Get ready for a sharp rise of school shootings in Texas

[hadit]

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?

They both represent an equal threat. The important fact, which you strain to ignore, is that only one of the parties is interested in harming the other. If he, as a consequence of learning that his intended victim can cause him equal or greater harm flees the scene, the gun has performed its intended function of protecting the potential victim without causing actual harm. The gun need not be discharged unless the assailant is stuck on stupid and persists in attempting to harm the intended victim. Remember, the intended victim has no interest in shooting the potential assailant should the assailant change his mind and flee.

 

[PredFan]

Has it happened yet?

How about now?

Now?

Surely it's going to happen soon, a left wing nutter said so!

Now?

 

[Pete7469]

Has it happened yet?

How about now?

Now?

Surely it's going to happen soon, a left wing nutter said so!

Now?

We've actually been waiting for it since 1995.

Year Population ---Index - ---Violent --- Property---Murder Rape Robbery
1990 16,986,510 1,329,494 129,343 1,200,151 2,389 8,750 44,297
1991 17,349,000 1,356,527 145,743 1,210,784 2,652 9,266 49,700
1992 17,656,000 1,246,148 142,369 1,103,779 2,239 9,437 44,588
1993 18,031,000 1,161,031 137,419 1,023,612 2,147 9,922 40,469
1994 18,378,000 1,079,225 129,838 949,387 2,022 9,102 37,643
1995 18,724,000 1,064,336 124,303 940,033 1,693 8,563 33,667
1996 19,128,000 1,092,002 123,270 968,732 1,477 8,376 32,804
1997 19,439,000 1,065,357 117,126 948,231 1,327 8,011 30,522
1998 19,760,000 1,010,062 111,566 898,496 1,346 7,913 28,677
1999 20,044,141 1,008,567 112,306 896,261 1,217 7,614 29,405


The bed wetters were wrong then too. Of course, they always are.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

They both represent an equal threat. The important fact, which you strain to ignore, is that only one of the parties is interested in harming the other. If he, as a consequence of learning that his intended victim can cause him equal or greater harm flees the scene, the gun has performed its intended function of protecting the potential victim without causing actual harm. The gun need not be discharged unless the assailant is stuck on stupid and persists in attempting to harm the intended victim. Remember, the intended victim has no interest in shooting the potential assailant should the assailant change his mind and flee.

Meaning, they are equal unless only one of them has a gun, which they use as a threat because, wait for it, guns are designed only to kill. Having a gun doesn't protect you, but being willing to kill another person before they kill just you might, as long as you aim well and pull the trigger first. Everything else is BS by gun nuts trying to protect their deadly toys.

 

[hadit]

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?

They both represent an equal threat. The important fact, which you strain to ignore, is that only one of the parties is interested in harming the other. If he, as a consequence of learning that his intended victim can cause him equal or greater harm flees the scene, the gun has performed its intended function of protecting the potential victim without causing actual harm. The gun need not be discharged unless the assailant is stuck on stupid and persists in attempting to harm the intended victim. Remember, the intended victim has no interest in shooting the potential assailant should the assailant change his mind and flee.

Meaning, they are equal unless only one of them has a gun, which they use as a threat because, wait for it, guns are designed only to kill. Having a gun doesn't protect you, but being willing to kill another person before they kill just you might, as long as you aim well and pull the trigger first. Everything else is BS by gun nuts trying to protect their deadly toys.

Total nonsense. You're ignoring reality again in an inane attempt to salvage some what, self respect? In MOST of the occasions a gun is used for protection, it is not fired. Most assailants are bullies and cowards at heart, because they victimize the weak. When the weak are revealed to be strong, ie, have a gun, the equation changes and only the truly stupid assailants persist and wind up dead. Guns are simply a tool, and used properly, don't have to be fired to be effective protection.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

They both represent an equal threat. The important fact, which you strain to ignore, is that only one of the parties is interested in harming the other. If he, as a consequence of learning that his intended victim can cause him equal or greater harm flees the scene, the gun has performed its intended function of protecting the potential victim without causing actual harm. The gun need not be discharged unless the assailant is stuck on stupid and persists in attempting to harm the intended victim. Remember, the intended victim has no interest in shooting the potential assailant should the assailant change his mind and flee.

Meaning, they are equal unless only one of them has a gun, which they use as a threat because, wait for it, guns are designed only to kill. Having a gun doesn't protect you, but being willing to kill another person before they kill just you might, as long as you aim well and pull the trigger first. Everything else is BS by gun nuts trying to protect their deadly toys.

Total nonsense. You're ignoring reality again in an inane attempt to salvage some what, self respect? In MOST of the occasions a gun is used for protection, it is not fired. Most assailants are bullies and cowards at heart, because they victimize the weak. When the weak are revealed to be strong, ie, have a gun, the equation changes and only the truly stupid assailants persist and wind up dead. Guns are simply a tool, and used properly, don't have to be fired to be effective protection.

