Who stopped the mass shooting?

[JD Barleycorn]

It was the Uber driver, with the concealed weapon, in the Chicago city square. Friday a man stepped into a crowd at Logan's Square in Chicago and started shooting. An Uber driver with a legally owned concealed carry gun stepped out of his vehicle and shot the shooter three times ending the shoot em up.

The left always wants for us to prove the negative (show us where a concealed carry ever stopped a mass shooting) and there it is.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ng-in-chicago/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It was the Uber driver, with the concealed weapon, in the Chicago city square. Friday a man stepped into a crowd at Logan's Square in Chicago and started shooting. An Uber driver with a legally owned concealed carry gun stepped out of his vehicle and shot the shooter three times ending the shoot em up.

The left always wants for us to prove the negative (show us where a concealed carry ever stopped a mass shooting) and there it is.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ng-in-chicago/

Not exactly. I can't remember at any time, on this forum at least, when anyone has stated that at times a person with a concealed handgun has not stopped a criminal act. Once again, I challenge you to find a statement made on this forum which backs
up your accusation. What has been discussed several times is whether or not gun-free zones work. Maybe you confused the two.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not exactly. I can't remember at any time, on this forum at least, when anyone has stated that at times a person with a concealed handgun has not stopped a criminal act MASS SHOOTING was the claim or anti claim.. Once again, I challenge you to find a statement made on this forum which backs
up your accusation. What has been discussed several times is whether or not gun-free zones work. Maybe you confused the two.

By the way, Chicago is one large gun free zone unless you have the time, money, and connections to get that golden ticket which poor people can't do. They need it most. No, this post was about a mass shooting being prevented by a licensed conceal carry holder so don't try to hijack what I started. Of course, I hear someone saying that this is only the first time....http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...mass-shooting/. It happened in March as well and we heard nothing about it from the press. How many other times has this scenario been played out only to be prevented from becoming a full scale media event because of an armed citizen?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It was the Uber driver, with the concealed weapon, in the Chicago city square. Friday a man stepped into a crowd at Logan's Square in Chicago and started shooting. An Uber driver with a legally owned concealed carry gun stepped out of his vehicle and shot the shooter three times ending the shoot em up.

The left always wants for us to prove the negative (show us where a concealed carry ever stopped a mass shooting) and there it is.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ng-in-chicago/

One? That's anecdotal at BEST. A sample size of one is not compelling. I know you probably pissed your pants when you saw it, but it's not the droids you are looking for. And that's not proving a negative.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

By the way, Chicago is one large gun free zone unless you have the time, money, and connections to get that golden ticket which poor people can't do. They need it most. No, this post was about a mass shooting being prevented by a licensed conceal carry holder so don't try to hijack what I started. Of course, I hear someone saying that this is only the first time....http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...mass-shooting/. It happened in March as well and we heard nothing about it from the press. How many other times has this scenario been played out only to be prevented from becoming a full scale media event because of an armed citizen?

This is no hijack, JDIdiot. You were challenged to prove that your supposition wasn't based on bullshit. YOU brought it up, not SpeedRacer. YOU need to prove that your accusation is real, not SpeedRacer.

To refresh your besotted memory:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The left always wants for us to prove the negative (show us where a concealed carry ever stopped a mass shooting) and there it is.

Squealing hijack is typical of your cowardly arguments. Why not put the thread on IGNORE?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

By the way, Chicago is one large gun free zone unless you have the time, money, and connections to get that golden ticket which poor people can't do. They need it most. No, this post was about a mass shooting being prevented by a licensed conceal carry holder so don't try to hijack what I started. Of course, I hear someone saying that this is only the first time....http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...mass-shooting/. It happened in March as well and we heard nothing about it from the press. How many other times has this scenario been played out only to be prevented from becoming a full scale media event because of an armed citizen?

First, I hardly hijacked your thread. Your statement was "The left always wants for us to prove the negative (show us where a concealed carry ever stopped a mass shooting) and there it is." No one to my memory had every stated that someone with a CHL had not stopped a crime. You proved something that did not need proving.

And if you believe that the press did not cover this person's actions in stopping the shooter, try reading the following articles from the press. Just a handful of many.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/285...ly-barber-shop
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...297176271.html
http://6abc.com/news/customer-fatall...ershop/568702/
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...ia-barbershop/

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, I hardly hijacked your thread. Your statement was "The left always wants for us to prove the negative (show us where a concealed carry ever stopped a mass shooting) and there it is." No one to my memory had every stated that someone with a CHL had not stopped a crime. You proved something that did not need proving.

And if you believe that the press did not cover this person's actions in stopping the shooter, try reading the following articles from the press. Just a handful of many.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/285...ly-barber-shop
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...297176271.html
http://6abc.com/news/customer-fatall...ershop/568702/
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...ia-barbershop/

Don't try to bring logic to the party. This guy (JDJIzzyNuts) has proven time and time again to be so motherfucking stupid that I'm not sure how he breathes and types at the same time. He may not. I don't know. He doesn't respond to proof. He's been presented with the truth many times in bullshit threads he's started and he merely laughs it off. Don't forget, this is the guy that believes the 777 Malaysian Airliner was hijacked and landed on a deserted island, repainted and put back into use by 'them'. Whoever the fuck 'them' is. To hear him tell it they're rich and hide their planes using shrub bushes.

