Tragic Day in Las Vegas – Hillary Sees Opportunity

by Jack

You’ve heard the news about the mass shooting in Las Vegas.   Terrible.  Our sincere condolences go out to the friends and families now grieving about the deceased and to those at the hospital, some in critical condition, we can only wish them a speedy recovery. Our hearts and prayers go out to all of them.   What a horrible crime.

No one should ever be subjected to such a senseless, brutal act of violence by a twisted and evil individual.  Please note, I have not said his name, nor will I.   His name shall not be mentioned by me and I wish nobody would ever speak it again, he does not deserve to be remembered.

Now the political fallout from this horror begins. Of course I wish it hadn’t, but it has and for no good reason.  So, now I am forced to respond because one of liberties is predictably being challenged.

Once again, a liberal politician has used a horrible gut wrenching tragedy to get before TV cameras for personal advantage.   The first big liberal to enter the media spotlight is Hillary Clinton.   This low person is blaming the NRA for the Las Vegas tragedy.

Last time I checked the NRA did not endorse the shooting of people. They sure didn’t support shooting anyone with a machine gun. Further, machine guns are not sold at Big 5 or Walmart. They are not sold at your every-day kind of gun shows. Machine guns are illegal and they have been since the 1930’s. The NRA has never even suggested that the public has a right to own a machine gun. But, that doesn’t matter Hillary.

Clinton tweets, “must put politics aside” and “stand up to the NRA,” specifically citing the organization’s stance on gun silencers. But, silencers have nothing to do with Las Vegas? (This was in reference to some proposed law to remove the $300 fee to legally own a gun-muffler)

Clinton said, “The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots, (no doubt trampling many of the non-gunshot injured) imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get. Our grief isn’t enough,” she continued. “We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.” Oh yeah and how likely is that to happen?

I’m pretty sure that Hillary Clinton never opened her big flap or railed on the NRA again the answer would be NEVER. In realistic terms, the odds of being machine gunned would be less than being struck by a meteorite. So, whats the deal Hillary, what are you really saying? Are you saying we should ban guns? That’s really it isn’t it? Sure. Hillary is now a gun-grabber because she thinks it will get her votes. Previously, she was not, she was a sportsperson, remember during the last election? Doing that time she had shown no moral compunction against gun ownership, but now its an opportunity to exploit. She’s disgusting and so is any politician, left or right, that would use this incident for personal gain.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Tragic Day in Las Vegas – Hillary Sees Opportunity

  1. Tina says:

    Jack a good friend lost her husband this weekend so this mass murder is particularly heart wrenching for me. Senseless killings are always heart and gut wrenching…what could be so impossible to live with that a person willfully makes decision after decision to murder so many people? “Nothing” is the sane answer and that’s what makes this so hard to fathom.

    Hillary’s (and other’s) politicking while people are still fighting for their lives in surgery is disgusting but it’s unfortunately exactly what we’ve come to expect. Some are hoping and praying that only republicans were killed. These people have no moral grounding…CBS had to fire a legal advisor for such comments, I assume on social media.

    The shooter took himself out. As you pointed out, the guns he used were not legal. So where and how he acquired them might be helpful to law enforcement. Unfortunately. the only prevention that will come of it is the possible arrest of person/s selling illegal weapons.

    One of the performers was just on Sean Hannity’s show. He reported that 90 minutes prior to the onset of the shooting the huge crowd was singing God Bless America together and holding up their iphone lights…what a contrast to the petty, opportunistic, self serving, nasty attitudes of people like Hillary.

    There were terror attacks in France and Canada within the last week or so also.

  2. Libby says:

    Jack, ya really should shut up. We’re not in the mood.

  3. J. Soden says:

    It’s truly unfortunate that there is no silencer made for $hrilLIARy. Could someone please make one and install it right away??????

    • Pie Guevara says:

      That is the last thing I want to see done, actually. Every time she opens her fat yap she only exposes her black soul, her infinite hubris and narcissism and disgraces herself.

      • J. Soden says:

        You do have a point.
        However the sick feeling $hrilLIARy creates when speechifying usually overwhelms the amount of anti-nausea medicine on hand . . . . . .

