Teenager who shot intellectually disabled classmate was accustomed to firearms in his home

[Cali_Democrat]

TOWSON, Md. -- The teenager accused of shooting an intellectually disabled classmate at a suburban Maryland high school was accustomed to firearms in the home and had endured his parents' contentious divorce, court documents show.

After 15-year-old Robert Wayne Gladden Jr. was taken into custody Monday, police executed a search warrant at the Kingsville home where he lives with his mother and stepfather. What they found, according to court documents: 11 guns, including shotguns, rifles, a 9mm handgun and two antique pistols.

Police also found a spent rifle casing in Gladden's bedroom and collected "miscellaneous live ammunition" from the master bedroom where most of the guns were found.

<...>

According to Baltimore County police, the pale, long-haired sophomore used a shotgun to fire at random in the cafeteria of Perry Hall High School Monday morning. Daniel Borowy, a 17-year-old who has Down syndrome, was shot in the back and critically wounded.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/robert-wayne-gladden-jr-perry-hall-high-shooting-suspect-troubled-past_n_1842343.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

Robert Wayne Gladden Jr. and his family's guns....another gift to the American people courtesy of the NRA and their right wing enablers.

[ZombieHorde]

1. You should probably give courtesy to the Bill of Rights, and/or those who wrote it.

The Bill of Rights is the greatest enabler of RKBA.

[msongs]

4. only if gun owners are in the militia. nt

[ZombieHorde]

5. That would be all them who aren't in the military. nt

[bongbong]

9. WRONG

Gun-religionist's reliance on lies - ignoring "well-regulated" - is nothing new. It is completely obvious to Liberals. Sorry.

[ZombieHorde]

18. That phrase did not mean what you think it meant.

Oxford English Dictionary has the historical background of words. Unfortunately, I do not have a subscription, so I cannot access the full entry, but I can access some examples.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/227532?redirectedFrom=well-regulated#eid

None of those suggest government control, though today's usage often implies government control.

On a side note:
Do you find words in all caps and label-based arguments to be convincing? Is that how you are persuaded? If not, why do you use that type of argumentation?

[bongbong]

23. Lucky

Lucky that the Founding Fathers didn't use the OED. Rather, what they took "well-regulated" to mean is laid out in Federalist Paer #29.

Don't you gun-religionists ever get sick of being wrong 100% of the time?

[HALO141]

29. The OED

is not inconsistent with the usage of the word, "regulation" in Federalist #29.

[bongbong]

31. Pulled

Seeing as how "well-regulated" in Federalist Paper #29 means "trained like an army", all I can say is:

[holdencaufield]

68. "gun-religionists"?

Isn't freedom of religious thought and expression ALSO a guarantee of our Constitution -- along with the RKBA?

If, as you seem to imply, people who own firearms are following a religious obligation then to deride that obligation is most illiberal of you -- as well as unconstitutional.

[bongbong]

74. made of straw

> If, as you seem to imply,

Gun-relgionists are well known constructors of Strawman "arguments". Thanks for proving it yet again.

[ZombieHorde]

77. OK, I got around to reading it.

I have more respect for your position now. In the document, Hamilton argues for the ability of the US Government to call upon the militia, which would realistically require at least some cooperation between the two groups. Unfortunately for us, details are lacking, so some speculation is required.

What is your interpretation of 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

On a side note:

gun-religionists

I have very little interest in guns. I do not own any guns. I have no desire to own any guns.

[bongbong]

78. answer

> What is your interpretation of 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes?

A circular definition. (b)(2) defines a type of militia by using the word militia. Like defining dog like this: "Dog: an animal that is a dog".

[ZombieHorde]

79. I think section "a" legally defines the term for section "b."

I think section "b" is defining the legal difference between organized and unorganized militias.

[bongbong]

80. Circular

> I think section "b" is defining the legal difference between organized and unorganized militias.

Nope, re-read it. Unless there is more to the statute than you posted, it's the same as my dog definition example above.

[ZombieHorde]

81. It is not circular. Section "a" legally defines militias, and section "b" defines the classes of

militias.

Section "a," the one that legally defines the word, is not circular in anyway.

