Why A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Bullshit

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you feed the troll?

 

[daws101]

It me, huh?


Try again, you drunken retard;

Difference Between Carbine and Rifle




Your own quote proves you wrong.

Give AA a try.

Apparently, AA is for quitters.

Sorry to disappoint you girls but the false accusations of alcohol and or drug use won't fly.

We're trying to find something that could explain the nonsense you post.

Here is a novel idea , take it for what it is FACT.

The trouble with that is it is not factual. You're making stuff up.

Nothing I said is fantasy , on the other hand your stuff is mostly fantasy.

 

[daws101]

false
just proves you are always talking out your ass A carbine (/ˈkɑːrbiːn/ or /ˈkɑːrbaɪn/),[1] from French carabine,[2] is a long arm firearm but with a shorter barrel than a rifle or musket.[3] Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles, shooting the same ammunition, while others fire lower-powered ammunition, including those designed for pistols.[cita

you are wrong so often .you and unhinged should get an apartment.

No one calls them carbine rifles. You had your M1 Garand RIFLE, and your M1 Carbine in WWII. When you say M1 Carbine, you are giving the name of the actual weapon, that it has rifling is implied, but it is not a "rifle" per say, it is a carbine.

False!
But you had to say something.

True.
Also true, is that you are a twat.

False on both

Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles,

That's waht a carbine is, however no one says "carbine rifle". They say rifle, or carbine.

Distinction without a difference

Fail.

 

[martybegan]

Why do you feed the troll?

because

1) I'm bored
2) once a thread reaches page 60 or so mindless insults are about the best you can expect.

 

[martybegan]

No one calls them carbine rifles. You had your M1 Garand RIFLE, and your M1 Carbine in WWII. When you say M1 Carbine, you are giving the name of the actual weapon, that it has rifling is implied, but it is not a "rifle" per say, it is a carbine.

False!
But you had to say something.

True.
Also true, is that you are a twat.

False on both

Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles,

That's waht a carbine is, however no one says "carbine rifle". They say rifle, or carbine.

Distinction without a difference

Fail.

Nope. All the other weapons listed were described properly, the "carbine rifle" was not.

 

[daws101]

False!
But you had to say something.

True.
Also true, is that you are a twat.

False on both

Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles,

That's waht a carbine is, however no one says "carbine rifle". They say rifle, or carbine.

Distinction without a difference

Fail.

Nope. All the other weapons listed were described properly, the "carbine rifle" was not.

Another distinction without a difference.
Talk about bored. ..

 

[hadit]

So address the scenario. What is a victim to do when he/she has no weapon, nowhere to go, and nowhere to hide? Until you do, you're just flailing, hoping I'll get tired of pummeling you and go away.

I put a weapon in his hand.
You take all weapons from him.
A shooter is turning his attention toward him.

What will happen?

pummeling what?
and I did address the scenario it 's contrived predictable and melodramatic and not even close to real.

Dude, that's simply stupid. In every mass shooting, a victim faces the shooter. He either has a weapon or he doesn't. If he has a weapon, he has a chance to stop the shooting. If he doesn't have one, he doesn't have a chance. How difficult to understand is that? You're just dodging reality here, because the end result of your fantasy is UNARMED victims. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And you can't justify it.

I'm not trying to justify anything.
You on the other hand are justifying, rationalizing like a bitch.
It’s you who fantasizing.
As to chance.
Your shooter has only a fractionally better chance of stopping a bad guy than a unarmed person .

So, to sum it up, the shooter who is trying to rack up the body count is Chuck Norris and kills a lot of people, but anyone who opposes him is Barney Fife and doesn't have a chance of killing him. This in spite of evidence that they actually do and have done so.

This is why we think you're drunk. You're making no sense at all.

Didn't say that, you are making false inferences based on your paranoia.
Like I said there is no hard and fast answer to this problem.
Your whole fantasy is based on a few "lucky breaks".

Nonsense. My idea is to give a victim a chance. Yours is to give him no chance. That's as simple as it gets.

 

[martybegan]

True.
Also true, is that you are a twat.

False on both

Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles,

That's waht a carbine is, however no one says "carbine rifle". They say rifle, or carbine.

Distinction without a difference

Fail.

Nope. All the other weapons listed were described properly, the "carbine rifle" was not.

Another distinction without a difference.
Talk about bored. ..

Words mean things.

 

[hadit]

Apparently, AA is for quitters.

Sorry to disappoint you girls but the false accusations of alcohol and or drug use won't fly.

We're trying to find something that could explain the nonsense you post.

Here is a novel idea , take it for what it is FACT.

The trouble with that is it is not factual. You're making stuff up.

Nothing I said is fantasy , on the other hand your stuff is mostly fantasy.

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

 

[hadit]

Why do you feed the troll?

