime in this country than many of these same countries.

        I understand that ND has one of the highest guns per capita ratios out there. But crime is surprisingly low. How can that be?

      • SusanBeehler

        Why?

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Good question.

          But it’s not the presence of guns.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Actually violent crime/rape/assualt is rising in Europe and Australia. On a per capita basis they are getting worse than we are.

    • Jeremiah Glosenger

      England, which Piers Morgan is so fond of referring to, banned guns and has lower gun violence per capita than the US. Unfortunately their violent crime rate is over 3.5 times higher than the US (read: it is much more dangerous to live over there; you are much more likely to be a victim of a violent crime that you cannot defend yourself adequately from).

      • mickey_moussaoui

        Our population is 5 times larger as well. We are pretty well behaved considering we may have 200,000,000 guns or more and only 13,000 gun related homicides each year.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Anon, actually America ranks right in the middle of all nations when it comes to gun related homicides. Our gun associated suicides are higher in volume than murder by gun. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your reasoning

  • Game

    There is no aspect of this report that says Adam Lanza even knew that anything like a gun free zone existed. It appears, according to this report that he targeted it because of the population of people and the relative helplessness of school children rather than a policy stating it was a gun free zone.

    The sad reality is that until Lanza fired the first shot, he had done nothing illegal, however, it was completely unethical for him to have access to any type of gun. By all accounts, he was not mentally stable. If the NRA wants to protect gun rights, rather than talking about how Obama is going to come and take away your twelve gauge, they should be spreading the message that responsible gun owners should ensure that no guns ever end up in the hands of people who are mentally unstable.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      There is no aspect of this report that says Adam Lanza even knew that anything like a gun free zone existed. It appears, according to this report that he targeted it because of the population of people and the relative helplessness of school children rather than a policy stating it was a gun free zone.

      Oh come on. It’s common knowledge that schools are gun free zones.

      • SusanBeehler

        So where are the gun zones?

        • mickey_moussaoui

          In my holster. Glock G23

      • RobPort

        Rob spoken like a true Socialist too which you are!

    • jonnybsmarterthanyou

      Ah, no one had seen him in three years. Ask his neighbors, they didn’t even know the kid. Plus, when searched, his SS stated he was dead on the 13th. Funny how that works isn’t it? What happened to the second shooter that ended up sitting in the front seat of the police car? It’s so great how all this is always a lone shooter? It’s a joke.

    • Jeremiah Glosenger

      Speaking as an NRA instructor; the NRA is the only major organization that is actively teaching people gun safety including how to keep unauthorized persons from accessing them. It is the very first part of the NRA Basic Pistol course. It teaches in sobering words the responsibilities that owners of firearms have. There are literally thousands of NRA instructors across the country teaching this. Not everybody chooses to get training. If you have enough money for that amount of firearms, you have enough for a gun safe. It was irresponsible for her to leave them where he had access to them, but it was illegal for Adam Lanza to steal his mother’s firearms, carry it on school property, breaking and entering, etc.

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    He’s crazy, but not necessarily stupid.

  • two_amber_lamps

    Let’s face it… there’s an agenda here.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/18/3241212/colo-house-passes-gun-control.html

    “a ban on concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums”

    That worked well for the mentally unbalanced sociopath at Virginia Tech. Who wants competition (or return fire) when you’re trying to rack up a body count?

    This leads me to believe there’s an agenda at work. This is nothing to do with making our lives safer… it’s plainly obvious that divesting us of our 2nd Amendment rights will do the exact opposite. Therefore we are left with one conclusion.

    We are sacrificial lambs for the prog-tards great utopia. As the sheople are disarmed and left to the devices of the wolves, it will incite more rancor and reflexive hue and cry for more “gun control.”

    Much like the rest of governmental process… failure of gun control means there’s not enough of it, therefore we need more gun control. If violence goes down, well it must be because of “gun control,” therefore more is better.

    This is a perfect leftist storm of lies and deceit. All for “our own good.”

  • Davo

    Sentence 2 of the article:

    “A Connecticut state police spokesman dismissed the report as inaccurate speculation.”

    (…)”This is not official Connecticut State Police information and is someone’s speculation regarding the case,” Connecticut State Police Lieutenant Paul Vance told Reuters in an email statement.

    When asked if the CBS report was in any way accurate, Vance responded, “No.”

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Meanwhile, Reuters finds their sources credible enough to run the story.

      But it’s inconvenient for Davy’s narrative, so let’s just pretend it didn’t happen.

      • Davo

        I suspect that you would require more evidence than “Reuters says so” if this story had reached an opposite conclusion.

