NRA reccomends armed officers in all schools

[JokersWild]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Banning any guns ,will just take that trade from a controlled trade to a illegal uncontrolled trade. In turn more crime.

And you would think that cbr6fs would know this since his "percentages" dont lie and these are the exact issues the UK is having right now.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

I've been sitting here thinking. Get rid of this type gun and it will stop crazy people from kill mass people.
Now I pretending I'm way crazier than I am now.


Fwck they banned the gun I was going to kill with, now what. (little evil voice in my head)
I could poisin the water system and wack a bunch of them, I can fish there, it would be easy to do.
I could do the boom at the fed building thing.
Or maybe I could be a sniper with my single shot deer rifle and shot people at the gas pumps for a few months.
Or I could mail some booms to people.
Maybe I'll just kill hookers with my knife, noone cares about them and I could kill alot before anyone is the wise.
I could go Gay and kill young men at my house and eat them.
I just talk to a guy on the corner, his friend's friend has that gun I wanted to use and there's a lot less paper work too. Gun back on.

More laws will not stop crazy people.

[dezfan]

Gun control.

It's not about guns.

It's about CONTROL!

[Stormin2u]

I'm in favor of doing anything that will end a major percentage of the gun violence America who isn't? A man I know was murdered in a mass killing here in Minneapolis last summer he was a real decent person with a family. Today fact nearly 60% of all Americans recently polled (pre-Sandy Hook masquer) want to see changes made to decrease the gun violence in the streets. 2012 nearly as many Americans were shot to death on the street as were killed in automobile accidents next year if we follow the same trend those deaths will exceed the automobile. I've heard the arguments from both sides for years they have changed little over time but things are worse so all the talking has done nothing. We can talk all we want but it looks like there's a big fight coming maybe the biggest one ever. Wayne LaPierre talks of good guys and bad guys locked in mortal combat but the majority of Americans will just want protection from both sides in that situation. It would make more sense if both sides could work this out for the best solution for both? If it comes down to a ballot vote on the 2014 mid-term election it will be more one way despite the efforts of the NRA and gun lobby as they can only influence law makers the voters are not as accessible. Some I hear threaten with talk of a bloody revolution and that kind of Anarchist talking point works against the cause not in favor. This is battle where public opinion will have more gravity than bullets. It's going to come down to public relations and a middle ground solution or it could hit a ballot.

Just my 2 cents

[JokersWild]

Originally Posted by Stormin2u

I'm in favor of doing anything that will end a major percentage of the gun violence America who isn't?

I dont think anyone is "against" it at all. I think the way its gone about with a "trial and error" tactic of things that have been proven not to work is not the way. Like I have already posted..... James Brady was shot with .22 cal pistol, what did the "high cap" and "assault weapon" ban do? And did a .22 cal revolver have any coloration to "high cap" or "assault weapons"?

A man I know was murdered in a mass killing here in Minneapolis last summer he was a real decent person with a family.

Im sorry for your loss.

Today fact nearly 60% of all Americans recently polled (pre-Sandy Hook masquer) want to see changes made to decrease the gun violence in the streets. 2012 nearly as many Americans were shot to death on the street as were killed in automobile accidents next year if we follow the same trend those deaths will exceed the automobile. I've heard the arguments from both sides for years they have changed little over time but things are worse so all the talking has done nothing.

You are right..... talk does not do anything. Things have been put into place and actions have been lobbied but the gov still has not set any of these proposed plans into action. Yet has vetoed them out into the streets and has allowed these things to keep happening. Some areas have put these ideas into motion and have yet to have issues.

We can talk all we want but it looks like there's a big fight coming maybe the biggest one ever. Wayne LaPierre talks of good guys and bad guys locked in mortal combat but the majority of Americans will just want protection from both sides in that situation. It would make more sense if both sides could work this out for the best solution for both? If it comes down to a ballot vote on the 2014 mid-term election it will be more one way despite the efforts of the NRA and gun lobby as they can only influence law makers the voters are not as accessible. Some I hear threaten with talk of a bloody revolution and that kind of Anarchist talking point works against the cause not in favor. This is battle where public opinion will have more gravity than bullets. It's going to come down to public relations and a middle ground solution or it could hit a ballot.



