GOOD MAN WITH A GUN: Man With AR-15 Saves Neighbor From Stabbing Attack

[ducks]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27616/man-ar-15-saves-neighbor-stabbing-attack-hank-berrien?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

[Spurtacular]

I'm sure this will be all over the news.

[Pavlov]

I'm sure this will be all over the news.

:lol daily wire got this story from the news, genius.

[Blake]

Yeah I think a handgun would have had the same effect

[hater]

ALL HAIL THE IRON ROD OF JESUS!!! ALLELUYAAA!!!

SAY IT WITH ME HALEEELUYAAAA!!!

[boutons_deux]

Dickless gun fellator should have emulated the very brave Trash and help out UNarmed

[dabom]

:lol daily wire got this story from the news, genius.

:lol

[Spurtacular]

:lol daily wire got this story from the news, genius.

What does "all over the news" mean to you?

And :lol at your sad :lol

[koriwhat]

Yeah I think a handgun would have had the same effect

you have no clue

[koriwhat]

Dickless gun fellator should have emulated the very brave Trash and help out UNarmed

poor ball less boutons

[Pavlov]

What does "all over the news" mean to you?Pretty much where that story is, genius.

:lol

[Reck]

:lol daily wire got this story from the news, genius.

Derptacular thinks CNN, MSNBC and even Fox News channel are in the business of reporting local news. :lol

That is not what they do. As per OPs own link, this was reported by the local news and then picked up by an online news outlet.

OPs raging and triggering aside, all bases were covered in terms of covering the news locally.

[Blake]

you have no clue

Handguns kill too last I checked. Most people know that handguns kill too. And you're retarded.

My opinion stands.

[koriwhat]

Handguns kill too last I checked. Most people know that handguns kill too. And you're retarded.

My opinion stands.

your opinion does stand but it's a shit opinion so there's that. btw no guns kill, neither do cars, knives, etc...

[Blake]

your opinion does stand but it's a shit opinion so there's that. btw no guns kill, neither do cars, knives, etc...

Neither sentence makes any sense

[koriwhat]

Neither sentence makes any sense

nothing makes sense to the deaf, dumb, and blind like yourself blake. go play some more pinball.

[Blake]

Uh huh

[Chris]

That's why it's the number one weapon for home defense. Because shit happens.

[spurraider21]

the amount of accidental deaths caused by firearms far exceed the amount of justified self defense homicides tbh...

[Blake]

That's why it's the number one weapon for home defense. Because shit happens.

So you have one then?

[DMC]

ALL HAIL THE IRON ROD OF JESUS!!! ALLELUYAAA!!!

SAY IT WITH ME HALEEELUYAAAA!!!

:lol

[DMC]

That's why it's the number one weapon for home defense. Because shit happens.

Because most firearm owners have no idea about close quarters battle. They'd be much better off with a breech gun like a 12ga tactical with extended magazine. At least they wouldn't kill everyone across the street, in the next room and so forth. Try hitting anythng with a loud ass .223 in the middle of the night, half asleep.. in the dark.

[DMC]

the amount of accidental deaths caused by firearms far exceed the amount of justified self defense homicides tbh...

So?

[Chris]

Because most firearm owners have no idea about close quarters battle. They'd be much better off with a breech gun like a 12ga tactical with extended magazine. At least they wouldn't kill everyone across the street, in the next room and so forth. Try hitting anythng with a loud ass .223 in the middle of the night, half asleep.. in the dark.

I agree on the 12 guage imo don't even need to aim - ideal for women and old farts.

[DMC]

Yeah I think a handgun would have had the same effect

True. Odd that for some reason assault rifles are considered more deadly unless self defense is brought up.

[DMC]

I agree on the 12 guage imo don't even need to aim - ideal from women and old farts.

..or anyone else who breaks into your house.

[Chris]

So?

He's basically saying there's more bad guys than good guys. This is universal knowledge, but it's something he can fall back on.

[Chris]

..or anyone else who breaks into your house.

:lol

[Blake]

True. Odd that for some reason assault rifles are considered more deadly unless self defense is brought up.

Well I can't think of a home invasion that involved a mass gathering size number of intruders, can you?

[spurraider21]

So?


