Do guns make us more safe?

[CuttingEdge]

How are the mass shootings stopped until after they are mass shootings?

Otherwise they are just 'person with gun shot by person with gun'. In any case (a), by your math 59% are not stopped. In any case (b), they're still committed by folks with guns. Duh.

Because you can know a person's intent.

If they go to a mall in Indiana, are shot by a civilian after only one or two shots, when the police go to the dead shooter's home and a journal is laid on about their intentions, then a knowledge person could conclude what was stopped.

It's not rocket science no matter how much you mud up the verbiage.

As for the other 59%, we do have law enforcement here. If 41% are stopped by civilians, logic would say who stops the other 59%.

 

[Bray123]

Because you can know a person's intent.

If they go to a mall in Indiana, are shot by a civilian after only one or two shots, when the police go to the dead shooter's home and a journal is laid on about their intentions, then a knowledge person could conclude what was stopped.

It's not rocket science no matter how much you mud up the verbiage.

As for the other 59%, we do have law enforcement here. If 41% are stopped by civilians, logic would say who stops the other 59%.

I always thought that cops were civilians, in that they weren't military. my bad.

Where cops are a military / paramilitary force you need guns.

 

[Dribble]

They can't be. Because then they aren't mass shootings.

Exactly. Americans are already immune to murder. So if we refuse to fix the problem...we can make it disappear by changing how a mass shooting is classified. For example...are gang related mass shootings really a mass shooting? I think they are...but I am sure many here do not. They use them as justification for their beliefs. If we remove those from the count...and the tally...then we can focus on fixing those that people are truly afraid of.

I know...not popular...but in a weird way...realistic

 

[TrailerHitch]

You could not define what "come after you to attack" actually meant. Certainly not outside of a cartoon fantasy. So yes you did. You tried to backtrack it

Of course I defined it. If YOU came at me attempting to strike me that is attacking me. I also said I would retreat first, if YOU kept come I would retreat again and draw my weapon, I said I would warn YOU that if YOU didn't stop I would shoot YOU. The aggressor here is YOU with the walking stick, not me walking down the street minding my own business. In the state I live in now I am not obligated to retreat at all and I am saying I would retreat twice. If you kept advancing on me attempting to strike me with you walking stick I am well within my legal rights to defend myself. I am under no legal, or moral, obligation to stand there and let YOU beat me with YOUR walking stick. Especially since I didn't provoke the attack and attempted to retreat from YOUR attack twice.

Now sing and dance, use smoke and mirrors, as well as your patented bald faced lies to try and change this into me shooting YOU for no reason. Geezus YOU are fucking ridiculous.

It seems obvious you must have been unable to make your point here at this point in the conversation if you had to go back and dig something up that was resolved weeks ago. Again, diversion to hide your inability to debate this topic.

 

[RobDownSouth]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ctive-shooters-stopped-by-good-guy-with-a-gun

Closer to 35.7%

How kewl is that?
A right wing political organization massages official FBI Crime Statistics to reach a predetermined outcome.
Ergo, 4% becomes 35.7% if you squint really REALLY hard!
Brilliant!

#OrwellianNewspeak
#WeHaveAlwaysBeenAtWarWithEastasia

 

[TrailerHitch]

TrailerHitch appears to live a life in fear.
Must be awful living like that 24//7/365.

I don't live in fear at all. Honestly,lately I rarely carry a gun because I can't have it on at work and I don't believe it is safe to lock it in my car.

So nice try, but once again you are as wrong as wrong can be.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Of course I defined it. If YOU came at me attempting to strike me that is attacking me. I also said I would retreat first, if YOU kept come I would retreat again and draw my weapon, I said I would warn YOU that if YOU didn't stop I would shoot YOU. The aggressor here is YOU with the walking stick, not me walking down the street minding my own business. In the state I live in now I am not obligated to retreat at all and I am saying I would retreat twice. If you kept advancing on me attempting to strike me with you walking stick I am well within my legal rights to defend myself. I am under no legal, or moral, obligation to stand there and let YOU beat me with YOUR walking stick. Especially since I didn't provoke the attack and attempted to retreat from YOUR attack twice.

Now sing and dance, use smoke and mirrors, as well as your patented bald faced lies to try and change this into me shooting YOU for no reason. Geezus YOU are fucking ridiculous.

It seems obvious you must have been unable to make your point here at this point in the conversation if you had to go back and dig something up that was resolved weeks ago. Again, diversion to hide your inability to debate this topic.

The bottom line is, of course, is that TrailerHitch has a "constitutional right" to shoot to kill anyone anytime he feels scared, which is the vast majority of the time. His victims don't even need to be non-white any longer!

 

[TrailerHitch]

That's a dumbfuck justification for shooting someone.