Section "b" is not trying to define the word, it is defining the classes within the legal definition of the word.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

That is pretty clear. There is nothing circular within that definition.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

The beginning of section "b" is clearly telling us the intent of the section, which is not to define the word "militia," but rather to define the two classes of militias.

1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The repeated use of the word "militia" is not circular because this is not trying to define the word "militia." It is already defined, so using the word to describe different types of militias is acceptable.

[bongbong]

82. Still circular!

I'm completely ignoring section (a) as it stands by itself. Section (b)(1) also stands by itself. But (b)(2) is circular!

If it isn't, tell me what the phrase "members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia" refers to, since the ONLY DEFINITION of militia before this is referring to ones in the National Guard.

[ZombieHorde]

83. There are different rules for men and women.

The part for men:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States


The part for women:
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I don't like that the law is divided by sex, but it is divided by sex.

[bongbong]

85. Oh, OK

I see your point, but the statute is poorly written and could be subject to further interpretation, I suppose.

Nevertheless, it still doesn't invalidate any part of my argument. Laws and statutes are overturned all the time. Right-wingers & gun-nuts are always whining about "original intent", and Federalist Paper #29 is pretty clear that "well-regulated" means trained like an army. I have looked at the Articles Of Confederation, and the process of compromise that the Liberal states had to give to the reactionary conservative ones in order to get them to ratify the Constitution. I have several books on the history of the Constitution, and events like Shay's Rebellion and general hatred for taxes by the colonials is necessary to figure out what the Founder's "original intent" was.

It wasn't what the NRA and its acolytes think it was, and the SCOTUS agreed until the super-conservatives ruled in Heller.

[ZombieHorde]

91. The document seems to at least suggest at least one of the founder's (Hamilton) intentions

toward the term "well-regulated."

The statute I posted to disagrees with Hamilton's vision, and seems to be the current legal definition for militias. I personally think the different rules for different sexes is deplorable.

One a side note: I see you can argue very well when you want to. I personally think your label-based arguments get in the way of your more substantial arguments. When good argumentation is mixed with fallacious argumentation, opponents are much more likely to focus on the poor, as opposed to the good. Just my two cents.

[rl6214]

56. " It is completely obvious to Liberals."

What's obvious to most Liberals is that it's settled law and actually know the definition of well regulated.

[DanTex]

57. LOL. Liberals like Scalia and Thomas.

[Missycim]

7. So if I formed a militia

I could own whatever firearm I wanted, up to and including automatic rifles?

[Clames]

12. Nothing stopping you.

Just have to be willing to fork over the money. I figure an old M60E1 would be around $85,000.

[Missycim]

15. oh COOL

I would love to own one of those, are you talking tank or crew serve machine gun?

[Clames]

48. Well it would be the crew served rather than coaxial...

...simply because one had different mounts. The 240 series has for the most pay replaced it but that is 6-figure territory...

[Missycim]

49. I was hoping he was

talking about the M-60 tank


wonder how much one of those babies goes for

[Clames]

70. $130,000 if you buy in bulk.

Make sure you know a good mechanic too.

[leftyohiolib]

26. didnt the people in waco texas and ruby ridge try to form their own militia

[gejohnston]

27. no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

[Missycim]

35. No waco was a cult

and Ruby ridge was just a family that had a few members gunned down by the ATF

[slackmaster]

11. 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. We are...

...we all are.

[ileus]

2. A SPENT RIFLE CASING!!!! Holy snizzleboggle say it AIN'T so...

[Missycim]

8. Hey those spent rifle casings are killers, you rude bean toter.

nt

[leftyohiolib]

3. yea that damn bill of rights making everyone buy lots of guns - go tohell bill of rights you

murdering bastard

[glacierbay]

6. The BoR doesn't make you buy firearms

it confers upon the individual the right to own them which you have to buy first.

[slackmaster]

14. That is not accurate. The Bill of Rights doesn't confer or create any rights.

It enumerates certain existing rights for special protection.

[glacierbay]

17. Thank you

I sometimes have trouble putting my thoughts into correct words.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Well, the rights don't really exist.

All rights are imaginary.

