50+killed in Las Vegas concert shooting-200+injured

[oladub]

What about population densities, are those the same? What about poverty rates?

You know, if you wanted to reframe the debate away from guns and focus on the underlying conditions that cause gun violence, I'd be all for that. We could talk about how we need better mental health treatment, reduce poverty, address the problems of distressed inner-cities ravaged by decades of manufacturing decline and racist housing policies, improved educational opportunities for at-risk communities and youth, etc.

Except, for the gun-loving Right, nobody wants to do anything about those things either, because it might cost money. And instead, the Right goes one step further and does the exact opposite, it tries to slash funding to any and all programs that fund education, mental health care, housing, etc.

You don't like gun control? Fine. Propose something else then. We have a problem, surely even you must acknowledge that. Propose something to make things better, as an alternative to gun control. The problem is, the Right offers no alternative to the Left's suggestion of gun control. The Right's solution is "do nothing." Bill O'Reilly said that gun massacres like this are simply "the cost of freedom." Republican Senator John Thune said that Americans should simply learn techniques on how to protect themselves when they're shot at, like "getting low" and creating a low profile that makes you harder to hit.

Do you think Americans want to hear that? That these massacres are just a part of life in America and we should just learn to accept it? That if I don't want to be shot by a crazy man with an AR-15, I should learn how to dodge bullets?

You don't want to talk about whether, for instance, New Hampshire or Washington, D.C. have more guns per capita or stricter gun laws so let's change the topic. Wasn't new gun control legislation the magic elixir that we are supposed to talk about? The average per capita income was $47,700 in Washington, D.C. while New Hampshire's was $34,400 in 2015. So Washington, D.C. has stricter gun laws than NH, probably fewer guns per capita than NH, and a higher per capita income than NH yet it has 21x the per capita murder rate of NH. Let's get more local. "In 2013, with only 7% of the state population, the city of Detroit had 50% of all murders recorded in Michigan." "The per capita income for Detroit was $29,736 in 2015,"The average income in the Upper Peninsula is $23,875. In 2015, there were 5 homicides of all types in the UP or 1.6/100000. Detroit's homicide rate the same year was 43.6/100000. Detroit's homicide rate is over 27x that of the UP's per capita even though the average per capita income in the UP is much less than Detroit's. You want to tell me that gun laws are stricter in the UP or that no one there has a hunting rifle? The variable is not income, who has the most guns, or who has the most gun laws. That leaves population density. Compare Massachusetts and Iowa with Maryland and Missouri as having similar politics, income levels, geography and population densities. Yet the latter states have 4x the gun homicide rate. Blue states manage to make housing very expensive. By the way, how does the right cut funding for education, mental health care, and housing in blue states as those are basically state and local spending issues.

I have some partial off hand solutions for the poverty you claim causes gun violence in places unlike New Hampshire and the UP. These might be the most important. Create a shortage of entry level workers using tariffs and restricting immigration to allow US low income workers the ability to demand higher wages. With higher wages, some of these other problems that you mentioned, will disappear. Alter government policies to encourage two parent families instead of rewarding single parenting. However, if you personally want to reduce your odds of dodging bullets, move from places like Washington, DC to New Hampshire or from Detroit to Traverse City.

[aj3647]

You don't want to talk about whether, for instance, New Hampshire or Washington, D.C. have more guns per capita or stricter gun laws so let's change the topic. Wasn't new gun control legislation the magic elixir that we are supposed to talk about? The average per capita income was $47,700 in Washington, D.C. while New Hampshire's was $34,400 in 2015. So Washington, D.C. has stricter gun laws than NH, probably fewer guns per capita than NH, and a higher per capita income than NH yet it has 21x the per capita murder rate of NH. Let's get more local. "In 2013, with only 7% of the state population, the city of Detroit had 50% of all murders recorded in Michigan." "The per capita income for Detroit was $29,736 in 2015,"The average income in the Upper Peninsula is $23,875. In 2015, there were 5 homicides of all types in the UP or 1.6/100000. Detroit's homicide rate the same year was 43.6/100000. Detroit's homicide rate is over 27x that of the UP's per capita even though the average per capita income in the UP is much less than Detroit's. You want to tell me that gun laws are stricter in the UP or that no one there has a hunting rifle? The variable is not income, who has the most guns, or who has the most gun laws. That leaves population density. Compare Massachusetts and Iowa with Maryland and Missouri as having similar politics, income levels, geography and population densities. Yet the latter states have 4x the gun homicide rate. Blue states manage to make housing very expensive. By the way, how does the right cut funding for education, mental health care, and housing in blue states as those are basically state and local spending issues.

