On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry* states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.

--
My ex-wife was temperamental.
90% temper and 10% mental.