8 things to stop mass shooters, that won't stop mass shooters, and are pretty dumb ideas....

[Brain357]

Germany Faces Few Mass Shootings Amid Tough Gun Laws

 

[K9Buck]

Ban guns and they'll use trucks. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no shortage of ways to kill 10, 20 or 50 people without a gun. Just don't ask me to tell you how to do it.

So you want to make all options available?

No, I just want to keep my little, pocket-carry pee-shooter to protect myself and my family against common, violent thugs. Do you have an issue with that?

 

[Brain357]

Ban guns and they'll use trucks. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no shortage of ways to kill 10, 20 or 50 people without a gun. Just don't ask me to tell you how to do it.

So you want to make all options available?

No, I just want to keep my little, pocket-carry pee-shooter to protect myself and my family against common, violent thugs. Do you have an issue with that?

Nope. Can't say I've ever needed one or know anyone who has though.

 

[K9Buck]

Ban guns and they'll use trucks. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no shortage of ways to kill 10, 20 or 50 people without a gun. Just don't ask me to tell you how to do it.

So you want to make all options available?

No, I just want to keep my little, pocket-carry pee-shooter to protect myself and my family against common, violent thugs. Do you have an issue with that?

Nope. Can't say I've ever needed one or know anyone who has though.

I've never known anyone who needed a fire extinguisher either.

 

[Brain357]

Ban guns and they'll use trucks. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no shortage of ways to kill 10, 20 or 50 people without a gun. Just don't ask me to tell you how to do it.

So you want to make all options available?

No, I just want to keep my little, pocket-carry pee-shooter to protect myself and my family against common, violent thugs. Do you have an issue with that?

Nope. Can't say I've ever needed one or know anyone who has though.

I've never known anyone who needed a fire extinguisher either.

When was the last mass killing by fire extinguisher?

 

[westwall]

The anti gunners think they are pretty clever....here is another one. He lists 8 things to stop future mass public shooters....and none of them would stop a mass shooter........but don't let that stop him...

Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings

Strong gun control has reduced mass shootings. We are only civilized country with this problem. Everywhere else it is rare or requires a terrorist group.

Tell that to the victims of the Norwegian and Paris shootings. Both had more fatalities. You are factually wrong on all counts and both of those countries have gun laws that you would swoon over.

Norway was a one time event. Nothing before or since. We have these regularly. Paris required a terrorist group and had many shooters. Both countries have much lower homicide rates than us. And they don't have police shot and killed weekly.

Wrong again silly boy. We have a population greater than ALL of Europe combined. When you look at Europe they have just as much violence as we do, and it is increasing. Furthermore we have an illegal immigrant population (where the vast majority of violent crime originates) that is more than twice the population of Norway as a whole. Like I sad, you are factually wrong in every respect.

You claimed that draconian gun laws prevent mass shootings. You are wrong. Or you are lying. I'll let you choose which applies to you.

Nothing I said was false. You clearly have no problem lying however. Shall we compare homicide rates with Europe?

Everything you said was false. And now I know you are nothing more than a propagandist. Which is a fancy way of saying you're a liar for hire.

 

[Pogo]

Where are you getting "Democrat"?

Where in fact do you see any citation of a political party at all?

Kristoff is a democrat....dumb shit....and these are democrat, anti gun talking points......

Instead of restating the premise try answering the question.

WHERE are you getting "Democrat"?

Do I need to explain what the word "where" means? Or do you think you can handle it?

He answered you dumbshit. The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't negate the fact that he answered you. Now, stop acting stupid. Or is that not possible with you?

This is the same bullshit where you claim to have "answered" a similar question the other day.

Apparently on planet Self-Delusion all you do is claim, "uh, yeah I already did that". If such answer actually existed, it could be quoted. And no, ipse dixit ("Kristoff is a democrat [sic]....dumb shit....") in no way qualifies as a response.

And no, the fact that the question cannot be answered doesn't make you have done it in the past. I posed both questions specifically because I already know they have no answer. This is what's called in discourse a rhetorical question. Thus the askee is left with either the honest choice of admitting he has no evidence for his claim and therefore engaged in fabrication; or the wimp choice of running away. The OP here, and you in the other thread, chose the latter.

Wrong silly boy. Your pissant questions are being answered. You're either too stupid to understand the response, or are simply acting the petulant child screaming in the aisle because your mommy won't buy you a candy. You get to choose which sort of imbecile you are.

See what I mean? You just pulled the same boner again. All you have is ad hominem and a lie about realities.

Once again for the shortbus kids ---- if such answer existed, it could be re-quoted. Lemme instruct you on how that works. You take the passage, if it did exist, highlight it and click on "+quote". Then you dump it in the write box. Voilà, it appears with its author's name on it.

Of course if something doesn't exist and you're lying about it ---- that system doesn't work so well.

QED.

You didn't answer yours, he didn't answer his.
Wimps.

 

[K9Buck]

Ban guns and they'll use trucks. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no shortage of ways to kill 10, 20 or 50 people without a gun. Just don't ask me to tell you how to do it.

So you want to make all options available?

No, I just want to keep my little, pocket-carry pee-shooter to protect myself and my family against common, violent thugs. Do you have an issue with that?

Nope. Can't say I've ever needed one or know anyone who has though.

I've never known anyone who needed a fire extinguisher either.

When was the last mass killing by fire extinguisher?

I don't know of one.

You can seize my gun and leave my family and I at the mercy of violent thugs. It won't stop the next mass killing.

 

[Brain357]

So you want to make all options available?

No, I just want to keep my little, pocket-carry pee-shooter to protect myself and my family against common, violent thugs. Do you have an issue with that?

Nope. Can't say I've ever needed one or know anyone who has though.

I've never known anyone who needed a fire extinguisher either.

When was the last mass killing by fire extinguisher?

I don't know of one.

You can seize my gun and leave my family and I at the mercy of violent thugs. It won't stop the next mass killing.

Don't be so scared. I'm at the mercy of thugs every day and am just fine.

 

[Pogo]

The anti gunners think they are pretty clever....here is another one. He lists 8 things to stop future mass public shooters....and none of them would stop a mass shooter........but don't let that stop him...

Democrats Have No Idea How To Prevent Mass Shootings

Where are you getting "Democrat"?

Where in fact do you see any citation of a political party at all?

Okay, he's a Republican op-ed writer for the NYT and CNN contributer who champions a social safety net and universal health care. Sometimes something doesn't have to be explicitly stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So where do you get "Republican"? It's the same question.

It could be that there's a legitimate answer to either one; I don't know, but I couldn't find one. I ask because I got immediately suspicious upon reading the OP's proper adjective. I know from past experience that he's probably pulling it out of his ass. So I give him a chance to prove me wrong. And he can't.

So yes, if your objective is to propagate an Association Fallacy by explicitly stating a specific adjective, it absolutely ***DOES*** have to have something backing it up. You can for instance describe the author as a writer for the New York Times. That's provable. You can link to it.

More to the point, where do either of you get this cockamamie idea that everybody belongs to a political party at all?

 

[Brain357]

Strong gun control has reduced mass shootings. We are only civilized country with this problem. Everywhere else it is rare or requires a terrorist group.

Tell that to the victims of the Norwegian and Paris shootings. Both had more fatalities. You are factually wrong on all counts and both of those countries have gun laws that you would swoon over.

Norway was a one time event. Nothing before or since. We have these regularly. Paris required a terrorist group and had many shooters. Both countries have much lower homicide rates than us. And they don't have police shot and killed weekly.

Wrong again silly boy. We have a population greater than ALL of Europe combined. When you look at Europe they have just as much violence as we do, and it is increasing. Furthermore we have an illegal immigrant population (where the vast majority of violent crime originates) that is more than twice the population of Norway as a whole. Like I sad, you are factually wrong in every respect.

You claimed that draconian gun laws prevent mass shootings. You are wrong. Or you are lying. I'll let you choose which applies to you.

Nothing I said was false. You clearly have no problem lying however. Shall we compare homicide rates with Europe?

Everything you said was false. And now I know you are nothing more than a propagandist. Which is a fancy way of saying you're a liar for hire.

It isn't even close.

26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

 

[Pogo]

Ban guns and they'll use trucks. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no shortage of ways to kill 10, 20 or 50 people without a gun. Just don't ask me to tell you how to do it.

The flaw in that is that they (meaning the mass shooter) are not out to simply "kill people". They're out for specific sensory/psyhological input that only a firearm can deliver. Specifically an automatic, from a perch.

The point of that is not "me kill people", even if that's a result. The point is, "me have POWER". Sitting in some crow's nest or behind a bush where you can't be immediately seen, holding an instrument that makes other humans dance and scream and run for their lives like some TV remote, that's POWER. That's why the mass shooter is virtually always male. That's why so many are disgruntled workers or some other slob who's lost POWER. And that's why his targets are random people ---- it doesn't matter who they are, since they all have in common that they're human and they're vulnerable, and that means "me have POWER".

That's why we don't have rampant mass random bombings or rampant mass water works poisonings. They don't give the same immediate sensory input that strafiing people with a gun does. They can't convey the immediate sensory return-orgasm of actually witnessing people going down, bleeding, screaming, running for cover. When he sees and hears that and knows that they are doing so because of him and his firearm, that's an immediate sensory fix of "me have POWER".

This is all about the method in the madness. A mass shooter may be killing and/or injuring people, but that's just incidental. What he's (always a he) doing directly is selfishly feeding his own sick psyche with the same images he's been taught from birth in endless TV shows, movies, video games, comic books, toys, advertisements an even linguistic metaphor, that "GUN equals POWER".

That is why we have mass shootings.

 

[K9Buck]

No, I just want to keep my little, pocket-carry pee-shooter to protect myself and my family against common, violent thugs. Do you have an issue with that?

Nope. Can't say I've ever needed one or know anyone who has though.

I've never known anyone who needed a fire extinguisher either.

When was the last mass killing by fire extinguisher?

I don't know of one.

You can seize my gun and leave my family and I at the mercy of violent thugs. It won't stop the next mass killing.

Don't be so scared. I'm at the mercy of thugs every day and am just fine.

So you OPPOSE people being able to carry a gun on their body, right? Do you also oppose them being able to have a gun in their car? What about their home?

 

[K9Buck]

Tell that to the victims of the Norwegian and Paris shootings. Both had more fatalities. You are factually wrong on all counts and both of those countries have gun laws that you would swoon over.

Norway was a one time event. Nothing before or since. We have these regularly. Paris required a terrorist group and had many shooters. Both countries have much lower homicide rates than us. And they don't have police shot and killed weekly.

Wrong again silly boy. We have a population greater than ALL of Europe combined. When you look at Europe they have just as much violence as we do, and it is increasing. Furthermore we have an illegal immigrant population (where the vast majority of violent crime originates) that is more than twice the population of Norway as a whole. Like I sad, you are factually wrong in every respect.

You claimed that draconian gun laws prevent mass shootings. You are wrong. Or you are lying. I'll let you choose which applies to you.

Nothing I said was false. You clearly have no problem lying however. Shall we compare homicide rates with Europe?

Everything you said was false. And now I know you are nothing more than a propagandist. Which is a fancy way of saying you're a liar for hire.

It isn't even close.

26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

Germany doesn't have that 13% issue, but they're working on it via Islam.

 

[Brain357]

Nope. Can't say I've ever needed one or know anyone who has though.

I've never known anyone who needed a fire extinguisher either.

When was the last mass killing by fire extinguisher?

I don't know of one.

You can seize my gun and leave my family and I at the mercy of violent thugs. It won't stop the next mass killing.

Don't be so scared. I'm at the mercy of thugs every day and am just fine.

So you OPPOSE people being able to carry a gun on their body, right? Do you also oppose them being able to have a gun in their car? What about their home?

I didn't say any of that. Violent crime is rising as concealed carry increases however. I would say right now we need a ban again on high capacity magazines. Only pupose is mass killing.

 

[Brain357]

Norway was a one time event. Nothing before or since. We have these regularly. Paris required a terrorist group and had many shooters. Both countries have much lower homicide rates than us. And they don't have police shot and killed weekly.

Wrong again silly boy. We have a population greater than ALL of Europe combined. When you look at Europe they have just as much violence as we do, and it is increasing. Furthermore we have an illegal immigrant population (where the vast majority of violent crime originates) that is more than twice the population of Norway as a whole. Like I sad, you are factually wrong in every respect.

You claimed that draconian gun laws prevent mass shootings. You are wrong. Or you are lying. I'll let you choose which applies to you.

Nothing I said was false. You clearly have no problem lying however. Shall we compare homicide rates with Europe?

Everything you said was false. And now I know you are nothing more than a propagandist. Which is a fancy way of saying you're a liar for hire.

It isn't even close.

26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

Germany doesn't have that 13% issue, but they're working on it via Islam.

Explain 13%.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I noticed that noting was said about enforcing the thousands of gun laws we already have on the books or adopting a zero tolerance for all crimes committed while in the possession of a gun that is backed up by stiff mandatory sentences to be served with no parole.

 

[Brain357]

I noticed that noting was said about enforcing the thousands of gun laws we already have on the books or adopting a zero tolerance for all crimes committed while in the possession of a gun that is backed up by stiff mandatory sentences to be served with no parole.

How many mass shootings would that stop?

You suggesting cops aren't enforcing laws?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I noticed that noting was said about enforcing the thousands of gun laws we already have on the books or adopting a zero tolerance for all crimes committed while in the possession of a gun that is backed up by stiff mandatory sentences to be served with no parole.

How many mass shootings would that stop?

You suggesting cops aren't enforcing laws?

Laws are not being enforced.

Gun charges are dropped, or pleaded down to lesser offenses all the time. Violent pieces of shit aren't serving meaningful sentences for their crimes.

How many mass shootings would any of those things on the stupid list stop?

None that's how many.

Laws do not and cannot stop a crime from being committed

 

[Brain357]

I noticed that noting was said about enforcing the thousands of gun laws we already have on the books or adopting a zero tolerance for all crimes committed while in the possession of a gun that is backed up by stiff mandatory sentences to be served with no parole.

How many mass shootings would that stop?

You suggesting cops aren't enforcing laws?

Laws are not being enforced.

Gun charges are dropped, or pleaded down to lesser offenses all the time. Violent pieces of shit aren't serving meaningful sentences for their crimes.

How many mass shootings would any of those things on the stupid list stop?

None that's how many.

Laws do not and cannot stop a crime from being committed

Are they? Link?

Gun control sure has worked in other countries.