France banned all rifles...130 dead in attack on Rock Concert, here...58 killed

[Lewdog]

Yes it does fucking matter. You can't compare France and the U.S. when it comes to things like, and obviously at this point despite me telling you some of the reason why you still want to stomp your foot like a child instead of actually refuting the information I'm giving you.

Do you know what the Schengen agreement is?

Those fully automatic rifles are illegal in Belgium too, genius.......and they are illegal in France....they got them, easily...and all the other criminals in France get them easily too.........What part of illegal do you not understand.....?

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

Those guns, as Westwall pointed out...are illegal in all the countries governed by the agreement....all of them.............I get it...you don't want to give it up......

Chicago..again...why do L.A. and New York have lower gun murder numbers than Chicago? Their criminals can't use GPS and leave the state to get guns? The gun traffickers don't know how to drive to L.A. and New York?

And you didn't read the article as I knew you wouldn't. That means it's time for me to move on. No need to argue with a brick wall.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes it does fucking matter. You can't compare France and the U.S. when it comes to things like, and obviously at this point despite me telling you some of the reason why you still want to stomp your foot like a child instead of actually refuting the information I'm giving you.

Do you know what the Schengen agreement is?

Those fully automatic rifles are illegal in Belgium too, genius.......and they are illegal in France....they got them, easily...and all the other criminals in France get them easily too.........What part of illegal do you not understand.....?

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

Those guns, as Westwall pointed out...are illegal in all the countries governed by the agreement....all of them.............I get it...you don't want to give it up......

Chicago..again...why do L.A. and New York have lower gun murder numbers than Chicago? Their criminals can't use GPS and leave the state to get guns? The gun traffickers don't know how to drive to L.A. and New York?

Its called geography and proximity genius.

 

[2aguy]

Those fully automatic rifles are illegal in Belgium too, genius.......and they are illegal in France....they got them, easily...and all the other criminals in France get them easily too.........What part of illegal do you not understand.....?

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

Those guns, as Westwall pointed out...are illegal in all the countries governed by the agreement....all of them.............I get it...you don't want to give it up......

Chicago..again...why do L.A. and New York have lower gun murder numbers than Chicago? Their criminals can't use GPS and leave the state to get guns? The gun traffickers don't know how to drive to L.A. and New York?

And you didn't read the article as I knew you wouldn't. That means it's time for me to move on. No need to argue with a brick wall.

yes....you have finally realized your point was stupid....good, we may have made some progress....

 

[2aguy]

Those fully automatic rifles are illegal in Belgium too, genius.......and they are illegal in France....they got them, easily...and all the other criminals in France get them easily too.........What part of illegal do you not understand.....?

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

Those guns, as Westwall pointed out...are illegal in all the countries governed by the agreement....all of them.............I get it...you don't want to give it up......

Chicago..again...why do L.A. and New York have lower gun murder numbers than Chicago? Their criminals can't use GPS and leave the state to get guns? The gun traffickers don't know how to drive to L.A. and New York?

Its called geography and proximity genius.

No, moron......it is called money....and gun traffickers will sell guns to gangs in New York and L.A........and Vermont practically gives guns away to just about anyone....and yet New York has a lower gun murder number than Chicago...with over 2 times the population....

 

[westwall]

It doesn't fucking matter......they are illegal in France..they are banned...in France......and terrorists, on government fucking watch lists got them and they also got grenades, easily.........what don't you fucking understand about that...fully automatic military rifles banned in France and they got them easily.....in another country where you can't buy them legally either.....moron.

Yes it does fucking matter. You can't compare France and the U.S. when it comes to things like, and obviously at this point despite me telling you some of the reason why you still want to stomp your foot like a child instead of actually refuting the information I'm giving you.

Do you know what the Schengen agreement is?

Those fully automatic rifles are illegal in Belgium too, genius.......and they are illegal in France....they got them, easily...and all the other criminals in France get them easily too.........What part of illegal do you not understand.....?

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

The laws are the SAME throughout Europe. No matter where you are in the EU those weapons are illegal as hell. So this helps your argument how again?

 

[westwall]

Of course things can be compared when they are not alike. What's the point in comparing things if they have to be exactly alike?

