DivineHustle

Or they'll just get the gun illegally, and leave the law-abiding citizens even more defenseless anyways.

Apparently removing the tool will somehow convince criminals to pack up and go home. "Oh, they took our guns (somehow), let's just head home".

Most Americans, including myself, are in favor of more "common sense" (I hate using that term) gun laws. Stricter gun laws don't necessarily mean banning guns. Most Americans are in favor of background checks, a short waiting period between gun purchases, and that the weapon is registered with a local law enforcement agency. Most Americans are against any sort of complete ban on guns, including assault weapons. Most Americans also believe that new gun laws won't have any impact on mass shootings. Also, an interesting statistic: victims of crime are more likely to purchase firearms than non-victims. Maybe because they realize that if they would have had a weapon, to begin with, they probably wouldn't have fallen victim to the crime? Just a thought. The 2nd amendment implies that I have the legal and constitutional right to personally own and keep a firearm, whether for a well-regulated militia or self-defense. "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." Seems pretty straight-forward to me, not really much to interpret from that. Not only is it directly written in the constitution itself, but the US Supreme Court has also made this declaration. It's not up for debate. Certain guns will always be readily available for purchase across the country. I don't ever recall it being necessary for me to bring a gun into church. The church is the last place that I would expect someone to go on a shooting spree and that's probably exactly how the congregation felt. It's their place of worship. They all probably felt safe and secure, even without firearms. This just further shows that if they had actually brought their firearms to church, they would have likely been able to stop the shooter dead in his tracks. But since no one had firearms, there were mass casualties. Did the church even have an organized security team? Probably not. Maybe firearms in this church would have decreased the number of casualties. Would this gunman have shot up a gun show? Probably not right. He decided to shoot up a place where he knew the likelihood of weapons being present were low. A perfect example of how good guys NOT having guns is bad. A bunch of unarmed civilians sitting in a crowded place with no weapons turns into a shooting on a mass scale. It's not the state that's relevant when looking at the geographical location of a shooting. It's the exact location within that state. Shootings happen in Texas just as they happen in New York and California. I don't see your point. http://news.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/199235/crime-victims-likely-own-guns.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/221117/direction-american-public-gun-policy.aspx

So then what if their beliefs do happen to mirror that of their God?

In the United States, "put him to death" is the implication of a trial followed by the death penalty when found guilty, because he is clearly guilty. This is why cp702 gave the explanation that he/she did. I understand that the death penalty has been abolished in France for quite some time, so your interpretation of what I said may have been different than what was actually intended. There's nothing wrong with that. Just two different societies, therefore, two different interpretations. In my own personal opinion, I believe that he should have no trial and be put to death. But that's not how our system operates, therefore, he deserves a trial and then the death penalty.

I say put him to death. Give him what he wants and what America wants. We have no place for this stupidity on our planet.

This is stupid, I don't see how the game has any relevance in this at all. I've been playing video games my entire life. I still have no desire to go out and shoot, stab, murder, or anything terrible like that. I blame the parents for being morons. Yeah, good thing the kid didn't get to play LSPDFR, the hacked version of GTA 5 where the objective is to kill police. :l

Dat Maryland State Police.

I think it's a great idea really. Anything to get the idiots off the road that think it's cool to do wheelies in rush hour traffic. I've run a few of them off the road myself.

The United States and allied nations form a coalition and launch a failed invasion of the hill. Thousands of allied lives are lost. SpookInk4's hill.

Not bad, but I like the running man challenge better.

The Jedi Council obliterate the hill and construct a new one. The Jedi Council is now on this hill.

Dumb as shit. If anything had happened the police shouldn't have been held liable. I'm glad that everyone was OK and there wasn't any property damage.

Now that I'm not sure of man, I don't use RDE.

My favorite is when someone decides to stop at a yield sign when there's nothing to yield to.

Her voice turns me on.

If you're lazy like me, there's also the "Cops: Back on the Beat" mod. It allows police vehicles to spawn into traffic and spawns police foot patrols. I love it because when I initiate a pursuit, or someone starts popping off shots, you don't even need to call backup. You'll see units get involved from all over the place. You'll see other units pulling out of alleys and other roads heading the same direction you are, to the same scene. You'll see the foot patroling officers run towards the scene with their weapons out. If you're in a pursuit, gradually more vehicles will get involved. It's also more realistic. When you need backup in real life, you don't just press a button and a unit appears around the corner; then you press it three more times and three more appear around the corner. Units respond from their current location, and they may not anywhere nearby. When you need help, you just have to wait and gradually units will show up on their own and get involved. I have a lot of fun with this. https://www.gta5-mods.com/misc/cops-back-on-the-beat

Hmmm... I say break out the rubber bullets and go to work.

Well, usually there are other signs and factors that signify the attack being by them: evidence of extreme views and beliefs during the investigation, middle-eastern or north Africa descent, past visits to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, coordination and links with terror or extremist groups, etc. This was a clear attack by a terrorist.

A legal justice system where a man will get 20 years for weed, but a child rapist will get 2 years? Yeah, my faith isn't that high on it man.

She depends on you.

I don't understand how him being black is relevant.

I agree with you man, but knowing Baltimore, the cameras and the changes to procedure and policy won't happen unless there's some sort of lawsuit or media attention. Baltimore is broke, and the department (was) desperate for officers. They still need officers, but they've increased the minimum standards. At one point, Baltimore PD was hiring at 18 with a GED. Baltimore has already started to make positive changes and new additions to various aspects of its law enforcement agencies. It's well overdue, and things didn't start to improve until after the Baltimore riots; when the city realized that they were short hundreds of officers and couldn't contain the violence and saw how ill-equipped the officers were in dealing with the rioters.