Scalise was bulletproof

Why? there were plenty of guns around. He shot first and they couldn't see immediately where he was hiding.
In Texas, presumably all these plain-clothed heroes would have pulled their handguns so the perp would never have been found.

 

Read plainly, the second amendment protects your right to carry dirty nukes.

 

Bollocks!!!! You may claim you don't want protection but the people I know claim differently.

 

They were across a field from a man with a rifle. Presumably, any other guns arriving on the scene likely would not all have been across the field, but maybe behind him, or to his side. You factually cannot fire a weapon for 10 straight minutes in highly populated areas where conceal carry laws exist. It's just math.

 

Seeing as how police officers in the state of California have been caught in the act of trafficking firearms, firearms that are already prohibited for private ownership by the state, your proposal would do nothing at all.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-firearms-sales-20170415-story.html

 

The perp is the one shooting innocent people. You can't be that dense. Or can you?

 

Sorry, how do you determine who is innocent? If someone has been shot and twenty people have their guns out? Who are you going to shoot first?
Suddenly some guy to your left shoots another guy. Now did he just shoot the perp, or is he the perp? Will you shoot him or wait to find out by him shooting someone else? But what if that someone else was also a perp?

 

You also can't shoot for 10 straight minutes where there are gun laws, because you don't have a gun in the first place. Real straight maths.

 

"Sorry".....but....They all knew who was shooting even when the cops were shooting. Do you think that there are mass shootings of friendlies when troops are fighting? Sure accidents happen but they are rare. Apparently you are convinced that anyone with a gun is a dunder-head.

 

More than likely it was a bunch of liberal judges who decided not to charge him for his multiple violent actions that should have resulted in him not being able to own firearms.

The government has the tools it needs to keep guns out of the hands of people like this, it just doesn't use them so liberals can cry about needing to go further.

 

SO what? There will always be something slipping through the net, but the numbers are incomparable.

 

We should look into banning guns for Democrats.

 

Perfect example of someone living in liberal-lefty La La land. You CAN shoot as much as you want with an illegal firearm and NO ONE will be able to stop you...OR...Is that your dream?

 

He's the guy shooting at unarmed people on a field.

 

Sure, where there are troops, but you were arguing to be an armed civvie. They knew who to shoot because you weren't running around the ball park firing your gun off in response.

 

The scenario assumes everyone is armed.

 

What a bunch of B.S.....Everyone knew where the shots were coming from and could identify the perp even with cops shooting at the same time. If the civilians were armed, the guy would have been ventilated sooner.

 

B.S. even with your fake scenario, the players likely would not have been armed but the spectators would have been able to take the perp down sooner.

 

Except the police...

 

No, there would be a bloodbath of confusion as pretend heroes shot each other to pieces.

 

That argument has been used since 1980, except the blood in the streets never materialized, and the "shooting the wrong person" never has either.

There are thousands of examples of those armed with a CCW stopping a threat, and none of them has resulted in two people with CCW's shooting at each other.

 

Cite your real life example.

 

I daresay that if any of these gun grabbers were in the sights of a perp they'd be praying for a gun.

 

In the UK they hide in the basement pub, urinate on themselves, and hope the attackers lose interest.

 

You kidding me? people get shot for holding something that LOOKS like a gun.