He's basically saying there's more bad guys than good guys. This is universal knowledge, but it's something he can fall back on.
if we're going to weigh the costs and benefits of guns (as this thread/the OP tried to do) its pretty useful information

[DMC]

Well I can't think of a home invasion that involved a mass gathering size numbers of intruders, can you?

Either they are just as deadly or they aren't. A person with nothing but semi-auto pistols killed 23 at a Luby's in Killeen. If you think you cannot kill 17 people in a crowded classroom with a handgun, you're mistaken.

The deciding factor is the density of the group, not so much the weapon used. You could walk into a crowded room with a shotgun with 7 rounds of 00 buckshot and likely kill 10 people very quickly. Try that same gun at a park where folks can run after that first shot, things change.

The trick is to secure the areas where large crowds gather, where there's only one entrance/exit (rooms) and where neighborhoods or hotels border the campuses.

[DMC]

if we're going to weigh the costs and benefits of guns (as this thread/the OP tried to do) its pretty useful information

I don't see it as cost/benefit analysis as much as railing against the news for not having balanced reporting. Even if the guy saved 17 people, the gun probably wouldn't be mentioned. Cops do it every day, rarely gets more than local mention.

[Spurtacular]

Pretty much where that story is, genius.

:lol

So, you don't know what the saying means. :lol

[Pavlov]

So, you don't know what the saying means. :lolYes I do.

You're just mad it's actually all over the news.

[Spurtacular]

Yes I do.

You're just mad it's actually all over the news.

According to you it means one outlet covering a story. :lmao

[Pavlov]

According to you it means one outlet covering a story. :lmaoNope, plenty of outlets covered the story.

You didn't even check. :lmao

[spurraider21]

I don't see it as cost/benefit analysis as much as railing against the news for not having balanced reporting. Even if the guy saved 17 people, the gun probably wouldn't be mentioned. Cops do it every day, rarely gets more than local mention.
a man saving his neighbor is about as much a national story as a man killing his neighbor.

[Spurtacular]

Nope, plenty of outlets covered the story.

You didn't even check. :lmao

Give me a rundown on what networks and cable stations covered it, then, and for how long.

[Spurtacular]

a man saving his neighbor is about as much a national story as a man killing his neighbor.

So, we should rely on sensationalized news stories to determine our gun laws is what you're saying?

[spurraider21]

So, we should rely on sensationalized news stories to determine our gun laws is what you're saying?
no. we just shouldn't get triggered when every local story we like doesn't get plastered in the national news

[Pavlov]

Give me a rundown on what networks and cable stations covered it, then, and for how long.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/c924b622b71a51d0c4aa21760c69b9f3/tenor.gif?itemid=9264828lol

[Spurtacular]

lol

Oh, so "all over the news" to you means you could find more than one link on the internet. :lmao

[Blake]

Either they are just as deadly or they aren't. A person with nothing but semi-auto pistols killed 23 at a Luby's in Killeen. If you think you cannot kill 17 people in a crowded classroom with a handgun, you're mistaken.

The deciding factor is the density of the group, not so much the weapon used. You could walk into a crowded room with a shotgun with 7 rounds of 00 buckshot and likely kill 10 people very quickly. Try that same gun at a park where folks can run after that first shot, things change.

The trick is to secure the areas where large crowds gather, where there's only one entrance/exit (rooms) and where neighborhoods or hotels border the campuses.

Yeah I don't think you can kill 17 people as easily with a non semi auto handgun as you can with an ar-15. None of your arguments anywhere here on this board have changed that.

Especially the "yeah well what about a car" thing

[koriwhat]

Yeah I don't think you can kill 17 people as easily with a non semi auto handgun as you can with an ar-15. None of your arguments anywhere here on this board have changed that.

Especially the "yeah well what about a car" thing

how can you think at all on this issue when you have no clue about the issue? you just stated, "yeah i don't think"... well i want to hear from someone who knows and not someone who speculates because they have no expertise in the subject. so your 0 knowledge helps none!

[Chris]

Yeah I don't think you can kill 17 people as easily with a non semi auto handgun as you can with an ar-15. None of your arguments anywhere here on this board have changed that.

Especially the "yeah well what about a car" thing

You can kill 17 people really easily with a homemade bomb. Your argument has no legs. Never will.

[Pavlov]

Oh, so "all over the news" to you means you could find more than one link on the internet. :lmaoIt means it was pretty widely reported in local, regional and national outlets.

