No one is going to take your guns

[daveman]

Guy, let's review.

Columbine had armed guards.

But none of the people in the classrooms were allowed to carry guns there. So the shooters were able to blow away dozens, before the cops outside finally decided to take action.

VA Tech had a police force.

But none of the people in the classrooms were allowed to carry guns there. So the shooter was able to blow away dozens, before the cops outside finally decided to take action.



But the people at the political rally were forbidden to bring guns there.

Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard were freaking military bases.

But all the regular workers and soldiers in both places, were forbiddent to carry guns inside. Even the soldiers were required to turn in their guns and let them be locked up in the armory.

nothing stops a madman on a rampage other than making sure he can't get a gun to start with.

In all five places you mention here, great efforts were made to "make sure the madman couldn't get a gun to start with". And in all five places, the madman brought in a gun (or three) anyway. The only ones disarmed, IN EVERY CASE, were law-abiding people. The ones who DON'T go around killing people. They were the only ones, IN EVERY CASE, who were in any position to stop the madmen... but liberals and their laws disarmed them, while allowing the madmen to have guns AND NO OPPOSITION.

Well, little joeB131, how's the review (that you asked for) going so far? Do you feel you have enough information now, to start drawing conclusions about your cherished "gun control laws"?

Or do you need to let a few more madmen blow away a few dozen more law-abiding people THAT YOUR LAWS DISARMED?

Tell me, little joeb131: How many more innocent people need to die, before you start noticing the pattern here IN THE CASES YOU BROUGHT UP YOURSELF, and maybe you start wondering if your cherished "gun control" laws aren't all they're cracked up to be? And that just maybe, they are the problem, not the solution?

Please let us know, little joeb131. Before the next massacre of law-abiding people your laws disarmed, if you don't mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, Davey, those 22 kids who were slashed in China.

NONE OF THEM DIED!!!!

Unlike the 26 people at Sandy Hook who did.

Because it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife.

The Machette massacre involved dozens of people attacking a village.


But my favorite is the Car guy.

When his vehicle came to a stop, Attias got out and began (or continued, reports vary about whether he was yelling while driving) shouting about darkness and government plots, according to witnesses, he yelled "I am the Angel of Death!" and attempted to pick up victim Ruth Levy by the arm, but quickly lost interest, as he was surrounded by bystanders. [2]

Wow... he kind of sounds like one of you guys....

 

[JoeB131]

[
They were all off-duty, and were carrying their own personal weapons.

You know, the kind of weapons you would forbid.

So -- you failed. Yet again.

If nobody has guns, nobody needs them.

The point is, these were TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, not yahoos out there with a gun playing "George Zimmerman".

 

[daveman]

[
In all five places you mention here, great efforts were made to "make sure the madman couldn't get a gun to start with". And in all five places, the madman brought in a gun (or three) anyway. The only ones disarmed, IN EVERY CASE, were law-abiding people. The ones who DON'T go around killing people. They were the only ones, IN EVERY CASE, who were in any position to stop the madmen... but liberals and their laws disarmed them, while allowing the madmen to have guns AND NO OPPOSITION.

Well, little joeB131, how's the review (that you asked for) going so far? Do you feel you have enough information now, to start drawing conclusions about your cherished "gun control laws"?

Or do you need to let a few more madmen blow away a few dozen more law-abiding people THAT YOUR LAWS DISARMED?

Tell me, little joeb131: How many more innocent people need to die, before you start noticing the pattern here IN THE CASES YOU BROUGHT UP YOURSELF, and maybe you start wondering if your cherished "gun control" laws aren't all they're cracked up to be? And that just maybe, they are the problem, not the solution?

Please let us know, little joeb131. Before the next massacre of law-abiding people your laws disarmed, if you don't mind.

Guy, until we have a NATIONAL gun ban, saying, "Well, the establishment in question didn't allow guns in" is kind of silly.

It's like declaring a tiny bit of ocean a "Shark Free Zone" when the rest of the ocean is filled with sharks and the sharks can come and go as they please.

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

So, how's your little bitch sissy bedwetter hissy-fit working out? Anyone turned in their weapons because you're afraid of them?

No?

Tough shit, then, huh?

 

[JoeB131]

Dave, you are the one throwing a hissy.

Man, someone suggests gun control, you go off like a little sissy like they suggested castrating you.

So tell me, tough guy, how many criminals have you shot with your guns, since you are keeping me safe, supposedly.

 

[daveman]

You know what, we have 32,000 gun deaths a year in this country, and most of those people DIDN'T Deserve to die.

But that's okay by you. As long as you cling to your gun and your bible, you feel safe....

I'm safer than you are with your strategy of bending over and hoping the criminal will use lube.

No, you're really not, because if a criminal really wanted to take you out, he would.

I can tell you don't have a wife or children you're responsible for.

The most important thing to you is your own miserable pasty flabby skin, and you're not willing to defend it.

Utterly pathetic.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm safer than you are with your strategy of bending over and hoping the criminal will use lube.

No, you're really not, because if a criminal really wanted to take you out, he would.