I have some partial off hand solutions for the poverty you claim causes gun violence in places unlike New Hampshire and the UP. These might be the most important. Create a shortage of entry level workers using tariffs and restricting immigration to allow US low income workers the ability to demand higher wages. With higher wages, some of these other problems that you mentioned, will disappear. Alter government policies to encourage two parent families instead of rewarding single parenting. However, if you personally want to reduce your odds of dodging bullets, move from places like Washington, DC to New Hampshire or from Detroit to Traverse City.

How can you possibly know how many "guns per capita" exist anywhere in the U.S., since we do not register guns? There are ZERO statistics for that, but by all means, let's talk about a metric that is quite literally totally impossible to measure. Because that's not a total waste of time. You "guess" there are more guns per capita in New Hampshire. Good guess. But that's what it is, an educated guess, because it's impossible to know how many guns there are in New Hampshire or who owns them or how many they own.

I was trying to give you an opportunity to propose an alternative to gun control, but hey if you want to go back to the well of guns, then fine. The point is, offer an alternative solution. Liberals want gun control, here's your chance to say what you would offer INSTEAD OF gun control to lessen the violence in our society.

As for "mental health care is a local issue", that's flat-out wrong. Medicaid is the single largest funder of mental health treatment in the United States. And in the recent Obamacare replacement legislation that failed in Congress not too long ago, Republicans wanted to cut funding to Medicaid by $800 billion over 10 years. Now tell me, considering Medicaid pays for more mental health treatment than any other source, would that result in more mentally-ill people roaming the streets, or less? Make an educated guess, as you did with guns in New Hampshire.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Nicolas Cage said a few years back there were 550M who owned guns [[1 out 12)... Only questioning how to arm the rest! 0:30 [[Lord of War) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38vd_j7e2HY

[oladub]

How can you possibly know how many "guns per capita" exist anywhere in the U.S., since we do not register guns? There are ZERO statistics for that, but by all means, let's talk about a metric that is quite literally totally impossible to measure. Because that's not a total waste of time. You "guess" there are more guns per capita in New Hampshire. Good guess. But that's what it is, an educated guess, because it's impossible to know how many guns there are in New Hampshire or who owns them or how many they own.

I was trying to give you an opportunity to propose an alternative to gun control, but hey if you want to go back to the well of guns, then fine. The point is, offer an alternative solution. Liberals want gun control, here's your chance to say what you would offer INSTEAD OF gun control to lessen the violence in our society.

As for "mental health care is a local issue", that's flat-out wrong. Medicaid is the single largest funder of mental health treatment in the United States. And in the recent Obamacare replacement legislation that failed in Congress not too long ago, Republicans wanted to cut funding to Medicaid by $800 billion over 10 years. Now tell me, considering Medicaid pays for more mental health treatment than any other source, would that result in more mentally-ill people roaming the streets, or less? Make an educated guess, as you did with guns in New Hampshire.

I don't "know how many "guns per capita" exist anywhere in the U.S." nor did I say I did. That is why I wrote that Washington, D.C. probably had fewer guns per capita than NH"."Probably" is a qualifier. "Probably" means very likely. Washington , D.C. doesn't allow any assault weapons. New Hampshire has hunting. Like you say, we don't know. If DC had a higher gun ownership, its another admission that its gun laws failed. The worse admission is that DC has 21x the per capita homicide rate as DC. Adopting Chicago or Washington, D.C.'s gun laws isn't an answer based on their experience.

I did offer three alternatives to gun control. You error in saying I didn't. I suggested using supply and demand to empower low income workers, government policies that favor two parent families, and, short term, moving from Detroit to Traverse City where you won't have to 'dodge bullets'. Detroit's gun homicide rate is 40x that of Grand Traverse County. Also, gun homicide rates are down nationally over 40% since 1991. That's huge but ignored. Insurance companies and courts could impose heavier penalties on gun user misuse if they haven't finished a gun safety course is another suggestion.

