Dallas Church Shooting

[DMC]

Good guys with guns kill bad guy with gun. Amazing what arming the victims does for the outcome.

[Spurtacular]

Chumpettes don't want to hear this. They just want to be good little cucks and give up their rights.

[DMX7]

Good guys with guns kill bad guy with gun. Amazing what arming the victims does for the outcome.

Also left three people dead.

[Spurtacular]

Also left two people dead.

Recommence the gun roundup after all, amirite?

[DMX7]

Recommence the gun roundup after all, amirite?

I don’t know the original killers full story but he still killed people and is that really supposed to be a success story? It’s not.

[Spurtacular]

I don’t know the original killers full story but he still killed people and is that really supposed to be a success story? It’s not.

Yea, preventing mass murder is apparently not a success story, amirite?

[DMX7]

Yea, preventing mass murder is apparently not a success story, amirite?

Is it a success to the victims who died?

[DMX7]

i want to help prevent the killing before it happens, you just want to limit the damage. Sad.

[Spurtacular]

Is it a success to the victims who died?

I'm sure they'd be glad that more of their friends and family weren't killed.

[DMX7]

I'm sure they'd be glad that more of their friends and family weren't killed.

Were they glad that they were killed?

[Spurtacular]

Were they glad that they were killed?

You are trying to argue that solid security measures that worked were a failure. Not every single murder is prevented; that'll never be the case. Would you rather that there wasn't guns to combat the killer so that this guy could've killed a dozen or two dozen?

[DMX7]

You are trying to argue that solid security measures that worked were a failure. Not every single murder is prevented; that'll never be the case. Would you rather that there wasn't guns to combat the killer so that this guy could've killed a dozen or two dozen?

I wish there were fewer guns in the hands of lunatics and tighter regulations around the types of guns and magazines that can be owned. Public policy plays a role here. I’m not suggesting that every shooting like this can be prevented just that we would probably have a lot fewer of them. Given how many guns are already out there, CHLs are probably fine in most cases for certain people. This doesn’t mean we can’t have better gun control like full universal background checks and more.

[ChumpDumper]

DerpMC celebrating a church murder.

Can't say I'm surprised at this point.

[Spurtacular]

Sperm Shielder Chump reporting for duty.

[Spurtacular]

I wish there were fewer guns in the hands of lunatics and tighter regulations around the types of guns and magazines that can be owned. Public policy plays a role here. I’m not suggesting that every shooting like this can be prevented just that we would probably have a lot fewer of them. Given how many guns are already out there, CHLs are probably fine in most cases for certain people. This doesn’t mean we can’t have better gun control like full universal background checks and more.

If only it weren't for the second amendment. That pesky infringement line and all.

[ChumpDumper]

Sperm Shielder Chump reporting for duty.

To are celebrating as well. This church shooting is everything you wanted it to be even though you don't have a gun.

[Spurtacular]

To are celebrating as well. This church shooting is everything you wanted it to be even though you don't have a gun.

There's been no celebration over anyone's death. Cease and desist on your thread ruining / sperm shielding.

[boutons_deux]

yawn, Get Over It, Mass Murders are as American as obesity and Bullshit Jobs

US saw highest number of mass killings on record in 2019, database reveals

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50936575 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50936575)

2 days remaining, get on it, dickless incel gun fellators.

Unfortunately, schools are closed.

[ChumpDumper]

There's been no celebration over anyone's death. Cease and desist on your thread ruining / sperm shielding.

Derp and DerpMC high fiving the church murders.

[Spurminator]

Amazing what arming the victims does for the outcome.

The victims were armed? I guess they were too slow on the draw.

[ElNono]

Good guys with guns kill bad guy with gun. Amazing what arming the victims does for the outcome.

Wish everyone had knives instead if you ask me...

[DMC]

Wish everyone had knives instead if you ask me...

Would have been a more interesting video.

[DMC]

Also left three people dead.

vs 30 otherwise.

[ElNono]

It’s frankly sad we live at a time where Churches of any denomination need to have armed security. I think it speaks more loudly about where we are as a tolerant society than this particular incident. You can tag along the Hanukkah killings to this statement.

[ChumpDumper]

Also left three people dead.

That's better than zero dead according to DMC. Reason to celebrate.

[DMC]

It’s frankly sad we live at a time where Churches of any denomination need to have armed security. I think it speaks more loudly about where we are as a tolerant society than this particular incident. You can tag along the Hanukkah killings to this statement.

Suicidal people are more often now suicidal with a cause. I wish media would simply not report on these things beyond the fact that they happened. The 24/7 coverage makes the perps out to be cult heroes to those who might consider this as a viable exit strategy to life.

[Spurs Homer]

Good guys with guns kill bad guy with gun. Amazing what arming the victims does for the outcome.

lol

reduced to “cherry-picking” mass shootings!

[DMC]

That's better than zero dead according to DMC. Reason to celebrate.

That was out the window when the guy with the shotgun opened fire. The fact the massacre was thwarted really pisses some of you off. You would love more anti-gun talking points. 45 dead would be a great platform for you. You're projecting your dissatisfaction with the outcome and lying about the reason.

[DMC]

lol

reduced to “cherry-picking” mass shootings!

Do you carry a firearm?

[DMC]

Several officials lauded the actions of the armed church security volunteers who took down the suspect in seconds.
"This team responded quickly and within six seconds the shooting was over," Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick told reporters during a Sunday night press conference. "Two of the parishioners who are volunteers on the security force drew their weapons and took out the killer immediately saving untold number of lives."
"The citizens who were inside that church undoubtedly saved 242 other parishioners," Regional Director of Texas Department of Public Safety Jeoff Williams told reporters Sunday night. He also said that no ideology or motivation has been determined behind the shooting. -CNN

CNN celebrating the deaths of 3 people

[Proxy]

That was out the window when the guy with the shotgun opened fire. The fact the massacre was thwarted really pisses some of you off. You would love more anti-gun talking points. 45 dead would be a great platform for you. You're projecting your dissatisfaction with the outcome and lying about the reason.

wasn’t thwarted, 45 people his horrifying, 2 people is horrifying

[DMC]

wasn’t thwarted, 45 people his horrifying, 2 people is horrifying

People die every day in car crashes ergo seatbelts don't save lives.

Is this really the angle you're going to use? Do you see that slippery slope ahead?

[Spurminator]

People die every day in car crashes ergo seatbelts don't save lives.

Is this really the angle you're going to use? Do you see that slippery slope ahead?

:lol What about cars?

Up next:
Chicago
Knife attacks
Radical Islam

[Proxy]

People die every day in car crashes ergo seatbelts don't save lives.

Is this really the angle you're going to use? Do you see that slippery slope ahead?

Where is the variable of intent in car fatalities? I must’ve missed the part where that stat was tied to extremist ideologies

[boutons_deux]

It’s frankly sad we live at a time where Churches of any denomination need to have armed security. I think it speaks more loudly about where we are as a tolerant society than this particular incident. You can tag along the Hanukkah killings to this statement.

This is America now.

Nothing AT ALL to do with "tolerant" society,

but about BigMoney buying policies and propaganda for profit.

NRA was harmless, even useful, until murderer Harlan Carter and his gang took it over and turned NRA into a corrupt BigGun marketing dept.

[DMC]

:lol What about cars?

Up next:
Chicago
Knife attacks
Radical Islam

There's a tendency here for people to avoid addressing obviously flawed comments based on who is commenting. Do you think 2 people being shot in the church is the same as 45 people being shot, and that nothing was thwarted by the other armed folks in the church? You seem ok with that remark. So my analogy then would make sense - nothing is thwarted by wearing seatbelts if anyone dies in a car accident.

[DMC]

Where is the variable of intent in car fatalities? I must’ve missed the part where that stat was tied to extremist ideologies

Where was anything in this thread tied to extremist ideologies?

A mass murder is 4 or more people dead, including the shooter. There were 3 killed in the Dallas Church shooting, including the shooter. Ergo a mass shooting was avoided. You can find the other 42 people who's lives don't matter in that church if you like.

[DMC]

This is America now.

Nothing AT ALL to do with "tolerant" society,

but about BigMoney buying policies and propaganda for profit.

NRA was harmless, even useful, until murderer Harlan Carter and his gang took it over and turned NRA into a corrupt BigGun marketing dept.
Suck start a handgun already.

