NRA board member blames Reverend Pinkney for the deaths of 8

But feel you need to pack everytime you leave the house. So it's not a safe middle class community.
Have a nice day, yourself.

 

Damn your BS is tiresome.

He didn't say this. Nor can you even draw this conclusion based on what he said. Be reasonable or go away.

Of course he doesn't know, hence the reason he said 'may have been less victims'

Reading comprehension is your friend and, yet again, be reasonable or go away.

No where in there did he indicate supporting the shooter or what the shooter did.

Now for the third time, be reasonable or go away.

 

Why am I so sure this is a completely selective argument?
Let's test the waters: have you ever had more than two alcoholic beverages at one sitting?

 

That's strange. I own three handguns and none of which are for killing people.

 

Nah I agree with him - if any of the church members had been armed, they could've prevented this attack.

There's a reason that these shooters target elementary schools and churches, instead police stations or gun stores.

Whining about "guns" won't prevent your loved ones from getting killed the next time some lunatic strikes - the solution is to fight fire with fire.

- - - Updated - - -

That argument is so similar to the argument that "sex was 'designed' for procreation, therefore sticking a penis in an anus is immoral'.

 

I am not sure about prevent, but they could of possibly lessened the number killed

 

How do you know there's be less victims if he had attacked a police station? lol

 

You betcha, sometimes violence is the answer. I'm the nicest guy you would ever meet, until you present yourself as a threat to my family or myself.

 

No....

 

Having more guns on the streets is also not the solution of the problem.

 

Many Grandmothers are armed these days.

[video=youtube;8h4ZtouvCOE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h4ZtouvCOE[/video]

 

If you're going to quote anti-gun publications, at least have the decency to give credit. I do believe plagiarism is a rule 15 violation.

http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf

 

I prefer the term egregiously illegal. A trade association for profit making companies is not supposed to say they are a non-profit.

 

Is it still paranoia if they really are coming to shoot you?

No one, except you, is saying that.

I don't believe he should be "blamed", but the pastor's vote certainly had unintended consequences.

 

For it to be a legal purchase here in Texas, both of you have to reside in Texas. If you are coming from another state you cannot buy a gun legally from a private citizen without proving that you reside in Texas, usually by showing your Driver's License.

So your thug from NYC cannot simply jump state lines and still be within the confines of the law. Why don't you know that already?

In other words, they broke the law?

 

Hell I pack heat just sitting at home watching TV.

 

I find it interesting that you can easily identify and blame Roof's ideology as the primary cause of this shooting, but when it comes to shootings/bombings in Iraq by people with an ideology similar in several ways to Roof's (namely, its non-inclusiveness/segregation aspects and violent means to achieve them), you blame Bush. That's like me blaming Obama for the existence of Roof's ideology. "We" killed a couple of million Iraqis? Talk about ignorance.

 

Not since I've started carrying a gun. Not even a sip, for I guess 6 years now.

 

Had any of the victims had a gun Roof would have likely left with that many more guns. If somebody else starts shooting first it is very unlikely that even trained people will be able to get their guns out in time, as was tragically proven by the FOUR ARMED POLICEMEN who were slain by a madman while sitting in a diner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting

More guns = more death

 

I can certainly see a gun being taken from a person like you, however we are not all like you.

Besides, all I need is one instance where a church member successfully defended themselves and the congregation with a firearm and that proves you wrong, doesn't it?

Here's the first one I found. Back in 2011.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/churchgoer-concealed-carry-permit-stops-man-shotgun

 

The gun free zones present targets of opportunity for people like Roof. Eliminating gun free zones won't stop a determined shooter. But it will raise the level of determination required to carry them out, and thus decrease the total.

Planes used to be great targets of opportunity for terrorists. By no means is the TSA going to stop a determined killer every time. But the TSA's existence definitely ups the determination required to carry out an attack, and thus decreases the total.

 

What is the point in having 'gun free zones' anyway? Since when do terrorists abide rules?

School and church staff should be armed, to the teeth.

 

I haven't done the research, but I would guess that a good case can be made that these publicly announced gun free zones are actually increasing the total mass shootings. Newtown, VA Tech, Charleston, Colorado movie theater, all gun free zones, all wusses who would avoid confrontation despite their insane beliefs.

 

True, why would anyone be against teachers or staff having guns for defense anyway. When's the last time you heard about a teacher going postal and gunning down students?

 

I just don't understand why they have to announce it one way or the other. I can understand someone that doesn't want a gun in their home. But if they posted a gun-free home sign, I would say they were an idiot. Same goes the other way. Just allow the ones that one to be armed to do it. And don't announce it. If someone asks if your teachers are armed, say, "We can't comment on our security practices."