Mass Shootings

Gun Controllers Blame Congress for the Annapolis Shooting. But Why?

What piece of legislation could have prevented yesterday's attack?

|

Christopher Brown / Polaris / Newscom

Gabrielle Giffords, founder of the eponymous gun control group Giffords, blames Congress for the shooting that killed five people at a newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, yesterday. But it's not clear what Congress should or could have done to prevent the shotgun attack on the Capital Gazette by a man with a longstanding grudge against the paper.

"Reporters shouldn't have to hide from gunfire while doing their jobs," says Giffords, a former U.S. representative who was gravely injured in a 2011 shooting that left six people dead in Tucson. "A summer intern in the newsroom shouldn't have to tweet for help. We shouldn't have to live in a country where our lawmakers refuse to take any action to address this uniquely American crisis that's causing so much horror and heartbreak on what feels like a daily basis." But Giffords' indictment of her former colleagues does not identify any legislation they could have enacted that would have made a difference for the victims of yesterday's attack:

Time and time again, those representing us in Congress have failed to show the courage we need to keep us safe. Bump stocks are still legal. Background checks are still not mandatory for all gun sales. Americans are demanding that their lawmakers pass effective laws that can protect our communities and stop dangerous people from accessing guns, but this Congress refuses to listen. We should be outraged. And we should be making plans to hold them accountable. I'm ready to stand with voters and make our voices heard loud and clear in November.

Bump stocks, which the Trump administration plans to ban by creatively reinterpreting federal law, played no role in yesterday's crime or any other mass shooting, with the exception of last year's attack in Las Vegas (and it's debatable whether they increased the death toll there). Nor did the Annapolis shooter use anything that would qualify as an "assault weapon," another favorite target of gun controllers. Police say Jarrod Ramos, the man charged with carrying out the attack, legally bought the pump-action shotgun he used a year ago, which means he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record. Mandating background checks for gun sales that don't involve federally licensed dealers, as Giffords recommends, plainly would not affect someone who can pass a background check.

As for "effective laws that can protect our communities and stop dangerous people from accessing guns," Giffords might have in mind gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), which prohibit people deemed to be dangerous from possessing firearms. Maryland's GVRO law, enacted in April, takes effect in October, so that option was not available to use against Ramos, who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment of a former high school classmate in 2011 and unsuccessfully sued the Capital Gazette for defamation after it covered the case. Ramos had a history of using the internet to pester and insult members of the paper's staff. "I was seriously concerned he would threaten us with physical violence," Thomas Marquardt, the Capital Gazette's publisher at the time of the libel suit, told The Baltimore Sun. "I even told my wife, 'We have to be concerned. This guy could really hurt us.'"

The Sun reports that Marquardt "called the Anne Arundel County police about Ramos in 2013, but nothing came of it." Marquardt also "consulted the paper's lawyers about filing a restraining order, but decided against it." Given that background, it's not clear that police would have sought a GVRO if that option had been available at the time. In any case, Congress does not have the power to authorize GVROs in Maryland or any other state, although a bill introduced last year by Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) would provide grants to states that enact such laws. The failure to enact that bill, which manifestly was not necessary for Maryland to pass a GVRO law, seems like a pretty thin pretext for blaming the Annapolis attack on congressional inaction.

"I remember telling our attorneys, 'This is a guy who is going to come in and shoot us,' " Marquardt told the Sun. The actions that led to Ramos's criminal harassment conviction, which included emails urging the victim to kill herself and contacts with her employer that she believes led to her dismissal, reasonably aroused concern that his behavior might escalate. When you combine that history with Ramos's frivolous lawsuit and his online taunts of Capital Gazette staff members, it is not hard to see why Marquardt was worried about him, although the fact that Marquardt decided not to seek a restraining order suggests his fear may have been magnified in retrospect by the knowledge of what Ramos ultimately did.

Under Maryland's new law, law enforcement officers, mental health professionals, and various relatives, intimates, and associates can seek GVROs. A temporary GVRO, lasting up to a week, can be issued without giving the respondent a hearing if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe he poses "an immediate and present danger" to himself or others. A judge can extend that order for up to six months "to effectuate service of the order where necessary to provide protection or for other good cause." A final GVRO, which lasts up to a year and can be extended for another six months, can be issued after a hearing based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the respondent poses a danger to himself or others.

In practice, getting a temporary GVRO against Ramos would have been easy, especially since he would have had no opportunity to rebut the claims against him. It also seems plausible that a police officer could have obtained a final GVRO, which would have prevented Ramos from legally buying a gun for as long as it was in effect. If police had sought a GVRO in 2013, when Marquardt contacted them about Ramos, the order might have lasted until 2015 or so, assuming it was extended. According to police, Ramos bought his shotgun in 2017.

In short, it's not at all clear that a GVRO could have stopped Ramos, and the fact that the option was not available at the time had nothing to do with any failure on the part of Congress. Reflexively blaming congressional inaction for every mass shooting may be emotionally satisfying, but it does nothing to advance a rational discussion of policies aimed at preventing gun violence.

NEXT: Laws That Are 'Impossible' to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Reporters shouldn’t have to hide from gunfire while doing their jobs,”

    Damn right. They should take their pistols out of the desk drawer and kill the son of a bitch.
    Then write the story.

    1. Throwing back a shot of whiskey should be in there somewhere.

      1. They do that all day anyway, no need to point it out.

        1. Well, except for the music critic who was probably trained out on the sofa somewhere.

          1. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site….. http://easyjob.club

            1. No, she doesn’t, asshole. http://www.plusaf.com/homepage…..o-give.jpg

        2. Not all, not at all, no

      2. Reporters are typically heavy drinkers or substance users. My girlfriend in grad school was a print JO major and all her teachers were retired reporters, or working reporters who were doing a stint teaching, and massively heavy drinkers and addicts.

        I used to live around corner from Chris Hitchens in DC Every few months I would have diner with him. He was a serious drinker but he was actually low on the scale of drinking of many of the reporters he would have over.

        1. I don’t know about D.C. reporters, but my wife has been one for 30 years in Nebraska and Texas, and we both belong to a press organization, and work with many reporters and meet many more. A few are heavy drinkers, but not many more than in other professions. My wife and I don’t drink at all.