[Blake]

There's a tendency here for people to avoid addressing obviously flawed comments based on who is commenting. Do you think 2 people being shot in the church is the same as 45 people being shot, and that nothing was thwarted by the other armed folks in the church? You seem ok with that remark. So my analogy then would make sense - nothing is thwarted by wearing seatbelts if anyone dies in a car accident.

so DMC doesn't wear a seatbelt.

[Spurminator]

There's a tendency here for people to avoid addressing obviously flawed comments based on who is commenting. Do you think 2 people being shot in the church is the same as 45 people being shot, and that nothing was thwarted by the other armed folks in the church? You seem ok with that remark. So my analogy then would make sense - nothing is thwarted by wearing seatbelts if anyone dies in a car accident.

You're presuming the intent of the shooter here, which we don't know. We don't know that he intended to randomly kill a bunch of people in the church. Maybe his intention was to kill the two people he killed. In that case, nothing was thwarted.

Alternatively, he was a guy with serious mental issues, which presents the fair question of why he had a gun in the first place and what can be done to ensure similar incidents can be avoided before people die.

[Spurtacular]

That was out the window when the guy with the shotgun opened fire. The fact the massacre was thwarted really pisses some of you off. You would love more anti-gun talking points. 45 dead would be a great platform for you. You're projecting your dissatisfaction with the outcome and lying about the reason.

Chump will have to settle for his own psychopath narratives.

[Chris]

i want to help prevent the killing before it happens

this is laughably dumb and naiive looool

[Chris]

I got an idea. If your social credit score is too low, you get a state/federally funded straight jacket. That might prevent the killings.

[Spurtacular]

wasn’t thwarted, 45 people his horrifying, 2 people is horrifying

You gonna make the case with a straight face that the difference between 2 and 45 is not staggering?

Fucking idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

That was out the window when the guy with the shotgun opened fire. The fact the massacre was thwarted really pisses some of you off. You would love more anti-gun talking points. 45 dead would be a great platform for you. You're projecting your dissatisfaction with the outcome and lying about the reason.:lol DMC resorts to his made up narratives after crowing about a church murder. You're expressing your satisfaction that people were murdered in a church. My pointing that out really pisses you off. Tough shit, tough guy.

[ChumpDumper]

You're presuming the intent of the shooter here, which we don't know. We don't know that he intended to randomly kill a bunch of people in the church. Maybe his intention was to kill the two people he killed. In that case, nothing was thwarted.

Alternatively, he was a guy with serious mental issues, which presents the fair question of why he had a gun in the first place and what can be done to ensure similar incidents can be avoided before people die.DMC had to create a narrative for the murderer too.:lol

[ElNono]

Suicidal people are more often now suicidal with a cause. I wish media would simply not report on these things beyond the fact that they happened. The 24/7 coverage makes the perps out to be cult heroes to those who might consider this as a viable exit strategy to life.

There’s many reasons. I’m actually surprised a lot of these are not found to be copycats or idolizing prior murderers more often.

This whole thing ties with the discussion we’re having in the other thread about self delusion, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

DMC might as well blame video games too.

[spurraider21]

lauding gunowners for thwarting (partially) other gunowners is akin to spiking the football over putting out the fire you started

[DMC]

so DMC doesn't wear a seatbelt.

It's an analogy of someone's faulty reasoning, simpleton.

[DMC]

lauding gunowners for thwarting (partially) other gunowners is akin to spiking the football over putting out the fire you started
No it isn't. It's akin to spiking the football over putting out a fire someone else started. I didn't invent guns or populate the country with them. No one here can prevent people from owning a gun. I've said since day one that all you can do is mitigate the damage. Damage was mitigated. Short sighted comment by you.

[Spurtacular]

lauding gunowners for thwarting (partially) other gunowners is akin to spiking the football over putting out the fire you started

You're right. They should've left their guns at home and not been brave and allowed dozens to be killed.

:lmao Lite

[Chris]

You're right. They should've left their guns at home and not been brave and allowed dozens to be killed.

:lmao Lite

I thought DMX took the cookie for dumbest take in the thread but wow :lol

[spurraider21]

You're right. They should've left their guns at home and not been brave and allowed dozens to be killed.

:lmao Lite
no. i would agree that armed folks would provide better security than unarmed folks in the event that a shooting was underway. the absurdity is being complacent with laws and the environment which make it too easy for these shootings to happen in the first place.

as elnono said, its absurd that we've reached a point where even churches need armed security

[DMC]

You gonna make the case with a straight face that the difference between 2 and 45 is not staggering?

Fucking idiot.

The left is reeling over these people who are still living. They would love to have been talking about 45 or more deaths. Now they pretend nothing is different, that this is just as horrible as it would have been if 45 people died. These are the same people who never commented on the 13 people shot at a house party a few days ago.

[ElNono]

I thought DMX took the cookie for dumbest take in the thread but wow :lol

Excited somebody is challenging your status as the dumbest poster on the forum? :lol

[Spurtacular]

no. i would agree that armed folks would provide better security than unarmed folks in the event that a shooting was underway. the absurdity is being complacent with laws and the environment which make it too easy for these shootings to happen in the first place.

as elnono said, its absurd that we've reached a point where even churches need armed security

That pesky second amendment.

[DMC]

no. i would agree that armed folks would provide better security than unarmed folks in the event that a shooting was underway. the absurdity is being complacent with laws and the environment which make it too easy for these shootings to happen in the first place.

as elnono said, its absurd that we've reached a point where even churches need armed security
OK so cry about it while others are actually preparing for the fact it exists. Your tears don't do shit to help.

How would current gun control ideas have thwarted this? Guy had a shotgun, was neutralized by guys with handguns. Where's the assault weapons?

[ElNono]

The second amendment doesn’t preclude gun regulation...

[Spurtacular]

The second amendment doesn’t preclude gun regulation...

It does say that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. There's already a lot of this in the law though.

[Chris]

bad people don't care about gun regulation

they will steal the gun or get it by any means necessary

if they can't get a gun they will use something else

dumb fuck

[ElNono]

It does say that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. There's already a lot of this in the law though.

The SCOTUS was clear in Heller that while the State can’t preclude you from owning a gun for personal defense, it can certainly regulate guns. That’s why gun free zones, bans of heavy weapons, etc are all legal. The 2nd amendment is far from an all or nothing proposition.

[ChumpDumper]

Derp feeling his oats after a weekend training with his well regulated militia.

[Chris]

stick to George Carlin copypasta :lol

[ElNono]

That’s why we call bad people bad. Or why we have cops and call them the good guys (most of the time anyways).

ie: because you’re a simpleton dumb fuck doesn’t mean everyone needs to be a simpleton dumbfuck.

[ElNono]

Twitter bot talking about copypasta :rollin

[ElNono]

And FWIW, I’m actually pro 2nd amendment (something I apparently need to clarify every time people come up with threads like these). However, having a discussion about the 2nd amendment when you don’t know what it means is complicated...

[Chris]

triple post meltdown :lol

[spurraider21]

OK so cry about it while others are actually preparing for the fact it exists. Your tears don't do shit to help.

How would current gun control ideas have thwarted this? Guy had a shotgun, was neutralized by guys with handguns. Where's the assault weapons?
"ideas" wouldn't thwart it. action having already been taken pursuant to those ideas... radical concept tho

[ElNono]

triple post meltdown :lol

:lol that’s telling me. Folded per par

[DMC]

"ideas" wouldn't thwart it. action having already been taken pursuant to those ideas... radical concept tho

You're being evasive. What action?

[DMC]

Derp feeling his oats after a weekend training with his well regulated militia.

Everyone here is well aware of your 3rd person shtick. You're not even slightly interesting.

[spurraider21]

You're being evasive. What action?
it would be very difficult to asses on a case by case basis if particular laws would or would not have prevented it. its quite likely that they wouldn't actually have an impact in this particular scenario.

its like looking at increased hurricane tendencies due to climate change. its pretty difficult to point to a specific hurricane and say "a ha. this one is because of global warming." but you can look at trends and see who the overarching culprit is

[ChumpDumper]

Everyone here is well aware of your 3rd person shtick. You're not even slightly interesting.Which is why you've ramped up your posting about me today, right?