They aren't even remotely alike. One was a large group of shooters that were a coordinated attack with others in the city setting off bombs.

No moron.......you had men on government terrorist watch lists...known terrorists....who easily got fully automatic, military rifles......and grenades....in a country where they are completely banned...and they used them to kill over 140 people if you include Charlie Hebdo with the Paris attack.......

Oh my lord dipshit. They were bought by a guy that was not on those lists that had gone to Belgium to get them. What the fuck can you not understand about that?

You may as well forget talking about weapons with 2aguy. If you get him to see reason you will be the first.

What's really confusing, is that Westwall seems to have the same problem with reasoning as 2aGuy does.

What's not confusing is you have no ability to think critically. That much is patently obvious.

 

[Lewdog]

Yes it does fucking matter. You can't compare France and the U.S. when it comes to things like, and obviously at this point despite me telling you some of the reason why you still want to stomp your foot like a child instead of actually refuting the information I'm giving you.

Do you know what the Schengen agreement is?

Those fully automatic rifles are illegal in Belgium too, genius.......and they are illegal in France....they got them, easily...and all the other criminals in France get them easily too.........What part of illegal do you not understand.....?

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

The laws are the SAME throughout Europe. No matter where you are in the EU those weapons are illegal as hell. So this helps your argument how again?

I take it you didn't read the article either. Good, shows me where you stand too. I would think someone that professes the importance of education would read the evidence presented to them in an argument before continuing to argue.

 

[Lewdog]

They aren't even remotely alike. One was a large group of shooters that were a coordinated attack with others in the city setting off bombs.

No moron.......you had men on government terrorist watch lists...known terrorists....who easily got fully automatic, military rifles......and grenades....in a country where they are completely banned...and they used them to kill over 140 people if you include Charlie Hebdo with the Paris attack.......

Oh my lord dipshit. They were bought by a guy that was not on those lists that had gone to Belgium to get them. What the fuck can you not understand about that?

You may as well forget talking about weapons with 2aguy. If you get him to see reason you will be the first.

What's really confusing, is that Westwall seems to have the same problem with reasoning as 2aGuy does.

What's not confusing is you have no ability to think critically. That much is patently obvious.

Again, read the article and then come back to argue. If you aren't going to read it, just say so, and then I'll know just how little to take you seriously from now on.

 

[2aguy]

No moron.......you had men on government terrorist watch lists...known terrorists....who easily got fully automatic, military rifles......and grenades....in a country where they are completely banned...and they used them to kill over 140 people if you include Charlie Hebdo with the Paris attack.......

Oh my lord dipshit. They were bought by a guy that was not on those lists that had gone to Belgium to get them. What the fuck can you not understand about that?

You may as well forget talking about weapons with 2aguy. If you get him to see reason you will be the first.

What's really confusing, is that Westwall seems to have the same problem with reasoning as 2aGuy does.

What's not confusing is you have no ability to think critically. That much is patently obvious.

Again, read the article and then come back to argue. If you aren't going to read it, just say so, and then I'll know just how little to take you seriously from now on.

The guns are illegal in all the countries..........please...stop......

 

[westwall]

Those fully automatic rifles are illegal in Belgium too, genius.......and they are illegal in France....they got them, easily...and all the other criminals in France get them easily too.........What part of illegal do you not understand.....?

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

The laws are the SAME throughout Europe. No matter where you are in the EU those weapons are illegal as hell. So this helps your argument how again?

I take it you didn't read the article either. Good, shows me where you stand too. I would think someone that professes the importance of education would read the evidence presented to them in an argument before continuing to argue.

We presented you all the evidence you need. The guns used to commit the crimes are ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! What difference does any of the blabbering in the article make to that simple statement?

 

[Lewdog]

It really would be nice if you educated yourself more on things like this before you just decided to start a thread, thinking you are making an intelligent argument.


"For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”"

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

You should try reading the whole article and more... of course you won't because you think you have this whole thing figured out.

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

The laws are the SAME throughout Europe. No matter where you are in the EU those weapons are illegal as hell. So this helps your argument how again?

I take it you didn't read the article either. Good, shows me where you stand too. I would think someone that professes the importance of education would read the evidence presented to them in an argument before continuing to argue.