          1. Reporters are one step worse than police when to comes to mental health. There is science showing not only do they abuse alcohol at higher rates, but they, like police, tend to socialize only within their circles, and have much higher level of bias from rigid and closed cognition processes and group feedback than the general public. They are not all drunks and closed minded, but a lot more of them are than in the population as a whole.

            Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study
            Journalists’ brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking
            Forty-one percent of the subjects said they drank 18 or more units of alcohol a week, which is four units above the recommended weekly allowance. Less than 5% drank the recommended amount of water.

            http://www.businessinsider.com…..age-2017-5

            Journalists also tend self identify as open minded and as working in a risky profession, when the data show they are much more narrow-minded and biased than the average person, and where in fact their profession is one of the safest in the world.

            1. Well, THAT certainly sheds some light on CNN, doesn’t it?

      3. How about a typewriter, fedora & a cigar?

      4. By God, it’s what Hunter S. Thompson would do!

    2. You really think that the same people who don’t know the difference between a shot gun and a semiautomatic weapon would be armed?

      1. Um, my shotgun is also a semiautomatic.

        1. Well this is awkward.

          1. I’m sure you meant to say “pump shotgun”, but yeah.

            *looks at floor…

            1. Interesting the most common skeet and clay is semi auto shotgun. Softer shooting

              1. Nothing like a high-quality over-under.

                1. The price of a high-quality semi-automatic shotgun is much less than the price of a high-quality over under

                2. Pfft. SxS or get out. Do you even old-timey, bro?

                  1. This conversation is just the sort of circle jerk that earned you freaks the name “ammosexuals.”

                    1. The only freak I see in the conversation is you darlene!

    3. Lefties really know how to turn sympathy for 5 newspaper people killed into a battle of America vs Lefties.

      1. Among lefties

      2. don’t you see? It is their golden ticket. In this ever growing “you need to be a perpetually aggrieved class to mean anything” in American identity politics brought to such a shrill head by Obama they are now an aggrieved victim class.

        Journalism is one of the least diverse, most segregated social business classed there is. I’ve seen quite a few newsrooms and bureaus. Virtually all white upper middle class people. chances are all the victims are white even in a state with a 30% black population like Maryland and Annapolis being 26% African American.

        So in the modern left narrative they are the oppressors. But this event gives the news media a golden ticket to victimhood. This is why there is such a desperate, frankly unhinged, attempt to force false narrative onto this event

      3. We should just get rid of the lefties.

    4. Yesterdays incident likely would have turned out a lot better if they had done so. The shooter would be dead and certainly more of them would still be alive.

    5. Maryland has some of the most restrictive laws for carry permits. So I will blame former Governor Martin O’Malley and the overwhelmingly democrat state legislator for leaving them to be unarmed victims.

      1. Did the alleged shooter have a carry permit?

  2. “Gabrielle Giffords, founder of the eponymous gun control group Giffords, blames Congress for the shooting that killed five people at a newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, yesterday.”

    Well, at least she isn’t falsely claim that Palin was responsible for her shooting, like the NYT has done for years, before they were sued for libel.

    And at least she isn’t blaming the president’s rhetoric about reporters, which literally every journalist did (except Fox) and we are now just supposed to pretend like they totally didn’t or something.

    Hey, why do over 70% of the American public distrust the media again?

      1. I didn’t say that.

        What I said is that there is always blame cast after a mass shooting, but regardless of the facts the same cast of characters are always blamed: the NRA, guns, rhetoric from Fox News or any news network that slants Right, and any Republican politician.

        1. So you’re saying the media isn’t just completely and utterly full of shit?

          1. Well, I suppose I’m not

            1. If what you posted is not equivalent to they are full of shit, then what is?

        2. there is always blame cast

          And it’s always the same “common sense” solutions; universal background checks, assault weapons, magazine limits; that wouldn’t have done anything.

          1. A guy who was convicted of criminal harassment should immediately have been barred from possessing firearms for life, he should have had to turn in any arms he possessed at the time, and any transaction that resulted in him possessing arms should be a crime with consequences for all parties indirectly and directly involved in the transaction.

            1. should be a crime with consequences for all parties indirectly and directly involved in the transaction.

              Including the FBI, which has to do the background check? Christ, you lefty control freaks are nothing if not completely unselfaware.

            2. The problem is his case was likely pled out and reduced to a misdemeanor which prevented him from being barred from owning a gun. The other issue is he had a long standing feud with the paper, the managers and owners of the paper were negligent in not hardening the target when you have someone who clearly is a threat. A single armed guard may have been enough to deter the attack since clearly the guy did not want to die and that is why he hid under a desk when police arrived. Instead they decided they would “not be intimidated” and that idiocy cost five people their lives.

            3. Sweeping statements, but “harassment” covers a wide variety of sins none of which may have anything to do with violence or the threat of violence.

    1. You know, it’s a shame she was shot…but Giffords wasn’t exactly a terrible good legislator either. I do not know what she brings to the table outside of an exit wound.

      1. And who can forget those photos of her at the gun range?

  3. What piece of legislation could have prevented yesterday’s attack?

    Don’t let specifics get in the way of the narrative.

    1. The piece that spreads pixie dust and unicorn farts all about. The magic kind of legislation. duh.

    2. Ban all guns. And then murder everyone who resists. Those one’s who resisted were all going to be killers anyway. The gene pool thus cleansed, we will have peace in this world.

      1. Kumbaya is in sight

      2. I see you’ve studied Pol Pot’s methods… nothing gets more people dead than gun confiscation. Thanks for the sarcasm – my faith in humanity continues.

        1. Sadly, when you have public officials demanding the end of private ownership of firearms it’s not really sarcasm anymore.

      3. And then keep cops, who we all know are brutally racist, as the only people allowed to own guns.

        …sadly, this is a good idea to progressives.

        1. Gun permits will be allowed. The rich and well-connected will have guns if they want them.

    3. “What piece of legislation could have prevented yesterday’s attack?”

      Well, this probably would not help, but more legislation to penalize innocent, law-abiding gun owners.

      The innocent have been going Scott free in this country for too long. The innocent need to be punished for their own good.