[leftyohiolib]

25. my post was in response to post #1

[bongbong]

10. More gun = more safety

AT least the people who are too scared to walk out of their house without a gun say so.

[glacierbay]

13. I haven't seen anyone here say that

despite your continued assertions that we say that.
More guns do not=more safety, but, more guns doesn't=more crime.
The reasons are many and complex as to why violent crime, including firearms violence, is dropping.

[bongbong]

16. Nope

> more guns doesn't=more crime.

Prove it.

[glacierbay]

19. It's been proven many times here

The FBI's UCR has been posted many times here as you well know. Go look it up, it's easy enough to find.

It's fact, there are appox. 280-300 million firearms in private hands and yet gun crime has been declining for the last 20 years whether you want to believe it or not.
Facts is facts.

[Reasonable_Argument]

22. You're wasting your time

When his posts aren't being hidden by the jury he enjoys trolling this forum. You have a better chance getting an honest discussion from a wall. He posts the same question every time, gets shown his error, and goes to another thread.

[glacierbay]

24. I know

but I thought I would give him/her one more chance to try to be civil.
Long shot I know, but at least I can say I tried.

[DanTex]

28. Umm... that's not proof of anything.

The US has far higher rates of homicide and gun violence than the rest of the industrialized world, and this is due to our lax gun laws and high gun ownership rates. Also, numerous peer reviewed statistical studies have linked gun availability to rates of both homicide and suicide. The fact that crime dropped for reasons unrelated to guns doesn't disprove any of this. Oh, and BTW, the largest drops in crime occurred in the 90s, and were accompanied by large declines in gun ownership rates.

[HALO141]

30. Of course!

That's why so many people are killed every year by knives, clubs, baseball bats, bare hands, etc. It's because of our high rate of gun ownership.

[DanTex]

33. Most of our homicides are gun homicides.

Our non-gun homicide rate is not way out of line with international comparisons. Our gun homicide rate is.

[HALO141]

90. ask me if I care.

[bongbong]

34. LOL

Pathetic try at a Red Herring.

Didn't you guys get your new Talking Points from the NRA today?

[rDigital]

36. Russia has 3x our total murder rate.

...and there are no legal civilian handguns there at all.

I'd say Russia is quite industrialized. They make cars, computer chips, stealth aircraft, nuclear subs and nuclear reactors.

It's not the guns, it's the people.

[DanTex]

50. LOL. Russia, again.

You can't seriously be so clueless as to think that Russia is in any way a useful comparison to the US. Yes, in a lawless hellhole, you can have a lot of homicide even with tight gun laws. But among wealthy nations that bear any kind of resemblance to the US, we have by far the weakest gun laws and by far the highest homicide rates: Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, France, etc.

No amount of cherry-picking or trying to draw comparisons with countries like Russia or Mexico, is going to change that. And if the issue wasn't guns, you'd probably agree with me.

[gejohnston]

51. Neither are any of those other countries

certainly not Japan.
US gun laws are not really that much weaker than Canada's. But then, no place in Canada has virtual bans like DC or USVI. Simply different. Weaker in some ways, more stringent than others. Canadians can buy online and have the gun shipped to your door, not in the US. Canadian 12 year olds can legally buy ammo, not in the US. Felons can legally own guns after the pay their debt to society unless a "prohibition order" was part of the sentence. Those are reserved for violent felons. In the US, even John Dean is a "prohibited person" (I was surprised when iverglas once said that provision would be struck down as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Doesn't really matter since their murder rate was equally low before 1977 when on balance, they were about the same. They didn't before 1969 when it wasn't that hard to get a concealed carry permit. They had stricter pistol regulations but lax on machine guns and even laxer on long guns. We were stricter on machine guns and short barreled rifles, including pistols with shoulder stocks.

[rDigital]

52. I believe the "industrialized nation" moniker is a sleight of hand for creating

"facts" to support a false conclusion to use as a political truncheon. It's politics, at it's worst.

[DanTex]

54. That's because you have no idea what you are talking about.

International comparisons are common in policy analysis and social sciences, but to have a meaningful comparison, you need to compare between countries that are somewhat similar. So, comparing the US and the UK or Canada is useful, because they have a lot in common except for gun laws. Comparing the US and Russia is just silly.