We presented you all the evidence you need. The guns used to commit the crimes are ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! What difference does any of the blabbering in the article make to that simple statement?

YOU presented all the information in the argument I need... that has to be the dumbest, most ridiculously stupid retort in a discussion I have ever heard.

Is that how you got your education?

I'm really starting to believe you aren't the person you say you are. A well educated individual would NEVER make a statement like that.

 

[westwall]

So, basically you are saying that those guns are illegal in every country in the EU and yet they were able to transport them all safely throughout the EU with impunity.

And this helps your argument how?

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

The laws are the SAME throughout Europe. No matter where you are in the EU those weapons are illegal as hell. So this helps your argument how again?

I take it you didn't read the article either. Good, shows me where you stand too. I would think someone that professes the importance of education would read the evidence presented to them in an argument before continuing to argue.

We presented you all the evidence you need. The guns used to commit the crimes are ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! What difference does any of the blabbering in the article make to that simple statement?

YOU presented all the information in the argument I need... that has to be the dumbest, most ridiculously stupid retort in a discussion I have ever heard.

Is that how you got your education?

I'm really starting to believe you aren't the person you say you are. A well educated individual would NEVER make a statement like that.

Present a single explanation why the guns that were illegal EVERYWHERE, were able to traverse hundreds of miles of terrain where they are illegal, and how if that is a fact, as it is, then how on Earth do you think that ANY gun ban anywhere can work.

Any person will tell you that the most vulnerable time for ANY illicit product is when it is in transit. They were able to get the guns from the furthest reaches of the middle east, across an ocean, across hundreds of miles of roads, with countless cops and inspectors, and lo and behold they are EASY to obtain by anyone.

So, yet again, that is what is called a fact. The article you are so proud of tells us why the guns were able to get to France, but doesn't address the fact that those guns were illegal along their entire route of travel. Are they able to dematerialize and then rematerialize where they are wanted?

Or are the police simply not able to prevent the illegal transport of weapons of war.

 

[Lewdog]

Why? Because it isn't the gun laws in France that makes a difference. It's Globalization and the Schengen Agreement that makes France's law so hard to enforce.

But it seems neither of you guys can understand that.

It's no different than the deal with Chicago. A gun ban in Chicago doesn't really matter if people can drive a few minutes to Gary Indiana and buy a gun and bring it home.

The laws are the SAME throughout Europe. No matter where you are in the EU those weapons are illegal as hell. So this helps your argument how again?

I take it you didn't read the article either. Good, shows me where you stand too. I would think someone that professes the importance of education would read the evidence presented to them in an argument before continuing to argue.

We presented you all the evidence you need. The guns used to commit the crimes are ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! What difference does any of the blabbering in the article make to that simple statement?

YOU presented all the information in the argument I need... that has to be the dumbest, most ridiculously stupid retort in a discussion I have ever heard.

Is that how you got your education?

I'm really starting to believe you aren't the person you say you are. A well educated individual would NEVER make a statement like that.

Present a single explanation why the guns that were illegal EVERYWHERE, were able to traverse hundreds of miles of terrain where they are illegal, and how if that is a fact, as it is, then how on Earth do you think that ANY gun ban anywhere can work.

Any person will tell you that the most vulnerable time for ANY illicit product is when it is in transit. They were able to get the guns from the furthest reaches of the middle east, across an ocean, across hundreds of miles of roads, with countless cops and inspectors, and lo and behold they are EASY to obtain by anyone.

So, yet again, that is what is called a fact. The article you are so proud of tells us why the guns were able to get to France, but doesn't address the fact that those guns were illegal along their entire route of travel. Are they able to dematerialize and then rematerialize where they are wanted?

Or are the police simply not able to prevent the illegal transport of weapons of war.

How about you take 5 minutes to read the link I posted instead of arguing with me?

 

[westwall]

The laws are the SAME throughout Europe. No matter where you are in the EU those weapons are illegal as hell. So this helps your argument how again?

I take it you didn't read the article either. Good, shows me where you stand too. I would think someone that professes the importance of education would read the evidence presented to them in an argument before continuing to argue.