        Again, Rob, this is confirmation bias, plain and simple (you favor stories that support your hypotheses, and reject those that do not). Your blog reeks of it.

        • Onslaught1066

          So does your a$$ devo, you may want to run home to mommy and get her to potty train you a little better.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Actually, what I do is I put Reuters’ claim into context. I look at how many shootings happen in “gun free zones.” I look at how many of these shooters are aiming not so much to kill any one person, or group of people, but rather just to wrack up a big body count. Then I consider that Reuters, no bastion of right-wing sympathies, has sources they find credible enough to base a story on despite official denials and I reached a reasoned conclusion.

          Gun free zones make us targets.

          Now, you say me reaching that conclusion is “confirmation bias,” yet I’m basing my position based on logic and facts. You disagree, and that’s fine, but the mere fact that you don’t like my conclusion doesn’t necessarily invalidate it.

          • Davo

            “Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target”

            Nobody knows that’s true, yet you’re stating it as a fact!

          • two_amber_lamps

            You’re right..

            Columbine was coincidence.

            Virginia Tech – coincidence.

            Sandy Hook – coincidence.

            Cinemark Theater in Aurora, CO – coincidence.

            Ft. Hood Massacre – Coincidence

            But of course you won’t believe the shooter chose these places to inflict their psychotic mayhem on civilization unless the shooter left a signed letter/battle plan specifically delineating the fact that the sites were chosen because they were “gun-free zones.”

            Moron.

  • SusanBeehler

    Lanza did have easy access to guns, his mom’s guns. Just like many of the “school” shooters who get their guns from their homes, their mom’s, their dad’s, their brother’s or their uncle’s or a friend’s guns. Easy access to guns is one of the contributing factors to these crimes. The answer to gun violence in the United States does not have a “magic bullet” to end it or reduce it.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      mental illness isn’t caused by guns

    • jonnybsmarterthanyou

      Sue, please. Stop with the nonsense. Easy access to guns has been around for hundreds of years and this type of violence is incredibly rare. More people die from hammers than mass shootings with assault type rifles. You’re free to verify that claim at the FBI’s own website. Just stop with your nonsense please. You got the flaming liberal Heikamp elected, you’ve done enough damage already.

      • SusanBeehler

        For hundreds of years we have not had the weapons of “mass shooters”. Thank you for giving me so much credit, but it is really not necessary, I am just doing what I feel is the “right” thing to do.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          Wrong again suzyQ.
          The Gatling gun is one of the best known early rapid-fire weapons and a forerunner of the modern machine gun. Invented by Richard Gatling, it is known for its use by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s. The first self-powered machine gun was invented in 1885 by Sir Hiram Maxim.

        • JoeMN

          The deadliest weapon ever invented was not a gun, rather it was an ideology.
          Communism.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            …and our president was raised by communists and has communist sympathizers in his cabinet. hmmmmmmmm

        • donwalk

          Weapons requiring one trigger pull for each shot fired have been around for a couple of centuries. What has advanced is the engineering of the magazines which hold additional rounds, but it still only takes 2-3 seconds to reload a single shot weapon. All of your blabber is nothing but feel good drivel which will do nothing to stop the criminal element and/or the mentally deranged.

    • RobPort

      Sue, 1.5 million babies were killed -murdered by abortions through “snuff doctors & evil women” then by guns. Where’s your outrage! you sicko

      • SusanBeehler

        Really?! you want to go from gun violence to abortion. My outrage is not always visible but it is there. Different battles cause for a different type of “weapon”. I don’t fight all battles publicly nor do I disclose all my views on this blog. “Evil women” I would tread lightly using that phrase, your bias is showing. Last time I checked it takes two to create a life.

        • RobPort

          Only women kill their babies!

          • devilschild

            Fake Rob….You’re an idiot. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings but someone needed to tell you.

          • SusanBeehler

            I do know about that, what about all the children which are murdered with their mothers because of domestic violence. Pregnant women are 60.6% more likely to be beaten than women who are not pregnant. Violence is cited as a pregnancy complication more often
            than diabetes, hypertension or any other serious complication. “Battering and Pregnancy” Midwifery Today

        • RobPort

          Sue, I don’t trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and lives!

    • donwalk

      How would you describe “easy access to guns?” It obviously became easy for Lanza to steal his Mother’s guns, once he killed her.

  • SusanBeehler
    • mickey_moussaoui

      Not only is it a good idea not to allow someone like you to own a weapon because you would hurt yourself but I think it’s a good idea that you also don’t have any sharp objects in the house. In fact, I think you would harm yourself if you read a good book.