I can tell you don't have a wife or children you're responsible for.

The most important thing to you is your own miserable pasty flabby skin, and you're not willing to defend it.

Utterly pathetic.

If I had kids, I sure wouldn't have a gun in the house, since they are 43 times more likely to be killed with those guns than those guns ever killing a bad guy.

This is what you keep dancing around, guy. Most people killed by guns either kill themselves or are killed by someone they know.

So again, Dave, how many crooks have you plugged, tough guy?

Because I know of two people who killed themselves with guns someone bought for protection, and zero people who've ever shot a bad guy.

 

[daveman]

Hey, Davey, those 22 kids who were slashed in China.

NONE OF THEM DIED!!!!

Unlike the 26 people at Sandy Hook who did.

Because it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife.

The Machette massacre involved dozens of people attacking a village.


But my favorite is the Car guy.

When his vehicle came to a stop, Attias got out and began (or continued, reports vary about whether he was yelling while driving) shouting about darkness and government plots, according to witnesses, he yelled "I am the Angel of Death!" and attempted to pick up victim Ruth Levy by the arm, but quickly lost interest, as he was surrounded by bystanders. [2]

Wow... he kind of sounds like one of you guys....

Only to astoundingly retarded assholes.

Are you an astoundingly retarded asshole?

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, wait, dave, aren't you going on about government plots all the time, too?

Like that government plot to send you a check every month?

 

[martybegan]

No, you're really not, because if a criminal really wanted to take you out, he would.

I can tell you don't have a wife or children you're responsible for.

The most important thing to you is your own miserable pasty flabby skin, and you're not willing to defend it.

Utterly pathetic.

If I had kids, I sure wouldn't have a gun in the house, since they are 43 times more likely to be killed with those guns than those guns ever killing a bad guy.

This is what you keep dancing around, guy. Most people killed by guns either kill themselves or are killed by someone they know.

So again, Dave, how many crooks have you plugged, tough guy?

Because I know of two people who killed themselves with guns someone bought for protection, and zero people who've ever shot a bad guy.

The same Kellerman crap from JoeBlow.

And of course, only JoeBlow's own experiences count for anything /sarcasm.

 

[zeke]

[
In all five places you mention here, great efforts were made to "make sure the madman couldn't get a gun to start with". And in all five places, the madman brought in a gun (or three) anyway. The only ones disarmed, IN EVERY CASE, were law-abiding people. The ones who DON'T go around killing people. They were the only ones, IN EVERY CASE, who were in any position to stop the madmen... but liberals and their laws disarmed them, while allowing the madmen to have guns AND NO OPPOSITION.

Well, little joeB131, how's the review (that you asked for) going so far? Do you feel you have enough information now, to start drawing conclusions about your cherished "gun control laws"?

Or do you need to let a few more madmen blow away a few dozen more law-abiding people THAT YOUR LAWS DISARMED?

Tell me, little joeb131: How many more innocent people need to die, before you start noticing the pattern here IN THE CASES YOU BROUGHT UP YOURSELF, and maybe you start wondering if your cherished "gun control" laws aren't all they're cracked up to be? And that just maybe, they are the problem, not the solution?

Please let us know, little joeb131. Before the next massacre of law-abiding people your laws disarmed, if you don't mind.

Guy, until we have a NATIONAL gun ban, saying, "Well, the establishment in question didn't allow guns in" is kind of silly.

It's like declaring a tiny bit of ocean a "Shark Free Zone" when the rest of the ocean is filled with sharks and the sharks can come and go as they please.

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

So, how's your little bitch sissy bedwetter hissy-fit working out? Anyone turned in their weapons because you're afraid of them?

No?

Tough shit, then, huh?

Davy davy, Joe done kicked your ass on this one. What happened? I thought you were good at this shit?

Then you went off on the "little bitch sissy bedwetter hissy fit working out?"

Dave, you do understand that YOU were having the hissy fit. Right? And that your hissy fit was you losing the argument. Again.

Good job Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

I think they are indicative...

Hell, Dave gave it his best shot, and 2/3rd of the cases he cited were law enforcement or military disarming the bad guy.

But I think I let you guys cry out your little tantrum in this thread for a while because you are just coming off like a two-year old who had his toy taken away for being bad.

 

[daveman]

[
They were all off-duty, and were carrying their own personal weapons.

You know, the kind of weapons you would forbid.

So -- you failed. Yet again.

If nobody has guns, nobody needs them.

How did disarming the indigenous Americans work out for them? They didn't need guns, right?

Tell the truth for a change. You don't give a damn about gun violence victims -- you just want everyone helpless against the government.

The point is, these were TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, not yahoos out there with a gun playing "George Zimmerman".

Three of them were trained amateurs.

Guns stop criminals every day. Mostly, it doesn't get reported, because the would-be victim doesn't fire a shot, and doesn't call the cops. The would-be criminal doesn't call the cops, either, although you believe a crime was committed against him.

But, none of that matters to you. You just want people unable to resist the totalitarian government you advocate.

