Get ready for a sharp rise of school shootings in Texas

[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.

You need to learn how to read.

bripat9643; "Are you saying we pay police to murder people?"

Nazi Piece of Shit PMH: "Here we do, obviously."

What have I misread?

 

[PredFan]

I'm ready.

Has it happened yet?

What about now?

Now?


How long will we have to wait?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

bripat9643; "Are you saying we pay police to murder people?"

Nazi Piece of Shit PMH: "Here we do, obviously."

What have I misread?

The painful truth in the joke. We pay cops and they do murder people here and there.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You understand there are other possibilities, right?

No, actually, he does not. He's kind of stupid, after all.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

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.

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.

 

[Mad Scientist]

OP sees guns, pisses pants.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

bripat9643; "Are you saying we pay police to murder people?"

Nazi Piece of Shit PMH: "Here we do, obviously."

What have I misread?

The painful truth in the joke. We pay cops and they do murder people here and there.

You said we paid them to murder people. That's a different thing altogether.

You can't recover from that despicable remark, I'm afraid. It's right up there with your admission that you want to commit genocide against the Jews.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

bripat9643; "Are you saying we pay police to murder people?"

Nazi Piece of Shit PMH: "Here we do, obviously."

What have I misread?

The painful truth in the joke. We pay cops and they do murder people here and there.

You said we paid them to murder people. That's a different thing altogether.

You can't recover from that despicable remark, I'm afraid. It's right up there with your admission that you want to commit genocide against the Jews.

Grow up, my little infant.

 

[bripat9643]

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

You need to learn how to read.

bripat9643; "Are you saying we pay police to murder people?"

Nazi Piece of Shit PMH: "Here we do, obviously."

What have I misread?

The painful truth in the joke. We pay cops and they do murder people here and there.

You said we paid them to murder people. That's a different thing altogether.

You can't recover from that despicable remark, I'm afraid. It's right up there with your admission that you want to commit genocide against the Jews.

Grow up, my little infant.

So being a grownup means calling the police professional murderers and supporting genocide?

It's hard to believe there's anyone in this forum dumber than Lakhota or rdean

 

[The Rabbi]

You need to learn how to read.

bripat9643; "Are you saying we pay police to murder people?"

Nazi Piece of Shit PMH: "Here we do, obviously."

What have I misread?

The painful truth in the joke. We pay cops and they do murder people here and there.

You said we paid them to murder people. That's a different thing altogether.

You can't recover from that despicable remark, I'm afraid. It's right up there with your admission that you want to commit genocide against the Jews.

Grow up, my little infant.

So being a grownup means calling the police professional murderers and supporting genocide?

It's hard to believe there's anyone in this forum dumber than Lakhota or rdean

He's putting on a good show, though. It's like reality is an alien concept.

 

[hadit]

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.

You're ignoring reality. I'm not surprised, it's the only way you can maintain your fantasy. I'll give you reality one more time. Assailants target the weak, because they are bullies and don't want to get hurt. When an intended victim turns out to be armed, the cost of assaulting that person suddenly rises. The cost/benefit ratio shifts dramatically, and does so without a single shot being fired. This is the reality you refuse to acknowledge. Instead, you mindlessly repeat your idiotic mantra.

 

[hadit]

OP sees guns, pisses pants.

It's those roving gangs of feral guns, out to shoot people for no reason whatsoever.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You're ignoring reality. I'm not surprised, it's the only way you can maintain your fantasy. I'll give you reality one more time. Assailants target the weak, because they are bullies and don't want to get hurt. When an intended victim turns out to be armed, the cost of assaulting that person suddenly rises. The cost/benefit ratio shifts dramatically, and does so without a single shot being fired. This is the reality you refuse to acknowledge. Instead, you mindlessly repeat your idiotic mantra.

Your inability to acknowledge what a gun is for is noted.

 

[hadit]

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.

You're ignoring reality. I'm not surprised, it's the only way you can maintain your fantasy. I'll give you reality one more time. Assailants target the weak, because they are bullies and don't want to get hurt. When an intended victim turns out to be armed, the cost of assaulting that person suddenly rises. The cost/benefit ratio shifts dramatically, and does so without a single shot being fired. This is the reality you refuse to acknowledge. Instead, you mindlessly repeat your idiotic mantra.

Your inability to acknowledge what a gun is for is noted.

A gun is a tool. Its mere presence alters a situation's dynamic. It thus has an impact whether it is discharged or not. There's a reason why most guns are not painted with bright colors and do not come with big fluffy animals dangling from them. Look, face reality for a change. Using your standard, a rattlesnake should not need a rattle, a cobra should not need to spread its hood. Both should think, "I have fangs and deadly venom. I will always strike with warning". Pulling a gun has the same effect as the snakes' rattle or hood. It is a warning that the person is armed and dangerous. Leave now and you won't be harmed. Continue to threaten and you will. You inability to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face was noted a long time ago.

 

[Pete7469]

Liberals are tools too.

In the hands of a criminally insane authoritarian sociopath despot they can be used to purge millions of people, establish gulags, and force famines.

They're weapons grade stupid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You're ignoring reality. I'm not surprised, it's the only way you can maintain your fantasy. I'll give you reality one more time. Assailants target the weak, because they are bullies and don't want to get hurt. When an intended victim turns out to be armed, the cost of assaulting that person suddenly rises. The cost/benefit ratio shifts dramatically, and does so without a single shot being fired. This is the reality you refuse to acknowledge. Instead, you mindlessly repeat your idiotic mantra.

Your inability to acknowledge what a gun is for is noted.

A gun is a tool. Its mere presence alters a situation's dynamic. It thus has an impact whether it is discharged or not. There's a reason why most guns are not painted with bright colors and do not come with big fluffy animals dangling from them. Look, face reality for a change. Using your standard, a rattlesnake should not need a rattle, a cobra should not need to spread its hood. Both should think, "I have fangs and deadly venom. I will always strike with warning". Pulling a gun has the same effect as the snakes' rattle or hood. It is a warning that the person is armed and dangerous. Leave now and you won't be harmed. Continue to threaten and you will. You inability to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face was noted a long time ago.

The reality is, guns kill. You wouldn't be able to use them as a threat otherwise, but if you both have a gun, neither is protected. You might as well advocate for the elderly to own landmines, it would keep potentially dangerous people off the lawn.

You confuse what kills, and therefore can be used as a threat, with protection. A bullet-proof vest is protection, a gun is for killing things.

BTW, rattlesnakes are evolving without rattles now. Too many predators could find them by their sound.

 

[hadit]

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.

You're ignoring reality. I'm not surprised, it's the only way you can maintain your fantasy. I'll give you reality one more time. Assailants target the weak, because they are bullies and don't want to get hurt. When an intended victim turns out to be armed, the cost of assaulting that person suddenly rises. The cost/benefit ratio shifts dramatically, and does so without a single shot being fired. This is the reality you refuse to acknowledge. Instead, you mindlessly repeat your idiotic mantra.

Your inability to acknowledge what a gun is for is noted.

A gun is a tool. Its mere presence alters a situation's dynamic. It thus has an impact whether it is discharged or not. There's a reason why most guns are not painted with bright colors and do not come with big fluffy animals dangling from them. Look, face reality for a change. Using your standard, a rattlesnake should not need a rattle, a cobra should not need to spread its hood. Both should think, "I have fangs and deadly venom. I will always strike with warning". Pulling a gun has the same effect as the snakes' rattle or hood. It is a warning that the person is armed and dangerous. Leave now and you won't be harmed. Continue to threaten and you will. You inability to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face was noted a long time ago.

The reality is, guns kill. You wouldn't be able to use them as a threat otherwise, but if you both have a gun, neither is protected. You might as well advocate for the elderly to own landmines, it would keep potentially dangerous people off the lawn.

You confuse what kills, and therefore can be used as a threat, with protection. A bullet-proof vest is protection, a gun is for killing things.

BTW, rattlesnakes are evolving without rattles now. Too many predators could find them by their sound.

You are confused. You seem to think that protection is only that which causes no harm to an attacker. That is not true at all. The US military provided protection for several nations after WWII by posting defensive forces in them. The THREAT of the US military protected those nations from attack while they were weak and vulnerable.

 

[Pete7469]

The reality is mindless servile leftists kill. 100 million unarmed people in the last 100 years alone. Since the rest of us value our lives and the lives of innocent people we will continue to keep you parasites at bay with the guns we have a God given right to own.

If you don't like it, you can always go to North Korea where only the minions of the benevolent dear leader have guns. Otherwise go fuck yourself parasite.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You're ignoring reality. I'm not surprised, it's the only way you can maintain your fantasy. I'll give you reality one more time. Assailants target the weak, because they are bullies and don't want to get hurt. When an intended victim turns out to be armed, the cost of assaulting that person suddenly rises. The cost/benefit ratio shifts dramatically, and does so without a single shot being fired. This is the reality you refuse to acknowledge. Instead, you mindlessly repeat your idiotic mantra.

Your inability to acknowledge what a gun is for is noted.

A gun is a tool. Its mere presence alters a situation's dynamic. It thus has an impact whether it is discharged or not. There's a reason why most guns are not painted with bright colors and do not come with big fluffy animals dangling from them. Look, face reality for a change. Using your standard, a rattlesnake should not need a rattle, a cobra should not need to spread its hood. Both should think, "I have fangs and deadly venom. I will always strike with warning". Pulling a gun has the same effect as the snakes' rattle or hood. It is a warning that the person is armed and dangerous. Leave now and you won't be harmed. Continue to threaten and you will. You inability to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face was noted a long time ago.

The reality is, guns kill. You wouldn't be able to use them as a threat otherwise, but if you both have a gun, neither is protected. You might as well advocate for the elderly to own landmines, it would keep potentially dangerous people off the lawn.

You confuse what kills, and therefore can be used as a threat, with protection. A bullet-proof vest is protection, a gun is for killing things.

BTW, rattlesnakes are evolving without rattles now. Too many predators could find them by their sound.

You are confused. You seem to think that protection is only that which causes no harm to an attacker. That is not true at all. The US military provided protection for several nations after WWII by posting defensive forces in them. The THREAT of the US military protected those nations from attack while they were weak and vulnerable.

And what was the threat? Oh right, we have guns and guns kill people.

Answer me this, if both people have guns aimed at each other, which one is protected?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The reality is mindless servile leftists kill. 100 million unarmed people in the last 100 years alone. Since the rest of us value our lives and the lives of innocent people we will continue to keep you parasites at bay with the guns we have a God given right to own.

If you don't like it, you can always go to North Korea where only the minions of the benevolent dear leader have guns. Otherwise go fuck yourself parasite.

God didn't give you that right, the liberal founders of this nation did. A profound mistake in our day and age, but not theirs when guns were used mostly for killing what you then had for dinner.