We presented you all the evidence you need. The guns used to commit the crimes are ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! What difference does any of the blabbering in the article make to that simple statement?

YOU presented all the information in the argument I need... that has to be the dumbest, most ridiculously stupid retort in a discussion I have ever heard.

Is that how you got your education?

I'm really starting to believe you aren't the person you say you are. A well educated individual would NEVER make a statement like that.

Present a single explanation why the guns that were illegal EVERYWHERE, were able to traverse hundreds of miles of terrain where they are illegal, and how if that is a fact, as it is, then how on Earth do you think that ANY gun ban anywhere can work.

Any person will tell you that the most vulnerable time for ANY illicit product is when it is in transit. They were able to get the guns from the furthest reaches of the middle east, across an ocean, across hundreds of miles of roads, with countless cops and inspectors, and lo and behold they are EASY to obtain by anyone.

So, yet again, that is what is called a fact. The article you are so proud of tells us why the guns were able to get to France, but doesn't address the fact that those guns were illegal along their entire route of travel. Are they able to dematerialize and then rematerialize where they are wanted?

Or are the police simply not able to prevent the illegal transport of weapons of war.

How about you take 5 minutes to read the link I posted instead of arguing with me?

I did. It doesn't address the simple fact that the guns are illegal EVERYWHERE. How about you address that fact.

 

[Lewdog]

I take it you didn't read the article either. Good, shows me where you stand too. I would think someone that professes the importance of education would read the evidence presented to them in an argument before continuing to argue.

We presented you all the evidence you need. The guns used to commit the crimes are ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! What difference does any of the blabbering in the article make to that simple statement?

YOU presented all the information in the argument I need... that has to be the dumbest, most ridiculously stupid retort in a discussion I have ever heard.

Is that how you got your education?

I'm really starting to believe you aren't the person you say you are. A well educated individual would NEVER make a statement like that.

Present a single explanation why the guns that were illegal EVERYWHERE, were able to traverse hundreds of miles of terrain where they are illegal, and how if that is a fact, as it is, then how on Earth do you think that ANY gun ban anywhere can work.

Any person will tell you that the most vulnerable time for ANY illicit product is when it is in transit. They were able to get the guns from the furthest reaches of the middle east, across an ocean, across hundreds of miles of roads, with countless cops and inspectors, and lo and behold they are EASY to obtain by anyone.

So, yet again, that is what is called a fact. The article you are so proud of tells us why the guns were able to get to France, but doesn't address the fact that those guns were illegal along their entire route of travel. Are they able to dematerialize and then rematerialize where they are wanted?

Or are the police simply not able to prevent the illegal transport of weapons of war.

How about you take 5 minutes to read the link I posted instead of arguing with me?

I did. It doesn't address the simple fact that the guns are illegal EVERYWHERE. How about you address that fact.

You did? Then did you read the part about how easily guns get smuggled into Europe by organized crime? Did you also read that as long as someone can get inside the European countries that are a part of the Schengen agreement they can pretty much move throughout all the countries easily and without problems? Now tell me how you can compare France to the U.S. on that. Does the U.S. have agreements with the countries that border it that people can cross the borders without anyone stopping to ask them questions or check their IDs and possibly use drugs/bomb sniffing dogs and face recognition software.

So yes, France's gun laws are made less relevant because of Globalization and the fact that their ability to monitor guns is actually dependent on how well OTHER countries that are on the borders of the Schengen Agreement monitor THEIR borders and the things that get in.

 

[JohnPrewett]

 

[Lewdog]

Actually, the better analogy is the shooter from the tower at University of Texas at Austin.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Actually, the better analogy is the shooter from the tower at University of Texas at Austin.

You might be right. I never delved into that case. Do you think Charles S. Whitman was a patsy ?

 

[Lewdog]

Actually, the better analogy is the shooter from the tower at University of Texas at Austin.

You might be right. I never delved into that case. Do you think Charles S. Whitman was a patsy ?

Nope. There was absolutely no motivation from the government for his actions. Plus he killed his family before he went to campus to shoot more people.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Lewdog, You are (as I did .... as most people do) assuming the "news" accounts are true.

When a person understands the reality of OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD,
then the person ceases to assume the "news" accounts are true.