Might as well have a taser then, or an unloaded gun, or even a fake one.

Tell me, if you find a man in your house stealing, is that worth killing him over?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Absolutely positively yes! If he is in my house, he is presumed to be a potential deadly threat unless and until confirmed otherwise.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Absolutely positively yes! If he is in my house, he is presumed to be a potential deadly threat unless and until confirmed otherwise.

Didn't say whether your stuff was worth his life?

 

[Jarlaxle]

If someone breaks into my house, I do not care why. He is a threat unless and until he is gone, surrendered, or dead...no exceptions.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If someone breaks into my house, I do not care why. He is a threat unless and until he is gone, surrendered, or dead...no exceptions.

Answer the question. Is your stuff worth his life, yes or no?

 

[Pete7469]

Didn't say whether your stuff was worth his life?

Some asshole who breaks into my house has surrendered any value their life may have had. You jump off a bridge, you die. You set yourself on fire, you die. Jump infront of a bus, you die. Kick in my door.... Nuff said.

Choices come with rewards or consequences. Some bounadaries aren't easy to walk back over.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Didn't say whether your stuff was worth his life?

Some asshole who breaks into my house has surrendered any value their life may have had. You jump off a bridge, you die. You set yourself on fire, you die. Jump infront of a bus, you die. Kick in my door.... Nuff said.

Choices come with rewards or consequences. Some bounadaries aren't easy to walk back over.

So your material possessions are worthy of a human life. Got it.

 

[Pete7469]

If someone breaks into my house, I do not care why. He is a threat unless and until he is gone, surrendered, or dead...no exceptions.

Answer the question. Is your stuff worth his life, yes or no?

The lock on my door that the motherfucker broke is worth more than his life.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If someone breaks into my house, I do not care why. He is a threat unless and until he is gone, surrendered, or dead...no exceptions.

Answer the question. Is your stuff worth his life, yes or no?

The lock on my door that the motherfucker broke is worth more than his life.

Thank you. To a gun nut life is cheap, obviously.

 

[Pete7469]

Didn't say whether your stuff was worth his life?

Some asshole who breaks into my house has surrendered any value their life may have had. You jump off a bridge, you die. You set yourself on fire, you die. Jump infront of a bus, you die. Kick in my door.... Nuff said.

Choices come with rewards or consequences. Some bounadaries aren't easy to walk back over.

So your material possessions are worthy of a human life. Got it.

Your life is only worth what YOU make of it. It's not up to me to set it's value.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If someone breaks into my house, I do not care why. He is a threat unless and until he is gone, surrendered, or dead...no exceptions.

Answer the question. Is your stuff worth his life, yes or no?

If someone swipes a loading ramp or tie-down straps out of my truck, no. If someone breaks into my house, YES.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Didn't say whether your stuff was worth his life?

Some asshole who breaks into my house has surrendered any value their life may have had. You jump off a bridge, you die. You set yourself on fire, you die. Jump infront of a bus, you die. Kick in my door.... Nuff said.

Choices come with rewards or consequences. Some bounadaries aren't easy to walk back over.

So your material possessions are worthy of a human life. Got it.

Your life is only worth what YOU make of it. It's not up to me to set it's value.

You just set the value on human life, which has none if they are robbing your house, which means that your shit is worth more than a human life.

 

[Pete7469]

Thank you. To a gun nut life is cheap, obviously.

You're welcome, but you don't get it. You're a liberal so the weapons grade stupidity you suffer from prevents that.

If you use your life to reduce the quality of other people's, like all thieves, rapists, murderers and liberals do, your life is less than worthless, it has a negative value. Taking out a socipath who has kicked in my door to do God knows what increases the value of all other human's lives.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If someone breaks into my house, I do not care why. He is a threat unless and until he is gone, surrendered, or dead...no exceptions.

Answer the question. Is your stuff worth his life, yes or no?

If someone swipes a loading ramp or tie-down straps out of my truck, no. If someone breaks into my house, YES.

So, you wander downstairs to find a male teenager searching around your office for cash. Do you shoot first and ask questions, if possible, later? Yes or no?

Now, you wander downstairs to find a female teenager searching around your office for cash. Do you shoot first and ask questions, if possible, later? Yes or no?

And, you wander downstairs to find a male teenager raiding your kitchen for food. Do you shoot first and ask questions, if possible, later? Yes or no?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Thank you. To a gun nut life is cheap, obviously.

You're welcome, but you don't get it. You're a liberal so the weapons grade stupidity you suffer from prevents that.

If you use your life to reduce the quality of other people's, like all thieves, rapists, murderers and liberals do, your life is less than worthless, it has a negative value. Taking out a socipath who has kicked in my door to do God knows what increases the value of all other human's lives.

As I said, to a gun nut life is cheap. Tell me, are you Pro-life on abortion? I'm betting that you are.