Get ready for a sharp rise of school shootings in Texas

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

False. A gun can represent a threat. An assailant preparing to rob what he thinks is an unprotected elderly lady has a different equation to work with if she opens her purse and pulls out a weapon. In that case, he has a decision to make. Either run away and live another day, or persist in trying to rob her and potentially lose his life. She doesn't have to kill him in order for the presence of the weapon to have a positive impact. You're simply wrong, know you're wrong, and are flailing desperately trying to find a way to salvage some pride. Here's a clue, you can't. Just walk away knowing you failed, big time.

If you pull out a gun and don't shoot anyone, you didn't need the gun, period. Some guy trying to steal an old lady's purse isn't going to give her the chance to get to a gun. When he steals the purse he gets that as well. For some guy planning to rape an armed college girl it's the same thing. He get sex and a gun, which she never had the time to pull.

Dude, you keep painting scenarios that simply don't matter. And you're spouting lunacy. An assailant approaches me with a knife in hand and demands my wallet. I pull out a gun but don't shoot it. He runs away. I don't pull out a gun and he stabs me because I don't have any cash in my wallet. Clearly the gun had a positive impact without being fired.

Sometimes, the fish in the barrel don't even move. Heck, you might as well say visible body guards have no impact on anything unless they attack someone. And, you never answered the question. Why do you get a sign to put on your lawn stating that your house is protected by an alarm system? According to you, nothing good comes from that.

A guy who wants money isn't threatening you at any level you would need a gun for. And the alarm sign only keeps lazy or mostly honest thieves away. For all you know your guns are what they are after.

And I never said anything about the sign BTW, until now.

I know. I did. You keep insisting that advertising the fact that a potential victim has defensive measures available to them does nothing. I say it does, and am proving my point. You, OTOH, are simply repeating nonsense.

A gun is not for defense. It's for killing, period, that's why we issue them to soldiers, to go and kill people, lots of them.

 

[bripat9643]

False. A gun can represent a threat. An assailant preparing to rob what he thinks is an unprotected elderly lady has a different equation to work with if she opens her purse and pulls out a weapon. In that case, he has a decision to make. Either run away and live another day, or persist in trying to rob her and potentially lose his life. She doesn't have to kill him in order for the presence of the weapon to have a positive impact. You're simply wrong, know you're wrong, and are flailing desperately trying to find a way to salvage some pride. Here's a clue, you can't. Just walk away knowing you failed, big time.

If you pull out a gun and don't shoot anyone, you didn't need the gun, period. Some guy trying to steal an old lady's purse isn't going to give her the chance to get to a gun. When he steals the purse he gets that as well. For some guy planning to rape an armed college girl it's the same thing. He get sex and a gun, which she never had the time to pull.

Dude, you keep painting scenarios that simply don't matter. And you're spouting lunacy. An assailant approaches me with a knife in hand and demands my wallet. I pull out a gun but don't shoot it. He runs away. I don't pull out a gun and he stabs me because I don't have any cash in my wallet. Clearly the gun had a positive impact without being fired.

Sometimes, the fish in the barrel don't even move. Heck, you might as well say visible body guards have no impact on anything unless they attack someone. And, you never answered the question. Why do you get a sign to put on your lawn stating that your house is protected by an alarm system? According to you, nothing good comes from that.

A guy who wants money isn't threatening you at any level you would need a gun for. And the alarm sign only keeps lazy or mostly honest thieves away. For all you know your guns are what they are after.

And I never said anything about the sign BTW, until now.

I know. I did. You keep insisting that advertising the fact that a potential victim has defensive measures available to them does nothing. I say it does, and am proving my point. You, OTOH, are simply repeating nonsense.

A gun is not for defense. It's for killing, period, that's why we issue them to soldiers, to go and kill people, lots of them.

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Face it, Nazi: you're a moron.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

The only time they need to kill someone is if someone tries to attack them and refuses to comply with a warning. Cops hold guns on people all the time without shooting them.