A few years back I was walking my dog who was bumbling along sniffing the weeds. An old guy started waving his stick as we passed, so I asked him what was up. He said that it was in case my dog attacked. My dog hadn't even noticed him until then.


Luckily I don't live anywhere near you; nobody has guns. You'd have shot me and my dog based on your (lack of) reasoning.

You'd also have shot the old guy if you'd been me.

No I wouldn't have because just like you I would have backed away from the guy, asked him what was up, and then made a wide berth pass around him. You see the difference is in the scenario you are mocking the other person attacked me with his walking stick as I walked by minding my own business. I retreated twice and told them if they continued I would shoot them. You may be under some moral obligation to let someone beat you with his walking stick, I am not, either legally or morally.

A question for you though...If the old man had hit your dog or you what would you have done? Retreated, fought back, or said thank you may I have another?

 

[TrailerHitch]

The bottom line is, of course, is that TrailerHitch has a "constitutional right" to shoot to kill anyone anytime he feels scared, which is the vast majority of the time. His victims don't even need to be non-white any longer!

No the bottom line is I have no legal or moral obligation to be a victim of a violent attack. Especially when I retreated and warned the attacker twice. In my state I didn't have to retreat at all as soon as he attacked me I could have shot him. I would hope that this person when they saw a gun pointed at them would decide that continuing his attack was a bad idea and leave.

 

[TrailerHitch]

You guys are really a sad and pathetic group of losers. You must have believed you were losing this debate so you had to go back roughly a month and rekindle a discussion that was resolved then and lie about the circumstances of the scenario and what I said I'd do.

Thank you for admitting defeat here.

 

[Bray123]

No I wouldn't have because just like you I would have backed away from the guy, asked him what was up, and then made a wide berth pass around him. You see the difference is in the scenario you are mocking the other person attacked me with his walking stick as I walked by minding my own business. I retreated twice and told them if they continued I would shoot them. You may be under some moral obligation to let someone beat you with his walking stick, I am not, either legally or morally.

A question for you though...If the old man had hit your dog or you what would you have done? Retreated, fought back, or said thank you may I have another?

I stood between him and my dog and I wasn't worried, because it wasn't ever going to kill either of us. I don't need lethal force to protect myself when walking the dog. I'm not that pathetic.

 

[TrailerHitch]

I stood between him and my dog and I wasn't worried, because it wasn't ever going to kill either of us. I don't need lethal force to protect myself when walking the dog. I'm not that pathetic.

No, you are weak. And that is the highest form of pathetic.

Again a different scenario than the one you are mocking me about. You did notice that I said I would talk to your guy, ask him what was up, and then make a wide berth pass around him. Different scenario.

 

[Bray123]

No, you are weak. And that is the highest form of pathetic.

OK, I'll be stronger. I would have wrenched the stick from the old man and beat him senseless with it, putting him in hospital and making him bankrupt with his medical bills. Is that strong enough yet? I appreciate that I haven't bragged about how quickly I would have killed him but I can do that if you want.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Of course I defined it. If YOU came at me attempting to strike me that is attacking me. I also said I would retreat first, if YOU kept come I would retreat again and draw my weapon, I said I would warn YOU that if YOU didn't stop I would shoot YOU. The aggressor here is YOU with the walking stick, not me walking down the street minding my own business. In the state I live in now I am not obligated to retreat at all and I am saying I would retreat twice. If you kept advancing on me attempting to strike me with you walking stick I am well within my legal rights to defend myself. I am under no legal, or moral, obligation to stand there and let YOU beat me with YOUR walking stick. Especially since I didn't provoke the attack and attempted to retreat from YOUR attack twice.

Now sing and dance, use smoke and mirrors, as well as your patented bald faced lies to try and change this into me shooting YOU for no reason. Geezus YOU are fucking ridiculous.

It seems obvious you must have been unable to make your point here at this point in the conversation if you had to go back and dig something up that was resolved weeks ago. Again, diversion to hide your inability to debate this topic.

Like I said you live in a cartoon universe.

 

[TrailerHitch]

OK, I'll be stronger. I would have wrenched the stick from the old man and beat him senseless with it, putting him in hospital and making him bankrupt with his medical bills. Is that strong enough yet? I appreciate that I haven't bragged about how quickly I would have killed him but I can do that if you want.

Nice propagandist overreach and anyone that can read can see that's not what I said at all. You insist on putting words in my mouth that I never said. That again is the sign of someone losing a debate and clutching at straws. More pathetic weakness shining through.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Like I said you live in a cartoon universe.

And you live in a delusional one.

Once again thanks for admitting you were losing this current debate so badly that you had to go back and rehash a topic that was over weeks ago. That you lost then too. Sad that you have nothing else.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And you live in a delusional one.