      • SusanBeehler

        I run with scissors! I also climb ladders with nail guns.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          BTW, statistically speaking, more people die from falls from ladders than from guns.
          (this is too easy) :)

        • donwalk

          Shouldn’t nail guns be restricted on the number of rounds you are allowed to purchase? After all, they could go rampant and start killing innocents at any time!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            True! There’s also no ‘sporting purpose’ in having strips of nails longer than ten! If you can’t nail a 2×4 with less than ten nails, you shouldn’t be trying!

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Test yours. (does it go into the negative?)

  • RobPort

    Women don’t need guns to kill as they have abortions to do their killing!

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Speaking of which…if they used guns for abortions liberals would be supportive

  • chris

    If I were a father of a boy with obvious mental or emotional problems, I wouldn’t have guns available in the house. Leaving out the state gun control debate, families must be responsible and keep guns away from unstable family members.

    • SusanBeehler

      Then you would be a responsible owner. What happens when families fail and then they kill yours?

      • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

        And how dumb to you have to believe that murderers will still be able to get guns even if they were banned?

        • SusanBeehler

          What you want to ban guns?

          • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

            I misspoke, but I think you got my point.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        Some car owners aren’t responsible, Susan.

        I suppose you want to ban the automobile. Which by the way, kills far more people annually than any type of gun.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      chris,
      That’s just common sense. If suzyQ was my kid I would keep her in a padded room. That’s just common sense.

      • SusanBeehler

        Padded rooms are very noise proof, makes good neighbors.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          I bet you smoke pot before you post. Am I right?

    • donwalk

      Except for rare cases where the parent(s) are killed, such as Adam Lanza and the Newton killings they do.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    Conservative stupidity continues to abound on SAB; both Columbine and VA mass shootings were not gun free zones, in fact each location had their own armed security, you idiot.

    • Jeremiah Glosenger

      Schools and college campuses (except Utah) are gun free zones. Their is an exception for law enforcement. 99% of the time I spend in “gun free zones” there is nobody in the immediate vicinity that is legally armed like a LEO. If that is the best argument you have against Rob–he has already won. If you’d like to try another tactic to disprove the fact that they were “gun free zones,” perhaps you should argue that since the criminal had a gun, they obviously were not “gun free.”

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Sorry, but you are either lying or misinformed. There were armed guards on three of the mass shootings that occurred on campus. Here’s proof:

        Columbine Had an Armed Security Guard on Duty and the NRA Is Dumb

        http://gawker.com/5970539/columbine-had-an-armed-security-guard-on-duty-and-the-nra-is-dumb

        While Sandy Hook Elementary School didn’t have an armed guard, Columbine High School did and so did Virginia Tech. In fact, an armed campus guard was killed in the most recent shooting at Virginia Tech in December 2011, and armed members of the military were not able to
        prevent the shootings at Fort Hood.

        http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/03/tp-do-armed-guards-really-make-schools-safer/?print&page=all

        Rob spreads lying propaganda to the dumb sheeple.

        • donwalk

          Thank you for proving the validity of allowing citizens, teachers or students having the right to carry. Once the campus police force has been disarmed or murdered, the above could step in and stop additional killings.
          But then your theory will probably be, “It is a waste of time to have campus police or armed guards because they could be killed also?”
          Much better to just roll over and take the inevitable while you are throwing books at the intruder or blowing your dog whistle, huh?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It says an ARMED CAMPUS GUARD WAS KILLED. What are you babbling about. Your point is destroyed by that fact.

          • donwalk

            So if a police officer visits a school, either on a call or a visit then a Gun Free Zone is automatically reclassified? Your ineptitude know no bounds!

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s not an apt comparison. HE WAS AN ARMED CAMPUS GUARD!!!

          • donwalk

            In 2006, a Va. Tech student was disciplined for carrying a gun on campus, even though he possessed a concealed weapons permit. Va. Tech officials were quick to point out that their school was a “gun-free zone.” That assertion has not only proven to be naive but deadly as well.

            In January 2006, House Bill 1572 was introduced in the Virginia General assembly. The legislation would have allowed students who possess a concealed weapons permit to carry their guns anywhere on campus. Most schools in Virginia have policies against students and faculty carrying guns on campus, Va. Tech is of course one of those schools. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass through the Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety.