[rDigital]

58. Well, you have a right to your own opinion, but not your own cherry picked facts.

[DanTex]

60. LOL. In other words, all you've got is a punchline.

At least you realize that the comparison between the US and Russia is so idiotic that you won't even bother trying to defend it.

[rDigital]

61. I admire your vigor in promotion of your ideology, but not your candor. I find it repulsive and

intellectually dishonest. However, I guess it's hard to be on the losing side of history. The US is one of the few modern countries with a true grassroots gun culture and I'm proud to be a part of that. You'll try and ascribe that to murder of children or other falsehoods somehow, but that's just how gun prohibitionists work. Predictable.

As far as the US and Russia, I don't think there is a better pair for comparison. There's nothing to defend. They're both super powers and the "industrialized nation" cherry picking nonsense is just grasping at straws.

[DanTex]

62. If you think there's no better comparison than the US and Russia, then you really need to do...

...a little reading. Or maybe a little traveling. Russia ranks below Libya, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia in the human development index. Its per capita GDP is 1/3rd of the US. Its life expectancy is lower than Iran and El Salvador. It is a hotbed of corruption and organized crime -- it can barely be called a lawful society. Are you even aware of this, or are you completely ignorant about anything that occurs outside of the US? The very fact that you have to go to these preposterous lengths to try and find an example of a country that would support your ideologically-driven beliefs is a testament as to how far off you are from the truth.

And in the end, this is the reason that there really aren't any intelligent progressives that buy the NRA line. This is why you are citing Washington Times articles, and phony "studies" published in right-wing law reviews, as opposed to peer-reviewed studies. Sure, in the gungeon you can post any dumb thing you want and all the NRA bots will agree with you. But outside the NRA bubble, you are not going to find anyone who has the slightest clue what is going on in the world who thinks that, in light of the fact that every single developed nation has far less homicide and far tighter gun laws than the US, that the US-Russia comparison is indicative of anything at all regarding gun policy.

[rDigital]

63. I see another culture warrior happy to paint reality as he sees fit, nothing more.

Lies, damned lies and statistics are all I see in your posts. Preposterous falsehoods promoted as absolute truths, clever sleight of hands here and there. However, the critical thinker is able to see your dirge and diatribes for what they are: Hollow shrill cries of a pathetic dying animal, the gun-prohibitionist movement.

[DanTex]

64. LOL. So you lost the argument and now you've retreated to your talking points and personal attacks.

We were talking about the comparison between Russia and the US. Did you forget about that? Because I don't see the word "Russia" in your post. In fact, I don't see any substantive point at all. I don't even see you attempting to make a substantive point. What gives? I thought you wanted to have intelligent discussion in the gungeon. Please don't tell me that this intelligent point you wanted to make was that the US and Russia are so similar that they make for a great comparison of gun policy.

Seriously, please don't tell me that. Lie if you have to. I don't want to believe that there are people as clueless as that in the world.

[rDigital]

66. I've already won the argument. Elitism and pomp are the downfall of the Gun-Prohibitionist.

Russia and the US have been the best comparison countries since the 1920s. Don't even bring the UK up, they're headed to hell in a hand basket. Their violent crime rate is way higher than ours.

However, all of this is just academic. The Gun-prohibitionist ship sailed long ago, but a few stragglers got left behind.

[DanTex]

67. Sad. You are as clueless as I feared. OK then.

Simply repeating that the US and Russia are a great comparison, of course, is not an argument. My advice to you is to make sure you never travel outside the US, that way you can keep all your fantasies about the world intact.

Anyway, it's been fun: it's always fun watching gun fanatics make fools of themselves as they grasp for an intelligent argument.

[rDigital]

69. You think comparing the country with more freedom than any other to any other country is a

fair comparison? We are free to make the right choices and the wrong ones. We see that most murder/violence is compartmentalized into urban centers chock full of gang violence. Outside of those urban centers, you see that our crimes rates are usually equal to or even lower than most of our Eurpopean counterparts. Regardless, England has us whooped on violent crime and you are 10x more likely to be RAPED in France than the US.

If gun laws were to have any appreciable effect in those urban centers, because they have the most draconian gun laws in the country, surely some result could be seen in their homicide numbers....
but there isn't. DC is 49 murders per 100K, worse than most 3rd World Countries. Where as Vermont has like 2 murders a year total. Coincidentally in the the U.S., where there are less legal guns, there is more crime.

There is no appreciable effect whatsoever for draconian gun control laws, else DC, Chicago, NYC and all of the other big cities would have some material results to show for their efforts. All they have is the knowledge that they put a band-aid on a broken arm. The social issues are glazed over. Mental health is ignored. Poverty is allowed to rage on, unfettered.

Then the Prohibitionists move the goal posts and say "well we need these shit laws all over the country to save OUR inner city gangbangin' idiots from killing each other every day." like they will magically stop capping each other over dimebags of weed if we make handguns illegal.

Then we go from absurd to truly repulsive, let's blame pro gun people and organizations for our failures and our gangbangers that just can't seem to stop murdering each other.

ad infintium............ OH AND RUSSIA HAS 3X OUR TOTAL MURDER RATE AND NO LEGAL CIVILIAN HANDGUNS!!!!!!111111ONE!!!!!111111

[DanTex]

71. I think comparing between the US and other similar nations is the best comparison.

I'm glad you've apparently given up on idiotic Russia argument you were making (or maybe not), and now you are on the the second string of NRA talking points. At least that's progress! Must be fun being a pro-gunner where there are no standards for intellectual consistency.

But it's hilarious that, in one post, you are insisting that the US and Russia are the best comparison you can think of, but now you think comparing to Western Europe, Canada, etc. is not fair because they don't have enough "freedom". LOL. You really are as clueless about the rest of the world as they come!

Anyway, if you try and keep your emotions in check and simply look at the overall statistics, you will find that the US has similar overall violent crime numbers than other developed nations. You can cherry-pick examples where the US is either higher or lower than particular countries in particular statistics (and a lot of it has to do with inconsistent definitions), but overall, we are somewhere in the middle. It's only in homicide where we are number 1 by a huge margin. And this is because every nation has crime, but guns make crime more lethal. Yes, you can get mugged in Canada or the UK, but the person mugging you is much less likely to have a gun, which means you are much more likely to get shot.

As far as the comparisons with the US, dense urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas, so it is not unexpected that Chicago and DC have high crime rates. Of course, those aren't the highest: the highest homicide rates are in New Orleans and St Louis (the NRA never mentions those, I wonder why?). Oh, and predictably your statistics are wrong. DC's homicide rate is actually 22/100K, less than half of the homicide rate of New Orleans. Are you just making these numbers up off the top of your head? And NYC actually has relatively low homicide rate for a city of its size and density. I bet the NRA brochure you get your talking points from didn't tell you about that one either...

Of course, another important point is that, within the US, guns can easily be transported from one place to another. If Chicago was located in the middle of the UK, there is no doubt that its homicide rate would be much lower. There are big cities in Europe, there are drugs, there are gangs, etc. But they still manage to keep their homicide rate under control, and this is because they have far less gun proliferation.

On top of that, there have been several peer-reviewed statistical studies that have found a link between gun prevalance and homicide rates within the US. I know, I know. Like the rest of the gun nuts, you don't trust those "scientists" and prefer your own cherry-picked statistical "analysis". Gun nuts are the same as any other right-wingers on this account -- whether it's global warming, or creationism, or whatever, there's always some excuse for not listening to the scientific community. But like I said before, there's a reason that there aren't many scientifically literate people on your side of the debate.

[rDigital]

72. Russia is a better comparison than any of the countries that you provided. They're a superpower.

You're making assumptions and dodging the issue. There should be SOME efficacy to big city gun control, but clearly there is not.

Switzerland is another interesting comparison. A Whole lot of guns there, one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

More guns != More crime

[rDigital]

73. Also, you concede the point on Russia that it's not about the weapons used

it' about how violent the nation is. How else could you explain how it's possible that Russia has 3x our total murder rate and absolutely no legal civillian firearms.