Your response has has at least two problems. States and local are able to address health issues. Medi-Cal and Romneycare are examples. 14 states have a Democratic governor and legislature trifecta yet none of the 14 have offered a single payer plan. Instead they yap about Trump. The Constitution gives states the power, under the 10th Amendment to, among other things to provide, "education, mental health care, housing". Those powers are not generally designated to the federal government. You are right though that courts look the other way like they do when presidents wage undeclared wars. Again, I used a qualifier that your list of liberal spending fixes everything beliefs are "basically state and local spending issues".

[aj3647]

I did offer three alternatives to gun control. You error in saying I didn't. I suggested using supply and demand to empower low income workers, government policies that favor two parent families, and, short term, moving from Detroit to Traverse City where you won't have to 'dodge bullets'. Detroit's gun homicide rate is 40x that of Grand Traverse County. Also, gun homicide rates are down nationally over 40% since 1991. That's huge but ignored. Insurance companies and courts could impose heavier penalties on gun user misuse if they haven't finished a gun safety course is another suggestion.

You suggested tariffs on imports. Yeah, that will solve our violence issues. I'm sure there will be no negative effects of tariffs, like oh let's say other countries imposing retaliatory tariffs on American imports which will harm American exporters and result in lost jobs. Or the extreme negative impact it will have on American companies that import massive quantities of cheap foreign goods and employ millions of Americans. Can you think of one big example? It starts with a W and ends with -almart.
Tariffs are a non-starter anyways since Trump is the only one who wants them, Republicans in Congress do not.

If your response to violence in America is "we need tariffs", it's no wonder then that Republicans can't offer a cogent alternative. What's next on your list of ideas, tax breaks for billionaires to prevent mass shootings?

Your response has has at least two problems. States and local are able to address health issues. Medi-Cal and Romneycare are examples. 14 states have a Democratic governor and legislature trifecta yet none of the 14 have offered a single payer plan. Instead they yap about Trump. The Constitution gives states the power, under the 10th Amendment to, among other things to provide, "education, mental health care, housing". Those powers are not generally designated to the federal government. You are right though that courts look the other way like they do when presidents wage undeclared wars. Again, I used a qualifier that your list of liberal spending fixes everything beliefs are "basically state and local spending issues".

Ok then, let's say all federal taxes for Medicare and Medicaid are kicked back to the states, along with the entire burden of providing health care to poor people and the elderly and the disabled, etc. And now, everyone else under UHC. What you will end up with then is 14 blue states that provide UHC and 36 mostly red states that tell their mentally ill population to go fuck themselves because we're not going to pay for you, we'd rather give that money back to rich people.

The Las Vegas shooting didn't happen in uber-liberal California or Massachusetts, now did it? It happened in Nevada. The Pulse nightclub shooting happened in Florida. Is Republican-controlled Florida going to invest heavily in UHC and mental health care? This isn't a solution. It's a patchwork, like we have now with gun control laws.

[Richard]

The pulse nightclub is located in the city limits of Orlando,extremely liberal,it is next to an erea called Pine Hills or as referred to Crime hills,they do not care about guns they can rob you in broad daylight while you are getting gas by beating you with a pipe.

Most of them were imported from countries where that leval of violence is daily life and they are not about to change.That was a liberal policy.

The city of Tampa is very liberal.

When you say Florida is republican controlled it is no different then anywhere else,the cities are liberal and everything that surrounds them are not.

In the early 80s Orlando had more gay bars and clubs then strip joints or any other clubs it was not as common anywhere else and for as small of a city as it was back then it really did not have that violence related to.

Most of the cities and inner cities have been Dem controlled for decades,Did the republicans force Kilpatrick into his way of life and the choice to ignore his city residents?

All of that aside Mayor Dugan seems to be doing a great job and he is a Democrat,but it was the people that decided for change that he needed behind him,Why does he stand out against the grain?

[oladub]

You suggested tariffs on imports. Yeah, that will solve our violence issues. I'm sure there will be no negative effects of tariffs, like oh let's say other countries imposing retaliatory tariffs on American imports which will harm American exporters and result in lost jobs. Or the extreme negative impact it will have on American companies that import massive quantities of cheap foreign goods and employ millions of Americans. Can you think of one big example? It starts with a W and ends with -almart.
Tariffs are a non-starter anyways since Trump is the only one who wants them, Republicans in Congress do not.

If your response to violence in America is "we need tariffs", it's no wonder then that Republicans can't offer a cogent alternative. What's next on your list of ideas, tax breaks for billionaires to prevent mass shootings?




Ok then, let's say all federal taxes for Medicare and Medicaid are kicked back to the states, along with the entire burden of providing health care to poor people and the elderly and the disabled, etc. And now, everyone else under UHC. What you will end up with then is 14 blue states that provide UHC and 36 mostly red states that tell their mentally ill population to go fuck themselves because we're not going to pay for you, we'd rather give that money back to rich people.

The Las Vegas shooting didn't happen in uber-liberal California or Massachusetts, now did it? It happened in Nevada. The Pulse nightclub shooting happened in Florida. Is Republican-controlled Florida going to invest heavily in UHC and mental health care? This isn't a solution. It's a patchwork, like we have now with gun control laws.

I suggested that supply an demand be utilized to raise wages of US workers. Sending work abroad and bringing foreign workers here do the same thing. Both decrease the amount of work for US workers and consequently reduce jobs and wages. My suggestion creates a demand for US workers resulting in higher wages. Democrats and corporate Republicans hate the idea because Democrats want people to be dependent on their offerings at election time. Corporate Republicans and Democrats both want supplies of cheap labor. We have tried gun control laws and they failed. You suggested poverty was a factor after all you War on Poverty programs largely failed. I suggested something different that would empower US workers instead of profiters, social workers, and Democratic politicians. As the resident deep state Democrat apologist on this site, you are on the same side as corporate Republicans on this issue.

If 14 blue states did adopt single payer plans and it worked, other states would copy what worked. I read an article about why GM preferred locating plants in Canada under our equal trade agreement. GM didn't have to pay as much into provincial health care plans as into US health insurance plans. It would be infectious. People in purple states would want to vote for similar single payer plans. Corporations might choose to locate in single payer states.

Las Vegas votes solid blue by the way so I don't know what your point was. The shootings happened in a County controlled by Democrats. The police haven't even arrived at a motive yet although they let him go on shooting for an hour after after they knew his room number and have since allowed his home to be broken into. Since you want to include into Islamic terrorist acts, figure out the politics of Massachusetts [[Boston bombers), California [[San Bernardino) is blue, and New York and DC, where most of the 3,000 were killed on 9/11, are blue. Orlando [[Orange County), which you cited voted 60% for Hillary and 34% for Trump. Why do these mass killing keep happening in Democratic cities?

[aj3647]

Why do these mass killing keep happening in Democratic cities?

Because that's where all the people live and that's where all the cool shit is? Sorry that Akhmed and Mohammed aren't interested in blowing up anything in Bumfuck, Arkansas, population: 300.

[oladub]

Because that's where all the people live and that's where all the cool shit is? Sorry that Akhmed and Mohammed aren't interested in blowing up anything in Bumfuck, Arkansas, population: 300.

Previously, you suggested that mass killings happened in Republican states, "The Las Vegas shooting didn't happen in uber-liberal California or Massachusetts, now did it? It happened in Nevada. The Pulse nightclub shooting happened in Florida."

I pointed out that MA [[Boston bombers) and CA [[San Bernardino) aren't Republican states and that Orlando and Las Vegas voted heavily for Hillary. I appreciate your honest condescending attitude toward rural people [["Bumfuck"). It reminds me of one of the reasons Hillary lost.

[Maof]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ool/338217002/

On the news this morning, they're saying there has been 239 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Do we not always hear after a tragedy like this, that this is not the time to talk gun control, pray for the families, etc? Seems that we are failing our children in letting them know that it's safe to go to school. If this kid was known to have mental issues, how did he get a weapon that's used in military combat situations.

Quote from NBC news...

"Trump has previously blamed mass shootings on mental health issues. In November, he said the mass shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, "isn't a guns situation" but instead "a mental health problem at the highest level."

"Just weeks into his presidency, however, Trump signed a bill rolling back a regulation that had made it harder for people with mental illnesses to buy firearms."

[Honky Tonk]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ool/338217002/

On the news this morning, they're saying there has been 239 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Do we not always hear after a tragedy like this, that this is not the time to talk gun control, pray for the families, etc? Seems that we are failing our children in letting them know that it's safe to go to school. If this kid was known to have mental issues, how did he get a weapon that's used in military combat situations.

