2 men attacked by a group of teens/men and stabbed in San Fran….no guns were involved...

[PaintMyHouse]

so we should legalize assault and stabbing people because criminals aren't stopped by the law.

got it.

There are probably 10,000 knives for every gun in this country. Did this occur because of lack of comprehensive knife control, Mz. Fakejew? If we put background checks on buying a butter knife, and declare schools "knife free zones" can we keep this kind of violence from ever happening again?

Knives weren't designed only to kill, nor are they used that way very often at all.

what is a sword used for? Isn't it a knife? So name some purpose outside of killing?

If a sword was a knife we'd call it........................................................................................................a knife.

And why was the sword invented? Why was the gun invented? Oh right, for warfare.

for killing right? funny you're such a douche-bag you won't say it. hahahahahaahahahhahahahah.

For killing during warfare. Good boy, now you know why the gun was invented.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I attack all guns. Play that game with someone else.

You attack all civil rights. You are a democrat.

I carry a switchblade knife virtually 100% of the time, yet I have never stabbed, cut, or threatened anyone. How can that be?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

so we should legalize assault and stabbing people because criminals aren't stopped by the law.

got it.

There are probably 10,000 knives for every gun in this country. Did this occur because of lack of comprehensive knife control, Mz. Fakejew? If we put background checks on buying a butter knife, and declare schools "knife free zones" can we keep this kind of violence from ever happening again?

Knives weren't designed only to kill, nor are they used that way very often at all.

what is a sword used for? Isn't it a knife? So name some purpose outside of killing?

If a sword was a knife we'd call it........................................................................................................a knife.

And why was the sword invented? Why was the gun invented? Oh right, for warfare.

we have steak knives, we have butcher knives, we have sword knives, they all have names.

No one has ever called a sword a sword knife. That's utterly idiotic so it fits you perfectly.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I attack all guns. Play that game with someone else.

You attack all civil rights. You are a democrat.

I carry a switchblade knife virtually 100% of the time, yet I have never stabbed, cut, or threatened anyone. How can that be?

Guns are no longer necessary, for most, and the rest of the civil rights I defend. It's a liberal thing.

 

[Intolerant]

So PMH your against guns. What would you do if someone kicked your door down at 3am. How would you protect yourself? Since you don't have a gun and they do. What would you do to protect your family?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Guns are no longer necessary, for most, and the rest of the civil rights I defend. It's a liberal thing.

You attack all civil rights, you are a leftist.

Guns are the great equalizer that allow common and weaker people parity with stronger and well trained adversaries.

I am a 210 pound, 6 foot tall man, and have 30 years of Kung Fu San Soo. A 4'10" woman weighing 90 pounds with a .38 at 10 feet can defend against me.

You opposes guns because you seek disarmed victims. You want to reassert the feudal compact, that peasants are helpless and must bow to a nobility to protect them. Guns destroyed the feudalism you yearn for. Guns ended the need for knights and professional warriors. Guns liberated the masses from the rule of the nobility, which is why you attack guns.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So PMH your against guns. What would you do if someone kicked your door down at 3am. How would you protect yourself? Since you don't have a gun and they do. What would you do to protect your family?

I own guns, and live in the middle of nowhere. And I don't need a gun to protect myself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guns are no longer necessary, for most, and the rest of the civil rights I defend. It's a liberal thing.

You attack all civil rights, you are a leftist.

Guns are the great equalizer that allow common and weaker people parity with stronger and well trained adversaries.

I am a 210 pound, 6 foot tall man, and have 30 years of Kung Fu San Soo. A 4'10" woman weighing 90 pounds with a .38 at 10 feet can defend against me.

You opposes guns because you seek disarmed victims. You want to reassert the feudal compact, that peasants are helpless and must bow to a nobility to protect them. Guns destroyed the feudalism you yearn for. Guns ended the need for knights and professional warriors. Guns liberated the masses from the rule of the nobility, which is why you attack guns.