They are simply more violent as a culture than the United States. It's the People, not the objects. Hoplophobia seems to be running rampant in the Gungeon lately. The gun grabbers are going wacky over firearms and totally glazing over every logical social root of violence and blaming inanimate objects.

Absolute malarkey.

Also "peer reviewed"? The importance of peer reviewed publication is that it is made public, and subject to scrutiny. Just because it’s been peer reviewed doesn’t mean it’s true. It a minimal standard.

Peer Reviewed != True

[rDigital]

76. One big thank you is in order

Thank you and the rest of the extremist gun grabbing zealots for letting me live SO LARGE in your minds and rent free to boot. I appreciate it, Sweetie.

[bongbong]

86. LOL!

You just presented a Master Class in pwning somebody.

And the other guy just presented a Master Class in "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

[gejohnston]

65. not by much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
and Saudi Arabia has a pretty low murder rate. Can you explain how that is more or less relevant than gun laws or anything else? I'm guessing the "you must be too ignorant to know" retort is in order, since I'm guessing your grasp of sociology is right up there with your grasp of military science and history, and police procedures.

Have you ever traveled outside of (I'm guessing) Texas? Your county?

[rDigital]

39. Also there are more guns than EVER before now in the US and we have currently one of the lowest

rates of violent crime in U.S. History.

More guns != more crime

[bongbong]

41. Still a falsehood

No matter how many times you logic- and statistic-challenged gun-religionists repeat it.

The "Big Lie" technique.

[rDigital]

43. As stated before, we could have a better conversation without the insults.

However, I'm not seeing the "Big Lie". There are over 270,000,000 civilian firearms in the US right now. Less than 0.00325% are used to murder another person in a given year.

That's a whole lot of guns doing a whole lot of nothing.

[bongbong]

44. Nope

> That's a whole lot of guns doing a whole lot of nothing.

Correlation is not causation, no matter how many times you repeat it (the "Big Lie" technique)

[rDigital]

47. I'm saying guns don't cause crime regardless. There's no proof of that. Look at the UK. Their

violent crime rate is much higher than ours. No legal handguns there either. Russia has 3x our murder rate with no legal civilian handguns.

Numbers don't lie.

[Dr_Scholl]

88. Before you start parroting the GSS again.

You should read this. According to this guy, it's a bit more complicated.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data[/url]

[bongbong]

32. Sorry

Correlation is not causation.

More FAIL, as usual, for the gun-nuts, gun-relgionists, and the too-scared-to-leave-the-house brigade.

[rDigital]

37. The name calling is not needed. This is a civil forum for intellectual discussion. nt

[bongbong]

40. Good

Glad you conceded my point by playing the "whine card".

Go ahead and alert on my post, I'm used to gun-religionists doing that when they hate my facts.

[rDigital]

42. Your facts are fine, but your candor leaves much to be desired. Posts like yours can be

intimidating to new posters and are offensive to others. Being offensive does your side of the argument no favors.

Be the better man/woman and both sides will take you more seriously.

[bongbong]

45. Want some cheese with your whine?

> Be the better man/woman and both sides will take you more seriously.

If you don't like my posts put me on ignore.

[glacierbay]

55. Why even give him a platform anymore

I'm done with him, I gave him one more chance and he screwed the pooch in my opinion so I will not respond to him anymore.

[rl6214]

59. I guess you are also used to a good portion of your posts being hidden

[bongbong]

75. Can't help it

I can't help it if gun-relgioinists are whiny little scared children.

[ileus]

21. More gun maybe maybe not....45 < 380 maybe so.

[slackmaster]

38. Another disturbed male with Wayne for a middle name

Lee and Howard are the other two common ones.

[Jenoch]

46. It appears all kinds of firearms laws

were violated in this situation. I wonder what new firearms laws could have been passed that would have stopped this incident from happening?

[Spryguy]

87. How about...

make it illegal to have guns in homes with minors? That should drastically reduce school shootings, at least.

[rDigital]

89. I don't think that dog will hunt. People just need to lock up their goodies, they're responsible if

a minor gains access to their firearms.