Las Vegas shooting: Reports of shooter at Mandalay Bay Casino

[Auld Phart]

thousands

which is why I said 'huh'

Functionally illiterate?

Three letter word. For, maybe?

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

And they don't NEED a legal way to own it.

Stop being a dick.

pot calling kettle black?

 

[MarkDuffy]

[QUOTE="MarkDuffy, post: 18277666, member: 55459]
What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

I'd say no cannons or grenades. I'm not wild about the big magazines, nor about the silencers, which I think is simply a way to make more money by the gun manufacturers. I don't think machine guns should be legal, but it doesn't seem to matter if it's as easy to file down the stopper part as people are saying.

That was one of the biggest issues with the assault weapons ban. republicans forced the loopholes.

It needs to be about fire rate, not specific weapon design or name, cuz the gun manufacturers will get around such things.

Guns to gunnuts is like an addiction. They constantly need a bigger faster and better fix.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Functionally illiterate?

Three letter word. For, maybe?

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

And they don't NEED a legal way to own it.

Stop being a dick.

pot calling kettle black?

No, calling you a dick.
No one needs a freaking bump stock mod.

 

[Marion Morrison]

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

Except it's white gun nuts doing all of the mass killing.

O? Since 1900?

 

[Marion Morrison]

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

And they don't NEED a legal way to own it.

Stop being a dick.

pot calling kettle black?

No, calling you a dick.
No one needs a freaking bump stock mod.

Who are you to judge that? I'll tell you who: Some paid leftist shill-on-a-messageboard chump. That's who.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

Except it's white gun nuts doing all of the mass killing.

O? Since 1900?

What?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

And they don't NEED a legal way to own it.

Stop being a dick.

pot calling kettle black?

No, calling you a dick.
No one needs a freaking bump stock mod.

Who are you to judge that? I'll tell you who: Some paid leftist shill-on-a-messageboard chump. That's who.

A reasonable person.

 

[Marion Morrison]

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

Except it's white gun nuts doing all of the mass killing.

O? Since 1900?

What?

It's not white gun nuts doing all the mass killing.

 

[MarkDuffy]

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help. It tried to address fire rate. The NRA used loopholes to continue the ever increasing fire rate.

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help.

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Thinking only guns are good weapons for mass murder is a bit shallow no?

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

You mean trump didn't fix that already?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

Nearly six hundred people. Let that sink in.

one person out of hundreds of millions of people that own guns...

Let THAT sink in

You just posted that you want it to happen much more

 

[Auld Phart]

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

And they don't NEED a legal way to own it.

Stop being a dick.

pot calling kettle black?

No, calling you a dick.
No one needs a freaking bump stock mod.

'need' is not the issue.

No one 'needs' a car that goes 200 mph.
(Considering speed limits, no one needs a car that goes 100mph)

no one 'needs' a house with 50 rooms.

no one 'needs' any number of things

 

[MarkDuffy]

The republican side shirley won't

Neither will the Dimocrats.

They want to ban 'assault' rifles again, like Clinton did, based on the actions of a dozen or so people that misused them, and ignore the millions of other owners that havent' .

(not to mention, they look scary)

If you misuse your toys....the whole class will suffer

yup

that's the standard democrat answer isn't it.

One person screws up, screw everyone for it

That's life
Abuse your privileges and those privileges get taken away

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

I didn't shoot them.

Why do you want to abuse MY privileges?

Welcome to the real world

Do you want to also stop TSA at customs? Get rid of traffic lights? Allow kids to drink and do drugs?

 

[Auld Phart]

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

Nearly six hundred people. Let that sink in.

one person out of hundreds of millions of people that own guns...

Let THAT sink in

You just posted that you want it to happen much more

link?

or are you twisting what I posted to suit your agenda again?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Neither will the Dimocrats.

They want to ban 'assault' rifles again, like Clinton did, based on the actions of a dozen or so people that misused them, and ignore the millions of other owners that havent' .

(not to mention, they look scary)

If you misuse your toys....the whole class will suffer

yup

that's the standard democrat answer isn't it.

One person screws up, screw everyone for it

That's life
Abuse your privileges and those privileges get taken away

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

I didn't shoot them.

Why do you want to abuse MY privileges?

Welcome to the real world

Do you want to also stop TSA at customs? Get rid of traffic lights? Allow kids to drink and do drugs?

Says the one who lives in the dark corners of the internet.

 

[Auld Phart]

Neither will the Dimocrats.

They want to ban 'assault' rifles again, like Clinton did, based on the actions of a dozen or so people that misused them, and ignore the millions of other owners that havent' .

(not to mention, they look scary)

If you misuse your toys....the whole class will suffer

yup

that's the standard democrat answer isn't it.

One person screws up, screw everyone for it

That's life
Abuse your privileges and those privileges get taken away

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

I didn't shoot them.

Why do you want to abuse MY privileges?

Welcome to the real world

Do you want to also stop TSA at customs? Get rid of traffic lights? Allow kids to drink and do drugs?

Do you want to also stop TSA at customs? Get rid of traffic lights? Allow kids to drink and do drugs?

what does that have to do with gun control?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

Except it's white gun nuts doing all of the mass killing.

O? Since 1900?

What?

It's not white gun nuts doing all the mass killing.

No wonder you all don't see a problem. You're all woefully underinformed.

White men have committed more mass shootings than any other group



Tell us some more about the need for a Muslim ban.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

Nearly six hundred people. Let that sink in.

one person out of hundreds of millions of people that own guns...

Let THAT sink in

You just posted that you want it to happen much more

link?

or are you twisting what I posted to suit your agenda again?

Link? LOL, it is in the post sequence when you answered my questions with X's. You want no laws at all. Anything goes. There will be much more mass shootings if you get your way.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

And they don't NEED a legal way to own it.

Stop being a dick.

pot calling kettle black?

No, calling you a dick.
No one needs a freaking bump stock mod.

'need' is not the issue.

No one 'needs' a car that goes 200 mph.
(Considering speed limits, no one needs a car that goes 100mph)

no one 'needs' a house with 50 rooms.

no one 'needs' any number of things

When someone kills or injures 600 people with their house, then you'd have somewhat of a point.

You gun nuts would do well to just take what you already have and stop pushing the limits.

 

[Auld Phart]

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

Nearly six hundred people. Let that sink in.

one person out of hundreds of millions of people that own guns...

Let THAT sink in

You just posted that you want it to happen much more

link?

or are you twisting what I posted to suit your agenda again?

Link? LOL, it is in the post sequence when you answered my questions with X's. You want no laws at all. Anything goes. There will be much more mass shootings if you get your way.

they give a course at local colleges, called logic 101.

take a class.

No where in that post did I state there should be no laws.

Just not the restrictions you seem to want.

 

[Marion Morrison]

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

Except it's white gun nuts doing all of the mass killing.

O? Since 1900?

What?

It's not white gun nuts doing all the mass killing.

No wonder you all don't see a problem. You're all woefully underinformed.

White men have committed more mass shootings than any other group



Tell us some more about the need for a Muslim ban.

They never told you the difference between "some" and "all", huh?

In Spanish: Algunos y Todos.