Elementary school shooting

[LoneLaugher]

You think a person has the right to self defense unless he is attacked by 6 people at once.

I have to admit I stopped reading your post at that point.

You think I said that?

You sure do take license.

Are you saying you didn't post this?

I cannot imagine ever needing a weapon that can mow down a half dozen humans in a few seconds. I'm thinking that we could do something about those kinds of guns.

I said that. But I did not say that a person who is attacked by 6 people at once does not have the right to defend himself. You said that. I said that I cannot imagine ever needing a weapon that can mow down a half dozen humans in a few seconds. definitely not the same thing.

I think you know this.....but every once in a while your stupid act is really, really effective and I'm not sure. If you think I said that people lose their right to defend themselves when the attackers are many......you are a fucking idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey, I have an idea for you. If you call me a liar enough times.....like in every post addressed to me......maybe someone who doesn't know better will get the impression that I am a liar. Isn't that cool!

It is such an effective strategy.....maybe you should pass it on to some of your friends. Who knows, maybe a cable network will adopt it too.

I have an idea why don't you prove it or shut the fuck up?

I'm the forgiving sort, BR. I won't hold it against you. But believing what you say has become a bit difficult, as you can imagine. For some reason, I have a pretty accurate bullshit detector. Not perfect......but usually on target.

Strike 2
Once you accused me of lying without producing any evidence that makes you a liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Murderers think the murder laws are "unjust". Rapists think the sexual assault laws are "unjust".

That's pretty much the most restarded thing you've said yet, and frankly, you say retarded things all day.

You really should stop posting when you are drunk. Name one murderer that ever argued that laws against murder were unjust.

Murderers don't argue anything, their lawyers do.

Are you always this stupid, or just when your medications aren't kicking in?

If we are to believe the experts in the FBI who make their living profiling people like this they pick schools because they are soft targets. Have you ever heard of a guy who has a history with cops going into a police station and trying to shoot people?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's based on pragmatism.

You don't need a fucking gun, and the cost of your lifestyle is too high for the rest of us to pay.

You don't need a fucking right to vote but you have one anyway.

There's a right to vote enshrined in the constitution.

There's only a right to militias in the second Amendment. If you aren't part of a well-regulated militia, you don't need a gun.

Now, personally, I'd have no problem with reasonable people having guns... if you guys could police yourselves. you simply refuse to do it.

So again, if we have to impose a bunch of laws on you, I'm completely good with that.

There is a right to militias in the 2nd Amendment? Where?

 

[Si modo]

Hey, I have an idea for you. If you call me a liar enough times.....like in every post addressed to me......maybe someone who doesn't know better will get the impression that I am a liar. Isn't that cool!

It is such an effective strategy.....maybe you should pass it on to some of your friends. Who knows, maybe a cable network will adopt it too.

I dunno, but I would imagine a poster knows more about himself than you do, yet you make claims as "facts" about a person whose name you don't even know.



That's pretty fucking stupid.

I am more than willing to admit my mistake and apologize to the BR if he can just say something that makes me believe that he was once a police officer. He has said that he was. So far........not even an attempt.

If I were he, I wouldn't make any attempt, either. First, out of principle because I don't give a flying fuck if posters believe a thing I say about myself; and secondly, if I did give a flying fuck what they believe or don't believe about me, I sure as hell would not post anything that could possibly self-identify me to the psychos at USMB. Not all are psychos, but many are. (Unfortunately, some sharp poster recently figured out who I am, so I will have to be more careful. I trust her to keep that info under her hat, though.)

And finally, pissing matches are boring and that's all this is between you two - a pissing match....no you aren't....yes I am....lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A car can do the same, perhaps in less time, in the hands of someone intent on killing others in large numbers. What should we do about cars? Keep trying to impede the 2nd Amendment with more gun laws and I promise you that those whose desire is to kill many will use other means. If mental illness is in play anything is possible.

The 9/11 hijackers killed hundreds if not thousands of victims in seconds. Maybe we need plane control laws?

Yes they did. Afterwards were those asking that something be done vilified?

Only by people that knew what would happen if we gave the government power to control airport security.

 

[zakdavis]

Actually, he did live in the house, and he was a handful.

Not according to people who told me the gun laws in Connecticut didn't make a difference because he lived in New Hampshire.

