Looks a bit like Fred Flintstone.
Enjoy the movie

This message has been deleted.

Good grief, you answered your own silly question.
If a murderous psycho with any kind of gun at all is 10 feet away from you, pepper spray and tasers are NOT going to stop him. Not even close. For pepper spray to work you have to actually hit him in his eyes. Good luck! If he's so much as wearing a thick jacket the taser will not penetrate. You have to be very close for either to be evb68en potentially effective. This is crazypants.
You go ahead and volunteer to try and get close enough to pepper spray a madman with a rifle, who could easily take your head off from 100+ feet away.
And for the record, pepper spray and tasers qualify as "arms." You'll notice if you ever actually read the 2nd Amendment that they didn't specify exactly which weapons people could defend themselves with. That's because they weren't morons.

This message has been deleted.

Apples and oranges. Australia's entire population is tiny in comparison to the U.S. so the average isn't going to be the same. You are free to live like cowards, however the 2nd amendment protects me from criminals that get guns illegally and they'd still get them. Almost 90% of gun deaths here are from suicide each year. You don't disarm law abiding citizens but then again, I don't want or need my Government to tell me how to live my life like Australia and Europe does.

what you think there aren't crazy people in rest of the world !? lol except they don't have access to machine guns!!!
except they don't have access to automatic weaponry ! and they didn't in th 19th century either!
except they don't have access to automatic weaponry ! there was about 3 % of the population back in the 1800s as there is now and they didn't have automatic weapons..
Is your unhinged triple-reply an attempt to provide an example of a crazy person in the developed world?
You've apparently somehow never learned this, so I'm going to educate you:
Virtually no one in America has access to automatic weapons. Only vintage machine guns can be purchased by the public. They are rare, and require a special federal permit, which is very expensivenot to mention the guns and ammunition themselves being very expensive. Most criminals can't afford them, and wouldn't risk losing them anyway in the commission of a crime.
The overwhelming majority of gun crimes, including mass shootings, are carried out with handguns: pistols and revolvers. Only a very small percentage of any gun crimes are done with a rifle of any kind.
You've simply seen too many Hollywood movies.
No automatic weapon has ever been used in a mass shooting in the United States. Never.

what you think there aren't crazy people in rest of the world !? lol , there are just as many mentally ill people in the rest of the developed world , except they don't have access to automatic weaponry !
there was about 3 % of the population back in the 1800s as there is now and they didn't have automatic weapons..
guns don't kill people..BUT THEY SURE HELP!!!

what you think there aren't crazy people in rest of the world !? lol , there are just as many mentally ill people in the rest of the developed world , except they don't have access to automatic weaponry !
and they didn't in th 19th century either!
guns don't kill people..BUT THEY SURE HELP!!!

what you think there art crazy people in rest of the world lol! there are just as many mentally ill people in the rest of the developed world , except they don't have access to machine guns!!!
guns don't kill people..BUT THEY SURE HELP!!!

I read the article. I still don't see any info about only 25% of mass shootings occuring in gun-free zones. Please try again.
But I did see mentions about the overwhelming commonality of prior signs of mental illness in the shooters. Here's where we dig down into some of the cultural problems the gun-grabbers like to overlook.
You see, there was a time in the United States when crazy people could be institutionalized BEFORE killing a bunch of people. But the institutions failed to maintain humane and efficient facilities. Tragically, many of the mentally ill were not well served.
The solution (also tragically) foisted upon the public by the social warrior activists and the courts, was to unlock the doors and let the insane be "free." The result is that today, in addition to a great increase in non-violent homeless people with mental illness, someone who has displayed obvious signs of paranoia, schizophrenia, and wild delusions, cannot be institutionalized even by their own mother, father or spouse, unless they have openly displayed a clear threat to physically harm someone else or themselves. They have to choose to institutionalize themselves (fat chance).
Which means that in many cases, the insane pass all criminal background checks, buy guns legally, and then we have to wait until they actually walk into a theater and pull the trigger to legally do anything about them after the fact.
Private ownership of guns is fundamental to the founding of the United States. You're not going to change that. But strangely, there weren't a lot of school shootings in the 1800s, or up into the first half of the 20th Century, despite the fact that most every teen (and pre-teen) boy had his own gun, or had ready access to his family's guns. And a lunatic didn't need high-capacity magazines back then5b4, as the schools sometimes comprised of only a handful of kids. But you could send uncle Billy to the nuthouse based on his prior schizo behavior.
Inanimate objects don't shoot innocent people. Insane people shoot innocent people.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
in the last 15 years there as been 1 shooting mass murder in England and none in Australia How many have there been in the USA

I see. So you're just going to go with the whole "moving the goal posts" method then, huh? You claimed there were 42 mass shootings between 2009 to 2013 that did not occur in a "gun-free" zone. I asked for just a few examples, so you changed the subject to accidents.

If you believe that to be true , the sheer number of people killed in accidents alone if everyone had a gun would dwarf the numbers of life you think would be saved anyway? What about at time armed police shot bystanders in Times Square and the guy didont even have a gun !!, and they are highly trained! If that household didny't have a gun sandy hook wouldn't of happened in the first place ?!
its already proven that statistically you are more likely to use your gun against a family member or have that gun used on you then you ever are of using it successfully against someone..
Just get rid of the guns like we did in Australia , not a mass shooting since we did almost 20 years ago

First, I don't trust Mayors Against Illegal Guns as far as I can throw them. The name of their group alone is a complete joke. The only people who are FOR illegal guns are violent criminals.
Let me guess, MAIG didn't include Fort Hood as a gun-free zone shooting, because there ARE guns on a military base (even though the soldiers aren't allowed to carry them). Those soldiers were defe5b4nseless fish in a barrel and Hassan knew that better than anyone.
Second, James Holmes alone debunks MAIG's so-called findings, as he carefully planned his attack well in advance for maximum effect. He was very clear that he wanted as many dead as possible before the police showed up.
He went out of his way, eschewing a much closer theater to his apartment that was playing the exact same movie with the exact same show time. That theater did not have a "No Guns" policy. The one he chose, that was farther away, clearly did.
Third, that Mother Jones claim is absurd on the face of it. How exactly do they know that a whacko who walked into a school to kill little children, and who died in the process, and left no note, didn't target it because he was certain his victims were going to be unarmed? What, Lanza thought elementary school children might be packing heat? And Mother Jones claims to know Lanza's innermost thoughts with 100% certainty? Where on earth is your B.S. detector?
I'm personally unfamiliar with a single mass shooting in a location where guns were allowed, but you're telling me that 75% of them fit that description? I'd appreciate a few examples, if you have them.
Mass shooters, in almost every case, give up the moment they are confronted by someone else with a gun by either killing themselves, or pulling a Holmes. This isn't consistent behavior for people who are "completely 5b4unconcerned" about whether or not their intended victims are armed. But it also should cause you to ask yourself, "If a psychopathic murderer with tons of ammo is intent on killing as many people as possible, but is also willing to put a bullet in his head at the first sight of another gun, why do I desperately want to prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns?"