You can't even pick a lane when it comes to me. :lol

[Chris]

lol non answer
lol lawyer can't spell assess

[DMC]

it would be very difficult to asses on a case by case basis if particular laws would or would not have prevented it. I am talking about this particular case. If you're going to fall back on gun control legislation, have something prepared instead of "difficult to assess".


its quite likely that they wouldn't actually have an impact in this particular scenario.

Unfortunately the public has to prepare for and address each scenario as it unfolds. No one gets to lay all the data out on a table and decide in the moment how to address it.



its like looking at increased hurricane tendencies due to climate change. its pretty difficult to point to a specific hurricane and say "a ha. this one is because of global warming." but you can look at trends and see who the overarching culprit is

So you don't fucking know. You just wanted to nay say. This kind of shit is part of the problem - too many post hoc know-it-all types with no answers when actually cornered.

The problem was resolved by man with a gun who knew he had to made a decision. Unlike you, he didn't get to sort through all the possible narratives and talking points. He just acted.

[spurraider21]

lol non answer
lol lawyer can't spell assess
lol spelling smack

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao DMC accusing someone else of being a know-it-all

[spurraider21]

I am talking about this particular case. If you're going to fall back on gun control legislation, have something prepared instead of "difficult to assess".

Unfortunately the public has to prepare for and address each scenario as it unfolds. No one gets to lay all the data out on a table and decide in the moment how to address it.


So you don't fucking know. You just wanted to nay say. This kind of shit is part of the problem - too many post hoc know-it-all types with no answers when actually cornered.
i dont know the specifics of how this guy acquired his guns. i dont know his mental health history, or any other red flags which could have triggered some activity. its impossible to know in every specific car accident fatality if a seat belt definitively would or would not have saved a life. but we know that they tend to.

you're seeking a complete answer when we are dealing with incomplete information

[DMC]

DerpMC celebrating a church murder.

Can't say I'm surprised at this point.


Derp and DerpMC high fiving the church murders.


:lol DMC resorts to his made up narratives after crowing about a church murder. You're expressing your satisfaction that people were murdered in a church. My pointing that out really pisses you off. Tough shit, tough guy.


DMC had to create a narrative for the murderer too.:lol


DMC might as well blame video games too.


Derp feeling his oats after a weekend training with his well regulated militia.

:lol 3rd person shtick in full swing.

Chumpdumper triggered.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol 3rd person shtick in full swing.

Chumpdumper triggered.And you immediately adapt the shtick.

And you're finding me very interesting today.

:lmao DMC

[ElNono]

I would argue that once the facts are known, it’s actually not that difficult to come up with actionable(s) that would’ve likely prevented scenarios like this one. Gun fellators, as boutons would call them, would likely object, even if it doesn’t involve losing ownership and possession of their gun(s) (provided they display the mental capacity for that to happen).

[DMC]

no. i would agree that armed folks would provide better security than unarmed folks in the event that a shooting was underway. the absurdity is being complacent with laws and the environment which make it too easy for these shootings to happen in the first place.

as elnono said, its absurd that we've reached a point where even churches need armed security


i dont know the specifics of how this guy acquired his guns. i dont know his mental health history, or any other red flags which could have triggered some activity. its impossible to know in every specific car accident fatality if a seat belt definitively would or would not have saved a life. but we know that they tend to.

you're seeking a complete answer when we are dealing with incomplete information

I am only asking you to give an example to support your comment about gun control and environment that you made in this thread.

Do you think the individual who shot the attacker had all this "incomplete information"? Do you think anyone will in the future before making the decision to be armed? If not, what do you expect individuals to do besides wring their hands and cry like you did in your post above about the state of society?

[spurraider21]

I am only asking you to give an example to support your comment about gun control and environment that you made in this thread.

Do you think the individual who shot the attacker had all this "incomplete information"? Do you think anyone will in the future before making the decision to be armed? If not, what do you expect individuals to do besides wring their hands and cry like you did in your post above about the state of society?
no i dont think discussing regulation and legislation is an effective strategy mid shooting :rolleyes

is that really your ace in the hole?

you are content with the outcome where only 2 innocent people were killed. i'd strive for better. hard to know exactly what would have helped here when dealing with incomplete info

[DMC]

I would argue that once the facts are known, it’s actually not that difficult to come up with actionable(s) that would’ve likely prevented scenarios like this one. Gun fellators, as boutons would call them, would likely object, even if it doesn’t involve losing ownership and possession of their gun(s) (provided they display the mental capacity for that to happen).

These kinds of solutions almost always require people to obey laws. The long game of firearm owner atrophy doesn't address the acute issues.

[DMC]

no i dont think discussing regulation and legislation is an effective strategy mid shooting :rolleyes

is that really your ace in the hole?

you are content with the outcome where only 2 innocent people were killed. i'd strive for better. hard to know exactly what would have helped here when dealing with incomplete info

You're not considering the improvement over 45 people killed, and looking past the reason that number was so low to begin with in your hunt for "something better" i.e. no solutions.

[ChumpDumper]

You're not considering the improvement over 45 people killed, and looking past the reason that number was so low to begin with in your hunt for "something better" i.e. no solutions.Why should we consider your made up narrative?

Oh shit, the question will trigger you.

We shouldn't consider your made up narrative.

[ElNono]

These kinds of solutions almost always require people to obey laws. The long game of firearm owner atrophy doesn't address the acute issues.

Enforcement is part of every law. It’s part of our pact as a society. Heck, if the NRA thought regulation wouldn’t have such a bite, they wouldn’t spend the amount of money they spend on lobbying.

[Chris]

"I'd strive for better"

(not going to explain how ie:vague virtue signaling)

[DMC]

Enforcement is part of every law. It’s part of our pact as a society. Heck, if the NRA didn’t think regulation wouldn’t have such a bite, they wouldn’t spend the amount of money they spend on lobbying.

The NRA isn't about gun control. Laws affect law abiding people. The NRA's membership list is full of law abiding people. Of course they are interested in protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of those people.

The issue is about wanting to kill a lot of people. It's futile to think you can change people's mindsets short term. It's not futile to think you can mitigate the damage these people do, and in turn make the would-be types reconsider their soft targets. I doubt many of these shooters would walk into an area and open fire if they knew they'd likely be killed after the 1st or 2nd shot.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1211703290221776901?s=19

just need more gun laws and we can strive for better

[ChumpDumper]

The NRA isn't about gun control. Laws affect law abiding people. The NRA's membership list is full of law abiding people. Of course they are interested in protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of those people.

The issue is about wanting to kill a lot of people. It's futile to think you can change people's mindsets short term. It's not futile to think you can mitigate the damage these people do, and in turn make the would-be types reconsider their soft targets. I doubt many of these shooters would walk into an area and open fire if they knew they'd likely be killed after the 1st or 2nd shot.

Suicidal people are more often now suicidal with a cause. I wish media would simply not report on these things beyond the fact that they happened. The 24/7 coverage makes the perps out to be cult heroes to those who might consider this as a viable exit strategy to life.Suicidal or out to kill 45 people?

Pick a narrative lane.

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1211703290221776901?s=19

just need more gun laws and we can strive for betterlol white guys

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1211725137684262912?s=19

interesting data from a non-partisan professor of criminology

[Chris]

lol white guys

lol racist

[Spurminator]

I doubt many of these shooters would walk into an area and open fire if they knew they'd likely be killed after the 1st or 2nd shot.

This is exactly why many of them do this. You think they're expecting to escape? It's suicide with collateral damage.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1211724568131489798?s=19

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1211725137684262912?s=19

interesting data from a non-partisan professor of criminologyIt's odd to say that guns are not more available now. The number of guns in the US used to be lower than number of people. Now there are more guns than people.

I agree there are several factors and probably more important ones, but that guy is lying to himself and you.

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1211724568131489798?s=19
:tu

[DMC]

lol non answer
lol lawyer can't spell assess

It's a simple typo. Philo is one of the more level headed people on the forum. I give him shit because he likes to argue.

[RandomGuy]

Good guys with guns kill bad guy with gun. Amazing what arming the victims does for the outcome.

Not really amazing, merely the likely result of having so many guns. Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.

Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

[boutons_deux]

Prager U?

worse than Fox's opinionators.

haven't we trashed that enough? :lol

"Mass public shootings have been increasing every decade since the 1950s." evidence?

[DMC]

This is exactly why many of them do this. You think they're expecting to escape? It's suicide with collateral damage.