The guy was autistic, want me to bring some autism activists in here to tell you how stupid you are to call people with autism crazy?

Actually, we are finding out today his mom was a gun-nut and she home schooled him.

No wonder he went nuts.

Just keeps getting worse for you guys.

She home schooled him because she didn't like the way the school system was dealing with his autism. He even went to high school for I don't know how long, but it was long enough to be an honors student. If she was a gun nut or not, I don't know. From what I've seen she legally owned a .223 Rifle, a Sig Saur, and a 10mm Glock.

 

[Nosmo King]

If there were people at the school who were armed they may have stopped the shooter.

Guess what? It is a pistol free zone, however, the psycho didn't care,

It only stoped law abiding people who could make a difference.

The way to put out a fire is not adding gasoline. More guns aren't the answer. Eliminating the one tool that makes "Mass Shootings" "Mass" is the answer.

Ban weapons designed for military and law enforcement use to the general public. No one "needs" a semi or fully automatic firing system. No one "needs" a high capacity magazine. In fact, before such horrid weapons were made cheaply and in great quantities, there was no such thing as a "Mass Shooting".

No, the way to stop gun violence isn't adding more guns, it's subtracting them.

Isn't that what they said about alcohol and drugs?

There have been what we'll call 'advancements' in drug technology. Crack cocaine, ecstasy, crystal meth, and purer, more potent heroin. No one is suggesting that enforcement and prevention efforts be stopped when faced with these perils.

Advancements in weapons technology have wrought the cheap hand gun (formerly referred to as a Saturday Night Special), high capacity magazines and fully or semi automatic firing systems.

To use your comparison, crack cocaine and crystal meth haven't shown to be benefits to society. Can you say that this new gun technology has benefitted us well? Why are such guns allowed to be sold to the public? Seems we got along okay before we could walk into a school or theater or restaurant or campus and fired scores of bullets in the blink of an eye. Hunters still bagged their game. Gun enthusiasts still were able to satisfy their lust for power or deny their penis envy.

But now we must endure mass shootings because gun makers developed new super guns. The solution is to revert to the gun technology and laws we had before the advent of designers of death toiling away in gun factories.

If laws were passed stating the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession of semi or fully automatic firing systems as well as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds was a federal crime, all in an effort to rid ourselves of these super guns, would that be the wrong step? Further, gun owners would have a reasonable time frame to turn in such guns and receive a tax credit equal to the value of each gun. Any guns held by people other than law enforcement or military would be then confiscated and those in possession of such guns would face a mandatory prison term. Any such gun used in commission of a crime would be confiscated and the possessor again would face a mandatory prison term.

All in the greater effort to rid society of the blight of mass shootings and violent street crime.

 

[mal]

Actually, he did live in the house, and he was a handful.

Not according to people who told me the gun laws in Connecticut didn't make a difference because he lived in New Hampshire.

The guy was autistic, want me to bring some autism activists in here to tell you how stupid you are to call people with autism crazy?

Actually, we are finding out today his mom was a gun-nut and she home schooled him.

No wonder he went nuts.

Just keeps getting worse for you guys.

Hey Joe... Shove it up your ass!...



peace...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Si Modo Hates pissing matches. Good to know.

 

[jillian]

The 9/11 hijackers killed hundreds if not thousands of victims in seconds. Maybe we need plane control laws?

Yes they did. Afterwards were those asking that something be done vilified?

Only by people that knew what would happen if we gave the government power to control airport security.

government ALWAYS had the right to control airport security.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've linked to teh Kellerman study a bunch of times.

And even though it's validity has been verified by the CDC, the gun nutters will still go out there and claim, "THAT'S NOT TRUE"

Kellerman study if proven fact. A gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder.

Arthur Kellermann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that
54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.

The actual study by Arthur Kellermann from which that statistic is pulled doesn't say that. The number includes suicides. The study doesn't take into account defensive uses in which a shot was not fired (99% of the uses), and it doesn't reflect intruders avoiding homes with firearms inside.

I know that's the talking point. "No fair counting suicides!!!!"

It's bullshit. A gun in the house makes it a lot easier to kill yourself. In fact, the ONLY two gun fatalities I know of personally were sucides.

Hanging is the most common method of suicide, maybe we should outlaw belts.

