On 09/26/2016 05:41 PM, T wrote:
On 09/26/2016 09:51 AM, 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

Hi Bod,

Here is a better report on the incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26...-shooting.html


And hte answer to your questions are

1) Texas is a carry state

2) no one was carrying.

And to the question you did not ask, These ass holes
seeks out gun free zones and other places where
the can be assured of not being fired back at.
Like what happened in France.

-T



Hi Bod,

I think what you are deliberately missing is that
all the laws in the world can not control the illegal
flow of insurrection weapons, any more than they can
control the flow of illegals drugs and duty free cigarettes.

Your solution is to make law the abiding sheep to the
slaughter. And put democracy at risk from despots that
take advantage of the situation where the people can
not fight back.

And you have the balls to say this from the crime capitol
of Europe.

It is no wonder I doubt your intentions.

-T