  4. TruthToPower says:

    You guys follow media like sheeple

    I just railed someone for saying pretty much the same thing about Trump

    QUOTE fr HERE:

    “It’s truly unfortunate that there is no silencer made for $hrilLIARy. Could someone please make one and install it right away??????”

    You Republicans and Democrats are the problem

    BTW it was pretty much the same words just exchange the names.

    Americans are the greatest terrorists in the world bar none

    Think about that for a second

    Was that a Muslim?

    disgusted by both parties and the pure hate
    No that was the product of America

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    It doesn’t matter what Hillary says. She is not President, she is not in congress, she holds no political position and has no relevance. All she “is, is” the wife of a serial rapist.

    Libby, has it ever occurred to you that no one is forcing you to read this blog? Shut up, we’re not in the mood.

    • Libby says:

      I’m sorry. Yet another deranged person decides to go out with a bang, and your response is to clutch yer balls … I mean, guns.

      It beyond pathetic. Now we have to see if the gun-clutchers in the Congress can be shamed into action. Amassing firepower just ceased to be an acceptable “hobby”.

      And if I did not read this blog, how would you know that?

      • Tina says:

        Good grief now you imagine you’re the only voice in our lives?

        Pathetic even for you Libs.

        Patriotic, law abiding, second amendment supporting, gun owners and enthusiast are not the problem. In fact guns are not the problem.

        Sorry, people are not “basically good.” Human beings are flawed and occasionally one or more of us runs completely off the rails. We cannot legislate absolute safety. Learn the lesson and you will find peace.

    • Chris says:

      I am not sure why you believe Bill is a serial rapist. Only one woman, Juanita Broaddrick, has publicly accused Bill Clinton of rape. (There are other a few reports of women claiming to have been raped, but none have done so publicly, and though these women are named in reports, none of them have been proven to exist and the original source of these claims is unreliable.) One other woman, Kathleen Willey , has accused Bill Clinton of groping her, but not rape. Another, Paula Jones, says she was sexually harassed by the president.

      Terrible allegations, to be sure, and if true, then Bill Clinton is a rapist. But “serial rapist?” There is no evidence of that. Again, there are longer lists out there that claim Clinton has assaulted and raped other women, but those lists are badly sourced and other then the three I named, none of the women on those lists have publicly accused Clinton. We do know that he was a serial adulterer, and I make no claim to know whether the allegations of the three women above are credible or not. But “serial rapist” is an unfair label. There is as much evidence that Trump is a serial rapist as there is that Clinton is one.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        “Serial rapist” is a perfectly fair label to Clinton’s many victims, so it works fine for me. Go ahead, Chris, defend the serial rapist. A wonderfully perfect and far from mute testimony to your morals and sensitivity.

        I won’t defend Trump so don’t try and put me in that position, you phony, self-aggrandizing sexist, racist, bigoted ***hat left wing twerp. I have your number.

        In any case you might want start with trying to name all the women who gone on record claiming Trump raped them when you go shooting your big fat mouth off.

        • Chris says:

          Pie, your comment is overly hostile, non-responsive, and assumes facts that I have already rebutted. It is thus a very weak reply.

          You ask me to give the names of the women who claim Trump raped them, but you did not do the same in either of your comments alleging Bill Clinton is a serial rapist; why would you hold me to a higher standard of argumentation than you hold yourself to?

          I even threw you a bone by naming the woman who claimed Clinton raped her. Again, no other woman has made this claim publicly, so for you to assert that there has been more than one Clinton rape victim is baseless. (It’s possible you may be thinking of names you’ve seen on certain chain e-mail lists circulating the Internet; one list I’ve seen counts a “rape victim” who never claimed rape, only a consensual affair, while most others include a Yale student named “Eileen Wellstone,” who doesn’t even seem to exist.) Again, his other two accusers accused him of sexual assault and harassment, not rape. My pointing those facts out is no more a “defense” than your statement about Trump.

          I am sure if you are so firmly convinced that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist, you could present some evidence, even though so far you have presented none. So let’s see what you have.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Chris, Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein should exchange notes. Birds of a feather.

            “Mr. Sensitivity” (aka “Negro Burner”) is a sexist, racist bigot who once said he would be first in line to put Obama’s “feet to the fire” and effectively called Malaysia a backwards, third world country in memorable, bigoted sneer. I forget the exact details of what inspired Chris to cast a slur on Malaysia, but the sneer was as wonderfully revealing as his Obama comment.