You're demanding it be the top story everywhere in the country.

That's stupid.

You're stupid.

[spurraider21]

You can kill 17 people really easily with a homemade bomb. Your argument has no legs. Never will.
so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?

[Pavlov]

I know a lot of people boycotted when Wal-Mart stopped selling bombs to 18 year olds.

[Chris]

so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?

The United States is not a 3rd world country. I've already agreed to better backround checks and mental health screens including enforcement at State and Federal level so we don't have another Parkland where the FBI and local police sat on their hands. I'm assuming your argument is to make it harder for these mass murderers to get guns. I'm all for that.

[koriwhat]

It means it was pretty widely reported in local, regional and national outlets.

You're demanding it be the top story everywhere in the country.

That's stupid.

You're stupid.

you're not playing your own game well pav... always so demanding and entitled yet you puss out when the script flips. if anyone is stupid it's your dumbass.

[spurraider21]

The United States is not a 3rd world country. I've already agreed to better backround checks and mental health screens including enforcement at State and Federal level so we don't have another Parkland where the FBI and local police sat on their hands. I'm assuming your argument is to make it harder for these mass murderers to get guns. I'm all for that.
wasn't my question. why do people here use guns instead of home made bombs?

[koriwhat]

wasn't my question. why do people here use guns instead of home made bombs?

guess you weren't around for the boston MASSACRE?

[spurraider21]

guess you weren't around for the boston MASSACRE?
i was. that's why i originally phrased it like this

so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?

[koriwhat]

i was. that's why i originally phrased it like this

guess you weren't around for 9/11?

[Chris]

wasn't my question. why do people here use guns instead of home made bombs?

Already answered. The United States is not a 3rd world country. I simply expanded assuming that's where you were heading. Did you have a point then?

[spurraider21]

guess you weren't around for 9/11?


i was. that's why i originally phrased it like this


so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?
are you really so retarded? you're dodging the question because you know the answer and dont want to say it

[spurraider21]

Already answered. The United States is not a 3rd world country. I simply expanded assuming that's where you were heading. Did you have a point then?
how does that answer my question.

if cruz could just have easily killed 17 people with a homemade bomb, why didn't he use a homemade bomb? or the orlando nightclub shooter? or the las vegas shooter? why did they all prefer guns to bombs if they can do the same amount of damage?

[koriwhat]

are you really so retarded? you're dodging the question because you know the answer and dont want to say it

list all mass murders state side, then show weapons used, and only then will we have some real stats and not just stats due to mass murders at schools but as a whole.

i mean damn, 9/11 alone took more lives than all mass murders combined in the last 30 yrs. so fuck planes, right?

[koriwhat]

how does that answer my question.

if cruz could just have easily killed 17 people with a homemade bomb, why didn't he use a homemade bomb? or the orlando nightclub shooter? or the las vegas shooter? why did they all prefer guns to bombs if they can do the same amount of damage?

here's a better question... just like in las vegas, where's the camera footage at of cruz? don't tell me that school had no cameras. why is this a reoccurring theme as of late?

[DMC]

Yeah I don't think you can kill 17 people as easily with a non semi auto handgun as you can with an ar-15. None of your arguments anywhere here on this board have changed that.

Especially the "yeah well what about a car" thing

Like always when you're faced with facts you withdraw to your safe space.

[DMC]

so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?

Same reason they attack gun free zones instead of police stations: Easier. Not just anyone can construct a potent bomb. Anyone can pick up a weapon and being firing. The question then is why do these people target unarmed people? Same reason criminals do... better odds of high body count and lower odds of being killed themselves.

Liberals think they have the power to make the country a gun free zone. The fact is that you only make groups of people, congregated in unsecured locations, into viable targets of opportunity because you feel better about having a gun free zone. Heaven forbid someone have a gun to shoot back, they might accidentally shoot someone innocent, and the odds are that person could have already been shot once.

[spurraider21]

here's a better question... just like in las vegas, where's the camera footage at of cruz? don't tell me that school had no cameras. why is this a reoccurring theme as of late?
ah, the truther in you comes out.

:lmao just saw in the other thread you're a moon lander truther too. what about 9/11? sandy hook? vegas?

