Reply With Quote
Had you even a cursory knowledge of the Giffords shooting you would know your statement is completely untrue.
lol your methodology
That you consider a request to explain your position further an attack says a lot.[/quote]If you want to, show me that I'm wrong.[/quote]By failing to prove yourself right, you do my job for me.To certainly cared enough to post this. If I'm attacking, I think your retreating is pathetic.Myself, I really don't care about your baiting. I just think you are being really pathetic with your methodology.
Had you even a cursory knowledge of the Giffords shooting you would know your statement is completely untrue.
lol your methodology
Dumb people like WC don't understand that some people don't wanna feel like they HAVE to carry a gun everywhere just to be safe. Carrying around a killing machine everywhere you go out of fear kind of isn't the world a lot of people wanna live in.
That, or there's always the possibility that psychopaths bent on mass murder aren't really deterred by the possibility of encountering an opposing gunman. It could be that some of these guys actually see the presence of other guns in their venue of choice as a desirable thing for the chance to create even more havoc and harm. It's not as if these gunmen are excellent rational thinkers -- and few (if any) of them choose to undertake a mass shooting with an eye toward surviving that event.
Merry Christmas to all.
The same people who pay for public schools now, home owners. It will solve to problems at once, job creation and school security.
It would only be a strawman if I claimed you suggested it., as you did with m>s and earlier with me. I simply posed a question, as that's the only way to effectively police the mental stability of the citizens of this country (never mind those who aren't even do ented). Your suggestions are mushy and weak because they are just "en passant" with respect to the problem. It would be just as sensible for you to say "just fix the problems". You squirm any time I ask you to explain how these things are going to work. and you throw out a red herring like "well what about your plan?"There's the straw man again. You've made far more than I in this thread.
The anti-gun crowd seeks a feeling of safety, ignorant of guns or gun laws, ignorant of criminal mentality, ignorant of the limitations of legislation to effect crime, you seek a delusion of safety. I prefer to be safe by taking responsibility for my own safety. I know that we use force to protect the country, to protect our cities, to protect airports and even sporting events. Somehow when it comes to protecting our children force is out of the question.I simply don't think the only answer is more guns.
A property tax increase might be a hard sell in many places. I didn't see the other questions answered.
lol it's OK when you ask a question. Quite hypocritical.It would only be a strawman if I claimed you suggested it., as you did with m>s and earlier with me. I simply posed a question, as that's the only way to effectively police the mental stability of the citizens of this country (never mind those who aren't even do ented).You merely create straw man after straw man that have nothing to do with what I actually said. It's your fault you can't understand even the simplest sentences and are stuck in combat mode with a person who you don't realize you largely agree with. It's a message board, not a theater shootout.Your suggestions are mushy and weak because they are just "en passant" with respect to the problem. It would be just as sensible for you to say "just fix the problems". You squirm any time I ask you to explain how these things are going to work. and you throw out a red herring like "well what about your plan?"
Your generalizations show you really don't read what other people write. You've got your dogma and preconceived notions and that's all you act on. You should preface your posts with a disclaimer that you only engage in monologue.The anti-gun crowd seeks a feeling of safety, ignorant of guns or gun laws, ignorant of criminal mentality, ignorant of the limitations of legislation to effect crime, you seek a delusion of safety. I prefer to be safe by taking responsibility for my own safety. I know that we use force to protect the country, to protect our cities, to protect airports and even sporting events. Somehow when it comes to protecting our children force is out of the question.
Unfortunately it's the world millions of Americas want to live in.
Usually only once but sometimes more often.
You have this thing for taking the opposite of what people say and attacking it. He said gun free zone. Giffords wasn't in a gun free zone. There's no guarantee anyone will carry a gun in public, but there's almost zero chance a law abiding citizen will carry one in a gun free zone.
Are you so hard up to respond that you don't even consider what you are responding to? You beginning to just blither tbh.
You never answer a question, you just pose a counter question and attempt to go on the offensive. lol you
To be more precise, what are the odds of a person's dying in a mass shooting?
I gave an example of a mass shooting in an area that was not a gun free zone.
It was an example that ran counter to his implied assertion.