            Va. Tech Vice President Larry Hincker gave the following statement shortly after the aforementioned measure died in committee: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

        • Jeremiah Glosenger

          Since you are apparently not one who chooses to be an armed citizen (probably for the best), you simply do not understand the term “gun-free zone.” A “gun-free zone” is where citizens are unarmed. Law enforcement, professional security, etc. are able to be armed virtually anywhere including “gun-free zones.” A gun free zone is never truly gun free, because there are always exceptions for police and, of course, criminals who disregard the stupid sign. The police cannot be everywhere all the time nor are they obligated to be under law. Personal protection and self defense is just that: personal and done by yourself. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I know what it means, but when you use the “it was a gun free zone” to argue your point that “only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun”, you change the term.

            There were good guys with guns, and they were killed in some instances. The truth is, bad guys do bad things and no amount of armed citizenry will stop it, in fact it’s more likely to create an incident than stop one.

          • Jeremiah Glosenger

            An armed citizenry doesn’t stop all bad people from doing bad things, but it does reduce the number of incidents (depending on what motivates the attacker) and the “body count” per se.

            The only public policy in the US shown to significantly correlate with decreasing violence is the passing of concealed carry laws (see John Lott’s research). When criminals have a monopoly on force (all victims unarmed), it becomes a more enticing and successful career choice for them. When the risk increases due to concealed carry, more of them drop out of the profession when they or someone they know is resisted by an armed citizen they didn’t expect (incidence: 100,000 – 2,500,000 times per year).

            Legally armed citizens are not the ones creating “incidents” their presence makes us safer whether you agree or not, but even if they were causing these problems, someone else’s irresponsibility is never justification for removing my right to bear arms. That’s like taking away everyone’s right to vote, because somebody else improperly used that right (see Barrack Obama’s re-election ;)

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That certainly doesn’t explain why red states (the ones who most allow conceal and carry or allow guns to be owned) are the states with the highest gun violence rates. Statistics don’t support your statement. If it did Hawaii would be one of the highest states with gun violence, it’s the opposite.

            There are other factors that play into these statistics you speak of, buy you aren’t being intellectually honest about the subject.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Deranged Leftists often believe they have superior intelligence. These myths
      are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a destructive belief system.

      • Onslaught1066

        Case in point, this:

        “I loudly shout to one and all my intellect superior
        Then demonstrate with equal verve my acumen inferior.”

        Is a direct reference to hanniturd that I incorporated in my song “I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Liberal Democrat”

        • mickey_moussaoui

          heh heh, touche

          catchy tune, I like the solo bridge

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          What portion of my factual statement do you disagree with, you idiot?

          • Onslaught1066

            You and Gusty seem to share the same cognitive dissonance whereby you both conflate opinion and fact.

            How come is that?

            BTW for the cranially-rectal inverted, I did not comment on anything you said.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You don’t have the courage or intellectual capacity to debate me and win.

          • guest

            I bet he’s smart enough not to sleep with filthy infected women or become a documented tax cheat, you loser.

          • Onslaught1066

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            WHEW! Thanks for the laugh, I really needed that.

            You may just have a future in stand-up… on the skid row circuit, of course.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Is that denial thing you’ve got going part of your survival skill, or do you just lack a spine?

          • Onslaught1066

            No, denial is a warm yellow river running down your legs.
            Did you forget you have to pee sitting down… Again?

          • donwalk

            http://www.examiner.com/articl

            The Virginia Tech shooting spree orchestrated on April 16, 2007, by Seung Hui Cho and the incredible carnage wrought by that one man, was a tragedy that did not have to occur.

            In 2006, a Va. Tech student was disciplined for carrying a gun on campus, even though he possessed a concealed weapons permit. Va. Tech officials were quick to point out that their school was a “gun-free zone.” That assertion has not only proven to be naive but deadly as well.

            In January 2006, House Bill 1572 was introduced in the Virginia General assembly. The legislation would have allowed students who possess a concealed weapons permit to carry their guns anywhere on campus. Most schools in Virginia have policies against students and faculty carrying guns on campus, Va. Tech is of course one of those schools. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass through the Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety.

            Va. Tech Vice President Larry Hincker gave the following statement shortly after the aforementioned measure died in committee: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Armed security protected VA Tech. It’s not gun free if there are guns on campus.

          • donwalk

            So why did you state that Virginia Tech was not a gun free zone?

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Because VA Tech was not a gun free zone. An ARMED GUARD WAS KILLED by the shooter. That’ proves armed guards don’t always save lives.

          • donwalk

            gun free zones mean citizens, teachers and students are not allowed weapons. Only Campus Police and Campus Security are allowed to carry.

            In 2006, a Va. Tech student was disciplined for carrying a gun on campus, even though he possessed a concealed weapons permit. Va. Tech officials were quick to point out that their school was a “gun-free zone.” That assertion has not only proven to be naive but deadly as well.

            In January 2006, House Bill 1572 was introduced in the Virginia General assembly. The legislation would have allowed students who possess a concealed weapons permit to carry their guns anywhere on campus. Most schools in Virginia have policies against students and faculty carrying guns on campus, Va. Tech is of course one of those schools. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass through the Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety.

            Va. Tech Vice President Larry Hincker gave the following statement shortly after the aforementioned measure died in committee: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) is a federal United States law that prohibits any individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a “school zone” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). Its formal title is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and is sometimes referred to as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, possibly in reference to S. 890.

          • donwalk

            Virginia Law trumps
            In 2006, a Va. Tech student was disciplined for carrying a gun on campus, even though he possessed a concealed weapons permit. Va. Tech officials were quick to point out that their school was a “gun-free zone.” That assertion has not only proven to be naive but deadly as well.

            In January 2006, House Bill 1572 was introduced in the Virginia General assembly. The legislation would have allowed students who possess a concealed weapons permit to carry their guns anywhere on campus. Most schools in Virginia have policies against students and faculty carrying guns on campus, Va. Tech is of course one of those schools. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass through the Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety.

            Va. Tech Vice President Larry Hincker gave the following statement shortly after the aforementioned measure died in committee: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You can keep cutting and pasting the same irrelevant info, but it doesn’t change the fact that a VA CAMPUS GUARD WAS KILLED BY THE VA GUNMAN. NOR DOES IT CHANGE THE FACT THAT VA WAS NOT A GUN FREE ZONE, IT HAD GUNS ON THE CAMPUS.

          • donwalk

            And it doesn’t change the fact that the incident you keep referring to happened years after the Virginia Tech massacre that could have been prevented. It also doesn’t change the fact that if students or citizens had possession of weapons in 2007 they could have saved numerous lives. As usual you select an incident that happened in 2011 because it suits your need to twist facts and embellish your lies. Virginia Tech was declared a gun free zone in 2006 and the massacre occurred in 2007. Go ahead and keep cherry picking and twisting the real facts as usual. Reader expect nothing less from you and you never fail them.
            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Hello Candadian, can you tell me why the armed guards present at both Columbine and VA Tech shooting didn’t stop the killers?

        • mickey_moussaoui

          large buildings, not enough guards, too many easy access points,wrong place at the wrong time, they were not as prepared as they should of been.
          You can’t stop all murders regardless of how prepared you are.
          All the more reason to have more people in the schools with C&C

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thanks for proving that my statement was correct. And your answers were wrong, BTW, clearly you are uninformed.

            So this DOES prove my superior intellect to your inferior one. Yet, somehow in your mind you managed to get it backwards on this issue?

            Is that a survival skill of yours, to lie to yourself about your own ignorance or is it just deliberate deception on your part? Hmmm?

          • guest

            You’re superior intellect tells you to sleep with filthy, infected women, and trying to get away with not paying your taxes, smallwillie.

            Yeah, you’re smart…you dope.
            Brahahahahaha!!!!

          • mickey_moussaoui

            come on hanni boo boo, we all know how retarded you are. You are the room bitch. you are a fantacy of your own imagination. Hell, you couldn’t even pay your taxes. how lame stupid is that?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So did Columbine and VA Tech have armed guards or not?

            Come on, Canadian, show everyone how dumb you are.

        • donwalk

          Maybe the original creation of the Armed Guards Program had some serious flaws in its design?

          Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

          Obviously, Liberals and Democrats don’t care how
          hypocritical they look.
          Liberals and Democrats (one and the same) have apparently
          forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that was to do exactly what the NRA is now proposing and what the media is now mocking:
          Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding
          for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money was to be used place 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

          Liberals and Democrats are now attempting to convince
          parents that their children will be less safe with police officers in their schools.

    • Neiman

      I do not want any conversation with you, but just for my own interests sake; may I ask you to please examine your last 50-100 comments at SAB and then please copy/paste any of them that do not contain some sort of insult, personal attack or demeaning language. I won’t ask for complimentary language, that does not exist, but simply civil comments that do not denigrate your opponent. It would prove quite instructive to everyone.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Who are you pretending to be, a Christian? We all know that you are no Christian, by any definition of the word.

        • Neiman

          A. Neiman, in German, means no one of importance. I chose it deliberately to indicate I do not see myself as being anything special.

          B. You have absolutely no biblical proof to offer that I am not a Christian; and, since you have refused to confess Christ, thereby denying him, are an accessory to over 55 million child murders, defend homosexuality as not being a sin, you have no basis at all to judge the spirit of any man.

          C. A Christian, by biblical definition is one that confesses before God their total spiritual bankruptcy – being thoroughly wicked and deserving of hell fire for all eternity, sincerely repents of their sins and accepts Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Thus, having done all of this daily and being born again of His Spirit, I have no doubts t all about my Christianity.

          D. Your obfuscation aside, it would prove instructive for you, to look at what seems to me to be the wholly negative, hate filled nature of virtually your every comment, I offer this for your benefit, as virtually every here knows that I speak the truth about the nature of your hateful comments.

          E. Who is “we all know,” who here gave you their permission to speak for them, which by your words means every person. Isn’t what you mean that, you liberal, non-Christians have made that judgment, based not on the bible, which none of your know, but because of YOUR hate?

        • Neiman

          I was not attacking you at all, nor commenting on the worth of your arguments. I just keep noticing when you have several comments on the front page at the same time, to me, they always seem quite negative, rude, demeaning and not ever what I would define as being civil. Not that we all cannot cross that line, too often and too far quite frankly; but it was just that on some days you have so many comments listed and they all involve name calling and I suspected/assumed you would not notice the pattern.

    • donwalk

      http://www.examiner.com/article/so-called-gun-free-zones-never-protect-the-innocent

      The Virginia Tech shooting spree orchestrated on April 16, 2007, by Seung
      Hui Cho and the incredible carnage wrought by that one man, was a tragedy that did not have to occur.

      In 2006, a Va. Tech student was disciplined for carrying a gun on campus,
      even though he possessed a concealed weapons permit. Va. Tech officials were quick to point out that their school was a “gun-free zone.” That
      assertion has not only proven to be naive but deadly as well.

      In January 2006, House Bill 1572 was introduced in the Virginia General
      assembly. The legislation would have allowed students who possess a concealed weapons permit to carry their guns anywhere on campus. Most schools in Virginia have policies against students and faculty carrying guns on campus, Va. Tech is of course one of those schools. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass through the Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety.

      Va. Tech Vice President Larry Hincker gave the following statement shortly
      after the aforementioned measure died in committee: “I’m sure the
      university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our
      campus.”

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        While Sandy Hook Elementary School didn’t have an armed guard, Columbine High School did and so did Virginia Tech. In fact, an armed campus guard was killed in the most recent shooting at Virginia Tech in
        December 2011, and armed members of the military were not able to
        prevent the shootings at Fort Hood.

        http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/02/do-armed-guards-really-make-schools-safer/?page=1#article-copy

        • donwalk

          All the more reason for teachers, students and citizens to be allowed to carry. Once the armed guard goes down, there would be someone else to stop the additional killings.
          Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Newtown Shooter Saw Gun Free Zone As The Easiest Target

        • mickey_moussaoui

          so now you agree that it isn’t possible to stop all homicides. duh
          freakin retard surfer twink.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What do you mean by now? The argument for current gun control regulation has nothing to do with stopping all homicides. It has to do with reducing the number of people that can be efficiently killed by a spree killer using semi-autos.

    • two_amber_lamps

      Dear Dip-s$%t…

      GUN FREE ZONE does not mean police/security are unarmed… it means the students/faculty are disarmed.

      And now ya know…. DERP!

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) is a federal United States law that prohibits any individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a “school zone” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). Its formal title is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and is sometimes referred to as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, possibly in reference to S. 890.

        • two_amber_lamps

          Ah yes… the Wikipedia cut and paste power is strong with this one.

          Since your thought process is generally obtuse, tell us in your own words what your point is.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) states:

        (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

        (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

        (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

        (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

        (iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

        (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

        (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

        (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

        • two_amber_lamps

          Ah yes… the Wikipedia cut and paste power is strong with this one.

          Since your thought process is generally obtuse, tell us in your own words what your point is.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That both Columbine and VA Tech were not gun free zones, by the definition of the law.

          • two_amber_lamps

            So let me get this straight… again since you don’t make concise points.

            You’re claiming (judging by what you made bold for emphasis):

            “(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or”

            Since law enforcement can legally carry a gun onto school property that in essence those schools are not “gun free zones?”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I was proving you were wrong when you said gun free schools allow police to carry guns. They don’t, according to Federal law.

            But there is a second added bonus of proving that both police and campus security were armed and on campus in both Columbine and VA Tech.

            They were not gun free zones. There were guns on campus, you idiot.

          • two_amber_lamps

            The very law you site above states that the federal law exempts police from the ban.

            You
            are a special kind of stupid, apparently you don’t comprehend the way
            the law was written because if you did you would have highlighted the
            entire applicable passage…

            (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

            (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

            LOL…. you obviously missed that part…

            THEREFORE…
            a police officer CAN carry a firearm into “gun free zone” as designated
            under the 1990 law and not be subject to criminal sanction.

            And they WERE considered Gun Free Zones.

            Thank you… come again!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            “Uh, hate to break this to you Lil Kahuna but yes they were….

            State/Local laws, and school regulation made them such.”

            Please reference which law made VA Tech and Columbine guns free, even though they had armed police and campus security with gun on site at time of the shootings.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Tiny Dip-shit…

            DEFINE GUN FREE ZONE.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So you don’t have a state law to refer to? Just show me the local laws.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Tell ya what, let’s just use the federal law you misinterpreted.

            The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) states:

            (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a
            firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or
            foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable
            cause to believe, is a school zone.

            (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

            (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity

            Tranny = FAIL

            BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAA!

            Bahahahahahahaaaaa!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            But you were smart to edit your last post by removing the cut and paste you offered that didn’t change what I had posted, when I proved both schools were not “gun free”.

          • two_amber_lamps

            So let me get this straight… again since you don’t make concise points.

            You’re claiming (judging by what you made bold for emphasis):

            “(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or”

            Since law enforcement can legally carry a gun onto school property that in essence those schools are not “gun free zones?”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Ah, but I wanted you to clarify your statement before I jackhammered you with the truth and I exposed your IDIOCY…

            Last
            year Virginia legislators considered a bill that would have overridden
            policies at public universities that prohibit students and faculty
            members with concealed handgun permits from bringing their weapons onto
            campus. After the bill died in committee, The Roanoke Times reported,
            Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker welcomed its defeat, saying, “I’m
            sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s
            actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors
            feel safe on our campus.”

            Connecticut gun laws also allow permit
            holders to have handguns in schools, but fall short of the measures
            Michigan lawmakers just approved.

            School officials there must
            also give the gun owner permission, which is unlikely to be widely
            granted and provide the deterrent effect of Michigan’s legislation, su
            pporters
            of the law say.

            As you can see, you’re barking up the wrong
            tree Tiny Chihuahua… the laws/regulations making these locations
            “gun free zones” were state mandates that were MORE restrictive than the
            federal Gun Free School Zone act of 1990.

            Thank you, come again!

            Huh???? Now I know why you removed this….because you are totally out of your league. Did you think you refuted my argument??

            SERIOUSLY?? Brahahaha!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Your entire basis for your argument was on the 1990 federal law which is as I clearly illustrate not even the issue. They were “gun free zones based on state law.

            Thank you come again!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So in your mind, having guns on campus is a gun free campus???

            Wow…..that’s really stupid. Even before we get to the law that clearly shows it’s not gun free if the police or security campus guards are packing.

          • two_amber_lamps

            The very law you site above states that the federal law exempts police from the ban.

            You are a special kind of stupid, apparently you don’t comprehend the way the law was written because if you did you would have highlighted the entire applicable passage…

            (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

            (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

            LOL…. you obviously missed that part…

            THEREFORE… a police officer CAN carry a firearm into “gun free zone” as designated under the 1990 law and not be subject to criminal sanction.

            Those locations were in fact “gun free zones.”

            Thank you… come again!

          • two_amber_lamps

            LOL… way to delete your previous posts Tranny! I guess Proof was right about your penchant for running like a scalded dog!!

            “Gun Free Zone” is a silly euphemism (like “assault rifle”) concocted by leftists for attempting to mitigate and nullify the 2nd Amendment and the individual’s right to bear arms. As we established earlier with your failure to understand the vernacular of the 1990 Law which you so dutifully (if not illiterately misunderstood) provided for us:

            The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) states:

            (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a
            firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or
            foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable
            cause to believe, is a school zone.

            (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

            (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity

            So BY LAW the “sanctity” of the “Gun Free Zone” is not infringed upon by law enforcement officers possessing firearms, nor are said officers subject to criminal sanction for DOING THEIR JOBS.

            So, based on what’s written in the very law as written by your leftist intellectual elite, what part of GUN FREE ZONE do you not understand??

            BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAA!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Huh? You googled a TownHall.com article that cites no legal document just to parrot the words “gun-free zone”, even though the campus security was armed and killed?

            God, you are stupid.

