Reply With Quote
He's basically saying there's more bad guys than good guys. This is universal knowledge, but it's something he can fall back on.
..or anyone else who breaks into your house.
He's basically saying there's more bad guys than good guys. This is universal knowledge, but it's something he can fall back on.
Well I can't think of a home invasion that involved a mass gathering size number of intruders, can you?
if we're going to weigh the costs and benefits of guns (as this thread/the OP tried to do) its pretty useful information
Either they are just as deadly or they aren't. A person with nothing but semi-auto pistols killed 23 at a Luby's in Killeen. If you think you cannot kill 17 people in a crowded classroom with a handgun, you're mistaken.
The deciding factor is the density of the group, not so much the weapon used. You could walk into a crowded room with a shotgun with 7 rounds of 00 buckshot and likely kill 10 people very quickly. Try that same gun at a park where folks can run after that first shot, things change.
The trick is to secure the areas where large crowds gather, where there's only one entrance/exit (rooms) and where neighborhoods or hotels border the campuses.
I don't see it as cost/benefit analysis as much as railing against the news for not having balanced reporting. Even if the guy saved 17 people, the gun probably wouldn't be mentioned. Cops do it every day, rarely gets more than local mention.
So, you don't know what the saying means.Pretty much where that story is, genius.
Yes I do.So, you don't know what the saying means.
You're just mad it's actually all over the news.
According to you it means one outlet covering a story.
Nope, plenty of outlets covered the story.According to you it means one outlet covering a story.
You didn't even check.
a man saving his neighbor is about as much a national story as a man killing his neighbor.
Give me a rundown on what networks and cable stations covered it, then, and for how long.Nope, plenty of outlets covered the story.
You didn't even check.
So, we should rely on sensationalized news stories to determine our gun laws is what you're saying?
no. we just shouldn't get triggered when every local story we like doesn't get plastered in the national news
lolGive me a rundown on what networks and cable stations covered it, then, and for how long.
Oh, so "all over the news" to you means you could find more than one link on the internet.
Yeah I don't think you can kill 17 people as easily with a non semi auto handgun as you can with an ar-15. None of your arguments anywhere here on this board have changed that.
Especially the "yeah well what about a car" thing
how can you think at all on this issue when you have no clue about the issue? you just stated, "yeah i don't think"... well i want to hear from someone who knows and not someone who speculates because they have no expertise in the subject. so your 0 knowledge helps none!
You can kill 17 people really easily with a homemade bomb. Your argument has no legs. Never will.
It means it was pretty widely reported in local, regional and national outlets.Oh, so "all over the news" to you means you could find more than one link on the internet.
You're demanding it be the top story everywhere in the country.
That's stupid.
You're stupid.
so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?
I know a lot of people boycotted when Wal-Mart stopped selling bombs to 18 year olds.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
