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

[spurraider21]

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

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

[koriwhat]

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

guess you weren't around for the boston MASSACRE?

[spurraider21]

guess you weren't around for the boston MASSACRE?

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

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

[koriwhat]

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

guess you weren't around for 9/11?

[Chris]

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

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

[spurraider21]

guess you weren't around for 9/11?

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

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

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

[spurraider21]

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

how does that answer my question.

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

[koriwhat]

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

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

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

[koriwhat]

how does that answer my question.

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

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

[DMC]

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

Especially the "yeah well what about a car" thing

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

[DMC]

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

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

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

[spurraider21]

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

ah, the truther in you comes out.

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

[Pavlov]

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

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

It's really easy.

Do you know how to search the internet for news?

[koriwhat]

ah, the truther in you comes out.

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

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

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

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

[koriwhat]

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

It's really easy.

Do you know how to search the internet for news?

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

[spurraider21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spurraider21]

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

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

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

mass killings in general. senseless acts of violence.

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

[Pavlov]

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

I did the search.

He didn't.

Pretty simple.

[koriwhat]

mass killings in general. senseless acts of violence.

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

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

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

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

[koriwhat]

I did the search.

He didn't.

Pretty simple.

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

[Pavlov]

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

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

Answer the question.

[DMC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[koriwhat]

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

Answer the question.

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

[Pavlov]

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

I just told you how I searched.

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

Thank you for admitting it.

[koriwhat]

I just told you how I searched.

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

Thank you for admitting it.

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