In the United States a far more frightening pathology – again, that gun control zealots fail to acknowledge or choose to ignore – is the fact that the majority of the most heinously vicious murderers in the history of our great Nation, including Gary Ridgway – who savagely murdered more people by himself than were lost at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and San Bernardino combined – never use a firearm during the commission of their brutality! John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Edward Gein, Donald Harvey, Anthony Sowell, Lawrence Bittaker, Roy Norris and on and on. The list of murder-intent monsters – who never used a firearm – is a horrifically long one, and this list silently grows each and every day.

PBinLostAngeles
June 4, 2019
Comment to Why Gun Ownership Rates Tell Us Little About Homicide Trends in America
[If someone wants to reduce murder rates then enabling people to defend themselves and quickly and reliably punishing murders is going to be far more effective than placing restrictions upon the access to the most effective defensive tools ever created.

The truth of this can be readily seen by looking at the data for successful defensive uses of firearms compared to the offensive uses of firearms. Defensive uses are far more common than offensive uses. Unless there is someway to accurately predict which people are going to use a particular type of tool to commit a violent crime then any restriction on that tool is going to affect the defensive use rate far more than the offensive use rate. If you can accurately predict which people are going to commit a violent crime then why is that person not locked up where they are far less likely to harm someone?

Obviously, it is impossible to accurately predict which people are going to commit  violent crime. Hence, we are left with the conclusion that weapon control is counter productive if the goal is to reduce violent crime. But since the political left is insistent on weapon control, even when it is repeatedly shown to be, at best, of no benefit, we must conclude their goal is not the reduction of violent crime.—Joe]

Kate expressed to her husband concerns about this individual in particular, as well as one other person. In fact, they had a discussion the night before about whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag — and decided not to, ultimately, because there’s a policy apparently against having any kind of weapons that are concealed in the building.

Kevin Martingayle
Kate Nixon family attorney
June 10, 2019
‘Gun free zone’ law disarmed Virginia Beach shooting victim, attorney says
[Any employer who has a policy which disallows people from defending themselves as a condition of employment should be held at least partially responsible for the death or injury of an employee who is a victim of a violent crime where appropriate defensive action could have stopped the crime. They are creating a hazardous working environment.

How is this different than a slick floor or heavy dust in a work environment then banning appropriate shoes and breathing masks? “Gun free zones” are OSHA for violent criminals. OSHA should be leveraged for innocent victims of violent criminals.—Joe]

Ghoulishly standing on a child’s grave does not grant you moral authority over citizens’ Amendment II rights.

Your displaced ire should instead be focused upon actual evildoers and the Scot Petersons, Scott Israels & the ‘Rethink Discipline’ policies of the world.

Go in peace.

Adam Baldwin @AdamBaldwin
Tweeted on June 10, 2019
[Good advice. But for many of people this is aimed at already know the graves of the children are just the excuse for their anti-rights stance. In a twisted sort of way school shootings are “just a price to pay” to get what they want.

Don’t believe that? Then why do almost all anti-gun people get so wound up over getting rid of the “gun free zones” and/or hardening the places where almost all mass shootings occur? They use mass shootings as their major justification for more restrictions on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

If mass shooting happened less frequently or involved few deaths of innocent people they would have less justification for infringement. Their agenda is not only more important to them that the loss of innocent life. To keep their agenda alive they desire the loss of innocent life.—Joe]