[Pavlov]

you're not playing your own game well pav... always so demanding and entitled yet you puss out when the script flips. if anyone is stupid it's your dumbass.He never looked in the first place, so he needs to try at least once.

It's really easy.

Do you know how to search the internet for news?

[koriwhat]

ah, the truther in you comes out.

:lmao just saw in the other thread you're a moon lander truther too. what about 9/11? sandy hook? vegas?

9/11, sure there's some sketchy shit there too. vegas too. sandy hook, never really looked into that school shooting.

i love psychedelics so it shouldn't come as a surprise that i question most everything in this fucked up world of ours. come on now.

but what i want to know is are we talking strictly school massacres or just massacres in general? what really are you arguing? you want to discredit my line of thinking but add no substance to back up your claims. hmm...

[koriwhat]

He never looked in the first place, so he needs to try at least once.

It's really easy.

Do you know how to search the internet for news?

it's really simple... don't play this stupid fucking game of yours and curtail it out of here when asked to play. you're the pussy here player!

[spurraider21]

Same reason they attack gun free zones instead of police stations: Easier. Not just anyone can construct a potent bomb. Anyone can pick up a weapon and being firing. The question then is why do these people target unarmed people? Same reason criminals do... better odds of high body count and lower odds of being killed themselves.

well there's an honest answer for the first time in this thread. that's all i'm trying to get across tbh. pretending that knives/bombs/cars pose just as much a threat is naive.


Liberals think they have the power to make the country a gun free zone. The fact is that you only make groups of people, congregated in unsecured locations, into viable targets of opportunity because you feel better about having a gun free zone. Heaven forbid someone have a gun to shoot back, they might accidentally shoot someone innocent, and the odds are that person could have already been shot once.
i dont know that anybody thinks turning the country into a gun free zone is feasible, so i'm inclined to say that's a strawman.

that being said... if we can agree that:

1) there are always going to be bad people that want to murder others
2) under most circumstances, guns are the most effective way, and most accessible means by which the people in #1 to go do those bad things

then why wouldn't be support changes in laws that create additional hurdles for those people in #1 to acquire the tools needed to carry out such acts? no law is going to stop murder, or even mass killings. but any additional barrier can a good thing.

[spurraider21]

9/11, sure there's some sketchy shit there too. vegas too. sandy hook, never really looked into that school shooting.

i love psychedelics so it shouldn't come as a surprise that i question most everything in this fucked up world of ours. come on now.

but what i want to know is are we talking strictly school massacres or just massacres in general? what really are you arguing? you want to discredit my line of thinking but add no substance to back up your claims. hmm...
mass killings in general. senseless acts of violence.

so in this case, not talking about crimes of passion, ie drug dealer killing a rival, husband killing wife's boyfriend

[Pavlov]

it's really simple... don't play this stupid fucking game of yours and curtail it out of here when asked to play. you're the pussy here player!I did the search.

He didn't.

Pretty simple.

[koriwhat]

mass killings in general. senseless acts of violence.

so in this case, not talking about crimes of passion, ie drug dealer killing a rival, husband killing wife's boyfriend

see if we are discussing mass killings then how do you just dismiss the examples i provided? is it because you only want to discuss guns and not other means of more casualty ridden events? if we are discussing mass killings in general then we need to look at weapons used and total destruction by said weapons, not what weapon might be more prone to be used in mass killings.

if 9/11 killed more innocent lives than that of all massacres in the USA, done with firearms, in the last 30 yrs then why aren't we just discussing planes as a viable weapon and needing to rid our society of such a destructive force? instead we get longer security lines, pat downs, etc... where's the outrage?

dealing with this parkland scenario is more than just, "ar-15 and semi's need to be banned!". let's start taking the licenses away from the medical professionals who dropped the ball on this kid or the badges from the fbi and pd officers who also dropped the ball? it's always the guns until more and more info slips through the cracks that most likely ends up dismissed in the minds of those who can't see the forest from the trees.

[koriwhat]

I did the search.

He didn't.

Pretty simple.

the simple thing to do would have been to back up your claim with the research you did.... you know, the same you ask of everyone else around here every fucking day.

[Pavlov]

the simple thing to do would have been to back up your claim with the research you did.... you know, the same you ask of everyone else around here every fucking day.I searched the dudes name and "ar-15" -- do you seriously not know how to do this?

Answer the question.