He comes in here spooging enough baby batter to give LustyLikesLads a jizz beard to beat all jizz beards and it's all because he found TWO times where someone who had a CCL stopped an incident. Two times! As if two times were enough to offset all the other goddamn times that some dumb fuck with a gun took innocent lives because they were stupid. Like that woman who left a fucking gun in her purse and her toddler got hold of it and killed her with it. Jesus Christ. She had a CCL. But instead, let's look at these two guys. Fuck that.

[Yssup Rider]

Abd, if you challenge it, he shits the bed...

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Don't try to bring logic to the party. This guy (JDJIzzyNuts) has proven time and time again to be so motherfucking stupid that I'm not sure how he breathes and types at the same time. He may not. I don't know. He doesn't respond to proof. He's been presented with the truth many times in bullshit threads he's started and he merely laughs it off. Don't forget, this is the guy that believes the 777 Malaysian Airliner was hijacked and landed on a deserted island, repainted and put back into use by 'them'. Whoever the fuck 'them' is. To hear him tell it they're rich and hide their planes using shrub bushes.

He comes in here spooging enough baby batter to give LustyLikesLads a jizz beard to beat all jizz beards and it's all because he found TWO times where someone who had a CCL stopped an incident. Two times! As if two times were enough to offset all the other goddamn times that some dumb fuck with a gun took innocent lives because they were stupid. Like that woman who left a fucking gun in her purse and her toddler got hold of it and killed her with it. Jesus Christ. She had a CCL. But instead, let's look at these two guys. Fuck that.

One person responds with a mistake and the other responds with a lie. Pretty bad when you compare a murder to an accident (unless you have information that the toddler was paid to kill his mother). The fact is that according to the FBI crime statistics guns are far more often to protect than to kill. Accept it or not, it is still the truth.

[Yssup Rider]

Where's the link, numbnuts?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

One person responds with a mistake and the other responds with a lie. Pretty bad when you compare a murder to an accident (unless you have information that the toddler was paid to kill his mother). The fact is that according to the FBI crime statistics guns are far more often to protect than to kill. Accept it or not, it is still the truth.

A murder to an accident? The murder WAS an accident you buffoon.

You seriously need to work on your syntax. There's no way you have three degrees, writing the way you do. FBI crime statistics state that guns are far more often to protect than to kill? Far more often what? To protect than to kill what? So I won't accept it, because I don't even know what the fuck it means. The sentence as it stands is not constructed properly and makes no sense. There are, on average, 308 shootings every day in this country. That leads to an average of 86 deaths, daily. Guns don't make anything safer.

For every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there's a one percent increase in gun death rate. Coincidence?

Guns don't make your home safer. For every one time someone uses a gun to protect their home, you've got suicides involving guns, assaults where the gun is used to escalate the argument and accidents.

Carrying a concealed weapon doesn't make you safer either. Your odds of being shot and killed as an assault victim were 4 times higher if you had a gun on your person.

All these stats are easily found. Yours is complete bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...and-solutions/

[JD Barleycorn]

I learned a long time ago that anytime someone uses very accurate stats (308 deaths every day...) they are lying.

I also think that English is your second langauge when it is obvious to the most moronic person (except maybe you) that I was talking about two different events. I think you can get a government person to hire you a translator.

So you make up stats and we're supposed to swallow them...we're not liberal democrats. We don't swallow because you tell us to.

By the way, what three degrees do you think I have since you know so much.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I learned a long time ago that anytime someone uses very accurate stats (308 deaths every day...) they are lying.

I also think that English is your second langauge when it is obvious to the most moronic person (except maybe you) that I was talking about two different events. I think you can get a government person to hire you a translator.

So you make up stats and we're supposed to swallow them...we're not liberal democrats. We don't swallow because you tell us to.

By the way, what three degrees do you think I have since you know so much.

308 SHOOTINGS. 86 deaths. And I linked the article in the comment. I didn't make up stats. You can easily find these stats. Your problem is you have a preconceived notion and no amount of facts presented will change that view. It's called cognitive dissonance. I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm presenting you with facts. Your choice is to research and believe them or bury your head in the sand, which is better than it's current location; up your ass.

Explain again, please, how this statement by you is referencing two different events

The fact is that according to the FBI crime statistics guns are far more often to protect than to kill. Accept it or not, it is still the truth.

How does that sentence, as it's currently worded, make any sense?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

One person responds with a mistake and the other responds with a lie. Pretty bad when you compare a murder to an accident (unless you have information that the toddler was paid to kill his mother). The fact is that according to the FBI crime statistics guns are far more often to protect than to kill. Accept it or not, it is still the truth.

Here's some insight for you on that issue, ya fuckin' knucklehead. The number is actually higher than I thought but it's not anywhere near the bullshit farmed out by the NRA which is what I am certain you are relying on....

>>>>>>The National Rifle Association maintains a blog called The Armed Citizen, which highlights defensive gun use. The latest entry, from April 9, describes three incidents: Two from 2013 and one archival example from 1969. It’s not hard to see what the NRA’s getting at, but just in case, a sidebar on the site states: “Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.” In other words, as Wayne LaPierre put it after Newtown, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

That’s almost as catchy as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.

A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist.

The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.

As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...-gun-use/?_r=0