      1. Hey, once you pass a new law, they’re all guilty.

    4. True gun-control legislation, that’s what.
      A guy who was convicted of criminal harassment should immediately have been barred from possessing firearms for life, he should have had to turn in any arms he possessed at the time, and any transaction that resulted in him possessing arms should be a crime with consequences for all parties indirectly and directly involved in the transaction.
      In other words: a true ban – not the bullshit clearance sales that we currently call “bans.”

      1. Abso-fucking-lutely! Start with a national house to house search for any firearm, and imprison anyone who resists. Check every nook and cranny, and include a cavity search on everyone.

        Then we will be safe from those racist, violent, crazy clingers once and for all.

      2. And his house should be searched weekly… nay, … daily… to make sure he has not purchased any firearms illegally since the last search, right?

        The dumb is strong with this one….

  4. We shouldn’t have to live in a country where our lawmakers refuse to take any action to address this uniquely American crisis that’s causing so much horror and heartbreak on what feels like a daily basis.

    We shouldn’t have to live in a country where some people are hungry, are crippled, have cancer, get killed in car wrecks, can’t pay the rent, and a thousand other things you need to take up with the bastard that created this hell-hole we call existence.

    Or you can thank God you live in a country where you don’t have to live in a country like this. You’re free to move somewhere else. Or kill yourself.

    1. You know, I kinda like Dark Jerryskids.

      1. He made “The Day the Clown Cried.” Don’t thank him yet.

    2. We shouldn’t have to live in a country where some people are hungry, are crippled, have cancer, get killed in car wrecks, can’t pay the rent, and a thousand other things

      And there really are people who believe those things are uniquely American too.

      1. To be fair, mud hut rentals are really cheap.

      2. Where the trope “If we can put a man on the moon we should be able to ____________” was invented.

      3. that is the canard., Europe has had five times as many major mass murders (of 50 or more people).

        US murder has fallen to under half the rate of a generation ago and the media virtually NEVER says this

        1. The Washington Post mentioned it two years ago.

        2. Someone had looked at the Washington Posts on this a few months ago.
          368 stories, feature pieces, analysis, editorials, op-ed, wonkblog pieces on gun control, promoting proposed bans etc in five years, and three mentioned the large decrease in firearms homicide.

    3. We also shouldn’t have to live in a country with Nickleback, Justin Bieber, The View, and Reality Shows but here we are. 😛

      1. When I first saw a picture of this shooter, I swear to God I thought he looks like someone that listens to Nickleback. Their fans all have this very common look to them.

        1. This is how you remind me of what I really am…

  5. 1) Legislation preventing someone from buying a shotgun after being convicted of criminal harassment may have helped.
    2) Legislation may not prevent every attack. But, it would reduce them, as proven in every other country in the world.

    1. Tony sock puppet or Cathy L sock puppet?

      Either way, a progressive or one of those “I love Bill Weld” woketarians

      1. Mr. Bing is a liberal. Not sure I’d call him a prog, but pretty sure he ain’t a libertarian. Just more of a standard leftist.

        1. “Could he BE anymore of an authoritarian?”

        2. Happy chander is wrong on both counts. This g

          1) there is already legislation on his crime and prohibition. Maryland gives some of the lowest sentences in the US for given crimes. If he had been properly prosecuted he would have gone to jail. A Democrat jjudge gave him NO JAIL.

          2) actually gun ban/control legislation is proven not to work. Look at Australia. They banned guns and saw a 41% drop in murder since their 1990’s peak, the US increased guns and saw a over 50% decrease in murder since its 1990’s peak.

          Every same region similar demographic US state pairing, with similar demographics and substantive differences in gun control, shows those with more gun control and less guns have more, not less, violent crime. just look at the much higher murder rate in Maryland than Virginia.

          1. Democrat judges and prosecutors not doing their jobs and properly incarcerating violent criminals is a big problem. As usual the progressives are to blame.

      2. I’m pretty sure murder is already banned.

        1. Or at least frowned upon.

    2. Tell me, Bing, what’s preventing us from legislating vehicles that travel faster than five miles an hour out of existence?

      For that matter, why don’t we legislate anything, be it animal, mineral, vegetable, human, or natural process from occurring at a rate faster than 10 mph? That would likely reduce any harms caused by things (such as deer, or rain, or wind, or cars) moving at high speeds.

      1. Nothing.

        Why do we need vehicles that travel faster than 5 mph anyway?

    3. Gun control legislation is unconstitutional. Background checks, court orders, gun bans, etc. Its all illegal.

      1. So are marxists, yet we tolerate them. Not sure why.

      2. There is no gun control legislation that is unconstitutional.
        We could confiscate all of the firearms, and any other objects that could be classified as arms, from every person who is not currently serving in military or para-military organization, and still not be violating the 2nd Amendment.
        “To keep” means “to keep and maintain your service weapon while you’re serving.”
        “To bear arms” means “to serve” or “to be deployed”, not “to wear firearms as accessories at Walmart and Chipotle like a fucking idiot.”

        1. We all were recruited into “The army of one” back in the 90’s, so each person is serving at all times.

        2. We could confiscate all of the firearms, and any other objects that could be classified as arms, from every person who is not currently serving in military or para-military organization, and still not be violating the 2nd Amendment.

          No, you couldn’t–you’d be looking at an insurrection. But because you think you won’t have to do the dirty work yourself, this is the fantasy, you like to indulge in.

          “To keep” means “to keep and maintain your service weapon while you’re serving.”
          “To bear arms” means “to serve” or “to be deployed”, not “to wear firearms as accessories at Walmart and Chipotle like a fucking idiot.

          Nothing you wrote in those two statements are factual.

        3. Does it hurt being this ignorant darlene?
          Or is it just normal for a Progressive serf?

        4. simply redefining words to your satisfaction doesn’t make your case.

        5. Darlene, when you make up definitions like those, they make obvious sense.

          But those are not real or accurate definitions, so, in the end, they’re just yours and in the real world, they’re fucking useless in terms of dealing with the issues at hand…

          Sorry.

    4. Every other country in the world, you say?

      Brazil is the murder capital of the world. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/
      opinion/sunday/latin-america-murder-homicide.html

      Brazil also has had strict gun control laws approaching disarmament of the population and gun confiscation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Brazil

      You were saying, sir?