Nothing more.
It's still a fact that cannot be refuted. It can only make people angry and try to make the thread about me for the next day or so.
I knew exactly what I was saying. You still haven't figured it out.Are you so hard up to respond that you don't even consider what you are responding to? You beginning to just blither tbh.
Sorry. I've answered several questions that were not made of straw. You can't acknowledge the very plain answers I posted because you are in combat mode for whatever reason.
Xenophobic, Racist Gun Nuts Gone Wild!
Thousands sign U.S. pe ion to deport Piers Morgan over gun comments
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...,2442025.story
Wow...
Such assumptions...
You need to go buy a clue.
It depends on the severity of the wound.
Wrong, you said he was in error. He made a factual statement, you inferred that he was using it exclusively. He was merely responding to a misinterpretation of a previous post. Just own it already and let it go.
According to you, everything you say is a fact that cannot be refuted. I refuted it quite easily.It's still a fact that cannot be refuted. It can only make people angry and try to make the thread about me for the next day or so.
Sure you did. I just embarrassed you.I knew exactly what I was saying. You still haven't figured it out.
You love clinging to this facade of victimization. If you love something, set it free.Sorry. I've answered several questions that were not made of straw. You can't acknowledge the very plain answers I posted because you are in combat mode for whatever reason.
you're attacking me
not at all.
the NR marketing A WANTs an America where everybody must buy and carry a gun to feel safe. Even the bad guys, who are a huge market for the bag gun mfrs/sellers.
CHL holders know the difference between a feeling of safety and a state of safety.
It was a perfectly valid inference. There was a mass shooting that happened in a place that wasn't a gun free zone.
No. I post opinions all the time which are, by definition, not facts.According to you, everything you say is a fact that cannot be refuted.I just refuted what you said quite easily.I refuted it quite easily.
I'm sure that's what you want rather desperately at this point. Sorry.Sure you did. I just embarrassed you.
I am in no way a victim here. I kind of feel sorry for you at this pointYou love clinging to this facade of victimization. If you love something, set it free.
That's what you keep saying. I just said you are in attack mode because you're angry with me and anyone else who you feel is offending your precious gun mindset. That's fine. Just own it. You don't have to be so butch to have a conversation.
NRA blames video games for gun massacres?
How The Gun Industry Profits From Violent Video Games
In a controversial diatribe on Friday, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, blamed lax security, natural disasters, and, most of all, violent video games for the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT that claimed 27 lives. Despite the NRA’s public condemnation of violent entertainment, the New York Times explains, the gun industry is closely entwined with the gaming industry.
In one recent example of this relationship, the gaming company behind the Medal of Honor series launched a promotional website with links to the catalogs of two major gun manufacturers:
Links on the Medal of Honor site allowed visitors to click through on the Web sites of the game’s partners and peruse their catalogs.
“It was almost like a virtual showroom for guns,” said Ryan Smith, who contributes to the Gameological Society, an online gaming magazine. After Mr. Smith and other gaming enthusiasts criticized the site, Electronic Arts disabled the links, saying it had been unaware of them.
Gun manufacturers also grant video game companies licenses to depict real makes and models of weapons. Though these games are now taking heat from the gun lobby for encouraging violent behavior, they continue to serve as a valuable marketing tool for the industry.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/25/1376341/how-the-gun-industry-profits-from-violent-video-games/
But he wasn't in error to say that shootings happen in gun free zones. That was your faux pas.
Your opinions on this topic have been based on emotional drivel, non fact based proselytizing and your usual made at ude.No. I post opinions all the time which are, by definition, not facts.I just refuted what you said quite easily.
Your constant yammering says otherwise.I'm sure that's what you want rather desperately at this point. Sorry.
Sure you do. Keep saying it maybe you'll believe it after a while.I am in no way a victim here. I kind of feel sorry for you at this point
Here's the facts:That's what you keep saying. I just said you are in attack mode because you're angry with me and anyone else who you feel is offending your precious gun mindset. That's fine. Just own it. You don't have to be so butch to have a conversation.
1. You are ignorant of gun laws
2. You are ignorant of guns
3. You have opinions on both
Add those up and you get a bag.