            Malaysia is a modern economic powerhouse that has boasted a GDP of over 6% for the past 50 years. The capital, Kuala Lumpur, is a stunning, modern, architectural marvel. So is Malaysia’s city-state neighbor, Singapore, (once part of Malaysia), which is also a spectacular modern economic powerhouse that has hosted the Formula One Grand Prix since 2008.

            Burning Negroes (in particular their feet) was a favorite pastime of Democrats in the south second only to lynching. A popular double delight enjoyed by Democrats was burning and lynching combined.

            These revelations from Chris are not the only instances this knuckle dragger has exposed his his own true nature. Blacks, Asians (especially Southeast Asians), women and potted plants beware, you have been forewarned.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Note: Chris, of course declined to name any of Trump’s rape victims.

            As for Clinton’s serial rape victims, those who have publicly accused him are well documented. They all were publicly defamed by the Clinton-Democratic Party slur machine of which Chris is a volunteer member in good standing.

            I leave it for this moral turd to have the intellectual honesty, integrity and curiosity to find them out for himself.

            Which, of course, Chris will not do because, besides having no intellectual honesty nor integrity, he has little curiosity outside of the dogmatic political sewer he swims in.

        • Tina says:

          The left surrendered their right to accuse anyone after excusing Bill Clinton’s “dalliances” as his “personal business,” especially after his long history of abuses and Hillary’s hand in destroying the “Bimbo’s” reputations to cover for him was exposed.

  6. Peggy says:

    What Killary, because of Benghazi, doesn’t realize is there are millions of Dems who own guns too, not just Repubs. Every time she and others try to take away guns or push for more controls they’re loosing their own members. So keep right on talking.

    Heard another talking-head show his ignorance by arguing against semi-automatic guns like they were automatic. It was laughable hearing him try to present himself as an expert without understanding he was in theory pushing for a single shot musket. Let’s not tell them that any gun that holds more than one bullet and fired with each trigger pull is a semi-automatic. Shhhhhh, keep it a secret.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Peggy, that’s the problem with a lot of these so-called liberals, they don’t know what they are talking about! But, that doesn’t stop them from having a strong, self-righteousness opinion and a notion of being intellectually superior.

      When it comes to the subject of firearms and gun control, they have no experience or background, and so liberals constantly get it wrong. As you noted, they often conflate semi-auto firearms with full auto. They also mistake silencers with compensators and so on. It’s so frustrating to have a reasonable discussion with the gun-grabbers simply because they are so ignorant of the facts and yet they are intractable and closed minded, which keeps them ignorant.

  7. Peggy says:

    Oh yeah, forgot one more thing.

    If gun control was so important to Dems, why didn’t they change the laws when they had total control of Congress and Obama in the WH?

    Could it be because they knew they didn’t have the votes? Could it also be they needed a weapon to use against the Repubs and couldn’t let the country know they couldn’t change the law because of their lack of congressional support?

  8. Chris says:

    I would like to know what gun control measures could have been passed that would have prevented this tragedy. This is not a rhetorical question; I have not seen a single one of my liberal friends, nor any of the prominent liberals I follow and respect on social media, explain what gun control measure would have prevented this. I am in favor of certain increases in gun restrictions but if you can’t name one that would have prevented this, then why bring up the issue in relation to this event at all?

    I’m not someone who immediately says “Don’t politicize this tragedy;” if there were ways to prevent it then we should absolutely be discussing them. But that’s not what I’ve seen from many of the liberals around me, and I find that highly disappointing. If we want to be seen as the part of reason then we cannot argue based on emotion alone.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris, thank for a well reasoned commentary. Nothing left to say except I agree.

    • Peggy says:

      Great points Chris. I would be for laws if they would guarantee or greatly improve that nut-jobs weren’t going to get their hands on guns. In this case apparently all of the laws were followed and it didn’t stop him. How about all of the laws in Chicago that has the most laws and still the highest or next to it gun shot victims in the US and many other places internationally.

      I’d really like to see what affect enforcing our existing laws would have on bringing down the number of people shot and killed. I know the argument will be we don’t have room in the prisons. They may be very crowded to begin, but if it prevents future shootings isn’t it worth a try? How about a test just for a couple of years?