      1. You’re being specious. Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Uruguay, S. Africa, The Bahamas, Panama, The Dominican Republic, Haiti, The Phillipines, and Russia all have varying levels of gun control in excess of the US and concurrently higher and/or rising gun homicide rates.

        A few countries have more lax laws and auspiciously lower murder rates but in places like Yemen, it gets difficult to tell who was killed by a neighboring tribe in a civil war, who was just murdered by a gun, and who just disappeared and nobody bothered to see if they were shot to death or not.

        1. How was I being specious? I was not as thorough as you, but my point remains: Tough gun laws do not correlate with lower murder rates, and coloring the United States as the “world leader” in murder due to the Second Amendment is false.

        2. Wrong on all counts. Gifford’s included suicide in her number

          Japan has way MORE lethal violence (suicide+homicide), so does S., Korea and most developed democracies are +/- 20% of the Us

          My birth state of New Hampshire has less murder than Europe, and the same rare as Australia and Canada.

          The entire elevation of US murder over international averages occurs in under 80 out of 3,000 US counties, all of them Dcrat run.

          and US murder is notup its down under half the rate of a generation ad US rates are not rising the last couple of years , they rose only in a few hyper violent Democrat cities which reduced incarnation rates released a huge number of prior criminals who commit over 90% of US murder — in most places in the US they FELL.

          1. Gun violence counts. Knife and razor blade and pills and rope not so much.

        3. Panama is very Pro-gun ownership.

        4. There are countries in Europe with identical strong gun control laws, near identical levels of gun ownership with near 400% differences in murder and violent crime rates from each other. So this proves gun control is irrelevant.

          Within the US when you use samples of demographically comparable states, those with more gun control and less gun ownership have more violent crime and homicide.

          One does not compare vastly different in all non gun demographics Hawaii vs Louisiana (as expensive junk science out of the CDC was absurdly doing in the 1990’s) , but rather Oregon vs Washington, Maryland VS Virginia, etc.

    5. Nope. One’s right to defend oneself is not subject to “legislation”.

      1. Guns are in no way required in order for one to defend oneself, so, the right to possess a gun is not the same as the right to defend oneself any more than the right to possess a nuclear weapon is the same as the right to defend oneself.

        1. Fuck off, progtard–you don’t get to determine whether I can use a gun to defend myself and my family.

          You and everyone who thinks like you deserves to get killed by a drunk driver.

        2. “”Guns are in no way required in order for one to defend oneself””

          Cops, politicians, celebrities all disagree.

        3. YOU can defend yourself anyway YOU want to (personal self-defense, a nuke is not an “arm” nor is it suitable for self-defense).

          YOU don’t get to determine that I can’t defend myself with “arms”.

          I have the right to live, therefore I have the right to defend my life, therefor I have the right to the means to defend that life.

          “Arms” are the means to defend your life.

          The right is absolute.

          1. Look!
            All of you!

            You are trying to use logic to change the mind of someone who is impervious to logical argument and data that do not support her beliefs.

            Better to try to convert an Atheist into an Evangelical Christian… or vice-versa!
            As a college friend put it… ‘fruitile’!… a combination of fruitless and futile!

    6. But, it would reduce them, as proven in every other country in the world.

      Not even close. Look up the UN’s own stats on murder rate by country.
      World: 6.2 per 100,000
      The Americas: 16.3 per 100,000
      United States: 5.35 per 100,000
      The US is below average on homicide even according to the UN, and even though the other countries take statistics by convictions when the US takes the by charges. This has startling effects: Say two men and a woman have an argument in a parking lot, and the woman is shot and killed. The police come, arrest the 2 men, who accuse each other, and take the gun. No prints or other evidence connects the revolver conclusively with either man. Both are tried and get off on the reasonable doubt the other may have murdered her.
      In the US statistics, that’s recorded as two murders. (2 charged)
      In the UK statistics, that’s recorded as zero murders. (0 covicted)

      1. Two murders? You can’t count, bro. One murder, two arrests.

        A murder is a dead body, not an arrest.

        1. Did you not read his argument? He’s saying that the U.S., in that case, would charge both gentlemen with murder (TWO murder charges for ONE death) and record it as two murders. The U.K. would, upon being unable to get a conviction for either man, record it as ZERO murders.

          1. This is true. I’ve read that before.

          2. A murder is a dead body, not an arrest.

            Not in England, Japan or Australia it isn’t. An intentional homicide is only record and passed on as a statistic if a conviction for first or second degree homicide occurs. If it is charged as second degree homicide and pled to third “negligent manslaughter” it is not included in most countries, but is included in us as intentional homicide in the statistics.

            Australia keeps two intentional homicide numbers for example 2015 they have 1.1/100,00 intentional homicide commission rate and 1.8/100,000 for intentional homicide victimization rate.

            Australia reports 1.1 to international statistical bodies, while if they used the US method used by the CDC and FBI, they would be reporting 1.8. That is a huge difference

        2. The UK like Australia and Canada absolutely do count intentional homicide differently resulting in relative undercounts compared to same circumstances in the US.

        3. Yes, dingbats, the US might well charge both, but it still only counts as one murder in the stats.

          Five bank robbers don’t make a single bank robbery into five for the stats/

          You guys can’t think or read.

          1. You call people dingbats but are clearly a moron. It is a simple fact that some countries published figures, submit to WHO, UN a) victimization, c) some perpetration, b) some effectively only intentional homicide with a non pled down conviction. The UK, like Australia, counts the lowest possible way. The US counts the highest possible way. In the US uses the broadest possible counting method.
            Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defense or otherwise
            publications.parliament DOT uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

    7. If there were no access to guns for this NutCase, he probably would’ve bombed the whole building & it would’ve been much worse!

    8. 1) Legislation preventing someone from buying a shotgun after being convicted of criminal harassment may have helped.
      2) Legislation may not prevent every attack. But, it would reduce them, as proven in every other country in the world.

      That is not correct. Actually, n “every other country” he have been put in a mental institution. This qould have permanently barred him from buying a gun of any type in the US.

      Thanks to the ACLU, we have the most stringent thresholds for getting someone committed. It is harder in the US for police to bring someone in for evaluation, the thresholds psychiatric evaluators may use to commit someone are much higher, and your defense in court (beyond a reasonable doubt) against getting committed are all profoundly higher.

      I used to live in Japan and this guy would have been in custody and committed from those 2014 tweets

      Furthermore, unlike gang bangers, the mentally ill commit much higher proportion of their murders with means other than firearms. if you are concerned about the murder victims of the mentally ill yo would not focus on means, but getting them committed. The ACLU has blood on their hands from this and the knife and beating murders by the mentally ill.

    9. Are you serious? Legislation only works on the people who obey the law. The UK banned firearms and in response knife attacks have gotten so out of control, the mayor of London has considered banning all knives. In London a solider was beheaded with a sword in the middle of the street and police, who are unarmed, were helpless to stop it. People have been killing each other for thousands of years. Australia is considering rescinding its ban because the numbers of rapes, robberies and assaults is out of control. They have risen over 1000% in the past 5 years. The basic definition of a criminal is a person who does not obey the law. The notion more laws will stop those who already do not obey them, is insane. Last time I checked, there was a law in every state as well under Federal statues making murder illegal, yet this idiot still killed people. Blame the person, not the tool used.

  6. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amend the Constitution or all gun control is illegal and unconstitutional.

    1. Since all gun control is illegal, and specifically unconstitutional, does this not make all attempts at gun control crimes, and ergo gun controllers criminals?

      If so, all gun controllers should be rounded up and charged with sedition.

      1. If so, all gun controllers should be rounded up and charged with sedition.

        Well, I dunno about “sedition”, but “deprivation of rights under color of law”? Oh yeah. I could go for that.

      2. This is the commonsense legislation we need to keep the left in check:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoFuwt12ouE

    2. There is no gun control that is unconstitutional.
      We could confiscate all guns and any other objects that could be classified as arms from every person who is not currently serving in and deployed by a military or para-military organization and still not be violating the 2nd Amendment.
      “To keep” means “to keep and maintain your service weapon while you’re serving.”
      “To bear arms” means “to serve” or “to be deployed”, not “to wear firearms as accessories at Walmart and Chipotle like an idiot.”

      1. Copypasta-ing your idiocy doesn’t make it any more factual, cunt.

      2. I guess anywhere the Constitution say “People” it means militia members.

  7. I don’t like calling them gun controllers, either. They don’t want to control guns, they want to control people. They’re gun grabbers, taking away people’s guns makes controlling the people much easier .

    1. Don’t talk about future presidential nominee Bill Weld that way

      1. That old white dude? He’s yesterday’s news. The future is Democratic Socialism!

  8. I fully expect that the columnist from the Baltimore Sun who was so outraged over Sean Hannity using this shooting to further a political agenda will no doubt express equal outrage over Giffords doing the same thing.

    I also believe in the tooth fairy.

    1. But do you believe, really believe, that the tooth fairy rides a unicorn?

        1. Where do you find this stuff, never mind the time to find it?

      1. Shush. I’m putting my tooth under a pillow…

  9. The problem is these active shooter drills. They did one down there just a couple weeks ago, and it’s the same story at Parkland. They trigger the local nuts. So do I think they shouldn’t have them? YES THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I THINK. #hugsnotpitchforks

    asd = active shooter drills
    asd = autism spectrum disorder

    Hmmm…….

      1. Speaking of triggering the local nuts…..

    1. “#hugsnotpitchforks”

      Nice pound sign

    2. The problem is these active shooter drills.

      I agree, at least in part.

      A journalist interviewing one of the students at the Texas school asked her to describe her shock at being shot at and her response was basically “I wasn’t shocked at all. The way the teachers have been carrying on I had been expecting it to happen any minute. I’ve been lying awake at nights and terrified to come to school every day.”

      This is what teachers are doing to our children in the name of their politics.

      1. Yes. It’s pure conditioning/brainwashing at its worst. it gets drilled into their heads, day after day, that a massacre is only a matter of time, or even more, IMMINENT! Just right around the corner, kids! It’s goddamned child abuse. Fucking vile.

        1. Yeah… the shooting wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t been talking about shootings that have been happening every other day…

          1. the shooting wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t been talking about shootings that have been happening every other day…

            Yeah, clearly they aren’t promoting it enough, because gun violence is empirically lower now than it was 25 years ago when the 24-hour media cycle didn’t yet exist.

  10. This is exactly why we need a swift confirmation of Justice AR-15. Gun controllers can go gargle balls

    1. Gargling balls, that’s two days in a row for you….

  11. “Gun Controllers Blame Congress for the Annapolis Shooting. But Why?”

    From page 1 of the progressive playbook, “Never let a crisis go to waste”.

  12. another case among many where the police were warned but did nothing, On purpose maybe? also note this is another shooter of many who also had explosive devices. Something that is already illegal and completely ignored by the left and the media about how few laws do anything but harm the law abiders.

    1. Police cannot do anything until a crime is committed. The notion police prevent crime is not only wrong it is insane. When police do attempt to prevent crime, such as using stop and frisk, the same people who are complaining about guns here, complain about racial profiling and violating civil rights. If you want police to prevent crime, then civil rights will be history. The only viable option to avoid a police state is the expansion of rights to allow people to defend themselves. Police today simply show up and investigate what has happened and solve the crime, they do not prevent anything.

  13. Gabrielle Giffords, founder of the eponymous gun control group Giffords, blames Congress for the shooting that killed five people at a newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, yesterday. But it’s not clear what Congress should or could have done to prevent the shotgun attack on the Capital Gazette by a man with a longstanding grudge against the paper.

    Ban newspapers, duh.

    1. I agree. It’s long past time to have a national dialogue on common-sense media control. Ban assault newspapers! Ban Sunday papers with more than five sections! Mandatory psychological examinations for journalists! People on the no-fly list should be banned from being published!

      Of course, misguided First Amendment zealots, who cling to their publications out of bitterness, will object. And the National Press Club will use its corrupt influence to stymie Congress and block change. But they already have blood on their hands!

      1. And those shoulder-thingies – don’t forget those!

  14. Don’t be harsh on poor Gabby. She was brain damaged before some leftist nut shot her in the head.

    1. I was going to say some such, but decided it would be in poor taste. Thanks for taking one for the team.

    2. Eh, I heard she was actually pretty pro-2A back then. Only changed after she got shot, conveniently enough. Nothing special, though, that’s pretty typical among humans.