Once again thanks for admitting you were losing this current debate so badly that you had to go back and rehash a topic that was over weeks ago. That you lost then too. Sad that you have nothing else.

I'm not losing the current debate. You guys have been stomped out so throughly that you're reverting to insults, actually you started with insults because your stance has absolutely no defense. More guns mean more deaths and more danger. It is just that simple.

 

[TrailerHitch]

By the way some of you post here I can only imagine that your clown car was full so they dropped you off at Lit. Because clowns is all you are.

 

[TrailerHitch]

I'm not losing the current debate. You guys have been stomped out so throughly that you're reverting to insults, actually you started with insults because your stance has absolutely no defense. More guns mean more deaths and more danger. It is just that simple.

You LOST this current debate when you had to divert to an old topic to try and change the direction of the topic to an outright attack on me. Too bad you lied about what was said then and are lying again now. Sad and pathetic describes you 100%

 

[Bray123]

 

[Sean Renaud]

You LOST this current debate when you had to divert to an old topic to try and change the direction of the topic to an outright attack on me. Too bad you lied about what was said then and are lying again now. Sad and pathetic describes you 100%

There was no attempt to divert outside your mind. I can actually post on more than one subject at time, even in multiple threads mind you. It wasn't an attack on you, it was a fact. What's sad and pathetic is that you walk around hoping you get a chance to shoot someone.

 

[butters]

Nothing going on in Gaza has anything to do with the Israeli government's stand on gun control one way or the other. You literally cannot be this dense. Its physically impossible.

you offering odds on that?

 

[TomTeacher19]

It was only a matter of time before Hitch announced he won this. He's never had a single coherent or honest or accurate statement in the entire thread. Everyone laughs at his moronic and pathetic posts the entire time. He contradicts himself almost as much as he contradicts truth and reality. All he has is weak name calling and personal attacks and a complete lack of reading skills and comprehension. Which is exactly what he would consider as winning.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It was only a matter of time before Hitch announced he won this. He's never had a single coherent or honest or accurate statement in the entire thread. Everyone laughs at his moronic and pathetic posts the entire time. He contradicts himself almost as much as he contradicts truth and reality. All he has is weak name calling and personal attacks and a complete lack of reading skills and comprehension. Which is exactly what he would consider as winning.

Not to mention the fact that ole Trailer has this obsessive need to get the last word in.
Shoot, I'm beginning to wonder if he has some Korean bloodlines in his recent ancestry.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Laws work for law abiding citizens not those determined to be criminals.

So now you revert back to laws work. .

The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it is a semi-automatic look alike of the military M-16/

Bullshit. we have already gone down the route that the type of firing action isn't a decider in if the weapon is military or not. Read this dumbass, then tell me it's just a look a like....
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/ar15-vs-m4-difference/#:~:text=So, it shouldn't come,version of the AR-15.

You won't define military grade because you can't. It's a Bull Shit definition just like Assault Rifle.

You said you couldn't wait. Ask me nicely, tell me you can wait and I will.

My .22lr rifle can have 10 round, 25 round, 50 round, or 100 round magazines. It is hardly a "military" weapon by any stretch of the word.

I never said the magazine capacity has anything to do with the build of the rifle. This is your poor reading compression coming back to bit you in the ass, but more of that in a moment.

I don't know Miss Cazares story. Although I'm sure, since you mentioned her, that she died in a shooting, my guess would be a drive-by.

No she was a 9 year old shot in a school shooting, and I am sure her parents are now among the other parents of the 500 or so kids killed this year alone who are going to consider looking for Representatives to vote for who want bans on guns. That's not the kind of direction people like you want the Government to go....

Tragic and sad. I will in no way defend the shooter(s). They should receive the death penalty and yes, I could inject them, or pull the switch.

Sure, you'd pull the switch or inject them, but you do fuck all to prevent the shootings in the first place, and even worse you enable people to have the opportunity to carry out those atrocities.

I just find bump stocks silly, I won't defend them, and you're right, I don't care enough to agitate for a change in the law about them.

See my post above you selfish asshole. I hope you never have to face having one of your own "kin" die from your lack of action.

I remember your answer. It was for your politicians to pass an essentially meaningless law that had nothing to do with the criminal activity they were trying to stop. Even worse it's only effect was to attempt to disarm those that acquired their guns legally.

Now we are back to your poor reading comprehension. My answer had nothing to do with the Government, or criminal activity or even guns, you dumb fuck. When you asked why I comment "American issues" it's because I have fully a quarter of my relatives (close) who are Americans. Because I am a Canadian citizens doesn't mean I don't have roots in the USA, and I am sick and fucking tired of idiots like you, who think your 2A right trumps the other rights in the US Constitution.

So maybe next you ask a question, and someone answer's you'll give them the courtesy of remembering the answer....