Just my 2 cents

I think your ballot idea and the whole concept is really there. The issues I see..... lets just go and repo all guns in US. Leave them for LEO and military. Pretty cool since our patriot act says are military can legally shoot at its own citizens within its own borders at any time is sees necessary. But we will put that aside..... actually lets stop the firearm debate for a second and step out into another situation and see how that turned out for us..... right here on our soil.... same people..... same gov..... same decade.....

The WAR ON DRUGS..... we posted bans of the manufacture and sales of drugs..... importation and the like and hold all kinds of rules and regulations about them. We have a bunch of forces that run around looking for and securing such items. So we get it now..... gov is against drugs and drugs are bad..... mmmmmkay?

Interesting since we have a little thing that showed up and then got swept away as the Iran-Contra affair..... where we supplied guns and heavy weapons to the Contras. During this time many things happened.... including law suits and scandals totally in the open. All of this was illegal world wide to say the least but.... this is not what we are going to talk about but gets us set up for what was happening at the same time........

WE is such a poor word to use in this so I will try not to use it as much as possible. Our military after dropping off these weapons were actually bringing back cargo planes with cocaine on board. WHAT!?!?!?! No way..... we are having a war on drugs!! Isnt there a group set in place to stop this? Well yes but no..... See they were running these drugs right into military bases which are not monitored for such acts. At first these things were on the DL and no one was the wiser. BUT...... then Reagan Administration to put out a three-page report admitting that there’d been some such shenanigans when the Contras were “particularly hard pressed for financial support” after Congress voted to cut off American aid. No way couldnt be true...... then a bit later a note from Oliver North surfaces saying "14 million dollars used to finance the contras came from drugs"

I could go further and further but really its going to drag this to some other place. My point here is by eliminating such things through our gov. to me keeps the honest honest. There have been many instances where guns that the gov. fed and local police agencies have said they have destroyed have popped up on the streets. How is this possible? Same way drugs magically appeared i suppose.

I feel the measures taken regarding "gun control" should be handled by the people not the gov. We all have seen that the president is pretty good at wiping the fake tears of sorrow and congress is not going to see reality in front of their own faces. Voting through congress and using the uber cool college electoral vote seems to only work if you are George W Bush running for president. It should be "the people" to choose the measures taken into place to keep this from happening again.

I gotta go for a bit and make some Christmas cookies with the kids.... I will be back

[RANOVRU]

All of the pro gun people here, answer me this: leaving the idea of actually taking some kind of action on the table, what suggestions for doing something can we come up with, aside from more guns?

Im all for guns but it seems like the majority of gun folks are quick to null the idea of less guns, and if anything is actually said about a solution the answer is inevitably more guns.

Im all for local PD on schools as I have already mentioned, but I do feel regulating guns stricter a good idea as well.


Im not for any type of "ban" on any particular gun, rather tighter restrictions, which is a different word altogether. Taking no action equals no progress. Adding more guns (armed folks) into the equation does nothing to try and prevent the situation but rather brace for it. And its good to be prepared, but being preventative is a different topic that needs to be adressed as well IMHO.

[spankbomb]

What irks me is exactly this from the NRA and Wayne LaPierre:

"I call on Congress today, to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation. And, to do it now to make sure that blanket safety is in place when our kids return to school in January."

Again, school districts and private schools locally should make that decision. Not the Feds. If you want to explicitly interpret the Constitution, then damn well do it across the board. Also, if the NRA wants to discuss its training capabilities as an organization, then what is its past track record. I understand "we have 11,000 police training instructors in the NRA." I'm sure the training is accounted for as an expense. Then why in 2010 did the NRA report only the following:

Grants/assistance to govts and orgs in US $189,000
Grants/assistance to individuals in US $30,500

The NRA lists the law enforcement training it did outside the U.S.:

Central America and the Caribbean - PROGRAM SERVICES - LAW ENFORCE TRAINING $25,000

Remember the backdrop. The NRA in 2010 had revenues of $227,811,279 total expenses of $243,534,275.

[JokersWild]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

All of the pro gun people here, answer me this: leaving the idea of acutally taking some kind of action on the table, what suggestions for doing something can we come up with, aside from more guns?

Im all for guns but it seems like the majority of gun folks are quick to null the idea of less guns, and if anything is actually said about a solution the answer is inevitably more guns.

Im all for local PD on schools as I have already mentioned, but I do feel regulating guns stricter a good idea as well.


