Reply With Quote
Again with the riddles.measures of protection are never absolute.
Your faith in the absolutism of the present is astonishing.
That's telling me!
Again with the riddles.measures of protection are never absolute.
Your faith in the absolutism of the present is astonishing.
Relegated to fake quoting derp style. Makes sense. He’s your re ed off spring.
Didn't change your quote.
Winehole, you seem only interested in moving forward with your narrative. You still need to address these things:
1. Trump blaming the temple
2. How would you prevent this from happening again?
3. Why is the Mexican bank guarded by guys with shotguns?
4. Why were the police called during this event?
The name is part of it, butt pirate.
that the only solution you can conjure is guns in temples says something about you.
that the temples don't want that says something about the temples.
vive la difference.
Your user name has nothing to do with what you said.
You're not very bright. It's been pointed out that your odd use of spelling and grammar (like saying "off spring" instead of "offspring") likely indicates English isn't your first language, but I think you're just not well educated.
The fact you've ignored basically every question posed to you in favor of a truncated version and a one line riddle response tells me you're out of your depth.
Interesting that the temples do have security for many events, since they don't want security. No one wants it. No one wants to be gunned down either though.
You still changed it, fattie. Bad night for you and your ilk.
You're very upset.
What question did I ignore? I didn't knock temple security, Donald Trump did and so do you, apparently.
I acknowledged the necessity of police, what more do you want?
I'll answer your question, what is it?
lol I'm just in tears right now.
Take your pick..
You didn't say why the cops were called. Acknowledging the "necessity of" is a cop out (no pun intended). Why are they necessary?
Sorry I have to walk you through this Socratic method style, but you tend to dart one way then another.
Finally, what would you do you prevent these events from happening in the future? Not like 100 years from now, but like next week.
Sling a few more " " and "butt pirate" names at me. That should help until you can acquire lithium.
In reverse order:
The police were called because there was a shooting.
The Mexican bank in San Miguel is guarded with shotguns probably because a lot of Americans live there, but I saw this in other Mexican banks too. They think it necessary.
I think it's foolish to think recurrences can be prevented, but temples can take whatever measures they think prudent to protect people. This may or may not require people standing around armed in church. That presents its own security problem.
Trump totally blamed the temple, It was practically the first thing he said.
Do you realize everything you just said is simply proof by assertion or circular reasoning?
1. Police were called because the police are armed and sworn to protect. Armed presence was highly desired.
2. The Mexican bank is heavily guarded because there are assets inside that need to be protected
3. Protecting people = preventing recurrences
4. Having cops presents a security problem (unjustified killings by cops). This is why risk assessment is a thing and risk vs reward is also a thing.
5. Trump didn't blame the temple (see how easily I debunked your claim?)
does that make any of it wrong or even inaccurate?
except for the Trump utterance.
you glossed it wrong. he did blame the temple.
the tribe won't forget that
Yes it makes it inaccurate. Yes it makes it wrong.
Quote Trump without paraphrasing.
We gloss it differently. Trump called out inadequate security. He called out the temple after a mass shooting. Said the body count would have been lower.
Most unpresidential.
So why do you think police were called etc., without resorting to circularity.
Answer your own questions differently.
Great debate here between DMC and WH.Wish I wasn’t on my phone and could participate more actively and discuss further. I’ll just drop 2c as condensed as possible, hopefully opening some more discussion.
So, it’s very common in these instances to bring this to a redux of how to prevent this entirely, but there’s also value in minimizing casualties even if you can’t outright prevent it. A good example is Japan’s tight gun control which does yield a measurable decrease of instances of these kind of attacks. The counter argument often is people could do just the same with a Katana. But they really can’t. The standoff scenario is not such in that case, and casualties are generally smaller as a result, plus gives LEO generally more security.
On the other hand it’s completely understandable that being a realist to the fact that the bar for changing the 2nd amendment is exceedingly high (as it should generally be for fundamental rights), makes it implicit that there won’t be a way to reach that kind of regulations, and so in those terms, would more guns be a better solution?
In a nuts , there are qualitative palliatives that could be applied, but realistically might be out of reach (which doesn’t mean they’re not worth pursuing in the long term). The good news is that the general consensus seems to be that this can’t continue unabated. Whether one solution or the other makes more sense or it’s more realistic or practical, the fact we’re looking for a solution indicates we all agree there’s a serious problem.
if you think he said something different, you parse it DMC. mine is a reasonable inference from the given.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions