vla1ne Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Actually my point is more that 'If people shoot back they might kill the wrong person' than they might fail to kill the perp by missing. But it's semantics. And I agree with you that the next mass shooting will occur in a gun free zone. But for a different reason - Because there are still non-gun free zones Yeah, it's not that shocking that gun free zones get undermined by the existence of neighbouring gun legal zones, and that people can still get fairly ready access to firearms as a result. It doesn't actually comment upon the effectiveness of no guns as a result, because the idea behind it gets flawed. It's why if you are actually banning firearms you have to do it at a national level across all states at once, and make an aggressive effort to remove existing guns. Since that won't happen, because reasons, then the logical course of action if you are aiming to mitigate the effects of mass shootings is to ensure every gun owner has some level of combat training - That would include live fire drills (Or at least Blank fire drills, something to simulate the chaos of a shooting like this). That way you make the chosen approach as efficient as it possibly could be. Like if you are going to introduce gun free zones you have to go the whole hog. Make them very expansive and being very aggressive about there enforcement. It has to be a concentrated effort across the nation. just so you know, other countries in the uk, have a similar rate of mass killings/attacks per capita. (http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/) the shootings don't happen as often, but the damage done is often higher than it would be in america, because you always know where to shoot, and you are always guaranted to be one of the only people with a weapon. toss in bombings and the like, and the US remains average. in fact, for having the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, the united states is nowhere near as far ahead in killings per capits as it should be according to your logic. you are making anti gun claims because the places that ban guns are the easier targets for gun related (legally or illegally obtained) crime, that's faulty logic as far as america goes. you don't blame the homes with standard security for the one that advertises its' lack of security do you? same logic. they ban guns there, and therefore gun crime will obviously occur there more often. Europe is gun free and it still has mass shootings, and the people who can't get guns just bring multiple bombs, it's not because we have guns, it's because they're criminals. the right to bear arms means that the easiest place to shoot up is the place that decides guns are not needed. i've already shown you articles about what happens in the open carry zones when shooters show up. good aim or no, the threat of getting shot back is a damn strong deterrent. again, nobody here is arguing against better training and education, my argument is against gun free zones. they should not exist in a country that allows guns, they provide a false sense of security and are an open target for criminals. and yes, america will continue to have guns. it is as valid a part of our country as any other form of culture. i don't even want to own a gun, i simply wish to protect the rights of those who do. and remove the easy target sign from public places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 The last two instances of gun massacres in the UK (Cumbria and Dunblane) killed 12 and 18 people respectively. And were spaced 14 years apart. The average is probably only evens out because two of the last 5 happened to be the London bombings (Which killed 52 and injuried 700) in 2005, and the Lockerbie plane bombing of 1998 that killed 270 - These are some of the largest attacks as a result of non domestic terrorism in the past few decades, which make them exceptions. In terms of violence in general? No you aren't ahead per capita, I'm well aware of that. I believe you are actually a little less violent than the UK if we consider it proportionately. You have some areas of insanely high violence like Chicago iirc, but otherwise you are less violent than the UK is. Might be off on the numbers. However in terms of specifically mass shootings? You far ahead of any other nation that is not currently a war zone if I remember rightly. Despite only having 5% of the Worlds population, you have 31% of annual Mass Shootings (According to http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/27/health/u-s-most-mass-shootings/this CNN article. It's CNN I know, so it's probably bullshit, but still). Last year you had something like 355 mass shootings in 365 days. This year 174 in 168 days. That's taking 4 or more peoples injured as a result of. If we narrow it to 4 or more fatalities, you had 30 in 2015 alone (As verified by the USA Today post I'll link at the bottom. For comparison - There have only been 7 massacres in the past 32 years in the UK, and 4 of those were bombings. In fact, in the past 29 years the UK has only had 3 mass shootings. The argument that Europe being gun free and yet mass shootings and the like still happen is invalid - The argument isn't that wider gun restrictions or a gun ban stops all Mass shootings from occurring, it's about minimising the frequency. Laws almost never completely eliminate an issue - It's about trying to manage it and reduce the effect and frequency of it. An argument should not be made that 'Oh people are still going to commit mass shootings' is a valid reason to not put guns laws in place, because it's the same as saying 'Oh people will still steal, so there's no reason to have anti thieving laws'. It's about punishment acting as an incentive not to do it and to minimise the frequency. I would also like to highlight that article you posted somewhat misrepresents Norway in the scheme of things - It lists Norway at the top of the list right with 77 fatalities right? And per capita that makes it look like the most violent nation on that list right? But it's a single incident that happened to be the most violent thing to happen in the country since WW2. I don't know enough about the other countries