Im not for any type of "ban" on any particular gun, rather tighter restrictions, which is a different word altogether. Taking no action equals no progress. Adding more guns (armed folks) into the equation does nothing to try and prevent the situation but rather brace for it. And its good to be prepared, but being preventative is a different topic that needs to be adressed as well IMHO.

I think I have slightly addressed that here and there saying I do believe in tighter restrictions. Did say that I think that Californians idea on the DOJ approved safes. Also there should be a mandatory class on not only gun safety but also mandatory to own approved safe that must be used. As of now any locking cabinet is called "secured" nation wide. Gun lockers are not the same as gun safes!!

Also that the paperwork done in FFLs actually have a system that is one unit and not multiple systems that do not talk to each other. National data bases do not talk to local ones.

Tighter restrictions YES ..... Bans NO....

[JokersWild]

Originally Posted by spankbomb

What irks me is exactly this from the NRA and Wayne LaPierre:

"I call on Congress today, to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation. And, to do it now to make sure that blanket safety is in place when our kids return to school in January."

Again, school districts and private schools locally should make that decision. Not the Feds.

Well correct me if im wrong here but are not the schools funded under federal gov???

Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support.

And since it does fund then you as a state really only against federal law cannot impose state or local police onto to control federal funded organizations?

Im actually asking this question because I have heard this brought up (different situation) years ago how fed over rules state but in national issues when state pushes against fed, fed drops funding.

I think the NRA is asking for the legislation to move this forward as a national concern and put it into effect since it is a national governing group.

[spankbomb]

Public schools are funded mostly by state and local taxes such as property, sales, and income taxes. Only a portion, usually under 10%, comes from the Federal government directly.

The reasons the NRA framed their position as such was because most municipalities are already strapped monetarily and have already budgeted for their fiscal year, which probably started in September or October. Second, there is probably already legislation in the House waiting to be introduced for such a purpose, probably written by NRA and gun industry lobbyist lawyers. Which is awesome, because $0.40 of every $1 in Federal government spending is already debt, but no worries, we'll just print more.

Later,
Jon D.

[cbr6fs]

I stated

So again, having a organisation that makes money from the firearms industry offer an opinion on a solution exaggerated by firearms is absolutely ridiculous.

You replied

Originally Posted by Crimson Rock Crawler

You might want to check the facts before you "make sh!t up" The facts are that our federal government funded a program after Columbine that is essentially the same thing that the NRA has suggested
Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools - Los Angeles Times

.......so much for your knowledge of how America functions

In 2010 $71 million of the NRA funding came from contributions and grants.
Who do you think is making these contributions McDonalds?

Of course not, it's the firearms industry.

$100 million came from membership fees, again not likely to be McDonalds supporters club members are they.


I think you should apologies for saying "make sh!t up" as the evidence is here.

National Rifle Association 2010 IRS Form 990

Originally Posted by Crimson Rock Crawler

And it's probably a good idea that you read up on things before
you bother to comment on rather than make sh!t up especially about the NRA.

A Brief History of NRA

Once again you claim to know so much about America and it culture !!

Please see above.

It's ALL about money and as the NRA is getting money from the gun industry and it's supporters (i.e, it's paid up members) it's hardly surprising they will cover their own interests and offer a "solution" which means buying more guns, does it.

Must piss you off the a foreigner knows more about the organisation that your supporting.

Originally Posted by Crimson Rock Crawler

Another false perception of American culture......not everyone has a comfortable job earning millions of $ a year

It's not a perception it's a fact that Lapierre earn't $970,000 in 2010.

Funnily enough he is not even the biggest earner in the NRA Kayne B. Robinson is and he earned just over $1 million in 2010.

So i say again, it's hardly surprising that the bloke that earns nearly a $1 million a year from NRA members and "contributors" within the industry will offer a VERY "arm every body" bias is it.

Originally Posted by Crimson Rock Crawler

Might be a good start if you bother to read posts you comment on rather than make sh!t up

Right back at ya

National Rifle Association (NRA) Statistics | Statistic Brain
What The NRA's Wayne Lapierre Gets Paid To Defend Guns - Forbes
NRA's Courageous Stance: Arm Schools, Silence Research - Forbes
National Rifle Association 2010 IRS Form 990

Read absorb and if your man enough come back and apologise to me.