[DMC]

well there's an honest answer for the first time in this thread. that's all i'm trying to get across tbh. pretending that knives/bombs/cars pose just as much a threat is naive.

Would you walk into a gun store and think "this poses a threat"?

Of course not. Bombs, sure. They can go off any time. The gun threat is a person threat. When the threat is neutralized, the gun still exists.

This obvious distinction gets glassed over in these types of conversations, as if the gun itself is the issue. Granted, someone who wants to kill would have an easier time with a gun than without it, but the issue is that the person wants to kill you and that the person is able to kill a lot of you because you are herded into a box under the guise of being safe. You're not safe. You cannot get rid of guns, not you as an individual. Therefore if you want to have the best survival chances, you avoid being trapped and you avoid being unable to defend yourself. That seems like simple survival sense.



i dont know that anybody thinks turning the country into a gun free zone is feasible, so i'm inclined to say that's a strawman.

Since it's not feasible, I don't want to be on the victim side of the equation because I wanted to make a gun free zone personal statement by being vulnerable.


that being said... if we can agree that:

1) there are always going to be bad people that want to murder others
2) under most circumstances, guns are the most effective way, and most accessible means by which the people in #1 to go do those bad things

then why wouldn't be support changes in laws that create additional hurdles for those people in #1 to acquire the tools needed to carry out such acts? no law is going to stop murder, or even mass killings. but any additional barrier can a good thing.
Because hurdles aren't barriers. I don't care to add another sandbag to the breached levy just to watch it wash away, and pretend I tried. Like you said, you cannot guarantee my safety from guns, so you cannot remove my right to defend myself with equal force.

[koriwhat]

I searched the dudes name and "ar-15" -- do you seriously not know how to do this?

Answer the question.

that right there is the issue i have with you pav. so fucking demanding but you don't even play by your own rules that you ask others to play by. one day you'll learn.

[Pavlov]

that right there is the issue i have with you pav. so fucking demanding but you don't even play by your own rules that you ask others to play by. one day you'll learn.I just told you how I searched.

I can only conclude you are too stupid to conduct a similar search.

Thank you for admitting it.

[koriwhat]

I just told you how I searched.

I can only conclude you are too stupid to conduct a similar search.

Thank you for admitting it.

your searching means nothing to me or anyone else. you claim this or that, provide no evidence, claim you went and searched, and then have the gall to tell others to do the leg work when you demand the leg work be done for you if this was reversed.

[Pavlov]

your searching means nothing to me or anyone else. you claim this or that, provide no evidence, claim you went and searched, and then have the gall to tell others to do the leg work when you demand the leg work be done for you if this was reversed.That's the whole point -- none of you ever do any of the work.

You're just ranting puddles of emotion.

[spurraider21]

see if we are discussing mass killings then how do you just dismiss the examples i provided? is it because you only want to discuss guns and not other means of more casualty ridden events? if we are discussing mass killings in general then we need to look at weapons used and total destruction by said weapons, not what weapon might be more prone to be used in mass killings.

if 9/11 killed more innocent lives than that of all massacres in the USA, done with firearms, in the last 30 yrs then why aren't we just discussing planes as a viable weapon and needing to rid our society of such a destructive force? instead we get longer security lines, pat downs, etc... where's the outrage?

dealing with this parkland scenario is more than just, "ar-15 and semi's need to be banned!". let's start taking the licenses away from the medical professionals who dropped the ball on this kid or the badges from the fbi and pd officers who also dropped the ball? it's always the guns until more and more info slips through the cracks that most likely ends up dismissed in the minds of those who can't see the forest from the trees.
i dont dismiss them. im addressing by far the most common means

[spurraider21]

Would you walk into a gun store and think "this poses a threat"?

Of course not. Bombs, sure. They can go off any time. The gun threat is a person threat. When the threat is neutralized, the gun still exists.

This obvious distinction gets glassed over in these types of conversations, as if the gun itself is the issue. Granted, someone who wants to kill would have an easier time with a gun than without it, but the issue is that the person wants to kill you and that the person is able to kill a lot of you because you are herded into a box under the guise of being safe. You're not safe. You cannot get rid of guns, not you as an individual. Therefore if you want to have the best survival chances, you avoid being trapped and you avoid being unable to defend yourself. That seems like simple survival sense.