on the list right to make similar arguments, but it at least implies disingenuous conclusions are being drawn. And we agree that gun free zones don't work in a nation that still has widespread access to guns. I'm not contesting that idea, it's pretty logical that someone who can just cross an open border within driving to legally pick-up a handgun for nefarious deeds will do so. But I think the better long term approach is to simply eliminate guns across the entire nation instead of rolling them back. Your rights be dammed in that case, it's the approach that probably saves more lives in the long term. But we do have a reasonable comprimise decided - Namely the increased levels of training to even own a gun. http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#frequencyThe article I mentioned earlier. It has a tonne of facts and such, and I've not been able to read it all through so it'll probably bite me on the ass. Worth bringing up though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 chicago, detroit, ect, pretty much the stains of the country really. whoever can solve the issues of those two places could run for president 3x and i'd support them. yes, we have more mass shootings (and shotings in general) but we have more guns, it's to be expected, the fact that we're lower in crime overall though (detroit, chicago, ect, notwithstanding) is somewhat of a testament to the citizens of the country. guns aren't the problem here. the CNN article fails to mention the considerable decline in overall crime. the country with the most guns, is guaranteed to have the most shootings, that is an indisputable fact, i cannot, and will not argue with it, but the reason for the frequency in mass shootings in america is the abundance of clear targets in relation to other countries, and the loopholes in obtaining guns that congress never gets around to fixing. america already has a lower fatality rate than other countries from mass shooting, the only reason we have more is because we've made guns easy to get, while keeping places that would be prime targets for any attack, gun free. again which links to the next point in a country where nobody has guns, higher security is the way to go about lowering mass shootings. in a country where everybody has guns, removing guns from the area you want to protect is the worst decision you can make. in most of europe, everywhere is gun free, so a gun free college is no more of a target than any other area, in america though, it's essentially telling criminals that there will be far less obstacles there than on an everyday street to them shooting up the place. that's where i'm coming from, even if you increase security at campuses, the very fact that the people with guns are in plain view provides incentive to target the campus/school/nightclub/ect instead of the open carry starbucks across the street. it is in no way disingenuous. it states per capita from the start, and does not make norway out to have an epidemic, simply points out the amount of violence per capita is not at the epidemic scale that people appear to believe it to be. the sample is valid because it controls for differences in population. were america the same size as norway, it would have less crime (this recent shoting might skew those results some though), that's all it says. if it did not control for population, then norway would undoubtedly sink, but the other, more populated countries would sink far lower. the population of the us is far higher, so going by pure numbers would drop it further. in the same way chicago and detroit skewer the total number of gun violence acts in america, population would skewer the amount killed drastically. what i will say is that for overall frequency, norway has less gun violence, but since it's controlling for population, and population of people shot/ shooting in mass gun violence, then the percentages are in no way unfair. the overall number's higher, but once measured for population, the percentage lowers. tell you what, remove the gun free zones from america's mass shooting numbers, and america becomes one of the lowest numbers of gun violence in the world. that is how large of an impact gun-free zones have upon a country that allows guns. but nobody wants to do that, so the damage will continue to rack up on the massive glowing weak spot. the right to bear arms is a guarantee, with all rights come responsibilities. the responsibilities of guns are simply higher than those of cars and such. the question is when will congress pass a law that matches the required responsibility. besides, to ban guns in america would cause problems enough among the people to destroy this country. as for your link, read through it, many of the killings on this list were either drug related, severe mental health problem related, done with weapons other than a gun, or a combination of those things. the majority are still guns, and the largest killings have been done with guns, but the worst are the ones that we've already been over, such as sandy hook (a gun free zone). some of the crimes done with a gun appear to have been done in ways that shouldn't need a gun at all, such as beating a woman into submission, then shooting her and her children, five men shooting two women and two kids in their own home, or tying kids up and shooting them, or killing your family members and then killing the family members who arrive, ect. while this is a testament to better gun control laws, seeing as many of te cases were done bi individuals with clear issues in the head, it is not a testament to ban guns, many of the gun related ones are also drug and mental health related which would be remedied to an extent if the loopholes and such were removed. there have indeed been a lot of them, but as mentioned in the very first part, they still make up less than 1% of the killings across america. also, the majority of the killings listed were family killings, most were done with bullets, but almost all of them were done in such a way that guns would not have been the only successful method. the list was a testament to gun control, but it doesn't improve the argument to ban guns, not very many of the crimes would have been any better if guns were banned, and many of the crimes had the criminal listed as mentally unstable or on drugs (or both) and many of the worse ones could have occurred even without legal avenues to guns. to sum it up though the us is safer on average than other first world countries when it comes to crime, but the crimes in the us are by far deadlier. http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/ and www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime into perspective, if the citizens of britain got their hands on guns tomorrow, and crime continued at the same rate as it does today, the rate of death would skyrocket, past america. so yeah, america has the deadlier weapons, but we aren't doing half as much damage as would be expected with that lead on the rest of the worlds so far as crime goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 One of the survivors met with the officer that saved him: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/health/beyond-the-call-delgado-orlando/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 I think you completely missed the point. The Omars of the world are at ease with death and committing 1st degree murder. They're not going to be too heartbroken about breaking a no-carry law tooAll you do by restricting areas is make it so legal citizens cannot fight backNo, I believe that having open carry in a night club is stupid. Obviously it won't stop criminals, but it will stop people who would bring guns for whatever stupid reason into a nightclub that don't intend to shoot and kill everybody. I don't feel like I should have to explain all the scenarios involving heightened adrenaline-fueled moments that would lead to somebody who had no intention to use said weapon going in to then use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 No, I believe that having open carry in a night club is stupid. Obviously it won't stop criminals, but it will stop people who would bring guns for whatever stupid reason into a nightclub that don't intend to shoot and kill everybody. I don't feel like I should have to explain all the scenarios involving heightened adrenaline-fueled moments that would lead to somebody who had no intention to use said weapon going in to then use it.No, you really do have to explain. If I'm willing to break the law and commit murder, do you really think I'll hesitate to break a no-carry law? If we're talking about isolated incidents (maybe you see someone with a girl you like) doesn't that speak of your own mental frailty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 No, you really do have to explain. If I'm willing to break the law and commit murder, do you really think I'll hesitate to break a no-carry law? If we're talking about isolated incidents (maybe you see someone with a girl you like) doesn't that speak of your own mental frailty?Maybe for premeditated instances, but I don't believe those are the majority of violent incidents. More often it's just someone who had a moment of anger, or a very shitty day, who uses the gun without thinking. It happens, it's not a sign of mental weakness. Arguably it's a sign of not respecting firearms enough, but it's not a sign of mental weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 https://news.vice.com/article/georgia-now-allows-guns-in-airports-and-bars most bars in florida have to allow concealed carry, only kicking people out if they open carry, and the link you provided ( https://news.vice.com/article/georgia-now-allows-guns-in-airports-and-bars ) [go to the explore tab, and type in florida] has only 15 cases of a mass shooting in florida, all but six of which were family killings, only three overall having occurred in the past three years since the law passed, and only this one having occurred in public since the law passed (this club somehow remained a known gun free zone). that argument that guns in nightclubs would lead to more mass shootings, or more shootings in general loses water in that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Face McShooty Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Even it tragedy, Orlando still rises above the hate from Westboro Baptist Churchhttps://twitter.com/joeflech/status/744183967323021312 Just found this amazing video of one of the survivors being reunited with the police officer that saved him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 I honestly can't tell what Trump is trying to say in the aftermath. He said he's going to meet with the NRA, which is very unusual for a GOP member to actually do in the wake of something like this, but then he goes and says if there were fewer gun restrictions, the death toll would be less, which sounds like a typical GOP saying. Also, a pastor from Ohio blasted Christians for praising the attack/calling it "God's Wrath" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ohio-pastor-blasts-christians-calling-orlando-killing-god-wrath-article-1.2678180 Passengers and flight attendants on a flight where a victim's grandmother was on also did their best to console her: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-victims-grandmother-showered-with-love-on-jetblue-flight/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 @mega if you can meet the NRA on common ground in a few areas, you'll have a lot more luck getting them to side with you on background reform. remove a restriction, and in return, overhaul background checks so that there are fewer loopholes and more safeguards against those with preexisting issues. not a perfect fix, but if anybody in the race has a shot at it, trump's the only wildcard on guns. make a good impression, and get them on your side, and the GOP should follow suit easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hyde Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 So apparently my post got deleted, so I'll go more in depth into my analysis on why this shooting was a hoax. They reused other crisis actors from other incidents in their news reports. Obvious green screens in studios. No bodies were seen moved out of the club? Literally 400 people in that club, and no one is taking a video of what's going on? No security camera footage? Okay then. In other news broadcasts, they are seen transporting "wounded" civilians back towards the club instead of away...why would you take someone who was supposedly shot and take them away from the club, only to have to move them back. Why not drive them yourself to the hospital, or in the case that you're intoxicated, why not call over cops to come take them to said hospital. I get that this is debates, and I should've went into more details as to why this was a hoax, but I feel my post being removed was unwarranted. Open your eyes...its Sandy Hook all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Face McShooty Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 So apparently my post got deleted, so I'll go more in depth into my analysis on why this shooting was a hoax. They reused other crisis actors from other incidents in their news reports. Obvious green screens in studios. No bodies were seen moved out of the club? Literally 400 people in that club, and no one is taking a video of what's going on? No security camera footage? Okay then. In other news broadcasts, they are seen transporting "wounded" civilians back towards the club instead of away...why would you take someone who was supposedly shot and take them away from the club, only to have to move them back. Why not drive them yourself to the hospital, or in the case that you're intoxicated, why not call over cops to come take them to said hospital. I get that this is debates, and I should've went into more details as to why this was a hoax, but I feel my post being removed was unwarranted. Open your eyes...its Sandy Hook all over again.No video? Explain this thenhttps://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sickening-cctv-inside-orlando-nightclub-8223948.amp?client=safari# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hyde Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 No video? Explain this thenhttps://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sickening-cctv-inside-orlando-nightclub-8223948.amp?client=safari# First off, that's not cctv footage at all. It's snapchat. The last one the girl looks so terrified oml it's like actual gunshots are being fired! Please...I would hardly count that as video...why didnt she shoot the camera at the shooter instead of her obviously frightful face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 a literal nutcase was inside the club, shooting up the place. anybody who was taking pictures was likely shot, the last thing on your mind if you're inside a club and something like a shooting breaks out is "Worldstar!" you are trying to either hide and not be shot, or shoot back. it's nice to have a theory of it being a hoax, but there have been multiple people in videos from all over who have friends and family in the club get shot. when asking for evidence, you were presented with evidence, and said evidence even shows portions of video, if you missed the sentence, it also says police are still in possession of much of the footage, reviewing it. when that is released, you will have more of a story, but there is no evidence of this being a setup, and there is even less evidence of this being staged. if you have hard footage proving your point, or even enough to cast reasonable doubt on the body count, then i welcome you to present it, but otherwise, you are making a false story about an actual event to find a conspiracy where there is none. there are too many people involved, ad too many people dead, for this to have been a staged event. somebody would have had to not only volunteer to die in this, but they would have to be willing to kill an entire club worth of people, and engage in a long, painful shootout with the police. there is a lot of logic, going against your claim man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hyde Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVEqdH7QGWs I see no bodies being taken out of that club? Who's to say anyone died? All these crisis actors being casted? It's written out in plain daylight right in front of you. a literal nutcase was inside the club, shooting up the place. anybody who was taking pictures was likely shot, the last thing on your mind if you're inside a club and something like a shooting breaks out is "Worldstar!" So not even one brave soul gets a picture, or video, of the shooter? Highly doubtful with a club full of 400 patrons. And if those tapes are ever released, and I see people actually die, then I'll retract my statement. But as with Sandy Hook, I highly doubt that will be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jord200 Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Maybe because the familes ASKED the bodies of their loved ones wouldn't be shown on TV, or the news station did it out of respect for the dead? You ever think about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progenitor Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVEqdH7QGWs I see no bodies being taken out of that club? Who's to say anyone died? All these crisis actors being casted? It's written out in plain daylight right in front of you. Have you ever seen what a funking AR-15 does to human flesh? No? Cuz every single victim would have been hit by multiple of those shits. Do you think the police are gonna just LET the media watch them pull 50 grizzly ass mangled bodies out of a nightclub? Like seriously? You think the families of the victims wanna see these corpses--no, CARCASSES into the open, and see what became of their loved one? No, they don't. That's why they never show the bodies in ANY mass shooting. Because that's just morally insensitive. Not just to the loved ones of the victims, but to those who can't stomach that sight. See you make all these claims about how the evidence we have is false, but I have yet to see you actually present any form of counter evidence. Speculation means less than nothing in a debate or argument. Evidence is everything. If you find something concrete that could make you speculate a new conclusion, such as this being a hoax, please present it. Otherwise, please keep completely baseless conjecture to yourself, or at least provide some base to said claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hyde Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 I'm supposed to believe that a single gunman had enough rifle ammo on hand to kill 50 people in 7 minutes? There are countless cases of eye witness testimony countering each others. The majority says its one gunman, but others went on to say that there were two or even three gunmen. Of course I don't have any concrete evidence atm, because if there is any, it's in the hands of the government. So all I can do is make educated inferences as to what happened...and to me, everything that has happened afterwards and all the shady sheet around it makes me seem like this was a fabricated event, or that it's a misconstrued false flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Okay, obvious question: If this was a hoax, why? Why would a group of people go to such efforts to fake this sort of thing? Also eye witnesses disagreeing in high stress scenario's is not uncommon, so that's not really evidence. Peoples memories can and do fail - And stress only adds onto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinolovania Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 And on another note, there have been a lot of people directly involved with the shooting. Survivors, family, doctors, cops, and others. There would have to be a HUGE amount of effort put into gathering a HUGE number of people to work together to fake this. From what I've seen, none of the testimony looks particularly fake... Along with all the other points people have brought up, I don't think there's any reason to reasonably suspect the shooting was faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hyde Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Okay, obvious question: If this was a hoax, why? Why would a group of people go to such efforts to fake this sort of thing? Also eye witnesses disagreeing in high stress scenario's is not uncommon, so that's not really evidence. Peoples memories can and do fail - And stress only adds onto it. And on another note, there have been a lot of people directly involved with the shooting. Survivors, family, doctors, cops, and others. There would have to be a HUGE amount of effort put into gathering a HUGE number of people to work together to fake this. From what I've seen, none of the testimony looks particularly fake... Along with all the other points people have brought up, I don't think there's any reason to reasonably suspect the shooting was faked. It's like you don't think our anti-gun government doesn't have the power to move or persuade these people into acting. All those doctors, cops, and 'survivors' have obviously done this routine before. There are multiple instances where people have been recorded laughing during these 'serious' press conferences about this matter as if they don't know whats happening. There's also a video I saw with a live eye witness phone call whose call was cut off when he said there were two shooters. It's too sketchy to just say, yeah I totally believe that this event actually occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 It's like you don't think our anti-gun government doesn't have the power to move or persuade these people into acting. All those doctors, cops, and 'survivors' have obviously done this routine before. There are multiple instances where people have been recorded laughing during these 'serious' press conferences about this matter as if they don't know whats happening. There's also a video I saw with a live eye witness phone call whose call was cut off when he said there were two shooters. It's too sketchy to just say, yeah I totally believe that this event actually occurred. I didn't ask 'Is this possible' I asked why would a group do this? Because as pac says to fake this would require an immense amount of resources and efforts given you are convincing the entire world using several hundred people (Including creating lives for the fake victims and such). It would be a lot of time, and a lot of money and a lot of planning. So why? Nobody would do this for the shits and giggles. There has to be a reason for it - A group is would do this to get something out of it. So please provide me a plausible reasoning behind it? Like if this was an IS attack and was used to justify getting US boots on the ground I could totally believe this was a hoax. I wouldn't like to think it was, but I could understand why it was done if it was a hoax, because it would be similar to faking the WMD's for Iraq in the 2000's. But there's no obvious reason, no obvious change that's come about ect ect. (Which also rules out 'anti gun nuts' because this attack is no different to the past X in terms of getting something done) It's also unlikely to be fear in order to get people to sacrifice liberties in my mind, because it's specifically targeted. If that was the case, it would be at some public affair that's well publicised. So give me a plausable that explains why a government or an organisation would fake this. Because this kind of hoax absolutely needs a concrete motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hyde Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 So give me a plausable that explains why a government or an organisation would fake this. Because this kind of hoax absolutely needs a concrete motive. I already gave you the reason? Our government wants to rid the United States people from owning assault rifles. The government, which is probably the ones behind the hoax, are getting a certain community into a state where they think their lives are always at risk since people can shoot up a gay bar with assault rifles. These people, and all the people behind them will petition for congress to move a bill to outlaw assault rifles. They've been on this since Sandy Hook. In the interview with that woman, she literally says "And can we please do something about the assault rifles". They're pushing this anti-gun mentality on the lgbt community and all of it's supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 if they are trying to push anti-gun mentality, then why did a lot of homosexuals up and buy AR15s the day after the shooting? Sounds massively counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.