Because they're so cute when they start flailing around, desperate to save face in any way they can, but completely unable to do so. Then their little ears and whiskers start twitching and they're just adorable.

 

[daws101]

pummeling what?
and I did address the scenario it 's contrived predictable and melodramatic and not even close to real.

Dude, that's simply stupid. In every mass shooting, a victim faces the shooter. He either has a weapon or he doesn't. If he has a weapon, he has a chance to stop the shooting. If he doesn't have one, he doesn't have a chance. How difficult to understand is that? You're just dodging reality here, because the end result of your fantasy is UNARMED victims. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And you can't justify it.

I'm not trying to justify anything.
You on the other hand are justifying, rationalizing like a bitch.
It’s you who fantasizing.
As to chance.
Your shooter has only a fractionally better chance of stopping a bad guy than a unarmed person .

So, to sum it up, the shooter who is trying to rack up the body count is Chuck Norris and kills a lot of people, but anyone who opposes him is Barney Fife and doesn't have a chance of killing him. This in spite of evidence that they actually do and have done so.

This is why we think you're drunk. You're making no sense at all.

Didn't say that, you are making false inferences based on your paranoia.
Like I said there is no hard and fast answer to this problem.
Your whole fantasy is based on a few "lucky breaks".

Nonsense. My idea is to give a victim a chance. Yours is to give him no chance. That's as simple as it gets.

False!

• 
• DONATE

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

MARK FOLLMAN DEC. 19, 2012 7:01 AM

Pack Shot/Shutterstock

In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed aM-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcementoverwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved.

 

[daws101]

False on both

Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles,

That's waht a carbine is, however no one says "carbine rifle". They say rifle, or carbine.

Distinction without a difference

Fail.

Nope. All the other weapons listed were described properly, the "carbine rifle" was not.

Another distinction without a difference.
Talk about bored. ..

Words mean things.

Yes they do and you misinterpret them constantly.

 

[daws101]

Sorry to disappoint you girls but the false accusations of alcohol and or drug use won't fly.

We're trying to find something that could explain the nonsense you post.

Here is a novel idea , take it for what it is FACT.

The trouble with that is it is not factual. You're making stuff up.

Nothing I said is fantasy , on the other hand your stuff is mostly fantasy.

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

 

[martybegan]

That's waht a carbine is, however no one says "carbine rifle". They say rifle, or carbine.

Distinction without a difference

Fail.

Nope. All the other weapons listed were described properly, the "carbine rifle" was not.

Another distinction without a difference.
Talk about bored. ..

Words mean things.

Yes they do and you misinterpret them constantly.

nope.

 

[daws101]

Why do you feed the troll?

Because they're so cute when they start flailing around, desperate to save face in any way they can, but completely unable to do so. Then their little ears and whiskers start twitching and they're just adorable.

Excellent description of yourself.
I never flail and have no face to save.

 

[hadit]

Why do you feed the troll?

Because they're so cute when they start flailing around, desperate to save face in any way they can, but completely unable to do so. Then their little ears and whiskers start twitching and they're just adorable.

Excellent description of yourself.
I never flail and have no face to save.

Then you have no idea what you're posting.

 

[daws101]

Distinction without a difference

Fail.

Nope. All the other weapons listed were described properly, the "carbine rifle" was not.

Another distinction without a difference.
Talk about bored. ..

Words mean things.

Yes they do and you misinterpret them constantly.

nope.

Yawn.

 

[hadit]

We're trying to find something that could explain the nonsense you post.

Here is a novel idea , take it for what it is FACT.

The trouble with that is it is not factual. You're making stuff up.

Nothing I said is fantasy , on the other hand your stuff is mostly fantasy.

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

 

[daws101]

I'm not trying to justify anything.
You on the other hand are justifying, rationalizing like a bitch.
It’s you who fantasizing.
As to chance.
Your shooter has only a fractionally better chance of stopping a bad guy than a unarmed person .

So, to sum it up, the shooter who is trying to rack up the body count is Chuck Norris and kills a lot of people, but anyone who opposes him is Barney Fife and doesn't have a chance of killing him. This in spite of evidence that they actually do and have done so.

This is why we think you're drunk. You're making no sense at all.

Didn't say that, you are making false inferences based on your paranoia.
Like I said there is no hard and fast answer to this problem.
Your whole fantasy is based on a few "lucky breaks".

Nonsense. My idea is to give a victim a chance. Yours is to give him no chance. That's as simple as it gets.

False!

• 
• DONATE

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

MARK FOLLMAN DEC. 19, 2012 7:01 AM

Pack Shot/Shutterstock

In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed aM-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcementoverwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved.

So what options do you want victims to have when facing a shooter? Spell them out.

Asked and answered.

 

[hunarcy]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

Bullshit!

Of course, because he's undermining your premise and showing you're a fool. "Bullshit" is your ONLY response.