  15. What piece of legislation could have prevented yesterday’s attack?

    A total ban on guns. That’s the goal.

    1. Ban shotguns! Joe Biden, hardest hit.

    2. You are correct – but nobody calling for more gun control laws will admit it.

      1. @blond — they all have admitted it. Every bloomberg front, and VPC, Brady and every “national” gun control group in existence wrote testimony, took part as amicus or did PR in support of DC in Heller. Every one. Every gun control group that has popped upp sinfe opposed that decision.

        That was no five shot revolver, even if you have a full background check, wait list, safe at home and training.

    3. A total ban on murder doesn’t seem to be working.

  16. Common sense gun control

    1.) Abolish ‘may issue’ .
    2.) Conceal Carry Reciprocity legislation.
    3.) Supreme Court – deal w/ flagrant abuses of the 2nd Amendment.

  17. There is a good reason the GUN CONTROLLERS blame the congress is because they want guns to be outlawed! They want to take the guns of the hands of law abiding citizens but they do not propose anything that would take the guns out of the criminals hands. In fact they want those criminals who use guns in their crimes to get off with lighter sentence than they get now.
    The communists, progressives, socialists and now democrats have long wanted only the forces that they control to have guns and not allow an individual to defend themselves or others that are being attacked.

  18. At the Virginia rates of gun carry it is virtually a certainty that one of the people in that building would have had a firearm. And given Maryland effectively bans carrying guns (except for a huge number of criminals carrying them) the killer know for certain he would not face an armed good guy and could plan on not looking over his shoulder or being required to move slowly. he may not have even tried the crime if his target was in Virginia.

    Armed good guys stop 2.5 million crimes a year, that does not even included the massive deterrence.

    Do they stop- every crime? No. but is there a greater chance of preventing or reducing death rates in such a circumstance? Absolutely yes.

    Unfortunately, Maryland in addition to stripping law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms, also has one of the lowest average actual sentence and time served for violet crimes in the US. That is why it is generally a s5ithole of violence

  19. “Uniquely American”, says Gifford.

    Except for France, Norway, Australia, etc.

  20. If only the goobermint seized all weapons from citizens then Americans wouldn’t have to worry about gun violence.

    Then, only Trump’s goobermint would have the weapons and since Trumps totally like Hitler, we’d be safe!!!

  21. Yeah not terribly surprising. It is a bit like a one-note tune.

    1. To say the least, LOL. But it’s the only one they got. SAD!

  22. Did he not assault them with the shotgun? Ipso facto it’s an assault weapon. BAN IT!!!

  23. Nothing will ever stop all gun deaths.. Nobody except the NRA and RWer argues that that is even the issue…. But aside from just having an absurdly low bar for access to guns, there is this:

    The Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act ( H.R. 3207 ) would add abusive former dating partners and stalkers to the list of federal prohibited firearms possessors, barring them from legally buying or owning guns. Introduced by U.S. Reps. Debbie Dingell, D-Michigan, and Dan Donovan, R-New York, sponsors argue the move could save lives.

    1. Because as we all know, present law keeps felons and other prohibited persons from ever having access to firearms. Right?
      And people without firearms never, ever kill anyone. Right?
      [/snark]

      1. Restraining orders save thousands of lives every year.

        Said no one.

        Also snark

  24. !! SHE WAS A”LOUSEY” senator!!

  25. A national effort to reduce mass murders, the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, produced this consequence:

    “The ban didn’t appear to have a significant impact on the number of mass murder incidents in that decade compared to other decades, and within the decade, there was no downward trend. This only shows that the availability of assault weapons doesn’t change the number of mass murder incidents, which means that killers just switched to different weapons, obtained illegal weapons, or made improvised weapons.

    During the ban, large attacks like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Park Bombing occurred, and the average number of people killed per incident increased from 9.4 pre-ban to 11.3 during the ban, then decreasing to 7.6 after the ban expired. The average number of people injured per incident increased from 8.0 to 35.0 during the ban and decreased to 5.6 after the ban.

    More consequences detailed in:

    “Gun Control and Mass Killers”
    https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/
    2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-control-
    fails-against-mass-killers/

    1. Thanks for sharing your fait tale with us. Its surprising you found something as the NRA normally blocks any and all gun violence research. I’m sure you think this somehow explains the Las Vegas, Parkland etc etc etc mass murders as only an imbecile and a liar would be making believe america doesn’t have a gun violence problem and that the 300 million largely unregulated guns in which our society is awash in aren’t the problem. However, if you lift your head out of an bra gun sales propaganda article and honestly research gun violence, which your claim reveals you haven’t, you’ll find that there is a DIRECt correlation between the number of guns in a society and the amount go gun violence. Meanwhile you just enjoy your “global warming isn’t real, guns don’t kill and the bible is a science book insanity and ignorance. Dumbass

      1. Jesus, how much Proggie dick have you crammed into your mouth there ochwill? Which sock puppet are you? Buttplug? Tony? I can’t keep up with all the Proggie fuckstick nimrods that come here to post anymore…

    2. Bans don’t work when they’re actually clearance sales.
      Bans in the U.S. usually result in more of the “banned” item in circulation than before the ban.

      1. You’re not getting your progressive feudal utopia.

      2. “”Bans in the U.S. usually result in more of the “banned” item in circulation than before the ban.””

        Since your clearance sale is pre-ban, the ban its self is not a clearance sale. But I guess you can’t understand that.

  26. “A summer intern in the newsroom shouldn’t have to tweet for help. We shouldn’t have to live in a country where our lawmakers refuse to take any action to address this uniquely American crisis that’s causing so much horror and heartbreak on what feels like a daily basis.”

    Charlie Hedbo would like a word…

    1. Also mass shootings, and murders in general, are lower in America than in any country to our South. America is far more similar historically and culturally to the former colonies of Central and South America than we are to any European country.

      1. cbk; and the war to our south is of our own making; the deamon Anslinger’s drug war; well said; yes, our neighbors to the south, well, are our neighbors to the south; the history, from the landing of the Spanish to decimate the Inca for yellow metal, to their cocaine molecule sold to get it back, is then and now; welcome to the drug war, no?

    2. The only uniquely American part is that the 2A helps out a small amount with the most blatant infringements, sort of.
      Those other places just grab the guns and are shocked, shocked, when defenseless people still die.

    3. GTDC; when a society builds upon “things”, and money, and physical beauty, the left outs will sometimes crack under the weight, no? So why are the children being taught so? America has enormous wealth, and if we place all value upon strength (athletics), beauty and money, what sense is that? We have way more than enough. There is enough for us to embrace all in this country; we are not fighting to eat, to survive (well, maybe now yes, no?). Enough; “Let the children play” Cat Stevens

      1. America has enormous wealth, and if we place all value upon strength (athletics), beauty and money, what sense is that? We have way more than enough. There is enough for us to embrace all in this country; we are not fighting to eat, to survive (well, maybe now yes, no?). Enough; “Let the children play” Cat Stevens

        1) Cat Stephens became a muslim who no longer believes in free speech and believes the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist should be jailed.
        2) Your denigration of athletics is strange. The more people participate in athletics they more physically AND psychologically healthy they are, the more happy they are and the less they cost themselves and society in direct and indirect health costs.
        3) US children are safer from violence, disease, food safety issues, malnutrition than ever in history.

  27. I’m so grateful for Gabby Giffords efforts. My wife is now willing to get her CC permit. She doesn’t want to haul around a pistol grip Mosburg(pump)

  28. I’m so grateful for Gabby Giffords efforts. My wife is now willing to get her CC permit. She doesn’t want to haul around a pistol grip Mosburg(pump)

  29. ‘Equal protection under the law’ should mean that no one has any constitutional rights without a permit.
    If I have to have a permit (an expensive permit at that) to exercise my second amendment rights, then Gabby should have to have a permit to speak freely. Does she have a permit? No. Why is she reported?
    Did the paper’s employees have a first amendment permit? No. Why were they allowed to publish?

    As libertarians, we don’t want a proliferation of permits, so let’s all agree that a gun permit (already in existence) is required for all constitutional rights.
    No carry permit, no voting. (I would love to watch the heart attacks that will generate)
    No carry permit, all searches permitted.
    No carry permit, no right to remain silent.
    Etc.

  30. Jesus people; you all talk about the question; what is the real answer; are the real answers all things considered, no? Australia, pointed to so often, had at most 20 million people when Port Arthur happened, and one and a half million guns. They turned in 700,000. (as they say, Google it)
    We have about 400 million guns,(most probably a light number), and what? 400 million people, no? including at least 4 million assault rifle type weapons. It took me less than an hour to find this out, the first time I heard Australia mentioned re the shootings. I did not go far into their laws; didn’t have to then; I suspect we could use some of Australia’s laws but, and let’s be real, no?
    A sad day we turn to Israel’s model, no?..no sad day, thank you. I remember Israel; and my heart is with America, as are my tears

  31. Stop talking to the mirror of your own head; “That which you dislike in another is that which you dislike in yourself”..grandfather speaking to Tom; Billy J

  32. My gf is somewhat off the grid. She just heard about it today, and sent this hysterical text about how Trump is to blame, we’re falling into fascism, etc etc. I told her to stop bothering me while I’m working and to start charging Trump rent, since right now he’s living in her head rent-free.

    1. DJ; I am still laughing; well said, you funny (gotta laugh, hurts too much
      to cry, no?..#:-)

  33. Where was the military? Are they not supposed to protect us?

    1. ME; the history of the “American Military” begins with the Minutemen, and the reasons the second amendment was the second, no? (Well, actually with George and the guys, and gals who made for them)

      1. The military needs to protect us,.

        Congress can help by giving them absolute power.

  34. Gun Controllers Blame Congress for the Annapolis Shooting. But Why?

    Because they are retarded assholes?

  35. Criminalizing guns only ever hurts the honest citizens

  36. We shouldn’t have to live in a country where…

    You don’t have to. You are wealthy and privileged, and you can move to your mythical progressive utopia anytime you like. I hear they have strong gun control in North Korea and Cuba.

  37. Grabby [ no, not a typo ] Giffords has to blame somebody, she of course is ignoring the fact the shooter had a history with both the newspaper and the police. What the gun grabbers continue to ignore is that criminals don’t obey our laws. Only the law abiding citizens obey them simply because they never engage in criminal behavior.
    Since November 1998 when the Background Check became law some 289,810,009 American have undergone them to either obtain a concealed carry permit, renew a CC permit or to purchase a firearm. This number is not indicative of the number of firearms in the country since previously owned firearms were not covered by the new law and the fact that concealed carry permit holders can purchase firearms without undergoing an additional check.
    Of the almost 40 recent shooters, almost all underwent the check to purchase their firearms. A few used stolen weapons and a couple obtained them through straw purchases.
    What Giffords and the other gun grabbers ignore while blaming Congress for failing to enact more useless gun control legislation is the fact that the Senators and Representatives are elected to their posts by the voters, many, many of whom are gun owners who know that laws don’t stop criminals. If they did, the Ten Commandments would suffice.

    1. There is one NICS background check per federal 4473 firearms transaction form. The last version of 4473 I saw had four lines to list make, model, caliber, serial number. I bought a revolver and a shotgun as gifts to my wife on one 4473, one background check; my son bought two military rifles – one for himself and one as a gift to me on one 4473, one BG check. So NICS BG checks as a proxy for gun sales may be close, but not close on number of guns sold. If you buy an entire gun collection at an estate auction, the inventory list is added to the single 4473 and requires one BG check.

      My beef is, How much of the funds to enforce largely useless gun control laws were diverted from programs or policies that might actually impact crime?

      A few years back, the Maryland state police told the Maryland legislature that they were not wasting any more time time or money on that useless ballistic fingerprint database because they had better things to do with their time and resources; it took awhile for the message to sink in, but eventually the Maryland legislature repealed it because the state police saw no point in enforcing it.

      Most malum prohibitum laws don’t impact the malum in se bad acts they are supposed to prevent. They create black markets and make the problem worse. Plus the laws criminalize people who are not bad actors but who do run afoul of the prohibitions.

