Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[Slade3200]

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

you can think what you want. it's what you can prove that matters.

aka - people THINK biden got the guy removed cause he was coming after his son. is this how you really want to play this?

That’s fine to think that. Maybe that was a motivating factor. But the fact that it was the official position of our government and other governments, that gives weight behind his actions and negates any criminal activity that is being falsely implicated. There is no crime

so how come you never have to have proof, only others do? you say your COMMON SENSE is so infallible and we're not smart enough to get it, but you seldom if ever hold yourself to the very same accountability you demand of others.

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

 

[iceberg]

you can think what you want. it's what you can prove that matters.

aka - people THINK biden got the guy removed cause he was coming after his son. is this how you really want to play this?

That’s fine to think that. Maybe that was a motivating factor. But the fact that it was the official position of our government and other governments, that gives weight behind his actions and negates any criminal activity that is being falsely implicated. There is no crime

so how come you never have to have proof, only others do? you say your COMMON SENSE is so infallible and we're not smart enough to get it, but you seldom if ever hold yourself to the very same accountability you demand of others.

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

 

[Slade3200]

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

not pissed - just not playing your bullshit reindeer games. now that i keep asking you to prove something, you're now accusing me of doing the shit i keep saying you're doing. another very liberal tactic.

you don't debate, you just say a lot of shit.

It’s not a game. It’s asking you the EXACT same question you are asking me and instead of just answering you get upset and claim I’m playing games.

You want me to prove why I’d support a certain gun regulation yet you can’t provide the same proof for the regulation you support. It’s because we are both using our common sense to back our support.

You know machine guns are very dangerous and cause a safety risk so you support their ban. Same concept for the things I’m saying but you gotta call it FEELZ and demand proof.

So show me how to properly answer by proving your support of the auto ban.

cause i answer it. over and over again. then you run out to some stupid ass extreme 7-11 nuke f1 race car shit and i just get tired of chasing your tail with you.

chase your own tail for awhile.

What’s your answer? What proof backs your support of the auto ban? I haven’t seen you answer it... you keep diverting to diss on me for being extreme. If it’s extreme it should be an easy answer for you

 

[Slade3200]

That’s fine to think that. Maybe that was a motivating factor. But the fact that it was the official position of our government and other governments, that gives weight behind his actions and negates any criminal activity that is being falsely implicated. There is no crime

so how come you never have to have proof, only others do? you say your COMMON SENSE is so infallible and we're not smart enough to get it, but you seldom if ever hold yourself to the very same accountability you demand of others.

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

 

[iceberg]

so how come you never have to have proof, only others do? you say your COMMON SENSE is so infallible and we're not smart enough to get it, but you seldom if ever hold yourself to the very same accountability you demand of others.

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

 

[2aguy]

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

 

[2aguy]

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

He/she is as bad as brain357........

 

[2aguy]

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

not pissed - just not playing your bullshit reindeer games. now that i keep asking you to prove something, you're now accusing me of doing the shit i keep saying you're doing. another very liberal tactic.

you don't debate, you just say a lot of shit.

It’s not a game. It’s asking you the EXACT same question you are asking me and instead of just answering you get upset and claim I’m playing games.

You want me to prove why I’d support a certain gun regulation yet you can’t provide the same proof for the regulation you support. It’s because we are both using our common sense to back our support.

You know machine guns are very dangerous and cause a safety risk so you support their ban. Same concept for the things I’m saying but you gotta call it FEELZ and demand proof.

So show me how to properly answer by proving your support of the auto ban.

Machine guns are not banned......but you guys will imply that the AR-15 is a machine gun to get uninformed people to have that image in their brains when they vote to ban the AR-15......

 

[Slade3200]

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

 

[iceberg]

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

He/she is as bad as brain357........

getting there. 2nd time i've tried to go in depth but the only "in depth" he'll allow is his own. disagree, you're just not that smart. he can't understand the environment is dependent on so many things other than "the gun" that its impossible to simply say one is always preferable over the other.

he doesn't understand that, so answering that question won't get us anywhere except a jump to buying nukes with my slurpee so i can get back in my F1 race car and shoot up the town with my semi-auto shotgun with 100 shell capacity.

 

[iceberg]

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

 

[iceberg]

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

well that doesn't count cause it goes against his feelz, so that situation isn't the same.

 

[Slade3200]

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

So the 100 round mag is not dangerous because it jammed once and the shooter had to switch guns?! Ok, nice argument

 

[iceberg]

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

So the 100 round mag is not dangerous because it jammed once and the shooter had to switch guns?! Ok, nice argument

Why do higher cap magazines jam? [Archive] - Calguns.net
Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions

you don't research the shit you say, do you? anyone with experience knows those suckers jam up far more often than not. but you don't go look that up, you sit there and go OH ONE TIME!!! like a bandcamp reference.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, here are some environments. Festival, park, night club, elementary school, concert. Let’s say you are at any one of these events and there is a shooter. Would you prefer he have a shot gun or an AR with a 100 round mag?

Honesty test

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

 

[2aguy]

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

So the 100 round mag is not dangerous because it jammed once and the shooter had to switch guns?! Ok, nice argument

Nope...... the argument again, is the gun and the magazines count less than the gun free location.

Hey.....guess what....

The Russian shooter....killed 20 and injured 40 with a tube fed, no magazine, 5 shot, pump action shotgun...........no rifle, no magazine...

The Aurora Theater Shooter? With a rifle and 100 round drum magazine?

He killed 12.

So again......the gun free zone, not the weapon or magazine, creates the body count......

 

[Slade3200]

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

well that doesn't count cause it goes against his feelz, so that situation isn't the same.

Can you explain how your FEELZ on the auto laws are any different from my FEELZ on the current regs we’ve been discussing?

 

[2aguy]

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

 

[iceberg]

neither. i'd rather figure out why people keep doing this and address that than THINK i'm out to minimize the damage they can do.

bullshit test i ain't playing.

You ain’t playing because the obvious answer is what I’ve been saying. If you can’t admit that then you are the one playing games. another question dodged. Good going.

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

i tried digging in. you kept going to bullshit extremes to avoid coming to a concensus.

ain't no reason to go back and try for a 3rd time.

 

[iceberg]

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

And you are wrong. The 100 round drum magazine...used in the Aurora theater shooting jammed...he had to switch weapons..

In that environment, the shot gun would have been just as effective as the rifle..which again, malfunctioned.....

Without the rifle he would have simply used pistols and shotguns and achieved the same body count....as I keep showing you, a pump acton, 5 shot, shotgun killed more people than the Gilroy shooter, 3 killed, and the dayton shooter, 10 killed, both had rifles and those magazines, and killed fewer than the Russian with the shotgun...

You have no rational argument...you want to first use the 100 round drum magazine to confuse normal people into allowing you to ban all magazines down to 10 rounds....then, when the next mass shooter kills with 10 round magazines or a shotgun...you will come for those next.

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting - Wikipedia

semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.

well that doesn't count cause it goes against his feelz, so that situation isn't the same.

Can you explain how your FEELZ on the auto laws are any different from my FEELZ on the current regs we’ve been discussing?

and now we're to the liberal tactic where you blame me for doing what i say you're doing.

come up with your own shit, dude.