Quote from NBC news...

"Trump has previously blamed mass shootings on mental health issues. In November, he said the mass shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, "isn't a guns situation" but instead "a mental health problem at the highest level."

"Just weeks into his presidency, however, Trump signed a bill rolling back a regulation that had made it harder for people with mental illnesses to buy firearms."

I agree with you, Maof, ALL of this is Trump's fault. Tell me, did any of these 239 shootings occur during the Obama administration? What did that administration do to prevent more shootings from occurring?

[Richard]

Two weeks ago the same community was up in arms because the police handcuffed a 7 year old after he beat on his teacher,his second incident of voilence,his mother needed a translator.

When it comes to schools where teachers are attacked and disrespected,any form of discipline brings public outcry and fights on school property are the center of a daily you tube video it is not guns we need to be looking at it is parents.

Condolences out to the grieving parents and fellow students but really what did people expect.

This guy was not a kid,he was 19 years old and already suspended and not allowed on campus,the staff was warned to be wary of him.

I can imagine 4 years earlier he was nose deep in his room playing COD and causeing problems in school at that time.While his parents did what?

Of course they could not even have disciplined him without fear of reprisal from law enforcement.

Hey my kid is causeing violent problems in school,no problem,pump him up with drugs and send him back,what is the worst that could happen.

I know let's blame it on the guns.

[jcole]

If he didn't have access to a military weapon, there wouldn't be 17+ students and teachers dead today with another 50 or so in the hospital. If he had a knife, he might have gotten at 5 or so people. He'd have to be an amazing rock thrower to kill even one person. Probably wouldn't have as many casulties if he set the school on fire. Keep making excuses for military grade weapon ownership; it's all bullshit. Also, you can thank your government for the lack of mental health coverage too. We've criminalized the mentally handicapped. If they get arrested or in trouble, they get tossed in jail, not sent to a mental health facility. Why? Because, at least here in Michigan, they're mostly gone thanks to Engler. If they aren't in jail they're on the streets, homeless. But spend some money on that wall in Texas and some more for more military. The damned enemy lives in DC

[Richard]

Ar15 is not military grade,it shoots the same as a pistol it is just longer.

Just like anything else,it shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger,but even at that it is an innate object,they do not sneak out at night and attack.

Easy enough to stick a couple of pipe bombs down ones pants.

The enemy does not live in DC,we have met the enemy and it is us.

Did the government choose to shut down the asylums or were they forced to by public outcry,easy to shut down but harder to deal with not having a plan in place before hand.

But it was like they are not nice places so they have to go,now what?

No problem shutting down the government in order to provide for illegals but mad because our own citizens are paying the price,cannot place the blame on the government for that one,they were trying to fix it,Some decided what is happening is worth it,or just the price we pay.

[TKshreve]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ool/338217002/

On the news this morning, they're saying there has been 239 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Do we not always hear after a tragedy like this, that this is not the time to talk gun control, pray for the families, etc? Seems that we are failing our children in letting them know that it's safe to go to school. If this kid was known to have mental issues, how did he get a weapon that's used in military combat situations.

Perhaps now is the time to talk about gun control in regards to the Vegas shooting. Now that time has elapsed, and we can have concrete information to look back on, when discussing what is needed to prevent another Vegas-like shooting. What a tragedy that was. Let's pray that something like that never happens again.

As an aside, let's be frank that the United States is the most armed and equipped society in the modern world. Whether you have gun laws or not, there are guns EVERYWHERE in the nation. I could have my hands on several guns by dinner time, and I don't even own one, let alone like them.

Access to guns [[legal or not) is a big portion of this conversation. Detroit is a very well-armed city. Go figure, when shootings are common place in the city.

I'm sick of all the other talking points on this topic, because they only feed the pointless cycle of discourse we have every few weeks when this situation reoccurs.

Had enough yet? Maybe a few more school/public shootings will do it? When do we actually try something new? Why don't we try something new?

[Maof]

I agree with you, Maof, ALL of this is Trump's fault. Tell me, did any of these 239 shootings occur during the Obama administration? What did that administration do to prevent more shootings from occurring?

Never said it was ALL Trump's fault. But, you tell me why he signed that bill rolling back those regulations. This kid immediately passed a background check despite red flags of mental health treatment.

