Jimmy Kimmel Continues Prove He's a Fool

[BULLDOG]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

Why are you opposed to laws? No law is 100% effective at preventing crime. Common sense-------try to get some.

Why are you opposed to people defending themselves? As a matter of fact, gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish.

Don't worry, the police will be there to outline your body in chalk 15 minutes later.

Still a goofy little twat repeating gun nut talking points, I see. One day you might be able to evaluate logic and reason for yourself. Until then, I guess you always have Alex Jones to depend on.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I have never watched this clown I'm guessing he's a liberal moron? What exactly are his qualifications to speak on the issue?

Much like most leftists, he has no qualifications whatsoever.

He probably thinks an AR-15 can fire 700 bullets per minute.

Rate of fire has always been expressed in cyclic rate, because until very recently, for gun nuts, faster was always considered better. Why are you trying to change that now to come up with a smaller number? More RWNJ lying.
View attachment 153266

It doesn't say "Per minute" anywhere. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The gun starts falling apart and overheating if you attempt to reach that many in several minutes, let alone A MINUTE.

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

Why are you opposed to laws? No law is 100% effective at preventing crime. Common sense-------try to get some.

Why are you opposed to people defending themselves? As a matter of fact, gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish.

Don't worry, the police will be there to outline your body in chalk 15 minutes later.

Still a goofy little twat repeating gun nut talking points, I see. One day you might be able to evaluate logic and reason for yourself. Until then, I guess you always have Alex Jones to depend on.

And as usual, rather than address the point and engage in actual debate, you'd rather hurl insults. Probably because you can't refute my point.

Then again, one can't really refute that the only people who follow laws are law-abiding citizens, and those who don't are criminals. So, naturally, the only people who would be disarmed are those willing to disarm, and criminals would continue conducting criminal activity. You know, like Chicago, one of the places with the strictest gun control in the Nation.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Jimmy Kimmel- Beta male.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have never watched this clown I'm guessing he's a liberal moron? What exactly are his qualifications to speak on the issue?

Much like most leftists, he has no qualifications whatsoever.

He probably thinks an AR-15 can fire 700 bullets per minute.

Rate of fire has always been expressed in cyclic rate, because until very recently, for gun nuts, faster was always considered better. Why are you trying to change that now to come up with a smaller number? More RWNJ lying.
View attachment 153266

It doesn't say "Per minute" anywhere. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The gun starts falling apart and overheating if you attempt to reach that many in several minutes, let alone A MINUTE.

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

Why are you opposed to laws? No law is 100% effective at preventing crime. Common sense-------try to get some.

Why are you opposed to people defending themselves? As a matter of fact, gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish.

Don't worry, the police will be there to outline your body in chalk 15 minutes later.

Still a goofy little twat repeating gun nut talking points, I see. One day you might be able to evaluate logic and reason for yourself. Until then, I guess you always have Alex Jones to depend on.

And as usual, rather than address the point and engage in actual debate, you'd rather hurl insults. Probably because you can't refute my point.

Then again, one can't really refute that the only people who follow laws are law-abiding citizens, and those who don't are criminals. So, naturally, the only people who would be disarmed are those willing to disarm, and criminals would continue conducting criminal activity. You know, like Chicago, one of the places with the strictest gun control in the Nation.

You make a goofy remark like
"gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish."
and want me to bother refuting such stupid trash? You're an idiot. Can't get past that.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Much like most leftists, he has no qualifications whatsoever.

He probably thinks an AR-15 can fire 700 bullets per minute.

Rate of fire has always been expressed in cyclic rate, because until very recently, for gun nuts, faster was always considered better. Why are you trying to change that now to come up with a smaller number? More RWNJ lying.
View attachment 153266

It doesn't say "Per minute" anywhere. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The gun starts falling apart and overheating if you attempt to reach that many in several minutes, let alone A MINUTE.

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

Why are you opposed to laws? No law is 100% effective at preventing crime. Common sense-------try to get some.

Why are you opposed to people defending themselves? As a matter of fact, gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish.

Don't worry, the police will be there to outline your body in chalk 15 minutes later.

Still a goofy little twat repeating gun nut talking points, I see. One day you might be able to evaluate logic and reason for yourself. Until then, I guess you always have Alex Jones to depend on.

And as usual, rather than address the point and engage in actual debate, you'd rather hurl insults. Probably because you can't refute my point.

Then again, one can't really refute that the only people who follow laws are law-abiding citizens, and those who don't are criminals. So, naturally, the only people who would be disarmed are those willing to disarm, and criminals would continue conducting criminal activity. You know, like Chicago, one of the places with the strictest gun control in the Nation.

You make a goofy remark like
"gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish."
and want me to bother refuting such stupid trash? You're an idiot. Can't get past that.