Why pick soft targets like churches and schools? If they wanted to be shot, they can simply find a police officer and point the weapon at them. I cannot mitigate suicide, I can only mitigate the collateral damage. That's all I am really concerned about. I think adults have the right to kill themselves.

[DMC]

Not really amazing, merely the likely result of having so many guns. Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.

Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

When you decide to stop pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets, maybe something you say will make sense. He didn't roll the dice and come up with a church.

[ChumpDumper]

Why pick soft targets like churches and schools?Why not? I'm sure you can make up a narrative-- excuse me, more narrative for this guy.

[Chris]

It's a simple typo. Philo is one of the more level headed people on the forum. I give him shit because he likes to argue.

he's just another troll

[DMC]

he's just another troll

I don't think so. He has invested too much into his persona here to simply be a troll. Everyone here likes to troll some.

[Blake]

It's an analogy of someone's faulty reasoning, simpleton.

Your usual argument is "why have gun regulation if people are gonna kill any way"

"Why have seat belt regulation if people die in car wrecks with seat belts on any way".

Not my fault you shit yourself.

[Blake]

he's just another troll

Lol anyone who hurts your feelings is a troll

[DMC]

Your usual argument is "why have gun regulation if people are gonna kill any way"

Give me an example of me using that argument.


"Why have seat belt regulation if people die in car wrecks with seat belts on any way".

Not my fault you shit yourself.
You started with a faulty premise and so you drew a faulty conclusion. If 2 deaths are the same as 45 deaths, if only zero deaths is progress, then seatbelts are worthless.

You try desperately to get into the conversation but you're not informed enough to do so. Stay on the sidelines biting ankles, Blake. It suits you.

[Spurminator]

Why pick soft targets like churches and schools? If they wanted to be shot, they can simply find a police officer and point the weapon at them. I cannot mitigate suicide, I can only mitigate the collateral damage. That's all I am really concerned about. I think adults have the right to kill themselves.

If the point is maximizing collateral damage before your death, of course you pick a soft target. My point is it's not like they expect to go back home afterward and never get caught. The fuckers probably fantasize about hitting multiple places first.

Given this guy's history it shouldn't be difficult to find holes in the process that lead to his owning or acquiring a gun. Blanket statements like "more gun control won't help" avoid discussion of specific gun control tactics that might. Same goes for blanket "we need fewer guns."

[ChumpDumper]

If the shooter didn't think anyone in a White Settlement church would be packing....

[SpursforSix]

If the shooter didn't think anyone in a White Settlement church would be packing....

:lol

This is actually an astute statement not having anything to do with the name of the town.

[Chris]

- Shooter had a criminal record
- It was illegal for him to own the gun he used
- Good guy with a gun stopped the shooter in less than 3 seconds
- 7 others emerged in congregation with guns shortly after
- Gun Control didn't work
- Good guys with guns did

[Blake]

- Shooter had a criminal record
- It was illegal for him to own the gun he used
- Good guy with a gun stopped the shooter in less than 3 seconds
- 7 others emerged in congregation with guns shortly after
- Gun Control didn't work
- Good guys with guns did

How did he get the gun, Chris

[Blake]

Give me an example of me using that argument.

Oh ok. You never cry when there are talks of passing more gun legislation. I'll rescind the remark.


You started with a faulty premise and so you drew a faulty conclusion. If 2 deaths are the same as 45 deaths, if only zero deaths is progress, then seatbelts are worthless.

You try desperately to get into the conversation but you're not informed enough to do so. Stay on the sidelines biting ankles, Blake. It suits you.

How did this dude get the gun

[SpursforSix]

- Shooter had a criminal record
- It was illegal for him to own the gun he used
- Good guy with a gun stopped the shooter in less than 3 seconds
- 7 others emerged in congregation with guns shortly after
- Gun Control didn't work
- Good guys with guns did

I mean he probably did save some lives but I wonder what would have happened if the guy had an AR 15 instead of a shotgun. Could have been the wild west in there.

[Chris]

How did he get the gun, Chris

he bought it at the NRA warehouse

[Chris]

I mean he probably did save some lives but I wonder what would have happened if the guy had an AR 15 instead of a shotgun. Could have been the wild west in there.

Imagine if he just bombed the church. Could have been Hiroshima in there.

[SpursforSix]

Imagine if he just bombed the church. Could have been Hiroshima in there.

That's not really like what I said at all.

[Chris]

That's not really like what I said at all.

Oh sorry, what were you saying?

[SpursforSix]

Oh sorry, what were you saying?

here?

[Spurminator]

Given this guy's history it shouldn't be difficult to find holes in the process that lead to his owning or acquiring a gun. Blanket statements like "more gun control won't help" avoid discussion of specific gun control tactics that might.


- Gun Control didn't work

Right on cue.

[Chris]

97.8% of public mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones

Less than 20% of gun crimes are committed by law-abiding gun owners

From '07-'15 overall murder rates fell by 18% while the percentage of concealed carry permits increased by 190%

[Blake]

he bought it at the NRA warehouse

Chris in flight mode

[Blake]

97.8% of public mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones

Less than 20% of gun crimes are committed by law-abiding gun owners

From '07-'15 overall murder rates fell by 18% while the percentage of concealed carry permits increased by 190%

Right because most shooters research if the zone is gun free before they fire away

[benefactor]

Glad the situation was neutralized quickly tbh. Props to the old man for staying calm.

[RandomGuy]

When you decide to stop pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets, maybe something you say will make sense. He didn't roll the dice and come up with a church.

Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

[Spurminator]

I'm not sure you'll find many people opposed to the idea of hiring more trained officers to police gun-free zones.

The problematic argument is the idea that there shouldn't be any gun free zones, or that arming more of the citizenry will prevent gun violence. Those arguments are supported on theory alone.

[DMX7]

this is laughably dumb and naiive looool

Just about every other western country says "what?". :lol

[Trill Clinton]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1211703290221776901?s=19

just need more gun laws and we can strive for better

Knew it was a SAWM. Probably a trump fanatic too.

[DMC]

If the point is maximizing collateral damage before your death, of course you pick a soft target. My point is it's not like they expect to go back home afterward and never get caught. The fuckers probably fantasize about hitting multiple places first.

Given this guy's history it shouldn't be difficult to find holes in the process that lead to his owning or acquiring a gun. Blanket statements like "more gun control won't help" avoid discussion of specific gun control tactics that might. Same goes for blanket "we need fewer guns."

The guy in Sutherland Springs church had riot gear on. He wasn't planning on dying there. The guy in Vegas locked himself into a room. These people wanted to kill a lot of people.

The gun control debate deteriorates because one side is ignorant on existing gun control measures, and the other is unwilling to consider them worthy debate opponents because of it. If you can make sense with your suggestions without ignoring existing efforts, and show you are aware of the facts, I'm sure there are enough people near the middle that would listen. So far all I've seen are "we need things to be better" comments, and basic claims that facts are the same as semantics.

[DMC]

Knew it was a SAWM. Probably a trump fanatic too.

Race baiter right on time.

[DMC]

Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

That last line is the strawman.

Show me who suggested there should be more guns everywhere. You're just one stupid comment after another. This is why you're just one notch above Boutons.

[Spurminator]

The guy in Sutherland Springs church had riot gear on. He wasn't planning on dying there. The guy in Vegas locked himself into a room. These people wanted to kill a lot of people.

They were both planning on dying somewhere, they just wanted to kill as many people as possible first. You cannot reasonably conclude that either of these guys expected to survive.


The gun control debate deteriorates because one side is ignorant on existing gun control measures, and the other is unwilling to consider them worthy debate opponents because of it.

:lol

Both sides are plenty ignorant of existing gun control measures. When one side says "We should discuss them," the other side says "There's no point in discussing it, in fact we're going to ban tax-funded studies of such measures, and BTW look over here at these cherry-picked statistics and whatabout Chicago?"

[DMX7]

People die every day in car crashes ergo seatbelts don't save lives.


Proxy is saying that 45 people dead or 2 people dead are BOTH BAD outcomes. Yes, DUH, one of those outcomes is clearly worse than the other, but the much better outcome would be to reduce the frequency with which these shooting events happen (no shooting = no dead) by making it harder for madmen to get guns like they do in most other civilized western countries.

We can still have armed security guards like at this church knowing that gun control only reduces these incidents and doesn't totally eliminate them.