[ABetterDetroit]

Just like anything else,it shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger,but even at that it is an innate object,they do not sneak out at night and attack.

The most illogical argument of all illogical arguments.

A Grenade doesn't sneak out and attack people either but they don't sell them everywhere and by the millions and school kids aren't getting ripped to pieces and bleeding out because of Grenade attacks on schools.

[Richard]

The most illogical argument of all illogical arguments.

A Grenade doesn't sneak out and attack people either but they don't sell them everywhere and by the millions and school kids aren't getting ripped to pieces and bleeding out because of Grenade attacks on schools.

Big difference between a grenade and a pipe bomb,probably not best to refer to illogical arguments if one does not know the difference.

You would be hard pressed to find a grenade at the box store but you can purchase the materials to make a pipe bomb without raising an ibrow.

There are hundreds of ways to hurt people enmass,no gun required.

[Johnnny5]

If he didn't have access to a military weapon, there wouldn't be 17+ students and teachers dead today with another 50 or so in the hospital.

It's nice to think so, but the Virginia Tech shooter murdered almost twice as many people using a pistol, and the terrorist in Nice, France killed over 100 with a rental truck.


IMO the increase in mass shooting events is simply due to copycats and a direct result of the publicity that prior shooting events have received. Most of these scumbags [[Those that aren't just flat out mentally ill) are angry young men that simply can not tolerate their own failures. They feel that the only way they'll ever amount to anything is by committing such a heinous act of violence [[And honestly they're probably right). The problem is the media is more than willing to indulge them by repeatedly saying their names, showing their faces and telling their life stories.

Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Eric Harris and now Nick Cruz. I can name a bunch of them, but for the life me could probably not remember one of their victims. The media makes a spectacle of them because it drives views & clicks and brings in advertising dollars. If we really want to reduce the number of these tragedies, it would be lot easier to change the way we react to and publicize them than it would be to ban and confiscate the 300 million+ privately firearms that are floating around.

[TKshreve]

It's nice to think so, but the Virginia Tech shooter murdered almost twice as many people using a pistol, and the terrorist in Nice, France killed over 100 with a rental truck.


IMO the increase in mass shooting events is simply due to copycats and a direct result of the publicity that prior shooting events have received. Most of these scumbags [[Those that aren't just flat out mentally ill) are angry young men that simply can not tolerate their own failures. They feel that the only way they'll ever amount to anything is by committing such a heinous act of violence [[And honestly they're probably right). The problem is the media is more than willing to indulge them by repeatedly saying their names, showing their faces and telling their life stories.

Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Eric Harris and now Nick Cruz. I can name a bunch of them, but for the life me could probably not remember one of their victims. The media makes a spectacle of them because it drives views & clicks and brings in advertising dollars. If we really want to reduce the number of these tragedies, it would be lot easier to change the way we react to and publicize them than it would be to ban and confiscate the 300 million+ privately firearms that are floating around.

Maybe we should nationally broadcast these mass-shooters' executions, highlighting on their tears of fear and remorse. Would that help?

[Johnnny5]

Maybe we should nationally broadcast these mass-shooters' executions, highlighting on their tears of fear and remorse. Would that help?

I'm all for executing these monsters so that we don't have to pay for the privilege of housing them, but I don't think the threat of a death sentence is much of a deterrent. Most of these guys have no intentions of living long enough to face any legal consequences.

[ABetterDetroit]

Maybe we should nationally broadcast these mass-shooters' executions, highlighting on their tears of fear and remorse. Would that help?

Cosidering how many of these fucked up idiots shoot themselves in the head before the police can get to them there is a bit of a flaw in your problem solving solution.

[Richard]

He will have protections under the be nice to the little terrorists act.

This guy is even worse,he had the cahonies to kill innocents but not himself,seems like more so looking for his 15 minutes or under what J5 wrote.

Have to hand it to LEO who used restraint,it would have been easy just to end it,but they also have been getting killed lately on a weekly basis,no tears for them I guess.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasack...V4#.arLKzAk3gA

He actualy posted that he was going to be a school shooter ^

[bust]

You would be hard pressed to find a grenade at the box store but you can purchase the materials to make a pipe bomb without raising an ibrow.

Wow, that one's an ipopper!

[bust]

I know let's blame it on the guns.

It's the guns.



What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w...rnational.html