          • two_amber_lamps

            See your own quote above… The very law you site above states that the federal law exempts police from the ban.

            You
            are a special kind of stupid, apparently you don’t comprehend the way
            the law was written because if you did you would have highlighted the
            entire applicable passage…

            (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

            (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

            LOL…. you obviously missed that part…

            THEREFORE…
            a police officer CAN carry a firearm into “gun free zone” as designated
            under the 1990 law and not be subject to criminal sanction.

            And it IS still a gun free zone.

            Thank you… come again!

          • two_amber_lamps

            States certainly can pass laws that mimic federal statues. Ever hear of state attorneys passing cases to the federal attorney? Happens all the time in drug prosecutions. Exactly the case here, VT and CT had state laws that were written in a similar fashion to the federal laws as written under the 1990 Gun Free Zone Law you so helpfully cut and past from Wikipedia.

            The legal precedent is clear and the laws exist as stated in the excerpt. It “meets the acceptable level of criteria” you mentioned earlier… (whatever that means!)

            But by all means, refute it with evidence.

          • two_amber_lamps

            I cannot help the fact that your understanding of what the legislated definition for “gun free zone” is lacking.

            Derp!

  • mickey_moussaoui

    That Newtown shooter has a face like an alien from space (not Mexico). Experts are saying they believe video games may of influenced him because he was rapidly changing magazines before even ran out of ammo.
    On an unrelated note:
    Penn and Tellar have a “bullshit” video report that dispels
    anger management. You could relate their findings to the effects that violent gaming
    has on some people and their inability to channel rage. Just saying.

  • Lynn Bergman

    Autism Spectrum Disorder –
    Insuring Optimum Outcomes

    Parents of children
    diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) can all but eliminate the chance
    of their child becoming a mass murderer if they take the following steps:

    If you do not live in a community
    where higher education offers coursework in foreign languages, higher
    mathematics, or similar challenges, move to the nearest such location as
    soon as your child is diagnosed. Your child will need the security of a
    single secure home to live in throughout personal development through
    about age 21.

    Do not divorce (or at least delay
    divorce until your child finished college or high school, as per your
    child’s decision). Your child needs the predictability of two parents and
    each of you will need an occasional break from the responsibility of
    raising your child. The exception would be the event of a violent parent.

    Change schools only as necessary; each
    change will be a difficult one for your child; the presence of friends
    from a previous school will likely be very helpful.

    Join one or more group(s) of other
    parents of children with ASD and regularly attend meetings.

    Do not allow violence to enter your
    child’s world, especially television and video game violence.

    Lock up all sporting/protection
    weapons out of sight and do not encourage your child to participate in
    shooting sports until they are an adult (21 or older) and choose
    themselves to do so. Do encourage participation in all recreational
    opportunities but let your child make the final decision on each
    opportunity. Remember that any child’s physical clumsiness may be a source
    of bullying, so avid sports in which pressure for perfection is rampant.

    Be especially sensitive to your child
    being bullied in school… encourage your child to report such incidents to
    you. When the child reports such incidents, allow the school authorities
    to handle it… they are much more proficient at it in 2013. Be in tune to
    repeats of bullying and nip it in the bud as many times as necessary
    without making your child the object of ridicule due to your public anger.
    Complain to school officials behind closed doors and calmly for maximum
    affect.

    Offer your love but understand that
    closeness may be difficult for your child. Love, but be patient with
    touching and physical affection. Accept the physical love your child can
    handle; don’t force it.

    Keep an eye on your child’s activities
    with friends, especially in high school; exposure to violence or weapons
    is to be avoided at all cost.

    If you follow each of
    these suggestions, you will have a one in a trillion chance of your child
    becoming a mass murderer… with the added benefit that your child will likely
    make very important contributions to society derived from their God-given
    special gifts.

    If you avoid every one of
    these suggestions, sleep with one eye open and let the local authorities know
    of your decisions so society can protect itself.

  • Snarkie

    Nice headline. So, where did his mom work?

    • Onslaught1066

      A battered womens shelter, She met your wife there and they became fast friends.
      Their friendship soon blossomed into Politically Correct Alternative Life Style love.
      Two weeks before she was going to announce that she was leaving you for this woman, your wife fell ill.
      Bed ridden in the ICU she was unable to tell you of her plans, but it was patently obvious that she was too ill to perform oral sex upon you and in a fit of rage you smothered her to death with her pillow.

      Poor Butfuckle, If only you didn’t turn the stomachs of crack whores, your wife might have lived long enough to be murdered by you when she finally got around to telling you she was leaving.

      Why do you ask?

Top