[RandomGuy]

Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?



That last line is the strawman.

Show me who suggested there should be more guns everywhere. You're just one stupid comment after another. This is why you're just one notch above Boutons.

The last line is a simple question, germane to the topic. I didn't represent it as your opinion, so it is not a strawman.

This is normally the point where I ask you to fit my statement into the definition of a strawman, and you get pissy because I call you out on your misapplication of logic, and resort to insults.

Let's skip that part. It's boring.

I am having a hard time seeing the point to the OP. you are trying for. Someone shot someone else.

So what?

[DMC]

They were both planning on dying somewhere, they just wanted to kill as many people as possible first.


So what's your point? Aren't you saying what I initially stated? The difference is they could all have committed suicide but went way out of their ways to kill as many as possible.


:lol

Both sides are plenty ignorant of existing gun control measures. When one side says "We should discuss them," the other side says "There's no point in discussing it, in fact we're going to ban tax-funded studies of such measures, and BTW look over here at these cherry-picked statistics and whatabout Chicago?"

You're wrong. It's very common for the left to make assumptions about existing gun laws because A) they don't own guns and B) they don't study it, and the right has to point out the facts to them. This is when "semantics" gets tossed around like facts don't matter. The left argues from emotion mostly.

The sides are not equal.

[Blake]

So what's your point? Aren't you saying what I initially stated? The difference is they could all have committed suicide but went way out of their ways to kill as many as possible.


You're wrong. It's very common for the left to make assumptions about existing gun laws because A) they don't own guns and B) they don't study it, and the right has to point out the facts to them. This is when "semantics" gets tossed around like facts don't matter. The left argues from emotion mostly.

The sides are not equal.

Good Lord you're ignorant.

I like the part where you accuse "the left" of making assumptions and then jump right into your assumptions of the left.

[DMC]

The last line is a simple question, germane to the topic. I didn't represent it as your opinion, so it is not a strawman.

This is normally the point where I ask you to fit my statement into the definition of a strawman, and you get pissy because I call you out on your misapplication of logic, and resort to insults.

Let's skip that part. It's boring.

I am having a hard time seeing the point to the OP. you are trying for. Someone shot someone else.

So what?

Your "simple question" is a strawman. You made a caricature of the actual point being made by suggesting "more guns everywhere" was suggested as a solution. I shouldn't need to point that out to you. The fact you haven't provided a quote where it was suggested proves my point.

The mitigating act in this case was that someone who would otherwise have been a likely victim was armed and able to engage the shooter. There didn't need to be "guns everywhere". There only needed to be people willing and able to address the threat. The guy who killed the shooter only used one gun.

One thing for sure, there was one gun being brought into what was being considered a soft target. That wasn't something those inside had any control over. They could only provide resistance, and they did. Their ability to do so effectively made the difference. It's why many of them are still alive today.

[ElNono]

The NRA isn't about gun control. Laws affect law abiding people. The NRA's membership list is full of law abiding people. Of course they are interested in protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of those people.

The issue is about wanting to kill a lot of people. It's futile to think you can change people's mindsets short term. It's not futile to think you can mitigate the damage these people do, and in turn make the would-be types reconsider their soft targets. I doubt many of these shooters would walk into an area and open fire if they knew they'd likely be killed after the 1st or 2nd shot.

The NRA is absolutely about gun control (if we understand gun control to include regulation). They have a track record of opposing regulation of most kind, mostly under the slippery-slope boogeyman.

And I disagree about the deterrent factor, especially these days. Suicidal people are, suicidal. This is why it’s become much more important to preclude these people from having access to their destruction tools of choice.

[DMC]

Good Lord you're ignorant

:lol ironic coming from you.

[Blake]

:lol ironic coming from you.

Countdown until you start arguing out of emotion

[DMC]

The NRA is absolutely about gun control (if we understand gun control to include regulation). They have a track record of opposing regulation of most kind, mostly under the slippery-slope boogeyman.

And I disagree about the deterrent factor, especially these days. Suicidal people are, suicidal. This is why it’s become much more important to preclude these people from having access to their destruction tools of choice.

Gun control exists outside of the NRA. They lobby against it. So the NRA isn't about controlling guns but about the 2nd Amendment (mostly about making money). It's like saying free speech advocates are about restricting free speech, because they lobby against laws that restrict free speech.


Are you saying these shooters don't intentionally pick soft targets? Surely you know better.

[DMC]

So what's your point? Aren't you saying what I initially stated? The difference is they could all have committed suicide but went way out of their ways to kill as many as possible.


You're wrong. It's very common for the left to make assumptions about existing gun laws because A) they don't own guns and B) they don't study it, and the right has to point out the facts to them. This is when "semantics" gets tossed around like facts don't matter. The left argues from emotion mostly.

The sides are not equal.


Countdown until you start arguing out of emotion


Do you have anything to add to the topic or just here to bite ankles?

[Blake]

Do you have anything to add to the topic or just here to bite ankles?

You really want a response to "the left argues from emotion mostly"?

:lol no, that's such a ridiculously stupid statement, you don't get a response. I'm just gonna make fun of your ignorance.

[ElNono]

Gun control exists outside of the NRA. They lobby against it. So the NRA isn't about controlling guns but about the 2nd Amendment (mostly about making money). It's like saying free speech advocates are about restricting free speech, because they lobby against laws that restrict free speech.

Free speech advocates are absolutely about speech control. What isn’t clear about that? They prefer no exceptions despite that there are clear regulations to speech.

The NRA isn’t only interested in gun ownership/possession issues, but the overall gun discussion, like background checks, etc. it’d be ridiculous to try to deny they’re an important obstacle to any gun regulation at all.


Are you saying these shooters don't intentionally pick soft targets? Surely you know better.

If I wanted to say that, I would. I didn’t. Suicidal individuals that want to do massive damage are actually even more justification for sensible regulation.

[Spurtacular]

Glad the situation was neutralized quickly tbh.

Apparently that's not a success to your fellow chumpettes; but you're not gonna call them out, are you snitch factor?

[RandomGuy]

Not really amazing, merely the likely result of having so many guns. Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.

Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?



When you decide to stop pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets, maybe something you say will make sense. He didn't roll the dice and come up with a church.



Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?



That last line is the strawman.

Show me who suggested there should be more guns everywhere. You're just one stupid comment after another. This is why you're just one notch above Boutons.


The last line is a simple question, germane to the topic. I didn't represent it as your opinion, so it is not a strawman.

This is normally the point where I ask you to fit my statement into the definition of a strawman, and you get pissy because I call you out on your misapplication of logic, and resort to insults.




Your "simple question" is a strawman. You made a caricature of the actual point being made by suggesting "more guns everywhere" was suggested as a solution. I shouldn't need to point that out to you. The fact you haven't provided a quote where it was suggested proves my point.

I didn't suggest anything. I asked a question trying to determine what your actual position on gun control and safety actually is. The fact you can't fit my question into any reasonable construct of the fallacy proves my point.

Since you seem to be hung up on the boring part, let me be more explicit.

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?

[DMC]

Proxy is saying that 45 people dead or 2 people dead are BOTH BAD outcomes. Yes, DUH, one of those outcomes is clearly worse than the other, but the much better outcome would be to reduce the frequency with which these shooting events happen (no shooting = no dead) by making it harder for madmen to get guns like they do in most other civilized western countries.

We can still have armed security guards like at this church knowing that gun control only reduces these incidents and doesn't totally eliminate them.

But my point is that neither you nor I can personally create the scenario you're talking about. A realistic measure beats wishful thinking.

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1211703290221776901?s=19

just need more gun laws and we can strive for better

Clearly the system failed. Let’s look the other way and throw our arms in the air and do nothing about it

[DMC]

I didn't suggest anything. I asked a question trying to determine what your actual position on gun control and safety actually is. The fact you can't fit my question into any reasonable construct of the fallacy proves my point.

Since you seem to be hung up on the boring part, let me be more explicit.

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?

Did you even read what you quoted?

You: Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.
You: Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

Reflect on your own statements. You created a strawman.

This mysterious "many gun advocates" claim needs to be supported. I cannot argue for or against this mysterious source.

[DMX7]

But my point is that neither you nor I can personally create the scenario you're talking about. A realistic measure beats wishful thinking.

Really? We can’t do ANYTHING to reduce the number of shooting incidents without our country becoming a dystopian police state the NRA wants you to believe our country would be with better gun control?

You are totally brainwashed by the far right propaganda.

[DMC]

Really? We can’t do ANYTHING to reduce the number of shooting incidents without becoming a dystopian police state the NRA wants you to believe we would live in with better gun control?

You are totally brainwashed by the far right propaganda.

Now the false dilemma.. :lol

What can YOU do to reduce the number of shootings? How would you know you have?

:lol brainwashed.. I've called for full bans on guns here and the left choked on their avocado toast.

[RandomGuy]

Not really amazing, merely the likely result of having so many guns. Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.


When you decide to stop pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets, maybe something you say will make sense. He didn't roll the dice and come up with a church.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Randomguy (Person 1) asserts that armed people will eventually stop a potential mass shooter, resulting in fewer casualties. (Proposition X)

DMC (Person 2) argues that Randomguy is "pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets" (Proposition Y).

[ElNono]

97.8% of public mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones

Fake News.

[DMC]

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Randomguy (Person 1) asserts that armed people will eventually stop a potential mass shooter, resulting in fewer casualties. (Proposition X)

DMC (Person 2) argues that Randomguy is "pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets" (Proposition Y).

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I did not present the argument that more guns everywhere was a solution - you did, after saying "armed people" you extrapolated that to "more guns". Then you asked me to defend it.

[DMX7]

Now the false dilemma.. :lol

What can YOU do to reduce the number of shootings? How would you know you have?

Here’s one example of the simplest thing to start with... universal background checks, meaning no loopholes to avoid background checks on gun purchases (gun show, etc). You would know you have by implementing controls and then looking at the shooting statistics to see any measurable improvement. Not complicated...

[ElNono]

Just a cursory look at the FBI data from 16-17:

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view

[DMC]

Here’s one example of the simplest thing to start with... universal background checks, meaning no loopholes to avoid background checks on gun purchases (gun show, etc). You would know you have by implementing controls and then looking at the shooting statistics to see any measurable improvement. Not complicated...

How can you personally enact universal background checks?

[ElNono]

Now the false dilemma.. :lol

What can YOU do to reduce the number of shootings? How would you know you have?

:lol brainwashed.. I've called for full bans on guns here and the left choked on their avocado toast.

Full bans are not a solution either, IMO. There are solid examples to follow from different countries that still allow possession/ownership but keep a high bar and tight look at those individuals.

[DMX7]

How can you personally enact universal background checks?

huh? Congress can, we’re talking about gun control law... meaning the legislature.

[DMC]

Full bans are not a solution either, IMO. There are solid examples to follow from different countries that still allow possession/ownership but keep a high bar and tight look at those individuals.

If we take an all nothing approach, we will never have a solution. There's no cure for cancer, but there are treatments and there's preventive steps like smoking cessation and avoiding carcinogens. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take these steps just because it doesn't cure cancer.

[Blake]

huh? Congress can, we’re talking about gun control law... meaning the legislature.

No he means you as in YOU individually because that's a real argument!

[DMC]

huh? Congress can, we’re talking about gun control law... meaning the legislature.

I asked what can you do. Congress isn't going to show up when that guy comes into the room with the shotgun.

[spurraider21]

If we take an all nothing approach, we will never have a solution. There's no cure for cancer, but there are treatments and there's preventive steps like smoking cessation and avoiding carcinogens. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take these steps just because it doesn't cure cancer.
:clap

[DMC]

No he means you as in YOU individually because that's a real argument!

Of course it's a real argument. If those people in that church waited for congress to act, they'd all be dead (probably of old age if not shot).

[Blake]

I asked what can you do. Congress isn't going to show up when that guy comes into the room with the shotgun.

Do you really not understand how our society works

[ElNono]

If we take an all nothing approach, we will never have a solution. There's no cure for cancer, but there are treatments and there's preventive steps like smoking cessation and avoiding carcinogens. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take these steps just because it doesn't cure cancer.

Are you trolling? Because that’s what SR21 was talking about earlier in the thread.

There’s no doubt that it will take a cultural shift for the US to come to terms with its gun fellatio problem. And in that sense I agree that it’s difficult to switch to a different model overnight. Not to mention, there’s certain regulations that probably won’t pass legal muster and won’t work. So it’s clear it’s going to have to be progressive and nuanced.

[DMC]

Do you really not understand how our society works

Do you not understand that society is a construct? That in reality we are all individuals? You cannot shoot society. You can shoot an individual. While congress is tied up doing what-the-fuck-ever, individuals have the right to defend themselves - so sayeth the 2nd Amendment. It's still your right to not do so however. You have the right to wait for legislation and evolution to change society. Good luck with that.

[DMC]

Are you trolling? Because that’s what SR21 was talking about earlier in the thread.

There’s no doubt that it will take a cultural shift for the US to come to terms with its gun fellatio problem. And in that sense I agree that it’s difficult to switch to a different model overnight. Not to mention, there’s certain regulations that probably won’t pass legal muster and won’t work. So it’s clear it’s going to have to be progressive and nuanced.

SR21 was overlooking the act of mitigating a situation, like what was done in Dallas, by considering it's not a perfect solution. It should go without saying that, short of global ELE, there is no perfect solution.

[DMX7]

Of course it's a real argument. If those people in that church waited for congress to act, they'd all be dead (probably of old age if not shot).

You're shifting your stance from you don't want Congress to act on gun control legislation (for whatever reason) to you think it would take too long for Congress to act.

[DMC]

You're shifting your stance from you don't want Congress to act on gun control legislation (for whatever reason) to you think it would take too long for Congress to act.

When did I say that?

I am discussing micro-solutions vs macro-solutions. The solution provided in Dallas does nothing to deter other shooters. It was a way to mitigate that event. That's all I can do as an individual. I could be one of those cowering behind the pews hoping someone does something, hearing shots and hoping the guy doesn't make it to me. Or I could be one of the several in that video who drew their sidearms and headed toward the chaos. It's a personal choice. Given the two choices (assuming fleeing is out), I choose to shoot back.

[RandomGuy]

Did you even read what you quoted?

You: Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.
You: Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

Reflect on your own statements. You created a strawman.

This mysterious "many gun advocates" claim needs to be supported. I cannot argue for or against this mysterious source.

Infowars is definitely an advocate for people having more guns, and tries to make the case.
https://www.infowars.com/18-little-known-gun-facts-that-prove-that-guns-make-us-safer/

NRA certainly goes down that route:
"Guns make colleges safer"

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20090423/guns-make-colleges-safer

"women with guns make america safer"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20020315/women-with-guns-make-america-safer

Which Is Safer? More Guns Or Fewer?
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20070425/which-is-safer-more-guns-or-fewer

How about the "general position of the NRA"


Contentious issue

Gun rights advocates argue that having more guns in society makes people safer by deterring crime and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against would-be attackers. Gun control proponents argue that guns lead to more violence, not less.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/areas-with-higher-gun-ownership-rates-have-more-firearms-related-deaths-study-finds

The general stance can be found here:
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/guns-in-america

[Blake]

Of course it's a real argument. If those people in that church waited for congress to act, they'd all be dead (probably of old age if not shot).

:lol what someone can do to individually to protect themselves has nothing to do with what we want to collectively do about gun control. Why are you acting like it does?

[Blake]

Do you not understand that society is a construct? That in reality we are all individuals? You cannot shoot society. You can shoot an individual. While congress is tied up doing what-the-fuck-ever, individuals have the right to defend themselves - so sayeth the 2nd Amendment. It's still your right to not do so however. You have the right to wait for legislation and evolution to change society. Good luck with that.

Oh neat semantic mode engaged now to give himself a feeling of victory

[DMX7]

When did I say that?

So you do want congress to act on gun control legislation???? You are very confusing.

[RandomGuy]

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I did not present the argument that more guns everywhere was a solution - you did, after saying "armed people" you extrapolated that to "more guns". Then you asked me to defend it.


Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

Show me exactly where I asked you to defend anything. This is a yes or no question.

Feel free to fit it into the actual structure of the strawman. Your claim, your burden of proof.


The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

[DMC]

Infowars is definitely an advocate for people having more guns, and tries to make the case.
https://www.infowars.com/18-little-known-gun-facts-that-prove-that-guns-make-us-safer/

NRA certainly goes down that route:
"Guns make colleges safer"

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20090423/guns-make-colleges-safer

"women with guns make america safer"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20020315/women-with-guns-make-america-safer

Which Is Safer? More Guns Or Fewer?
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20070425/which-is-safer-more-guns-or-fewer

How about the "general position of the NRA"


https://www.foxnews.com/health/areas-with-higher-gun-ownership-rates-have-more-firearms-related-deaths-study-finds

I don't listen to or read Infowars and have stated here many times Alex Jones is a fraud and idiot. I see no reason to defend a stance I haven't taken. :lol argument from Infowars... new fallacy


The general stance can be found here:
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/guns-in-america

Why should I defend anything I didn't say?

[DMC]

Show me exactly where I asked you to defend anything. This is a yes or no question.

Feel free to fit it into the actual structure of the strawman. Your claim, your burden of proof.

When you ask me something like that, based on something else you just said, you are indeed asking me to support or deny something I didn't claim. "Yes or no" is just that.

[DMC]

So you do want congress to act on gun control legislation???? You are very confusing.

Again, when did I say that? Don't just ignore what you claimed I said then ask another question.

[RandomGuy]

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?





Why should I defend anything I didn't say?

I haven't asked you to defend anything you didn't say.

I have asked you what your actual position is.

:lol no-take meltdown.

[RandomGuy]

Show me exactly where I asked you to defend anything. This is a yes or no question.

Feel free to fit it into the actual structure of the strawman. Your claim, your burden of proof.


When you ask me something like that, based on something else you just said, you are indeed asking me to support or deny something I didn't claim. "Yes or no" is just that.

So you can't fit it into the strawman form.

If you could, you would have.



The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

[DMX7]

Again, when did I say that? Don't just ignore what you claimed I said then ask another question.

I said that was your position... I concluded that was your position based on how unreceptive you've been to the prospect of better gun control legislation. For example:


But my point is that neither you nor I can personally create the scenario you're talking about. A realistic measure beats wishful thinking.

Feel free to correct me on your position if that's wrong... Are you for or against congress passing new gun control legislation?

[ducks]

Kinnunen's criminal history includes an arrest in River Oaks for possession of narcotics in 2009 and an arrest in 2016 for unlawful possession of a weapon in Linden, New Jersey, the source said.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/parishioner-gunned-down-texas-church-shooter-says-hes-192700170--abc-news-topstories.html

[weebo]

Once P45* is dictator, he's coming for all your guns. :lol

[DMC]

I haven't asked you to defend anything you didn't say.

I have asked you what your actual position is.

:lol no-take meltdown.

Do I agree that you've seen what you claim to have seen? Do I agree with what "gun advocates (whatever that means)" said?

If the former, sure.. I have no reason to disagree you saw that.

If the latter, don't paraphrase and ask if I agree. Show the quote. I am not going to click links and read articles - and get to the fucking point.

[Blake]

I don't listen to or read Infowars and have stated here many times Alex Jones is a fraud and idiot. I see no reason to defend a stance I haven't taken. :lol argument from Infowars... new fallacy


Why should I defend anything I didn't say?

:lol he literally did what you asked and now you dismiss it

[DMC]

So you can't fit it into the strawman form.

If you could, you would have.

Idiot, that's how strawman works. It's always your claim. If it was mine it wouldn't be a strawman.

[Blake]

Idiot, that's how strawman works. It's always your claim. If it was mine it wouldn't be a strawman.

Uh oh I sense emotion kicking in

[DMC]

Uh oh I sense emotion kicking in
Again, you have zero to contribute. You're always a sidekick. Must come naturally to you.

[DMC]

:lol he literally did what you asked and now you dismiss it

Did you read the articles in the posted links?

Each is talking about something different. One is talking about gun free zones not being safe from gun violence. It's not the same as saying "more guns everywhere is the solution".

Show me someone saying more guns everywhere is the solution, even if it's not my argument, and I will discuss it. Until then it's just misdirection, like always, from the forum clowns.

[DMC]

I said that was your position... I concluded that was your position based on how unreceptive you've been to the prospect of better gun control legislation. For example:



Feel free to correct me on your position if that's wrong... Are you for or against congress passing new gun control legislation?

So you don't know my position but you're comfortable telling me what it is anyhow?

I am all for new gun control legislation if it's effective and not a placebo. The placebo legislation is what salves the left, because, as I said, they are gun ignorant. Hey though, no bayonet lugs or forearm grips! In another thread you wanted legislation on assault rifles yet assault rifles were banned 35 years ago. You called it unimportant for the discussion. Then you suggested it's too easy to get a carry permit, at least to lawfully carry. I showed you it's not. When you decide to catch up to reality instead of expecting the gun savvy crowd to spoon feed you facts on demand, maybe someone will give a shit about your opinion. Your concern is one thing, but you're obviously not motivated to learn about it.

[Spurs Homer]

not even gonna waste time in yet another gun argument thread -

but has DoxxMC threatened to doxx anyone yet?


:lol:lol

[DMX7]

I am all for new gun control legislation if it's effective and not a placebo.

It took 8 pages to get that out of you, but now we know. Thanks! Me too by the way!!!

[DMC]

not even gonna waste time in yet another gun argument thread -

but has DoxxMC threatened to doxx anyone yet?


:lol:lol

You posted here already, idiot :lol

Do you carry a firearm?

[RandomGuy]

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?





Why should I defend anything I didn't say?


I haven't asked you to defend anything you didn't say.

I have asked you what your actual position is.

:lol no-take meltdown.


Do I agree that you've seen what you claim to have seen? Do I agree with what "gun advocates (whatever that means)" said?

If the former, sure.. I have no reason to disagree you saw that.

If the latter, don't paraphrase and ask if I agree. Show the quote. I am not going to click links and read articles - and get to the fucking point.

:lol no-take meltdown continues.

[Blake]

Again, you have zero to contribute. You're always a sidekick. Must come naturally to you.

I've already done this same rodeo with you with all the same posts. You're not contributing anything new here either. I'm just here to lol when you say something ridiculous

[Th'Pusher]

:lol no-take meltdown continues.

No he provided a take. He’s for effective dun legislation!!!

Top notch contribution DMC!

[DMC]

:lol no-take meltdown continues.

So I never said any of the shit you're asking me to confirm. Got it. See how easy that was?

[DMC]

No he provided a take. He’s for effective dun legislation!!!

Top notch contribution DMC!

dun legislation? Slow down, Lenny, you're drooling on your keyboard.

[Th'Pusher]

dun legislation? Slow down, Lenny, you're drooling on your keyboard.

Tell us all about this effective gun legislation and make sure it’s constitutional.

[DMC]

Tell us all about this effective gun legislation and make sure it’s constitutional.

"us"

:lol

[RandomGuy]

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?



This mysterious "many gun advocates" claim needs to be supported. I cannot argue for or against this mysterious source.


Infowars is definitely an advocate for people having more guns, and tries to make the case.
https://www.infowars.com/18-little-known-gun-facts-that-prove-that-guns-make-us-safer/

NRA certainly goes down that route:
"Guns make colleges safer"

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20090423/guns-make-colleges-safer

"women with guns make america safer"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20020315/women-with-guns-make-america-safer

Which Is Safer? More Guns Or Fewer?
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20070425/which-is-safer-more-guns-or-fewer

How about the "general position of the NRA"



Gun rights advocates argue that having more guns in society makes people safer by deterring crime and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against would-be attackers. Gun control proponents argue that guns lead to more violence, not less.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/areas-with-higher-gun-ownership-rates-have-more-firearms-related-deaths-study-finds

The general stance can be found here:
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/guns-in-america


Show the quote. I am not going to click links and read articles - and get to the fucking point.



We’d be safer if more of us carried the tools of self-defense.
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/12/lies-cost-lives-in-virginia-politics/

You asked for evidence... then review to look at it.

All of those links have people suggesting, directly, and indirectly, that more guns in our country will make us safer.

"guardians" in schools, etc.

Either you agree with the statement or not. You don't have to defend anyone else's position, merely your own.

[DMC]

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/12/lies-cost-lives-in-virginia-politics/

You asked for evidence... then review to look at it.

All of those links have people suggesting, directly, and indirectly, that more guns in our country will make us safer.

"guardians" in schools, etc.

Either you agree with the statement or not. You don't have to defend anyone else's position, merely your own.

I don't need to concern myself with random statements you find online. You and Boutons can fellate each other over these until you die of old age.

Make a statement of your own, or post something I said, or start a new thread (you're obviously about to anyhow, given how many you start a day).

Boiled down though: the shooter was killed by a civilian with a gun. Make all your tangential talking points from there. Don't matter.

[Th'Pusher]

"us"

:lol

Back to no take :( Well it was fun while it lasted. Glad to know you’re for effective gun legislation!

[DMC]

Back to no take :( Well it was fun while it lasted. Glad to know you’re for effective gun legislation!

I don't dance for you, boy. You dance for me.

[Blake]

I don't need to concern myself with random statements you find online. You and Boutons can fellate each other over these until you die of old age.

Make a statement of your own, or post something I said, or start a new thread (you're obviously about to anyhow, given how many you start a day).

Boiled down though: the shooter was killed by a civilian with a gun. Make all your tangential talking points from there. Don't matter.

Retreat!

[RandomGuy]

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?





Why should I defend anything I didn't say?


I haven't asked you to defend anything you didn't say.

I have asked you what your actual position is.

:lol no-take meltdown.


Do I agree that you've seen what you claim to have seen? Do I agree with what "gun advocates (whatever that means)" said?

If the former, sure.. I have no reason to disagree you saw that.

If the latter, don't paraphrase and ask if I agree. Show the quote. I am not going to click links and read articles - and get to the fucking point.


:lol no-take meltdown continues.


So I never said any of the shit you're asking me to confirm. Got it. See how easy that was?

:lol no-take meltdown continues.

RG: Some people say chocolate ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream. Do you agree? or think another flavor is better?

DMC: I never said shit about liking chocolate ice-cream, don't ask me to defend that statement.

:rollin

[Oh, Snap!]

I don't need to concern myself with random statements you find online. You and Boutons can fellate each other over these until you die of old age.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Aff4ryYiacUO4/giphy.gif

[Blake]

https://media.giphy.com/media/Aff4ryYiacUO4/giphy.gif

Derp hiding his boot licking behind a sock puppet :lol

[Th'Pusher]

I don't dance for you, boy. You dance for me.

Ah, the old, I won’t be pawed at when asked for you to provide an actual stance.

Fuck off...

[DMC]

Ah, the old, I won’t be pawed at when asked for you to provide an actual stance.

Fuck off...

:lol triggered again

[Th'Pusher]

:lol triggered again

You say so much without saying anything.

For someone who whines about the precision of words, you sure say a whole lotta nothing.

:lol I support effective gun legislation, not that placebo legislation that leftists support!

[DMC]

You say so much without saying anything.

For someone who whines about the precision of words, you sure say a whole lotta nothing.

:lol I support effective gun legislation, not that placebo legislation that leftists support!
:lol

[Blake]

:lol I support effective gun legislation, not that placebo legislation that leftists support!

:lol

[Spurtacular]

:lol

Go ahead and explain what placebo legislation is in this case.

[Blake]

Go ahead and explain what placebo legislation is in this case.

That's dmcs claim. You'll need to ask your hero on that one, dumbfuck

[DMC]

That's dmcs claim. You'll need to ask your hero on that one, dumbfuck

So you don't know. :lol

Placebo laws that ban cosmetic features so that liberals feel they have addressed the issue (because most liberals don't know a flash suppressor from a magazine).

Definition of assault weapon
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[14]



Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

Manufacturers simply skirted those features so they did not have "two or more" of them, none of which would render the firearm less effective if removed. This did not prevent owners from adding these after purchase.

:lol Blake not knowing shit about it but still having a chirp

[Blake]

I don't care to do work for derp. I'm sure he doesn't really care about the work you did for him either.

[DMC]

I don't care to do work for derp. I'm sure he doesn't really care about the work you did for him either.

Sure, you're just adept at the +1 contributions :lol

[Blake]

Sure, you're just adept at the +1 contributions :lol

Lol DMC still trying to play the ":cry what do you contribute here :cry" card.

[ElNono]

SR21 was overlooking the act of mitigating a situation, like what was done in Dallas, by considering it's not a perfect solution. It should go without saying that, short of global ELE, there is no perfect solution.

Ehh, I don’t think he disliked the result given the current reality, that doesn’t mean, as you put it, that we shouldn’t strive for better. Even if slowly.

[Th'Pusher]

Ehh, I don’t think he disliked the result given the current reality, that doesn’t mean, as you put it, that we shouldn’t strive for better. Even if slowly.

How do we “strive for better” ElNono? Can you provide some examples of potentially “effective” gun control legislation. DMC supports additional effective gun control legislation but he’s incapable of expressing an actual opinion on what that might entail. You seem to be a pretty straight shooter. What are your thoughts?

[DarrinS]

6 seconds

Don't mess with Texans

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you can mess with a couple people by killing them in that time.

[DarrinS]

Well, you can mess with a couple people by killing them in that time.

Sad, tiny w for chump. If only that psycho had more time.

[ChumpDumper]

Sad, tiny w for chump. If only that psycho had more time.You're the one celebrating the church shooting, derpin.

Sad.

[DarrinS]

You're the one celebrating the church shooting, derpin.

Sad.


How so?

[ChumpDumper]

How so?Your first fist pump post.

[DarrinS]

Your first fist pump post.

I'm celebrating the heroism of the parishioners who stopped the shooter.

Quit embarrassing yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm celebrating the heroism of the parishioners who stopped the shooter.

Quit embarrassing yourself.People died, dude.

Quit living out your Bernie Goetz fantasies through this guy.

[DarrinS]

People died, dude.

Quit living out your Bernie Goetz fantasies through this guy.

You spent over 20 minutes coming up with this?

Quit embarrassing yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

You spent over 20 minutes coming up with this?

Quit embarrassing yourself.:lol sorry I didn't know you were waiting so intently for my reply.

How embarrassing for you.

[DarrinS]

:lol sorry I didn't know you were waiting so intently for my reply.

How embarrassing for you.



Chump ending 2019 on a a whimper.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump ending 2019 on a a whimper.Darrin hanging on my every word.

[DarrinS]

Darrin hanging on my every word.


it's sad how you've spent your holidays

[ChumpDumper]

it's sad how you've spent your holidaysHad great holidays, dude.

:lol the narratives you people make up about strangers on the internet....

Whatever you feel is important to you, Darrin.

[DarrinS]

Had great holidays, dude.

:lol the narratives you people make up about strangers on the internet....

Whatever you feel is important to you, Darrin.


Others can search this forum and judge for themselves.

[ChumpDumper]

Others can search this forum and judge for themselves.Did you search the forum to judge for yourself?

:lol holy shit that's sad

[DMX7]

Wow Darrin... I didn't realize you were literally counting the minutes in between replies. It means that much to you, huh? Very Sad.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, Darrin -- I had no idea.

Yikes.

[DarrinS]

Did you search the forum to judge for yourself?

:lol holy shit that's sad


Wow Darrin... I didn't realize you were literally counting the minutes in between replies. It means that much to you, huh? Very Sad.


Yeah, Darrin -- I had no idea.

Yikes.



People that should reexamine their priorities in 2020

[ChumpDumper]

People that should reexamine their priorities in 2020Your priority was searching all my posts over the last week.

[Spurtacular]

Your priority was searching all my posts over the last week.

:lol Insecure Chump

[DMC]

Wow Darrin... I didn't realize you were literally counting the minutes in between replies. It means that much to you, huh? Very Sad.

What's sad is that you have about 100x more motivation to run your suck than learn about the shit you're so outraged over.

[DMC]

Chumpy going on an all-nighter again. Livin' the dream :lol

[DMC]

Ehh, I don’t think he disliked the result given the current reality, that doesn’t mean, as you put it, that we shouldn’t strive for better. Even if slowly.

Yeah, I know you made a 98 on your exam, Billy.. and you were failing prior.. but 100 would be better. Chop chop

There are creative little ways people avoid giving credit where it's due. This is one of them.

[Winehole23]

6 seconds

Don't mess with TexansThat guy is a badass in part because he's an ex-FBI agent who runs a gun range and qualifies as a sharpshooter from all positions, quarterly.

What are the chances?

[DMX7]

What's sad is that you have about 100x more motivation to run your suck than learn about the shit you're so outraged over.

lol triggered. :lol