  38. Yes it must really suck to have to cower under your desk wetting your pants when you are waiting for the murderer to reload, helpless. When you could be taking out your Gun and shooting him. But wait you’re a law-abiding citizen and you’re not allowed to have a gun. But he doesn’t care that it’s against the law to have a gun illegally, he doesn’t care that it’s against the law to murder people, because he’s a Criminal. By definition he doesn’t care that it’s against the law. He won’t care that it’s against 10 more laws. The only way to stop a criminal from breaking the law is either to incarcerate him or to kill him. What part of this don’t leftist understand? It really isn’t that hard to understand unless you’re drinking Kool-Aid I guess.

    1. When he’s reloading you don’t need a gun to stop him.

  39. And wouldn’t Joe Biden be to blame by some strange leftist logic anyway? Wasn’t he the one who recommended shotguns?
    you would think the Gabby Giffords husband would have been taught some kind of critical thinking at his alma mater the United States Merchant Marine Academy. I realize that it’s not quite as good as his brother’s on a lot of the State University of New York Maritime College but it is a halfway decent College.

  40. pass effective laws

    20-some-odd thousand, mostly unconstitutional, laws already exist. How many more do you want?

    1. There are no gun laws that are unconstitutional.
      We could actually confiscate all of the guns, and any other objects that could be classified as arms, from every person in this country who isn’t currently serving in a military or para-military outfit, and still not be violating the 2nd Amendment.
      “To bear arms” means “to serve” or “to be deployed”, not “to wear firearms as accessories at Walmart and Chipotle like a fucking idiot.”

      1. Stawp poasting, proglydyte.

  41. The ignorance expressed in this column and in the comments is extraordinary. Stunning. This is exactly why america has the highest per capita gun violence rate of any industrialized nation. 25 times the average in fact. Indisputable that there is indeed a problem. Those who stick their heads in the sand as this author and the commenters below do, reveal they’re not about logic but about their partisan beliefs. 2 ded every 33 minutes in america. And this column provides zero constructive commentary. Pathetic bunch of moral cowards.

    1. Speaking of logic, I was rather impressed by the claim that “The entire elevation of US murder over international averages occurs in under 80 out of 3,000 US counties, all of them Dcrat run.”
      This seems interesting when juxtaposed to “the highest per capita gun violence rate of any industrialized nation.”
      I don’t know if either of these claims are true, but since the U.S. is presumably larger in area than other “industrialized nations,” it seems to me that there is a potential for a gerrymandering of the statistics.

    2. Shove your dreams of a progressive feudal utopia up your ass.

    3. 2 ded every 33 minutes in america.

      It’s more than twice that for alcohol, but stricter regulations on that would mean you’d have to give up your primary means of coping with being a worthless sack of shit and an utter disappointment to your parents.

  42. You answered your own question.
    A law that bars someone who has been convicted of criminal harassment from possessing firearms would have prevented the shooting.
    You described the patchwork that is the problem.
    We need universal, rational laws, that hold accountable all parties involved in EVERY gun transaction, and bans that are actually bans and not clearance sales.

    1. “”rational laws, that hold accountable all parties involved in EVERY gun transaction,””

      You propose the irrational.

      You can’t hold all parties involved for a lawful sale if someone used the item in the lawful sale for an unlawful purpose.

  43. You left one HUGE factor out of the equation ending in this shooting. Im the State of Marylend it is all but impossible for anyone who is not “Someone” to get the Mother May I Card necessary to have prior to carrying about upon one’s person the best and most effective means of defending one’s self against unlawful violence. Maryland courts upheld the crazy system. declaring that Maryland residents do NOT have a compelling interest in arming themselves for their own (and that of others) protection. The almost never happens “may issue” system is unconstitutional, yet numerous attempts to rid the state of it have been defeated by corrupt courts.

    1. I have not seen any figures as to how many innocents were at the newspaper’s facility at the time of the attack, but if five are dead and at least two more hurt, and there were other non-injured survivors, there must have been a few…. in my state, roughly ten percent of resident adults have that Mother May I Card and USE it to carry nearly everwhere they go. Tht means if there were twenty present, somewhere around two likely would have been armed. two armed and skilled putative victims certailny could wel have ended the shooting spree far sooner than it did end. WHY is it that the politicians and other gummit hooh hahs would rather lament on how terrible such events are (they are correct), whine and moan about “how dangerous” it “might be” for the general public to go about their business daily whilst armed, yet insist on maintaining most of the state as a Certified Defenseless Victim Zone? HOW MANY MORE such killings wil it take before the sound principles of Heller, and the Second Article of Ammendment are finally allowed to govern?

  44. Because they have nothing to sell but lies. If you look at Gifford’s website, you will see the claim that 98% of all dealers at gun shows are unlicensed. Technically this is a true statement. What they fail to say is these dealers are NOT selling guns. They are selling accessories, like holsters, cases as well as hats, T shirts etc. None of these dealers are selling anything that requires they have a license, but gun grabbers never tell people that part of the equation. The primary reason we cannot have a rational, civilized debate about gun laws in this country is the gun control crowd begins every conversation by lying. They make inaccurate or totally false claims to scare people who do not know or wish to seek the truth. They continue to push false or inaccurate narratives to scare people who are too lazy to do research and find out the truth. I argue with them at least once a week and still they keep saying the same BS like we need laws to prevent criminals, domestic abusers and people with mental illness from buying guns ( all are already barred under federal law.). When you have to lie to gather support it only means your position is weak and indefensible

  45. If faced with this situation, you have to make a decision. Will I die with or without a fight? This is no different than choosing to carry a firearm for protection. Not everyone should carry a gun because not everyone is willing to use it to kill. Unless you are ready to kill, a gun is worthless. It is not something you pull to scare someone, It is something you pull to kill. If you are not willing to kill, then you should never pull a gun. I have seen idiots talk about using a baseball bat, knives or other weapons for protection which is no different than a gun, except all are much more personal as well as bloody. BTW, ladies, please remember if you decide to kick a guy in the jewels, remember a few facts. First, we have all been protecting that region since we were toddlers so the chances of a clean strike are minimal. Second, if you try it and fail, the amount of rage you will unleash, will almost certainly get you killed. it is much more effective, easier and more devastating to kick a guy as hard as you can on his knee. It is the weakest joint in the body and if he cannot stand, he cannot chase you when you run away.

  46. According to police, Ramos bought his shotgun in 2017.
    ceme online
    agen dewapoker

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.