There's nothing wrong with commerce, with owning a gun, with buying a gun. There's something wrong with marketing the killing of innocents to kids. That's what a lot of these video games do, they desensitize kids to the concept of taking a life. You don't have to agree, but it's right there for you to check out.NRA blames video games for gun massacres?
How The Gun Industry Profits From Violent Video Games
In a controversial diatribe on Friday, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, blamed lax security, natural disasters, and, most of all, violent video games for the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT that claimed 27 lives. Despite the NRA’s public condemnation of violent entertainment, the New York Times explains, the gun industry is closely entwined with the gaming industry.
In one recent example of this relationship, the gaming company behind the Medal of Honor series launched a promotional website with links to the catalogs of two major gun manufacturers:
Links on the Medal of Honor site allowed visitors to click through on the Web sites of the game’s partners and peruse their catalogs.
“It was almost like a virtual showroom for guns,” said Ryan Smith, who contributes to the Gameological Society, an online gaming magazine. After Mr. Smith and other gaming enthusiasts criticized the site, Electronic Arts disabled the links, saying it had been unaware of them.
Gun manufacturers also grant video game companies licenses to depict real makes and models of weapons. Though these games are now taking heat from the gun lobby for encouraging violent behavior, they continue to serve as a valuable marketing tool for the industry.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/25/1376341/how-the-gun-industry-profits-from-violent-video-games/
Nor was I in error to say at least one happened outside a gun free zone.
Nah, they're pretty realistic.Your opinions on this topic have been based on emotional drivel, non fact based proselytizing and your usual made at ude.
your constant yammering says exactly what I said.Your constant yammering says otherwise.
Just as you might believe you've embarrassed me if you repeat it enough. As it is, you can't stop talking about me. I was perfectly fine talking about the actual topic. You were and are on a mission to make this personal. That's your problem and it doesn't look like you'll change anytime soon.Sure you do. Keep saying it maybe you'll believe it after a while.
1. False.Here's the facts:
1. You are ignorant of gun laws
2. You are ignorant of guns
3. You have opinions on both
2. False
3. True
Eh, you're a bag no matter what you know or don't know.Add those up and you get a bag.
I haven't even discussed any gun or laws or specifics about guns to this point. You're just projecting what you think is a typical gun control advocate onto me. If you spent as much time actually reading my posts as you do attempting some kind of "gotcha, librul!" moment -- you might realize this.
But you won't.
Fight on, internets warrior! Before I take your guns!
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 12-25-2012 at 10:37 PM.
A "state of safety"? Having a CHL and a CH does not create a state of safety. Hopefully, that's not what you're implying.
You're being intentionally obtuse here. Your error was to call someone else out as being in error. Your word games don't impress me.
If that's true, you should lay out the plan on how these things would work, why they should be implemented, the existing issues with existing procedures and laws, how they should be changed and why. You cannot do any of that because it would cut into your snide remark troll shtick, and into your "give the other poster a task" shtick.Nah, they're pretty realistic.
That was a childish remark, you feel the need to "nuh uh" every point made.your constant yammering says exactly what I said.
All of your responses are "well what about you" known as "tu quoque". You try way to hard to troll to be any good at it.Just as you might believe you've embarrassed me if you repeat it enough. As it is, you can't stop talking about me. I was perfectly fine talking about the actual topic. You were and are on a mission to make this personal. That's your problem and it doesn't look like you'll change anytime soon.
It's obvious who knows what here.1. False.
2. False
3. True
For reasons I pointed out.Eh, you're a bag no matter what you know or don't know.
I haven't even discussed any gun or laws or specifics about guns to this point.
Because that's what you are.You're just projecting what you think is a typical gun control advocate onto me.
You've not said anything interesting.If you spent as much time actually reading my posts as you do attempting some kind of "gotcha, librul!" moment -- you might realize this.
Start a thread, give your take, don't be obtuse and dodgy about it.But you won't.
But you won't. You don't want to surrender the ability to plausibly deny taking any stance you are held to.
You're the most notorious petty bickering participant here.Fight on, internets warrior! Before I take your guns!
You know my stance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions