"Might be able to"..you see it your way and I'll see it mine. Trump? He sucks but not nearly as bad as the current pos residing at 1600.

Yes correct, the killer confirmed it
but the President chose to politicize this just continues to prove he is unfit for the office America elected him for.

want to stop killings like this? stop publicity about them

Other killings can be addressed by treating mental health issues before they act.

Don't worry. He will be gone soon and you can focus your hate on the white Jew from Brooklyn :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.theonion.com/article/man-...view:1:Default
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's likely too early to associate his actions with Islamic radicals. But you have to admit, that Obama bends over backwards to avoid labeling certain situations as acts of Islamic jihad, when that's clearly what they are. In the Ft Hood shooting, the shooter (a Muslim) self-identified ads a soldier of Allah, and yelled Allahu Akhbar as hee was killing Americans. That makes it an act of Islamic jihad, not "workplace violence".

It is a surprise that Jim has decided to risk his family by staying in CT rather than embracing the culture of SD. Hmmmm.

Not so shocking is his not understanding the fact that folks in SC got shot up in church by a white guy. Yes Jim, black people go to church. Oh,and no it did not save them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep it civil or I will lock it.

:behead:

Jim Jeffies I wish I was this glib He is on the mark.


https://youtu.be/7OZIOE6aMBk

I'll try to respond with civility as the boss asked.

Dangles, first, if I (or anyone) says something like "poor blacks commit crime", I'm not saying that every single poor black person is a criminal, nor am I saying that 100% of crime is committed by such people. Are you familiar with what a "generalization" is?

"It is a surprise that Jim has decided to risk his family by staying in CT rather than embracing the culture of SD. Hmmmm."

OK, so because I don't live in SD, that means I can't say that the crime is low there, even when every statistic shows that? Why is that? You might notice I don't live in Chicago or DC, either. CT, except for the cities controlled by liberals (New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford) is very safe. In those big cities, the libs have worked their usual magic, and they are uninhabitable and crime-ridden.

"Not so shocking is his not understanding the fact that folks in SC got shot up in church by a white guy"

I understand it perfectly. Why is it pertinent here? Did I ever imply that nothing bad ever happens in church?

"Yes Jim, black people go to church. Oh,and no it did not save them."

Again, I would be very interested for you to tell us, what I have ever said, which implies I believe that nothing bad happens to people who go to Church. Bad things happen to those who go to Church. And going to Church certainly is no guarantee that one will never commit a terrible crime.

I don't live in SD. But guess what? I am aware, and I can say with perfect validity, that violent crime is pretty close to zero there (despite the fact that guns are everywhere), and most people who live there, will tell you that religion has a lot to do with that. You are denying that, because it's not convenient to your current beliefs. That's your issue, not mine.

.when did I deny that Jim?

Despite the fact that there were over 2700 violent crimes committed last year that number sits within your agenda? Is that close enough to call zero ?
They must be the ones who are not religious.It is 1.3% black if that makes a difference in your eyes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure what numbers you are talking about or referring to. What's 1.3% black exactly? Are you saying that South Dakota doesn't have a lot less violent crime rates, than Chicago or DC?

Also, by what logic do my claims of low crime in SD not have validity, since I don't live there? That was strange, to say the least.

This paragraph still resonates with me...

Getting rid of all handguns is the best answer...


The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why. As the police cleared the bodies from the Virginia Tech engineering building, the cell phones rang, in the eccentric varieties of ring tones, as parents kept trying to see if their children were OK. To imagine the feelings of the police as they carried the bodies and heard the ringing is heartrending; to imagine the feelings of the parents who were calling — dread, desperate hope for a sudden answer and the bliss of reassurance, dawning grief — is unbearable. But the parents, and the rest of us, were told that it was not the right moment to ask how the shooting had happened — specifically, why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people — and why it happens over and over again in America. At a press conference, Virginia's governor, Tim Kaine, said, "People who want to ... make it their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. ... At this point, what it's about is comforting family members ... and helping this community heal. And so to those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere."

Many things have been written and will continue to be written on America's gun ownership rate (the highest in the world ), its gun violence (the worst in the developed world ), and the political and social forces that keep this from changing .

What Gopnik captured was not just the horrific costs of gun violence or the frustrating politics of gun control, but the special sort of anguish that we inflict on ourselves in the United States by forbidding any meaningful conversation around the tragedies that unfold over and over again.

There is an unwritten American rule that the aftermath of a mass shooting is the wrong time to talk about gun control. As Gopnik wrote, this logic would be recognized as absurd if applied to anything else: "The aftermath of a terrorist attack is the wrong time to talk about security, the aftermath of a death from lung cancer is the wrong time to talk about smoking and the tobacco industry, and the aftermath of a car crash is the wrong time to talk about seat belts."

Gopnik ended his piece with a call to ban handguns — a political nonstarter in 2007 and, in 2015, something that would be unimaginable to even discuss. That fact itself, that his concluding line has become more politically unthinkable rather than less, seems to drive home his point: that mass shootings will continue in America, and that Americans will refuse to seriously debate whether our culture of gun ownership is worth the costs.

"There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun," he wrote. "At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will be told not to ask why."

ABSURB!!......come on jim, your president is comparing a nation of over 300 million to a population to a population of 24 million, thats absurb......that is like comparing DETROIT population over 700 thou to my city of 28 thou.....detroit has about 500 gun crimes a year we have none....so what is your point?

Jim. Can you pls post a.link to an article where the Dems. accused Thomas of rape. I don't recall that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And when radical Muslims hijacked airplanes and killed 3500 there was never talk of banning airplanes, every day people die from cancer related to cigarettes and yet you can still buy cigarettes. Tell me again how this agenda driven selective banning of firearms makes sense ? Oh sure England banned them ! And violence is still an issue, there's even a web site that tells people to " be a good victim" , knife related murders now rule.. Again ,you can continue your fantasy of blaming inanimate objects and the scum of society will still thrive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

strange times...illegal and prescribed drugs fuel "creativity" and detach from reality..media fuels lack of regard for human life .....no love...no purpose...no predicting what one will do...

Oregon recently tightened it's gun laws and the campus was designated a gun free campus...how can this happen?

ban pointy knives while we're at it....keep the drugs and violence flowing

Don’t be a victim

If you feel you are in immediate danger from knife crime there are a number of steps you can take to protect yourself:
• Move away from the situation towards a public place (shop, house, restaurant etc.) as quickly as possible.
• Make as much noise as you can.
• Instead of carrying a knife, carry a personal alarm.
• Don’t fight back.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...der-your-knife

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-mark-antonio

In my world it would be something like -
If faced with the reality of a knife crime, take 3 fast steps backwards, alert the offender that you are armed. Pump 4 rounds into his legs.

I think everyone should have guns and I'm a hippie art fag. 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was precious...glad I didn't have a mouth full of coffee

You could still CCW on campus. I saw an interview with a vet packing who said he didn't intervene because he didn't want the cops to confuse him with the killer.

Guns are discouraged but it's not illegal. This is just more "criminals are attracted to gun free zones" nonsense from the NRA.

Why is that nonsense? Wouldn't a gun free zone be more attractive to a mass murderer than one where most people are "packing"? And even if CCW's were legal, wouldn't a gathering of minors who probably weren't armed be more attractive to the killer than a group of adults who may well have been?

Translation. I was too busy hiding behind a desk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you just answered your own question.

"Under state law, people in Oregon could carry concealed firearms on college campuses like the one where a gunman killed nine people and wounded several others on Thursday. However, Umpqua Community College has been established as a gun-free zone thanks to a loophole in state law that has made every third-level institution in the state almost entirely gun-free. Here’s how that works."

http://www.vocativ.com/news/236421/t...n-campus-laws/

the point is that ne're-do-well's don't give a crap about "zones"

This certainly explains why so many mass shootings occur at gun ranges where many people have firearms. More left stupidity..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hard to figure out, right? You can legalize pot in places but firearms should be confiscated?? :huh:

You will pry this bong from my cold-dead-dorito-cheesed hands.

Yes and no, not all "Gun Free Zones" are created equal and some GFZs trump the CCW permit.

Apples / Oranges. THIS guy chose the school because it was personal, not be cause he was trying for the maxim shock factor (like an elementary)

You got me, it was sexual harassment they accused him of.
I answered your question. Any chance you can show me the same courtesy? You said that the black shooting victims were in a SC church, therefore being I church didn't save them. When did I ever say that nothing bad can happen to anyone when they are in church? I await your answer.

Please tell me when I denied that Jim. Why are you saying I denied this?
Also this statistic you made up about violent crime is close to zero...How in the world does over 2700 violent crimes equal close to zero in your mind?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, I didn't say that. It was seadangles. I'm way better looking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim!! You know what absolutely kills me??? Look at this link for South Dakota.

Take note of the hate crime index.
What does this say about your Christian utopia called the Dakotas???

http://www.usa.com/south-dakota-stat...crime-rate.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's exactly the point. Nearly all mass shootings have a personal connection underneath the motive. The argument that gun free zones are a lure is a myth concocted by those who want you to believe more guns is always the solution...

no one argued that gun free zones are "a lure"...your myth is a myth...they sure make an easy target however....the argument is that gun free zones don't seem to stop psychos with guns...and that psychos with guns can probably anticipate less resistance in a gun free zone