    • Libby says:

      We could ban the sale and ownership of the bump stock. Wouldn’t have stopped him, but it would have significantly reduced the carnage.

      And now Jack will tell us why he can’t do without his.

      • Post Scripts says:

        “And now Jack will tell us why he can’t do without his.” Libby

        Sorry to disappoint but I can do without one. So, you go ahead and make another law, it won’t bother me one bit. But, if your goal is to impose a minor law to stop a major offense like murder, it’s just another kind of stupid.

        • Libby says:

          I am distressed to hear that you consider the reduction of carnage (20, instead of 59) “stupid”.

          A civilization lives or dies by the laws it makes, and that’s “stupid” only to stupid people. You sound tired, Jack. National carnage notwithstanding … the market’s up!

          • Post Scripts says:

            Libby, that is not what I said. Let me help you and lets go over this again: I said, if you are hoping to make a minor law in the belief that it will prevent the breaking of a major law, that is just another kind of stupid. Let me elaborate with this example…. because it is a gun free zone, do you think that people bent on murder will not use a gun or will the robber headed to the liquor store see the sign and leave his gun behind?

            So, go ahead and make a bump-stock illegal, if it makes you feel better? After all, it is about how you (meaning liberals in general) feel about things that matters most. It’s never about statistical data and facts in support of, or against, any particular outcome, its just how you feel. So, my dear Libby if it makes your day, please go right ahead, create a law to make those bump-stocks illegal. But, don’t expect a lot of pats on the back for doing something virtually immeasurable in its impact or application.

          • Chris says:

            Let me elaborate with this example…. because it is a gun free zone, do you think that people bent on murder will not use a gun or will the robber headed to the liquor store see the sign and leave his gun behind?

            Gun-free zones don’t exist to stop mass shooters, though. That isn’t even their purpose. They exist to stop ordinary people from doing something stupid and getting people shot, or to make people feel more comfortable then they otherwise would. Believing that the purpose of gun-free zones is to stop murderers from attacking is like believing that the purpose of the “No Smoking” signs at restaurants are to stop people from selling crack to kids there. That’s simply not what it’s for.

          • Tina says:

            “A civilization lives or dies by the laws it makes…”

            It lives and dies according to the laws it’s citizens will abide by and support. Gun laws, like immigration law, are abused by citizens and you on the left refuse to come down on the side of the law.

            You blame guns (gun violence) and seek to restrict ownership. You try to enact laws that restrict those who abide by the law and not those who found ways around them. Many of you want to confiscate guns and put an end to a Constitutionally recognized right. The laws you propose either have nothing to do with the actual shooters, mentally ill or ISIS enabled or you fail to address the issue when you have the power (first 2 yrs under Obama).

            It’s difficult to take you seriously.

      • Tina says:

        You need to better acquaint yourself with the criminal mind. Ban it and the criminal will find a way to fashion what he wants. He’ll do it himself or find someone who has the skills. In fact it would probably become another underground cottage industry for some other nefarious type.

        I’m sure we will have the discussion but don’t expect any legislation to stop a determined mass murderer.

        • Post Scripts says:

          Tina what burns me is, the politicians get to decide what the solution is here, as if there is one. Politicians are the last people who should be in charge of our public safety. They are idiots, and as Mark Stine puts it…they are nothing but a bunch of chest beaters. They are panderers to the masses! So, they feel this is a golden opportunity to appease those masses and be re-elected. They look for a quick fix, a boogie-man and so they pick on the bump stock. That bump-stock means absolutely nothing in grand scope of our security. If it wasn’t a bump-stock it would be something else.

          With 350M people in this country there are bound to be people who are sickos, just like this guy. And you know…a couple of well placed explosives would have yielded a far higher death count. We have over the counter ingredients to make the explosives, but there is no spotlight on that stuff. So Washington looks the other way. Heck, an 18 wheeler at 60 mph, jumping the curb and smashing into the crowd does a lot of damage too, there are so many things that could cause massive damage as 9/11 proved. The point is, we’ve had mass killings forever and we’ve had far worse than this one. We will have mass killings in the future too, it is inevitable. Why? Because we have flawed humans living among us! But, what we don’t want to do is kid ourselves into thinking we are safer every time some bureaucrat comes up with a law to ban something!

          Obviously, there is virtually no end of the things that could kill people if used improperly, therefore by liberal logic there is no end to things we could ban. But, that’s a fools errand, right?

          I think we just need to grow up and face reality. People are flawed and the best we can do is just deal with them as best we can. We should strive to find a balance between security and liberty and let it go at that. Of course, the bump-stock law will pass, but I can assure you it will do absolutely squat to make us safer. That won’t matter because Washington will soon be patting themselves on the back for seeing a terrible problem and taking immediate action to fix it! They are so wise and bold! They will take credit for stopping ALL the future Las Vegas bump-stock shootings. Big deal.

          • Tina says:

            Jack passing useless laws that will do nothing to stop future murders is stupid, I heartily agree, but acting as if it’s possible to make people safe by passing such a meaningless law is insulting.

            Life is risky and we all now it. We take a much bigger risk every time we jump in our cars or hop on a plane and we haven’t demanded that they be banned…even after vehicles and planes have been used to commit mass murder.

            Air headed lefties do fall for it every single time though.

            Using something that has tragically impacted so many lives as a political tool is despicable…this type of politicking is beginning to rub citizens the wrong way. It will have zero effect this time.

          • Peggy says:

            Politicians pass laws and then exempt themselves from them. Calif. legislators just did.

  9. Pete says:

    In this situation it might have helped if fully automatic weapons were not available.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Almost anybody with a minimal of tools can rig up a semi-auto rifle to fire faster than it was originally designed. Maybe having a law that says rifles can’t be modified to fire any faster than the original factory design would be acceptable to both sides? I don’t see this compromise law as a big deal either way. Now would it have stopped or slowed down the death toll at Las Vegas? My educated guess is probably not one bit. A bump-stock equipped weapon is virtually impossible to aim with any degree of accuracy. It’s a safe bet that at 300-400 yards distance, half this sniper shots went completely out the area where the people were gathered, due to barrel climb and a host of of other aiming things that make a bump-stock ridiculously hard to aim, especially if you are not used to using one. All they do is make for rapid fire. Now at really close range, say 10-20 feet you could probably get a bunch of hits, but at 300 to 400 yards, that bullet spray pattern had to be all over the place missing the intended targets by 100 feet or more and landing who knows where, maybe even next door in the parking lot? See sure, lets ban bump-stocks if that will make the left feel good. Won’t bother me one bit. They are already illegal in CA like everything else to do with black rifles.

  10. Peggy says:

    I was curious as to how congress voted the last time a gun control bill was brought up and came across this jewel. Note it’s even from CNN and written by Dana Bash. I’ve copied only what Harry Reid said. The rest is Nancy Pelosi’s responses.

    In other words it’s all about getting reelected and not about saving lives and the republicans wanting kids to die.

    Obama talks guns, Democratic leaders duck
    By Dana Bash, Senior Congressional Correspondent
    Updated 8:43 PM ET, Thu July 26, 2012

    President Barack Obama broke his silence on the Colorado movie massacre Wednesday night and spoke out on the issue of gun control.

    “I believe the majority of gun owners would agree … that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily,” said the president.

    “These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense,” he added.
    Shouldn’t be controversial? Common sense?

    The president knows full well that Democratic strategists — including those who run his re-election effort — see gun control as political dynamite. They have since Al Gore lost the presidency by failing to win conservative states, an outcome many Democrats blame in part on Gore’s push for gun control.

    For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics

    Still, Obama is the party’s leader. So we wanted to know whether his Democratic colleagues in Congress agree.

    “I don’t know how anyone could disagree with what the president said yesterday,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

    Reid agrees and he controls the Senate agenda. So he can do something about it.

    CNN’s Ted Barrett asked the next logical question. Will Senate Democrats act?
    “With the schedule we have, we’re not going to get into the debate on gun control,” Reid responded.

    “But I’m very happy, I’m glad the president made the statement because it’s something that needs to be done. But we’re not going to address gun control.” he said flatly.

    So action won’t happen this year. What about next year?

    Barrett followed up: “If you hold onto the majority next year, would Democrats commit to making it part of your agenda?” he asked.

    Reid smirked in a way that made clear he could see the political minefield ahead, and he wasn’t going anywhere near it.

    “Nice try. Nice try, OK?” he glared.

    Other article of interest about gun control during Obama’s terms.

    “Despite promises, Obama, Dem Congress have been gun-friendly Gun-control supporters are expressing frustration with the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress for not standing up to groups like the National Rifle Association.

    Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who succeeded now White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the lower chamber, told The Hill, “I can’t even get a hearing [on gun control issues].”

    He added, “I’m not blaming the Republicans. I’m blaming [Democratic] leadership and the administration. They’re in charge. … It’s a question of priorities.”

    The gun-control community is among several factions on the left that are upset with the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress.”

  11. Harold says:

    These are from articles I have read about the effects of the LasVegas killings:

    “It’s terrible to think that a place I visit so often for business would be home to such a ruthless attack.

    But the truth is, Las Vegas is a high-value target and many threats have been made against the city in the past.

    There’s still a lot we don’t know about the Mandalay Bay shooting, but there are some conclusions we can come to without waiting for investigations to be completed.

    Automatic Rifles

    There’s no doubt that automatic rifles of some sort were used in this attack (*)
    and this time, it’s not the media just showing their ignorance. The rate of fire was too consistent to be natural.

    Yes, people can shoot faster with semi-automatics, but they never have such a consistent space between trigger pulls.

    There’s already talk in the media about how regular semi-automatics can be modified to be fully automatic. This is possible. Most amateurs don’t know how to do it and most professionals don’t want to do it.

    Here’s one thing I know for sure: If the extreme laws already in place against automatic rifles didn’t stop this guy, applying more stringent laws to other rifles won’t prevent evil people from getting a hold of them.

    (The gun grabbers will have a field day with this, but people with common sense know that more gun laws are not the answer.)
    Increased attacks on large gatherings
    We’re seeing a radical increase of attacks on large gatherings across the United States and Europe. In this case, it doesn’t seem to be caused by religion or politics. And I don’t think this trend is going to stop.

    Everyone needs to start taking action to protect themselves. It was only a few months ago that I was writing about the Manchester Arena Bombing Incident.

    While it may have been a different type of music, it was still a concert. In fact, I can’t even count the number of times I’ve written about attacks on large groups.

    These concerts generally do the best they can to protect their attendees, but it’s time to accept that they can’t always protect you.

    While I don’t recommend that you live your life in fear, you need to accept that you put yourself at risk when you attend a large gathering.
    Broken Windows
    Although we don’t have all of the details, it’s being reported that two windows were broken out before the shooting began with a glass-breaking tool. This makes sense.

    Bullets can go through standard glass quite easily. However, the glass would have a profound effect on the accuracy and power of the rounds.

    I imagine that law enforcement, as well as private security firms, will start using this as an attack indicator in the future.

    It’s unknown at this point how far in advance the windows were smashed, but this could have been an advanced indicator.
    My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and families of the shooting.

    Jason Hanson

    (* Foot note from Harold: the automatic fire modification so far has been credited to a simple stock conversion by a product called a ‘bump stop’ which eliminates the need to squeeze the trigger each time to fire the round in a Semi-Automatic rifle. It takes some practice to work this though, however it eliminates any accurate aiming of the rifle. I am quite sure the Fed’s will look into preventing retail sales of these in the future.)

    Also there is this article from Michelle Malkin on the silencer issue

    A silencer was not used, and they are easy to make if one is creative, so Ms. Hillary even a ban on this is issue would be a moot point other than your political BS.
    There is a need for silencers at shooting ranges in my opinion, which is to reduce the noise of a fired weapon next to you and its effects on the ear drums.

    Silencers do require a gun with a treaded barrel end, and cannot be used on most guns already sold, as this is not a typical feature.

    May God bless those innocent who died and those they left behind, and especially those who faced danger as they were helping protect and save others.

    We can come together as a country, but why does it take a tragedy?

  12. Peggy says:

    Recommended ready. Heard about this report this morning from a liberal writer.

    I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.:
    By Leah Libresco October 3 at 3:02 PM

    “Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

    Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

    Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.”


    • Tina says:

      I didn’t go to the article so this comment might be redundant. One point needs to be clarified on PS.

      The NRA has been a strong advocate FOR sensible gun control policy. The fight comes when stupid gun control measures based on ignorant emotional political appeals are put forth, usually following such a tragic shooting. (They are “tragic” because the shooter is not behaving normally; the deaths/injuries are senseless)

      Kudos to Leah and her associates.

  13. Tina says:

    Chris: “Gun-free zones don’t exist to stop mass shooters, though. That isn’t even their purpose. They exist to stop ordinary people from doing something stupid and getting people shot, or to make people feel more comfortable then they otherwise would.”

    Stupid. A designation is not going to stop a criminal from using an unlawfully obtained weapon for any purpose and “getting people” shot. Nor should a designation “make people feel more comfortable then they otherwise would.”

    “Believing that the purpose of gun-free zones is to stop murderers from attacking is like believing that the purpose of the “No Smoking” signs at restaurants are to stop people from selling crack to kids there.”

    Sorry, no, ridiculous comparison.

    Believing a designation or a sign will stop any behavior is naive.

    • Chris says:

      Was I not clear? Gun-free zones do not exist to stop criminals.

      I assume if you’re a smoker, you do not smoke in places where you are not allowed. I also assume you do not bring guns to places where they are not allowed. That’s who gun-free zones are for: normal people like you. No one believes they stop mass shooters. That is not what they are for.

      • Tina says:

        Chris “no smoking” signs were intended to intimidate smokers and make it uncomfortable to be a smoker. Peer pressure was applied, and expanded, and it worked. But it worked because most smokers respected the fact that others were affected by their smoke in a closed space. That’s why they honored the no-smoking signs. But smokers still carried their cigarettes and cigars into no-smoking areas. They items were not banned.

        This high pressure tactic is not much different. It’s an intimidation game meant to ultimately pressure the public into giving up their second amendment right to own guns. They want the zones to include all of America. But good citizen gun owners are not a threat of any kind to their fellow citizens. In fact they have proven to be of great help when a shooter emerges from the shadows.

        This time the tactic is way off base and against the constitutionally protected inalienable right to keep and bear arms. There are many places across America where guns can be carried in the open. At this point it’s been shown they are much safer for the public. Carry Zones would make more sense if safety is the concern.

        Those intending to commit mass murder hide what they intend. Gun free zones invite their acts of violence because the shooter will have greater opportunity to do what he intends without being challenged right away. These types have no respect for people much less a “gun free” designation.

        Nothing discourages an evil doer more than people with the capacity to defend themselves.

        If you’re going to be consistent you should consider “no mass murder” zones. They wouldn’t work either because people will d evil things. But at least you’d be addressing the problem and it would cover guns, bombs, knives, cars, machete’s, grenades, fire, acid….

        Your example shows exactly how stupid gun free zones are.

        • Chris says:

          There is no evidence that gun-free zones are a target for mass shooters; this is a right-wing myth. You are also exaggerating the commonality of armed citizens taking down shooters. This is incredibly rare.

          Good people have accidents with guns all the time. I am not opposed to individual communities deciding to be “open carry” but I am opposed to guns ever being on a school campus. The danger of that has already been demonstrated with teachers accidentally shooting themselves in the foot and children finding guns in several schools.

  14. Tina says:

    Chris: “There is no evidence that gun-free zones are a target for mass shooters; this is a right-wing myth. You are also exaggerating the commonality of armed citizens taking down shooters. This is incredibly rare.”

    Boy do I beg to differ!

    National Review, “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,”:

    There have been a series of articles from Politico, the Huffington Post, Slate, and the New York Daily News with similar titles meant to cast doubt on defensive gun use, such as “the myth of the good guy with the gun.” Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting — and there have been plenty of mass shooting in Europe — has occurred in a gun-free zone. In addition, they have had three of the six worst K–12 school shootings, and Europe experienced by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual (Norway in 2011, which from the shooting alone left 67 people dead and 110 wounded)….

    Analysis of reports that seem to be in conflict can be found at Crime Research.

    Common sense surfaces in another National Review article, “The Cruelty of Gun-Free Zones,”:

    …consider what law enforcement in Europe and the United States advise. It might surprise him (Obama). In November, Interpol’s secretary general, Ron Noble, noted there are two ways to protect people from such mass shootings: “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves [should be] so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.” …

    … consider the advice from PoliceOne, whose 450,000 members make it the largest private organization of active and retired law-enforcement officers in the U.S. It surveyed its members last March and asked, “What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public?” Their No. 1 answer: “More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.” (It was followed by “More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons.” (all emphasis mine).

    Thesecond NR article also points out that the media rarely reports incidents that involves a legally armed citizen stopping the shooter and preventing additional deaths. That’s a political decision made by the networks to purposely skew the facts and control the narrative (Fake News).

    Don’t like the sources used in those articles? The Daily Signal uses a Stanford University Libraries’ dataset in their article, “Mass Shooters Prefer Gun-Free Zones.”

    An article, “Surprise! There’s Been Another Mass Shooting In A Gun-Free Zone,” in The Federalist also points out how the left is always quick to politicize with misinformation, lies, and emotional and denigrating hype:

    (Tweet) “Don’t pray. Push for gun control”…Rachel Zarrell, the author of the “don’t pray” tweet above, is a news editor for BuzzFeed. Luke O’Neil, who displayed his anti-gun violence bona fides by pining (2 tweets) for the mass murder of all gun owners, is a Boston-based journalist who’s written for publications such as Slate, the Boston Globe, and Esquire.

    Interestingly enough, the mass shooting happened in precisely the type of environment demanded by journalist gun controllers like Zarrell and O’Neil: a gun-free zone. That’s right. The Grand 16 Theater in Lafayette is a gun-free zone that explicitly bans the possession of any and all firearms, concealed or otherwise, on its premises

    Natural News, “FBI report shows importance of armed citizens in stopping mass murder sprees”:

    A new study from the FBI that says active shooter incidents have risen dramatically since 2000 doesn’t focus on one aspect of such shootings: that the presence of armed private citizens can be the biggest factor in ending mass shooting sprees, saving countless lives by ending such frightening incidents more quickly. … one can only speculate why the effect of the Second Amendment was downplayed in the study’s final report, even though the information was there.

    CATO, “Cato Institute study says armed citizens prevent thousands of crimes”:

    Researchers at the Cato Institute have reviewed eight years worth of news reports about shooting in self-defense and conclude, “the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.”

    The libertarian Washington, D.C. think tank has released “Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens,” just a few days after Wisconsin’s first instance of a concealed carry permit holder shooting at an armed robber, at a Milwaukee grocery store. In fact, the incident is already on the Cato Institute’s interactive map that accompanies the report.

    The report’s authors argue that because only when a citizen actually shoots a criminal subject does the incident make the news, there are likely thousands of times when the mere display of a legal weapon stops a crime from happening. But the study also acknowledges that prior estimates range widely, from less than a million to more than 2 million a year.

    So the authors instead turn to about 5,000 news reports of defensive gun use to draw conclusions about the actors, their circumstances, motivations and outcomes.

    More from CATO here

    School districts can decide for themselves, however, if they decide to allow teachers, administrators or even janitors to carry they need to make sure those people are fully trained in gun use AND gun safety. The scenario you described should not happen. In fact, I’d be interested in the details of said incidents…it’s not that I doubt your word so much as I doubt the competency of those involved. Also were the guns children found in schools brought from home and were they legally owned?

    • Post Scripts says:

      Tina, I absolutely agree with these facts. I would also like to add, that the last 18 months the deaths in France from illegal fully automatic weapons (where even semi-auto’s are banned) exceeded the terrorist caused deaths in the USA between the years 2008-2016.

      Over 400 innocent unarmed persons were either shot and killed or shot and wounded in France since 2015. And to think, France has some the worlds most restrictive gun ownership laws. Also, most of these attacks occurred in areas heavily patrolled by police. Thus we say, when seconds count… the police were just minutes away.

  15. Libby says:

    “Facts”, my Aunt Fanny. All you have to do is look at her sources, and the term propaganda just magically pops into your head.

    You just go ahead and “open carry” your assault rifle down to the town plaza. Someone will have reported you for a menace within ten minutes.

    May it ever be so.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, I fail to see the nexus? Why would I march down to the plaza with an assault rifle? lol And how did open carry become part of the conversation? We were just discussing what gun laws would have prevented the Las Vegas incident. Guess you don’t know either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.