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by JokersWild

Tighter restrictions YES ..... Bans NO....

I foresee some sort of middle ground with the cbr guy if more people would just acknowledge that.


May not be eye to eye, but taking some sort of action is better than touting over a piece of paper written 200yrs ago, which wouldnt be infringed upon anyway. Most of the pro gun posts have just been restating the "right" to own guns.

In defense of us that are speaking of restrictions, pro gun people need to realize that that doesnt mean your precious guns will be taken away. Its just an effort to limit access and hopefully encourage responsibility.


More important than restrictions is mental health IMHO, which has also been mentioned. Why dont we keep that tye of mindset going and see what else we can think of as a preventative action.....

[Rockpiledriver]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

I foresee some sort of middle ground with the cbr guy if more people would just acknowledge that.

He's not a US citizen, his opinion does not count in the same way ours does not when it comes to his country.

He won't answer the question I have asked twice now, because it will prove his claim that gun control will work here is as invalid as the rest of his fantasy.

Who cares if the NRA is making money. I want my kids safe at school!

[Crimson Rock Crawler]

Originally Posted by cbr6fs

Read absorb and if your man enough come back and apologise to me.

Wow, I am impressed you've said the same thing over & over & over so much that I'm starting to believe you......NOT !!!

As far as an apology from me.......not gonna happen !!!!!

[RANOVRU]

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

He's not a US citizen, his opinion does not count in the same way ours does not when it comes to his country.

I like to keep an open mind. I dont disregard anyones thoughts because they are from a different country anymore than I would because they are a different skin color. Or at least I try to. Often times there are people throughout the world that have experienced or are experiencing simular enviroments. I do not discredit their thoughts because of where theyre located geographically.


JMHO...

[cbr6fs]

Originally Posted by dezfan

That's all well and good, but if I wanted to live like a European, I'd move to Europe.

It's bad enough that Dear Leader has been pushing this European nightmare down our throats the last 4 years without having to hear you preach about how great it is.

I prefer my dangerous Liberty over your safe bondage.

Your kids, your choice.

Pretty sure any of those kids families would disagree with you though if it meant their loved one coming home that night.

Easy to push all this macho rhetoric when it's not your loved ones litteraly in the firing line isn't it.

Originally Posted by NoobCrawler

Cbr6fs, I think what you're failing to see with the examples of fire, cars, bombs, and any other examples given, were that these are other options for crazy people to cause harm.

And, I know you're blaming the assault weapons in this case. Let's use another "what if", say he had 4 pistols and had an extra mag for each one. A pistol in each hand, that would be more shots than an AR. So while we ban assault weapons, we better ban pistols too.

I really don't have a solution for stopping people from shooting up places, I don't know if there is a right answer. But, just because ARs are not legal to buy wont stop them. They'll either buy them illegally or find a new weapon to use. A stick could be just as dangerous as a gun. Not to mention, if you laid them both on the ground, one is no more deadly than the other.

Ok then i agree you should tighten control on handguns as well.

As ive said a few times now, if there are less legal guns around then it's harder for criminals to get hold of them by illegal means.

Originally Posted by JokersWild

I am going to agree with you on the fact there needs to be something put in place on the safes. Not that I agree with California laws by far but they do require that your safe be DOJ approved. This will not allow for the uses of POS safes that require small amounts to get into. But even tho we know if anyone really wants in any safe they will get in. Bank safes are a little larger and about as thick as my entire safe and they have been broke into in the past. Also requiring that they be bolted down would be another great measure.

I am however going to call BS on your statement "If you have something grown up to add please post and i will do my best to give an honest answer or opinion."

Great post

What i class as an assault rifle really does not matter.
Something like a AR15 though has very little use beyond tacticool kids running around the range playing at soldiers.
If 30 round magazine shortish barrelled weapons like this were strictly controlled then it would be of absolutely no loss to the world.

You could still hunt, still target practice and still enjoy shooting.
The difference is the killing power, the rate of fire and the clip size.

If your hunting and you need 30 bullets to take down your animal then you need to give up hunting and go back to the play station.

So if all shortish barrelled rifles with say over 10 bullet magazines were strictly controlled what's the problem?

And if there is the problem is it big enough to offset such a massive loss of life we've recently seen?

I don't put myself forward to say i know better than anyone else, nor do i have many and certainly not all of the answers.