You're still dodging my point because you can't refute it. Of course, I'm not one bit surprised.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rate of fire has always been expressed in cyclic rate, because until very recently, for gun nuts, faster was always considered better. Why are you trying to change that now to come up with a smaller number? More RWNJ lying.
View attachment 153266

It doesn't say "Per minute" anywhere. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The gun starts falling apart and overheating if you attempt to reach that many in several minutes, let alone A MINUTE.

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

 

[BULLDOG]

Rate of fire has always been expressed in cyclic rate, because until very recently, for gun nuts, faster was always considered better. Why are you trying to change that now to come up with a smaller number? More RWNJ lying.
View attachment 153266

It doesn't say "Per minute" anywhere. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The gun starts falling apart and overheating if you attempt to reach that many in several minutes, let alone A MINUTE.

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Don't care about your silly explanations. Manufacturers advertised that cycle rate as a selling point.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why are you opposed to laws? No law is 100% effective at preventing crime. Common sense-------try to get some.

Why are you opposed to people defending themselves? As a matter of fact, gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish.

Don't worry, the police will be there to outline your body in chalk 15 minutes later.

Still a goofy little twat repeating gun nut talking points, I see. One day you might be able to evaluate logic and reason for yourself. Until then, I guess you always have Alex Jones to depend on.

And as usual, rather than address the point and engage in actual debate, you'd rather hurl insults. Probably because you can't refute my point.

Then again, one can't really refute that the only people who follow laws are law-abiding citizens, and those who don't are criminals. So, naturally, the only people who would be disarmed are those willing to disarm, and criminals would continue conducting criminal activity. You know, like Chicago, one of the places with the strictest gun control in the Nation.

You make a goofy remark like
"gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish."
and want me to bother refuting such stupid trash? You're an idiot. Can't get past that.

You're still dodging my point because you can't refute it. Of course, I'm not one bit surprised.

Gun regulation disarms individuals so criminals can murder people as they wish? You really think that is a sane statement? Are you the love child of furby, dale smith, and a tree stump?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It doesn't say "Per minute" anywhere. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The gun starts falling apart and overheating if you attempt to reach that many in several minutes, let alone A MINUTE.

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It doesn't say "Per minute" anywhere. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The gun starts falling apart and overheating if you attempt to reach that many in several minutes, let alone A MINUTE.

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Don't care about your silly explanations. Manufacturers advertised that cycle rate as a selling point.

I suppose if you cared when you were wrong, you wouldn't be a leftist.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Why are you opposed to people defending themselves? As a matter of fact, gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish.

Don't worry, the police will be there to outline your body in chalk 15 minutes later.

Still a goofy little twat repeating gun nut talking points, I see. One day you might be able to evaluate logic and reason for yourself. Until then, I guess you always have Alex Jones to depend on.

And as usual, rather than address the point and engage in actual debate, you'd rather hurl insults. Probably because you can't refute my point.

Then again, one can't really refute that the only people who follow laws are law-abiding citizens, and those who don't are criminals. So, naturally, the only people who would be disarmed are those willing to disarm, and criminals would continue conducting criminal activity. You know, like Chicago, one of the places with the strictest gun control in the Nation.

You make a goofy remark like
"gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish."
and want me to bother refuting such stupid trash? You're an idiot. Can't get past that.

You're still dodging my point because you can't refute it. Of course, I'm not one bit surprised.

Gun regulation disarms individuals so criminals can murder people as they wish? You really think that is a sane statement? Are you the love child of furby, dale smith, and a tree stump?

Yes, gun regulations DO disarm law abiding citizens. Only people who follow the law would follow gun laws. It makes it harder to get guns through LEGAL channels, and doesn't affect criminals at all. The people who enforce the law take an average of 15 minutes to arrive at a crime scene, and by that point, the criminal could have murdered, say, 49-50 people. At least they're there to make those cool chalk outlines after the criminal has murdered all of those people gun laws have disarmed and made helpless.

I'd love to be the child of Dale Smith, actually, I think he'd make a great parent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, yes. Cycle time has always been indicated in cycles per minute. That is the criteria that has been used for decades. It's always been known that the many other variables are not quantifiable with any usable accuracy. What the gun can cycle has, and continues to be, the most accurate indication of what the gun is capable of.

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Rep. Alan Grayson Proves Why The Left Can't Be Trusted On Guns
Here you go, and make sure you watch the video, where they show us that it's not capable of 700 per minute.
Grayson Claims AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute
And here you go.
You'd have to pull the trigger ten times per second to achieve 700 rounds per minute, and that would exclude time for magazine changes.

When Grayson made that stupid claim, he was even challenged to accomplish such a feat. He never responded, because it's physically impossible.

You must get tired of being wrong so often.

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?