Yes, the Coral Police who showed up 4 minutes later and enguaged the shooter. The County Deputies were NOT Good Guys with guns. They were paid to do a job they did NOT do. Good Guys with guns are not being paid to watch a school. But lets look at the definition eh?no one denies the shooter is at fault for the shooting.
fact: there were good guys there with guns
fact: they were not able to stop the shooter
your conclusion: good guy with a gun will stop shooters
everyone else:
If they did NOT go and take on the shooter, they are not a GGWaG. If they cower behind a car? NOT a GGWaG. Not using your firearm, when you have it and training? NOT a GGWaG. 4 on 1? That is a coward. Sorry with your false equivalency.The National Rifle Association's vice president, Wayne LaPierre, first coined the "good guy with a gun" argument in 2012 after the Sandy Hook school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults. During a press event in Washington, LaPierre essentially suggested that a "good guy" who carries a firearm in public could use it to take down a "bad guy" or active shooter.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.
The FBI CAN investigate and remove firearms and take into custody people who are planning to be active shooters.fact: FBI cannot take guns from the mentally ill, there is no law to do this.
fact: local police cannot disarm or arrest someone based on here-say.
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/...mber-oklahoma/
My conclusion?: Spot Fucking ON! Hot damn. Look at that. 2 in a row.The FBI has arrested an Oklahoma man on charges that he tried to detonate what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb outside a bank, acting out of a hatred for the U.S. government and an admiration for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy Mc*Veigh, according to court papers.
Jerry Drake Varnell was arrested shortly after a Friday night attempt to detonate a fake bomb packed into what he believed was a stolen cargo van outside the bank in Oklahoma City, according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court. *
The FBI had been on Varnell*s trail since December 2016, thanks to a confidential informant. The probe went hot in April, shortly before the warning, when their informant reported a series of communications from Varnell about moving forward with the plot. In fact, on the same day that the report was issued, Varnell was meeting with the informant to put together plans for building the bomb * and bragging about a *dope binge*:
And look down at the GOP repealed law. That DID give the government to take away firearm without due process. BAMM!
some more fun facts:
You mean the Dickey Act? Because of one senator you mean? Who now regrets it? Oh, the GOP still use it. But that is about all you have.fact: because of NRA lobbying, government research into preventing gun violence is illegal
https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/n...asier-for-mentfact: trump signed a GOP law explicitly allowing the mentally ill to buy and keep firearms
None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.
This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.
As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.
That's why the regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union. Pundits largely ignored the latter groups' opposition to the rule, preferring to play up the power of the NRA and their influence on Republicans to turn the issue into a partisan fight.
It was hackery then, and it is still hackery today. It's shameful to ignore the serious constitutional problems of this poorly conceived rule just to sow panic and implicate one's political opponents.
The Grassley-Cruz bill would have started this out just fine, and since you said all advocate against it, maybe you need to start using some of the modifiers I am helping Steve with. You should try it. Until then, absolutes work in my favor. The G-C Bill had a LOT for mental health.fact: trump, republicans, and NRA all advocate against health care coverage (including mental health coverage) for 10s of millions of Americans
Here is the bonus question: The DNC only seems to want to remove firearms, but doesn't address mental health concerning firearms? Why is that?
So.... Maybe half a point to my 2.5. Better effort than normal! Still an F.