I simply wanted to put forward an opinion of a enthusiastic shooter who went through gun tightening controls and didn't think it was as bad as some of the more fanatical posters have made out.

You are absolutely right that gun crime went up since the banning of handguns.
That's really a separate problem for a different thread though, as i believe that we should focus in on the reason why we are having this discussion.
Mass murder

Since Dunblane we have only really had very few mass murders from a single crazy.

The only one i can think of was Derrick Bird in 2010.

In the same time period in the USA from a quick search i found:
Binghamton on 2009, 14 dead
Geneva County in 2009, 11 dead
Aurora 2012, 12 dead
Wisconsin Sikh Temple 2012, 7 dead
Tulsa 2012, 3 dead
Grand Rapids 2011, 8 dead
Tucson 2011, 6 deadFort Hood 2009, 13 dead
Pittsburgh police shootings 2009, 3 deaths
Binghamton shootings 2009, 14 dead
Indianapolis mass murder 2006, 7 dead
Oikos University shooting 2012, 7 dead
Chardon High School 2012, 3 dead
Virginia Tech 2007, 33 dead
University of Alabama 2010, 3 dead
Millard South High School 2011, 2 dead
Northern Illinois University 2008, 6 dead
Amish school shooting 2006, 6 dead
Red Lake massacre 2005, 10 dead
Appalachian School of Law 2002, 3 dead
Auroa 2012, 26 dead


191 Fathers, Brothers, Sons, Mothers, Sisters, Daughters.

That was just after a very quick search as well.


So please forgive me if i think that there is a problem that needs sorting.
I might not be American but i'm still a human being.


BTW
I found while searching that Columbine had armed guards.

Didn't do those poor kids much good though did it.
So again please forgive me if i don't think more guns and armed guards at schools is the answer.

[Rockpiledriver]

Originally Posted by RANOVRU

I like to keep an open mind. I dont disregard anyones thoughts because they are from a different country anymore than I would because they are a different skin color. Or at least I try to. Often times there are people throughout the world that have experienced or are experiencing simular enviroments. I do not discredit their thoughts because of where theyre located geographically.


JMHO...

Sure he's entitled to his opinion but he's comparing apples to oranges. On top of that, he is easily one of, if not the most vocal person in a thread that he has derailed completely from it's original topic.

He is a troll.

[joesbruiser]

Originally Posted by cbr6fs

Your kids, your choice.

What i class as an assault rifle really does not matter.
Something like a AR15 though has very little use beyond tacticool kids running around the range playing at soldiers.
If 30 round magazine shortish barrelled weapons like this were strictly controlled then it would be of absolutely no loss to the world.

.

Here is a big issue I have with this and to keep from screwing this thread up any more I will start a new thread in a bit.
What is this rifle.How does it fall into Tacticool or playing soldier. How many rounds does it hold what is the most comon use of it?
If AR style weapons are baned this goes with it and for what reason other than looks.

[rik]

wow, kinda sorry i started this thread. i didnt think it would create such a muck.

tho, after reading the hypotheticals, theoreticals, percentages, and the fantasy world, to me it boils down to this. i want my kids to be safe where ever they go. i realize this can not be done in the real world. however, i absolutely, 100%, want my kids to be in a safe environment in school. I read the figures on here on what it would cost. well, to be honest, raise my taxes some more if it gets the job done. lord knows they raise them anyway and give the fawking money to bottom feeders that dont want to get a job, or have kids "just to have kids", just so they can get a check, or give it to the illegal immigrants or some shit.

[cbr6fs]

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

Answer the question troll. Did the Europeans have do deal with 300,000,000 guns ALREADY in the public's hands?

If you can not answer yes to this, your suggestion on applying what worked over there over here is not only null and void, it is misplaced as you are not a US citizen. I would consider my self a complete ass if I were to attempt to sway the opinions of the citizens of Greece on a similar topic.

This thread was about how WE as US citizens, discuss how to protect OUR kids in OUR schools under the circumstances WE are up against.

This isn't Greece, nor is this a thread about gun control. There is already one of those go troll it.

I did ask you for a alternative suggestion, so where do you start?

How is producing and selling more guns going to solve a problem of mass murder growing into epidemic proportions?

I'm not being a smart arse i'm asking, what would YOU do?


As i said in my previous post i am not a American, but i am a human.