Since it's not feasible, I don't want to be on the victim side of the equation because I wanted to make a gun free zone personal statement by being vulnerable.

Because hurdles aren't barriers. I don't care to add another sandbag to the breached levy just to watch it wash away, and pretend I tried. Like you said, you cannot guarantee my safety from guns, so you cannot remove my right to defend myself with equal force.
photos from paddocks hotel room

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/24/new-photos-show-las-vegas-hotel-room-stephen-paddock-shot-dead-58-people-7255894/

there is absolutely no good reason why it is legal for a person to own that much destructive capability, where every act up until pulling the trigger is completely legal. go ahead and conceal carry a pistol... thats not going to protect you from somebody who owns THAT amount of damage.

im simplifying to issue to those pictures. lets find a way to NOT make that legal. because there's no good that can come out of that being legal

[DMC]

photos from paddocks hotel room

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/24/new-photos-show-las-vegas-hotel-room-stephen-paddock-shot-dead-58-people-7255894/

there is absolutely no good reason why it is legal for a person to own that much destructive capability, where every act up until pulling the trigger is completely legal. go ahead and conceal carry a pistol... thats not going to protect you from somebody who owns THAT amount of damage.

im simplifying to issue to those pictures. lets find a way to NOT make that legal. because there's no good that can come out of that being legal

The large majority of people who get killed by guns aren't being killed by people who own that much hardware (the US Military not withstanding).

You can only use one gun at a time. With a suppressed sniper rifle he could have killed 100 people, by moving around to different locations. It wouldn't have the same sensational carnage, but it's possible. Look at the DC shooter. If they weren't so stupid, they could have gone a lot longer and had a longer body count. Imagine if they had suppressed weapons and a real plan.

The "dumb" part of your stance is that you think collectively that cache is more deadly than the guy holding one firearm, but he was a guy holding one firearm at any given point. It's like looking at a lake and saying "that much water could drown too many people, no one should own that much water".

Here's where a lot of non-gun people fuck up. Would it be more acceptable if a group of people all owned one gun each? Where would they buy them? Would it be from a guy who had a FFL and sold guns? Did this guy have an FFL? So having an FFL gets you over the barricade for owning an arsenal, because it's under the umbrella of an LLC ergo not privately owned. The person can therefore own a lot of things. Couple that with the SOT and Class 3 and the dude can own brand new fully automatic weapons by the truckload, as long as he has a letter from a LEO chief stating they want to demo them.

[spurraider21]

The large majority of people who get killed by guns aren't being killed by people who own that much hardware (the US Military not withstanding).

You can only use one gun at a time. With a suppressed sniper rifle he could have killed 100 people, by moving around to different locations. It wouldn't have the same sensational carnage, but it's possible. Look at the DC shooter. If they weren't so stupid, they could have gone a lot longer and had a longer body count. Imagine if they had suppressed weapons and a real plan.

The "dumb" part of your stance is that you think collectively that cache is more deadly than the guy holding one firearm, but he was a guy holding one firearm at any given point. It's like looking at a lake and saying "that much water could drown too many people, no one should own that much water".
no, i think its more or less an eye opening scene that makes you wonder why on earth this should ever be ok

[Pavlov]

Water?

:rollin

[DMC]

no, i think its more or less an eye opening scene that makes you wonder why on earth this should ever be ok

It's not eye opening to people who own and understand the limitations of firearms. If I had a house full of guns, it wouldn't make me any more deadly than if I had just one.

[DMC]

Water?

:rollin

Abstract concept. Philo understands.

[Pavlov]

Abstract concept. Philo understands.:lmao water

[Pavlov]

It's not eye opening to people who own and understand the limitations of firearms. If I had a house full of guns, it wouldn't make me any more deadly than if I had just one.If you have one gun and it jams, are you more or less deadly at that moment?

[spurraider21]

It's not eye opening to people who own and understand the limitations of firearms. If I had a house full of guns, it wouldn't make me any more deadly than if I had just one.
you're not killing 50+ people with a single 12 gauge

[Pavlov]

Oh, let's see if this works -- if you have one water and it jams, are you more or less deadly at that moment?

[DMC]

you're not killing 50+ people with a single 12 gauge

Not at 500 yards.

What's an acceptable number of people? If there are two people in my path vs one, am I now more deadly even with the same weapon?

Are we arguing over body count? The overwhelming large majority of gun related homicides are one person deaths. Many by shotgun. The number of people killed with AR-15s nationwide pales to the number killed by revolvers.

But we're focused on single events that carry sensational news coverage, with unsuspecting people. 30 kids in Chicago could be shot over the weekend, it probably doesn't make a syndicated column.

[Chucho]

so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?

Statistically, Americsn society is stupider and lazier than anytime in the last 100 years. Stats don't lie. They don't know how to make a bomb and if they did, they wouldn't bother, it takes too much time and effort. Americans are spoiled by modern technology.

/flawed numbers logic argument (the "California is actually a great place right now" argument)

[Pavlov]

Not at 500 yards.But it's a gun -- you said it's just as deadly no matter what. Turns out it's not.

Go figure.

[DMC]

But it's a gun -- you said it's just as deadly no matter what. Turns out it's not.

Go figure.

When did I say that?

Turns out you're full of shit.

[Pavlov]

When did I say that?

Turns out you're full of shit.Oh, so some guns can be more deadly than others.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Thanks.

[spurraider21]

Not at 500 yards.

What's an acceptable number of people? If there are two people in my path vs one, am I now more deadly even with the same weapon?

Are we arguing over body count? The overwhelming large majority of gun related homicides are one person deaths. Many by shotgun. The number of people killed with AR-15s nationwide pales to the number killed by revolvers.

But we're focused on single events that carry sensational news coverage, with unsuspecting people. 30 kids in Chicago could be shot over the weekend, it probably doesn't make a syndicated column.
i think we can start with these mass shootings, as they are senseless and often with little to no warning (see, orlando nightclub, vegas). most of these one person deaths are situations where the killer knows the victim, and there was a series of events that led to the shooting. that doesn't make it more ok, but its easier to cope with those, since you can distance yourself from them. "oh, a drug dealer killing a gangbanger doesn't really ruin my day, since i wouldn't be in that situation to begin with."

cant say the same about being at a concert, a movie theater, or dropping your kid off at school


Statistically, Americsn society is stupider and lazier than anytime in the last 100 years. Stats don't lie. They don't know how to make a bomb and if they did, they wouldn't bother, it takes too much time and effort. Americans are spoiled by modern technology.

/flawed numbers logic argument (the "California is actually a great place right now" argument)
awesome. so we can lay to rest the "if they dont have guns, they'd all just use bombs" crap

[Chucho]

awesome. so we can lay to rest the "if they dont have guns, they'd all just use bombs" crap

Oh yeah. Never a fallacy when using statistics. Now them Arabs tho, those studious towel heads are some A+ bomb makers. They obviously need more guns to drive down the bombings.

[DMC]

i think we can start with these mass shootings, as they are senseless and often with little to no warning (see, orlando nightclub, vegas). most of these one person deaths are situations where the killer knows the victim, and there was a series of events that led to the shooting. it's more avoidable.

They are all avoidable however there are more unsuspecting victims of single victim crimes than mass crimes. Mass crimes get more attention. Maybe think about acknowledging that. The placebo would be to do something about mass shootings but nothing about the 100 people killed everyday in the US.


awesome. so we can lay to rest the "if they dont have guns, they'd all just use bombs" crap
That's a strawman. The point if that argument is that intent is the culprit. You can kill a lot of people with just bombs (see Timothy McVeigh) and airplanes (see the World Trade Center). Since people like to talk about statistics of having a gun in your home: You're much more likely to be shot by your own relative than in a mass shooting. So disarm your relatives.

[DMC]

Oh, so some guns can be more deadly than others.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Thanks.

I didn't ask for the opposite. I called you out on your claim.

Where did I say "it's just as deadly no matter what"? as you claim I did above? Either rescind that or show where I said it.

[Pavlov]

I didn't ask for the opposite. I called you out on your claim.

Where did I say "it's just as deadly no matter what"? as you claim I did above? Either rescind that or show where I said it.Yeah, you never answered my question about jamming guns either, so answer it.

[DMC]

Yeah, you never answered my question about jamming guns either, so answer it.

I am not required to answer your questions. I didn't make a false accusation against you. Clear your mistake and maybe I'll answer your questions.

[DMC]

Pavlov digging through my posts to try to find something remotely close to his strawman. :lol

Can you be arrested for assault with a more deadly weapon?

[Pavlov]

I am not required to answer your questions. I didn't make a false accusation against you. Clear your mistake and maybe I'll answer your questions.I'm not required to rescind any statement I make either. I was imprecise -- a guy with an AR-15 is deadlier at 500 yards than a guy with a shotgun, which pretty much destroys your "just as deadly" argument. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

And I'll save us your pissiness and answer my question for you. A guy with a jammed gun is not as deadly as one with a functioning gun. I could see the possibility that Paddock had experienced some jamming when he was learning to use the bump fire stocks so he brought several to maintain deadliness.

[Pavlov]

Pavlov digging through my posts to try to find something remotely close to his strawman. :lol

Can you be arrested for assault with a more deadly weapon?This is your argument?

Should've stuck to multiple waters.

[DMC]

I'm not required to rescind any statement I make either. I was imprecise -- a guy with an AR-15 is deadlier at 500 yards than a guy with a shotgun, which pretty much destroys your "just as deadly" argument. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

And I'll save us your pissiness and answer my question for you. A guy with a jammed gun is not as deadly as one with a functioning gun. I could see the possibility that Paddock had experienced some jamming when he was learning to use the bump fire stocks so he brought several to maintain deadliness.

So you lied to create a narrative tangent (because you have nothing, again) and now you're doubling down on it.

Since jams are an issue, guns in the home shouldn't be nearly as deadly if you only have one.

[Pavlov]

So you lied to create a narrative tangent (because you have nothing, again) and now you're doubling down on it.Nah, I misspoke and corrected myself. My revision stands.


Since jams are an issue, guns in the home shouldn't be nearly as deadly if you only have one.OK, looks like I'll have to ask you: If your only gun jams, are you more or less deadly at that moment?

[DMC]

You've substituted a jammed gun for a gun. That's called moving the goalpost. That's like the vehicle in my driveway that won't start, the analogy you scoffed at. So then if I only have one car I am less likely to die in a car accident because possibly one day it won't start.

You've already admitted to not being precise in your statements. Why should I even discuss it with you when your intent has been made clear (to just use hyperbole and "misspeak")?

[Pavlov]

You've substituted a jammed gun for a gun. That's called moving the goalpost. That's like the vehicle in my driveway that won't start, the analogy you scoffed at. So then if I only have one car I am less likely to die in a car accident because possibly one day it won't start.

You've already admitted to not being precise in your statements. Why should I even discuss it with you when your intent has been made clear (to just use hyperbole and "misspeak")?So you're not going to even try to answer.

OK. The new narrative is you're a little bitch who tries to make up rules for discussion to help yourself in an argument.

You're just not as smart as you want other people to think you are.

[DMC]

So you're not going to even try to answer.

OK. The new narrative is you're a little bitch who tries to make up rules for discussion to help yourself in an argument.

You're just not as smart as you want other people to think you are.

Why would I change directions just because you did?

Now you're just upset. You need to cool down some (again). If you're going to butt in on a discussion with innuendo, hyperbole and "misspeak" (aka lies), you should just sit this one out.

[Pavlov]

Why would I change directions just because you did?

Now you're just upset. You need to cool down some (again). If you're going to butt in on a discussion with innuendo, hyperbole and "misspeak" (aka lies), you should just sit this one out.Aw, more rules.

It's how I can tell you're upset.

[Chris]

Never seen Pavlov so upset. :lol

[DMC]

Aw, more rules.

It's how I can tell you're upset.

Ok

[DMC]

Maybe Philo and I can revisit our discussion tomorrow.

[Blake]

Like always when you're faced with facts you withdraw to your safe space.

Lol facts

[Winehole23]

good guy with a gun shot by police after subduing a guy who shot up a bar:

https://wgntv.com/2018/11/11/multiple-wounded-in-robbins-bar-shooting-police-say/

[Winehole23]

Dana Loesch, I kid you not, said the guy the police shot should have tried to hold the shooter at a short distance with his gun -- 3 to 5 feet -- rather than pinning him to the ground with his knee in his back.

[Winehole23]

the NRA couldn't actually bring itself to stand up for the good guy with a gun.

I guess he was insufficiently supine to LE.

[Winehole23]

that or he was too black