 

[martybegan]

[
They were all off-duty, and were carrying their own personal weapons.

You know, the kind of weapons you would forbid.

So -- you failed. Yet again.

If nobody has guns, nobody needs them.

The point is, these were TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, not yahoos out there with a gun playing "George Zimmerman".

Kind of like the "trained professionals" in NYC that sprayed bystanders with lead while trying to put down one guy?

and was the army reserve guy's training in being an MP? Because if he was in something like armor or logistics how does THAT training make you an expert in taking down an armed criminal?

NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said all nine bystanders wounded in Friday's Empire State Building shooting had been hit with police gunfire, CNN reported Saturday morning.

According to Kelly, of the nine wounded, three suffered gunshot wounds and six were hit by fragments.

 

[daveman]

Dave, you are the one throwing a hissy.

Man, someone suggests gun control, you go off like a little sissy like they suggested castrating you.

So tell me, tough guy, how many criminals have you shot with your guns, since you are keeping me safe, supposedly.

None, since no criminals have threatened me or my family.

So tell me, pussy guy, how many criminals have you offered your ass to, since that's the only means of defense you have?

 

[daveman]

Guy, until we have a NATIONAL gun ban, saying, "Well, the establishment in question didn't allow guns in" is kind of silly.

It's like declaring a tiny bit of ocean a "Shark Free Zone" when the rest of the ocean is filled with sharks and the sharks can come and go as they please.

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

So, how's your little bitch sissy bedwetter hissy-fit working out? Anyone turned in their weapons because you're afraid of them?

No?

Tough shit, then, huh?

Davy davy, Joe done kicked your ass on this one. What happened? I thought you were good at this shit?

Then you went off on the "little bitch sissy bedwetter hissy fit working out?"

Dave, you do understand that YOU were having the hissy fit. Right? And that your hissy fit was you losing the argument. Again.

Good job Joe.

Yeah. Out here in reality -- not so much.

 

[zeke]

I think they are indicative...

Hell, Dave gave it his best shot, and 2/3rd of the cases he cited were law enforcement or military disarming the bad guy.

But I think I let you guys cry out your little tantrum in this thread for a while because you are just coming off like a two-year old who had his toy taken away for being bad.

But he did cling desperately to the idea that they were "off duty". Like being off duty automatically means you throw out your training and your responsibilities.

And those off duty officers even had their OWN gun. My my.

 

[JoeB131]

Dave, you are the one throwing a hissy.

Man, someone suggests gun control, you go off like a little sissy like they suggested castrating you.

So tell me, tough guy, how many criminals have you shot with your guns, since you are keeping me safe, supposedly.

None, since no criminals have threatened me or my family.

So tell me, pussy guy, how many criminals have you offered your ass to, since that's the only means of defense you have?

Guess what guy, no criminal has threatened me directly.

Oh, had my house broken into once when I was away...

So it strikes me that with or without guns, your incidence of being threatened is pretty low.

Meanwhile, we have 19,000 suicides and 11,000 homicides, vs. 200 "justifiable homicides" every year. So a gun is 160 times more likely to be used in a crime as self defense...

 

[martybegan]

Dave, you are the one throwing a hissy.

Man, someone suggests gun control, you go off like a little sissy like they suggested castrating you.

So tell me, tough guy, how many criminals have you shot with your guns, since you are keeping me safe, supposedly.

None, since no criminals have threatened me or my family.

So tell me, pussy guy, how many criminals have you offered your ass to, since that's the only means of defense you have?

Guess what guy, no criminal has threatened me directly.

Oh, had my house broken into once when I was away...

So it strikes me that with or without guns, your incidence of being threatened is pretty low.

Meanwhile, we have 19,000 suicides and 11,000 homicides, vs. 200 "justifiable homicides" every year. So a gun is 160 times more likely to be used in a crime as self defense...

The usual dumb use of numbers from USMB's most idiotic posters.

So the only time its a crime, or the only time the use of a gun is "justifed" is when someone dies? Again you ignore the detterrence factor from actual pulling out of a weapon, and the general detteence found from the fact that someone MAY be armed.

In your world, criminals would KNOW they had a free pass on a non governmental agent for the amount of time required for the police to respond.

 

[BlackSand]

Guy, until we have a NATIONAL gun ban, saying, "Well, the establishment in question didn't allow guns in" is kind of silly.

It's like declaring a tiny bit of ocean a "Shark Free Zone" when the rest of the ocean is filled with sharks and the sharks can come and go as they please.

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

We don't want a Police State ... This is America the last I checked ... Although I can certainly see liberals trying to turn it into a Police State where no one has any rights.

So throw them Speedos ... Chunk them overboard ... And tell them to call the Coast Guard if they need anything.
You are the one that want to throw people in shark infested waters without the ability to defend themselves.
Even if a gun ban magically made every gun disappear ... It wouldn't stop sharks from being sharks as the gun is just a tool ... Although a fairly effective one.

Just admit the real reason Liberals like you hate guns ... Because they are effective ... And if they were as screwed up as the ACA you would love them.

.