Your posts are bordering on fanatical in your unending support for guns and the NRA, yet you offer no solutions only nit picking at someone who is trying to help and offer a different view of things.

Why does it matter if i'm not American, i'm not forcing you to read my posts and i'm not forcing any of my opinions on anyone
I'm just trying to put an opinion out there for people to think over and then answer peoples questions.

Odd how you can be so afraid of someone that's trying to help you

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

He could rent a uhaul truck and buy some fertilizer and race fuel a blow up something with a lot of people in it. Don't forget OKC. No guns were used in that mass killing.

As i said in the other thread it's not that easy and since OKC there are strict guild-lines and monitoring in place.

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Anybody that thinks getting rid of a weapon that someone used to kill with is going to stop people from killing , needs to come down to the real world.

I keep repeating myself but people still keep spouting the same responses.

People will still find ways to kill each i agree 100%
Why the hell should we make it easy for them to kill so many though?

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

If the media would show how many times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun, everyone would think different. The problem is some people listen to the media and their BS and just think that how it is and go with it. Dumbass people the media sells news, they are only going to tell you what sells. And if they can stir shit between 2 groups, they sell more.

Double edges sword.
If people think they can be a hero then mistakes happen.
All the good intentions in world won't stop a .45 if a have-a-go hero misses and hasn't checked his back stops.

If a kid is killed by a mass murdering crazy or a well intentioned have-a-go hero he still doesn't get to go home that night.

Plus there were armed guards at Columbine it did nothing to stop that massacre though did it?

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Banning any guns ,will just take that trade from a controlled trade to a illegal uncontrolled trade. In turn more crime.

If guns were locked up when not in use that would mean less guns were stolen.
Less guns stolen = less guns on the criminal market

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

I've been sitting here thinking. Get rid of this type gun and it will stop crazy people from kill mass people.
Now I pretending I'm way crazier than I am now.


Fwck they banned the gun I was going to kill with, now what. (little evil voice in my head)
I could poisin the water system and wack a bunch of them, I can fish there, it would be easy to do.
I could do the boom at the fed building thing.
Or maybe I could be a sniper with my single shot deer rifle and shot people at the gas pumps for a few months.
Or I could mail some booms to people.
Maybe I'll just kill hookers with my knife, noone cares about them and I could kill alot before anyone is the wise.
I could go Gay and kill young men at my house and eat them.
I just talk to a guy on the corner, his friend's friend has that gun I wanted to use and there's a lot less paper work too. Gun back on.

More laws will not stop crazy people.

But you are ignoring the problem though
Binghamton on 2009, 14 dead
Geneva County in 2009, 11 dead
Aurora 2012, 12 dead
Wisconsin Sikh Temple 2012, 7 dead
Tulsa 2012, 3 dead
Grand Rapids 2011, 8 dead
Tucson 2011, 6 deadFort Hood 2009, 13 dead
Pittsburgh police shootings 2009, 3 deaths
Binghamton shootings 2009, 14 dead
Indianapolis mass murder 2006, 7 dead
Oikos University shooting 2012, 7 dead
Chardon High School 2012, 3 dead
Virginia Tech 2007, 33 dead
University of Alabama 2010, 3 dead
Millard South High School 2011, 2 dead
Northern Illinois University 2008, 6 dead
Amish school shooting 2006, 6 dead
Red Lake massacre 2005, 10 dead
Appalachian School of Law 2002, 3 dead
Auroa 2012, 26 dead

I don't know every single case, but in the most part most were not killed with bombs, poisoned water, sniper rifle, eaten and i don't think many were hookers.

Besides there are procedures in place for water, bombs etc and it's the not MO of a lone crazy.
They want to go out with a suicide in a blaze of glory, the Washington sniper was completely different in MO to the Auroa shooter.

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

Sure he's entitled to his opinion but he's comparing apples to oranges. On top of that, he is easily one of, if not the most vocal person in a thread that he has derailed completely from it's original topic.

He is a troll.

If people are quoting me and calling me out telling me i'm "make sh!t up" and then posting complete and utter rubbish, what am i supposed to do?

I gave my opinion in my first post in the thread (post #47) every post since has been a response.

I've stated several times in thread that i won't go into If's but's or maybe's as that diverts the topic, yet you say it's me derailing the thread.

Not really sure what else i can do.