Your problem here is that your idiotic theories are at odds with the known facts.

 

[SwimExpert]

OK so you dnt understand this.
If I point the gun at you and you run away, I have used my firearm to neutralize a threat. No one was killed but that doesnt mean I didnt win the confrontation.
If I wound you and you go down I have used my firearm to neutralize the threat byt no one died.
If I rack my shotgun and you run away at the sound before even seeing me I have used my fierarm to neutralize a threat.
Do you understand this better now?

If you're pointing guns at people and they're running away, then you're doing it wrong. You're a reckless idiot and should leave the big boy toys for the adults before someone gets hurt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK so you dnt understand this.
If I point the gun at you and you run away, I have used my firearm to neutralize a threat. No one was killed but that doesnt mean I didnt win the confrontation.
If I wound you and you go down I have used my firearm to neutralize the threat byt no one died.
If I rack my shotgun and you run away at the sound before even seeing me I have used my fierarm to neutralize a threat.
Do you understand this better now?

If you're pointing guns at people and they're running away, then you're doing it wrong. You're a reckless idiot and should leave the big boy toys for the adults before someone gets hurt.

There is the school of thought that if the gun clears the leather, the bullet goes down the barrel - this makes it easier to claim last resort.
HOWever... drawing the gun to illustrate a credible threat of deadly force creates a final opportunity to de-escalate the situation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

The only time they need to kill someone is if someone tries to attack them and refuses to comply with a warning. Cops hold guns on people all the time without shooting them.

And the threat, holding a gun on someone, usually works because people know that guns kill people, but it's not protecting the cop because if guns protected people they'd both have one and they'd both survive. In this case the cop is planning to use the gun for what it's designed for, killing someone, if necessary. That's why we gave him the gun, in case he needed to kill something, usually someone.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So what? Why do you compare the US to France when yo could compare it to Mexico? Mexico has strict gun regulation. And high rates of gun crimes.

Do you call Mexico a developed nation?

Actually perhaps it is fairer to compare the US to developing nations rather than developed nations. They seem more its cultural counterparts than the social democracies of the west.

I guess the US is more like Mexico than it is like Canada.

Strip out crimes committed by black men between the ages of 15 and 25 and our crime rate looks just like France or Norway.

Or strip out the white crimes and get the same result.

You realize that is actually incorrect, right?
Or do you not understand what the crime rates are?

Do you mean that whites commit more crimes. Yes, I understand that.

 

[SwimExpert]

HOWever... drawing the gun to illustrate a credible threat of deadly force creates a final opportunity to de-escalate the situation.

Or, to escalate it even further. Sorry, if someone puts me in a situation where I have to draw and point my weapon at them, I'm done being worried about their safety. I might give them two seconds, max, to respond to verbal commands to my satisfaction. Drawing a weapon is a dangerous thing, and most people don't understand that. Once you show you're prepared to kill, the other person is that much more likely to engage in deadly force against you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

HOWever... drawing the gun to illustrate a credible threat of deadly force creates a final opportunity to de-escalate the situation.

Or, to escalate it even further. Sorry, if someone puts me in a situation where I have to draw and point my weapon at them, I'm done being worried about their safety. I might give them two seconds, max, to respond to verbal commands to my satisfaction. Drawing a weapon is a dangerous thing, and most people don't understand that. Once you show you're prepared to kill, the other person is that much more likely to engage in deadly force against you.

Like I said -- two schools of thought.
I figure that if he doesn't stop when he sees the muzzle pointed at him, I'm fully in my rights to shoot.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

The only time they need to kill someone is if someone tries to attack them and refuses to comply with a warning. Cops hold guns on people all the time without shooting them.

And the threat, holding a gun on someone, usually works because people know that guns kill people, but it's not protecting the cop because if guns protected people they'd both have one and they'd both survive. In this case the cop is planning to use the gun for what it's designed for, killing someone, if necessary. That's why we gave him the gun, in case he needed to kill something, usually someone.

You're an imbecile. Guns only work if the other guy also has one? The shit you spew into this forum is too stupid to describe with mere words.

 

[hadit]

False. A gun can represent a threat. An assailant preparing to rob what he thinks is an unprotected elderly lady has a different equation to work with if she opens her purse and pulls out a weapon. In that case, he has a decision to make. Either run away and live another day, or persist in trying to rob her and potentially lose his life. She doesn't have to kill him in order for the presence of the weapon to have a positive impact. You're simply wrong, know you're wrong, and are flailing desperately trying to find a way to salvage some pride. Here's a clue, you can't. Just walk away knowing you failed, big time.

If you pull out a gun and don't shoot anyone, you didn't need the gun, period. Some guy trying to steal an old lady's purse isn't going to give her the chance to get to a gun. When he steals the purse he gets that as well. For some guy planning to rape an armed college girl it's the same thing. He get sex and a gun, which she never had the time to pull.

Dude, you keep painting scenarios that simply don't matter. And you're spouting lunacy. An assailant approaches me with a knife in hand and demands my wallet. I pull out a gun but don't shoot it. He runs away. I don't pull out a gun and he stabs me because I don't have any cash in my wallet. Clearly the gun had a positive impact without being fired.

Sometimes, the fish in the barrel don't even move. Heck, you might as well say visible body guards have no impact on anything unless they attack someone. And, you never answered the question. Why do you get a sign to put on your lawn stating that your house is protected by an alarm system? According to you, nothing good comes from that.

A guy who wants money isn't threatening you at any level you would need a gun for. And the alarm sign only keeps lazy or mostly honest thieves away. For all you know your guns are what they are after.

And I never said anything about the sign BTW, until now.

I know. I did. You keep insisting that advertising the fact that a potential victim has defensive measures available to them does nothing. I say it does, and am proving my point. You, OTOH, are simply repeating nonsense.

A gun is not for defense. It's for killing, period, that's why we issue them to soldiers, to go and kill people, lots of them.

Nonsense. Any tool can be used for defense as well as for offense. You're just regurgitating nonsense, again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

The only time they need to kill someone is if someone tries to attack them and refuses to comply with a warning. Cops hold guns on people all the time without shooting them.

And the threat, holding a gun on someone, usually works because people know that guns kill people, but it's not protecting the cop because if guns protected people they'd both have one and they'd both survive. In this case the cop is planning to use the gun for what it's designed for, killing someone, if necessary. That's why we gave him the gun, in case he needed to kill something, usually someone.

You're an imbecile. Guns only work if the other guy also has one? The shit you spew into this forum is too stupid to describe with mere words.

Not what I said, dumbass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you pull out a gun and don't shoot anyone, you didn't need the gun, period. Some guy trying to steal an old lady's purse isn't going to give her the chance to get to a gun. When he steals the purse he gets that as well. For some guy planning to rape an armed college girl it's the same thing. He get sex and a gun, which she never had the time to pull.

Dude, you keep painting scenarios that simply don't matter. And you're spouting lunacy. An assailant approaches me with a knife in hand and demands my wallet. I pull out a gun but don't shoot it. He runs away. I don't pull out a gun and he stabs me because I don't have any cash in my wallet. Clearly the gun had a positive impact without being fired.

Sometimes, the fish in the barrel don't even move. Heck, you might as well say visible body guards have no impact on anything unless they attack someone. And, you never answered the question. Why do you get a sign to put on your lawn stating that your house is protected by an alarm system? According to you, nothing good comes from that.

A guy who wants money isn't threatening you at any level you would need a gun for. And the alarm sign only keeps lazy or mostly honest thieves away. For all you know your guns are what they are after.

And I never said anything about the sign BTW, until now.

I know. I did. You keep insisting that advertising the fact that a potential victim has defensive measures available to them does nothing. I say it does, and am proving my point. You, OTOH, are simply repeating nonsense.

A gun is not for defense. It's for killing, period, that's why we issue them to soldiers, to go and kill people, lots of them.

Nonsense. Any tool can be used for defense as well as for offense. You're just regurgitating nonsense, again.

Nope, you guys just refuse to admit what guns are for, and it's not for protection. If two guys both have a gun aimed at each other which one is protected? Oh right, the one who kills first.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

Really. You realize that there are 120,000 Federal police officers only. There are over a million police officer country wide, all with guns, both on duty, and off-duty.

Yet, there are barely a thousand police killings a year?

Some people use guns for hunting. Some use for sport. Some have them for self-defense.

To say we pay police to kill people, because we let them have guns, is pure stupidity on your part.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

Really. You realize that there are 120,000 Federal police officers only. There are over a million police officer country wide, all with guns, both on duty, and off-duty.

Yet, there are barely a thousand police killings a year?

Some people use guns for hunting. Some use for sport. Some have them for self-defense.

To say we pay police to kill people, because we let them have guns, is pure stupidity on your part.

The police are shooting people right and left here these days. If there were a hundred a year that would be a hundred too many. The goal is always none, stop being so literal.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

Really. You realize that there are 120,000 Federal police officers only. There are over a million police officer country wide, all with guns, both on duty, and off-duty.

Yet, there are barely a thousand police killings a year?

Some people use guns for hunting. Some use for sport. Some have them for self-defense.

To say we pay police to kill people, because we let them have guns, is pure stupidity on your part.

The police are shooting people right and left here these days. If there were a hundred a year that would be a hundred too many. The goal is always none, stop being so literal.

You said "we pay police to murder people," literally.

 

[FA_Q2]

So what? Why do you compare the US to France when yo could compare it to Mexico? Mexico has strict gun regulation. And high rates of gun crimes.

Do you call Mexico a developed nation?

Actually perhaps it is fairer to compare the US to developing nations rather than developed nations. They seem more its cultural counterparts than the social democracies of the west.

I guess the US is more like Mexico than it is like Canada.

Strip out crimes committed by black men between the ages of 15 and 25 and our crime rate looks just like France or Norway.

Or strip out the white crimes and get the same result.

You realize that is actually incorrect, right?
Or do you not understand what the crime rates are?

Do you mean that whites commit more crimes. Yes, I understand that.

Apparently you do not because that is false. Whites commit SOME crimes in grater number. Blacks others - murder being one of the most surprising statistics. Considering that blacks make up 15% of the population and whites over 70% - those statistics are very telling.

Perhaps you should go on over to the FBI website and educate yourself on crime statistics.
FBI Table 43

 

[FA_Q2]

HOWever... drawing the gun to illustrate a credible threat of deadly force creates a final opportunity to de-escalate the situation.

Or, to escalate it even further. Sorry, if someone puts me in a situation where I have to draw and point my weapon at them, I'm done being worried about their safety. I might give them two seconds, max, to respond to verbal commands to my satisfaction. Drawing a weapon is a dangerous thing, and most people don't understand that. Once you show you're prepared to kill, the other person is that much more likely to engage in deadly force against you.

False, most of the time they simply flee. That is shown by the statistics on self defense with weapons. Once a weapon has been drawn there is little that the attacker can do - as soon as they try and become more threatening they are going to be shot.

Same goes the other way - if the criminal is already pointing a gun at you your weapon is useless - try and pull it out and what you are saying becomes reality - you are dead.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why do we issue them to police, then? Are you saying we pay police to murder people?

Here we do, obviously.

And we give them guns for the same reason we do soldiers, in case they need to kill something, usually another person.

Really. You realize that there are 120,000 Federal police officers only. There are over a million police officer country wide, all with guns, both on duty, and off-duty.

Yet, there are barely a thousand police killings a year?

Some people use guns for hunting. Some use for sport. Some have them for self-defense.

To say we pay police to kill people, because we let them have guns, is pure stupidity on your part.

The police are shooting people right and left here these days. If there were a hundred a year that would be a hundred too many. The goal is always none, stop being so literal.

You said "we pay police to murder people," literally.

You need to learn how to read.