 

[jtpr312]

I am sure some would believe that would be the appropriate thing to do.

It would be the only thing too do.

As opposed to handing over your guns and complying with the law?

Man, what a crazy idea that is.

I will not give credence to illegal "laws" and any law that violates my Constitutional right is illegal, and yeah, I would shoot any sob that came into my home to take my property and to violate my rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think I said that?

You sure do take license.

Are you saying you didn't post this?

I cannot imagine ever needing a weapon that can mow down a half dozen humans in a few seconds. I'm thinking that we could do something about those kinds of guns.

I said that. But I did not say that a person who is attacked by 6 people at once does not have the right to defend himself. You said that. I said that I cannot imagine ever needing a weapon that can mow down a half dozen humans in a few seconds. definitely not the same thing.

I think you know this.....but every once in a while your stupid act is really, really effective and I'm not sure. If you think I said that people lose their right to defend themselves when the attackers are many......you are a fucking idiot.

Except you do not want him to have a weapon that would be effective if that happened. Care to explain how you think a right to self defense works if you do not also have a right to the tools needed to do the job?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Illegal laws. A moron with and oxymoron. Sweet.

 

[jtpr312]

Murderers think the murder laws are "unjust". Rapists think the sexual assault laws are "unjust".

That's pretty much the most restarded thing you've said yet, and frankly, you say retarded things all day.

Dude shut the fuck up with your whinny ass liberal bull shit. It's a straw man argument.

No, it isn't. It's the price of living in a civilized society.

It's why I can't nude sunbath on my front porch. I might think it's an "unjust law", but everyone else has a different opinion, especially if they saw me in all my glory.

If society finally stops having a brain fart and say, "Yeah, we shouldn't let crazy people who go around talking about shooting cops have guns!" then that's what society has decided upon, and there's nothing 'unjust" about it.

You don't have any Constitutional right to bare your naked ass in public, I on the ohter hand have a Constitution right, no, take that back, a Constitutional duty, to bear arms, so your argument is worthless. As a patriot I am willing to fight to protect my Constitutional rights, and as a former Marine I swore an oath to defend those Constitutional rights with my life if neccessary, an oath that had no time limit on it slick.

 

[jtpr312]

Illegal laws. A moron with and oxymoron. Sweet.

Spoken like the moron you are. Here's a clue for you dude. EVERY time the Supreme Court knocks down a law as being un-Constituional, they are saying the law was illegal to begin with, therefore un-enforcible.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are you saying you didn't post this?

I said that. But I did not say that a person who is attacked by 6 people at once does not have the right to defend himself. You said that. I said that I cannot imagine ever needing a weapon that can mow down a half dozen humans in a few seconds. definitely not the same thing.

I think you know this.....but every once in a while your stupid act is really, really effective and I'm not sure. If you think I said that people lose their right to defend themselves when the attackers are many......you are a fucking idiot.

Except you do not want him to have a weapon that would be effective if that happened. Care to explain how you think a right to self defense works if you do not also have a right to the tools needed to do the job?

Hmmm, You are a slippery one. Never willing to just admit when you are wrong. How about you pay attention. I never said that someone should not have a weapon like that I said that I can't imagine needing one. I have also said that these types of weapons need to be more strictly regulated..........not banned. If the jerkoff in question can demonstrate a need for said weapon....let him get it......but let him have to jump through a few hoops to do so.

I don't know about you, but I have never felt that making laws that take the most improbable circumstances into account is a very efficient or effective strategy. Think about it. You'll probably agree.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Illegal laws. A moron with and oxymoron. Sweet.

Spoken like the moron you are. Here's a clue for you dude. EVERY time the Supreme Court knocks down a law as being un-Constituional, they are saying the law was illegal to begin with, therefore un-enforcible.

And then.........only then......it is a law that YOU get to ignore as "illegal" because it IS NO LONGER A LAW. You are special.

 

[jillian]

Illegal laws. A moron with and oxymoron. Sweet.

Spoken like the moron you are. Here's a clue for you dude. EVERY time the Supreme Court knocks down a law as being un-Constituional, they are saying the law was illegal to begin with, therefore un-enforcible.

theoretically. but the reality is that for the law to have gotten to the supreme court, it would have already BEEN enforced because only someone against whom it had been enforced would have standing to bring a challenge.