I oppose guns because they......................................................................................................kill people. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[2aguy]

the sign is lying btw

when it says robbers usually dont hurt people

Nope. That is absolutely true. The policy is based on math, not your love of deadly toys and dreams of playing the hero.

ask the two from T-Mobile yesterday how that contract worked for them. hahahahahahahahahaa jack monkey

Ask the guy who shot his own kid yesterday (because he thought he was a burglar), or the guy who was shot after being car-jacked and then the CC asshole who shot him picked up his brass and ran away before the cops arrived. Works both ways, hero.

Yes....and in total...all accidental gun deaths in 2013 from the CDC.... 505. All of them. IN a country at the time with over 320 million guns in private hands and over 11.1 million people carrying guns for self defense.

505 too many.

505 accidental gun deaths in 2013....

1.5 million times guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives.......

In a country in 2013 with over 320 million guns in private hands...

505 out of 320 million people......

 

[2aguy]

Nope, but like 7-11 and the banks, I know the odds. Hand it over and most likely, nearly without exception, you live.

Except...for the exceptions........when they rape or murder the clerks........

the kook seems to under the impression that the bad guys

will do the right thing

--LOL

As in not killing the person they are robbing? Yep, they usually do not so therefore they do do the right thing.

now you have been reduced to rambling

--LOL

Nope. Since most robbers never kill anyone you haven't a leg to stand on. It's math, you won't get it.

Wrong...it is probability........will they or won't they murder me after they get what they want...if I have a gun I don't have to use it I can just give him the money....if I just know he is going to murder me, or rape my wife or daughter for kicks.....then I also have a choice....

 

[2aguy]

Guns are no longer necessary, for most, and the rest of the civil rights I defend. It's a liberal thing.

You attack all civil rights, you are a leftist.

Guns are the great equalizer that allow common and weaker people parity with stronger and well trained adversaries.

I am a 210 pound, 6 foot tall man, and have 30 years of Kung Fu San Soo. A 4'10" woman weighing 90 pounds with a .38 at 10 feet can defend against me.

You opposes guns because you seek disarmed victims. You want to reassert the feudal compact, that peasants are helpless and must bow to a nobility to protect them. Guns destroyed the feudalism you yearn for. Guns ended the need for knights and professional warriors. Guns liberated the masses from the rule of the nobility, which is why you attack guns.

I oppose guns because they......................................................................................................kill people. It's not that hard to understand.

I support gun ownership because it saves lives... it is not that hard to understand if you are a normal person....the lefties will never get it....

 

[2aguy]

they can do what they have to do

everyone around here is pretty much armed

it is not the money stupid

it is defending life

it is the bad guy who chances killing over money

quit blaming the law abiding for the actions of the law breakers

And neither simple question could you answer. So be it, John Wayne.

they dont tell the public there policy you idiot

Oh, but they do, dummy: https://www.aba.com/aba/toolbox/brd/3tool.pdf

And: teller instuctions on robbers - Google Search

dont be absurd

no bank reveals their internal securities policies

no wonder you are not to be taken seriously

and are a tool for humorous reasons

--LOL

The policies of banks during robberies is well-known, dumbass. Like 7-11, and all other major chains, it starts with do as he says, give him what he wants, and get him the hell back out the door. The cops can deal with him, they get paid to and you don't. Go after him and your ass is fired. That is all policy for the employees' protection.

Works like this:

"Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

Tuesday Aug 4, 2009 3:15 PM
Email
A Key Bank teller in Lower Queen Anne, Washington, nabbed a bank robber and held him until the police arrived – and was subsequently fired by his employer, which claimed his risky behavior could have endangered bystanders. Was the bank right in upholding their policy? Or was it a harsh reaction?"
Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

And you moved the goal posts...this teller pursued a fleeing bank robber...he was wrong.

 

[2aguy]

dont encourage her to get a gun

she will only hurt herself or others with it

Which is why I strongly advocate training as the primary requirement for anyone with a CCW permit.

Sorry....training requirements are no different than the Literacy Tests democrats used to deny blacks the right to vote. They use training requirements in Europe to keep people from owning guns....of course the criminals can get guns in about a half hour.........

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guns are no longer necessary, for most, and the rest of the civil rights I defend. It's a liberal thing.

You attack all civil rights, you are a leftist.

Guns are the great equalizer that allow common and weaker people parity with stronger and well trained adversaries.

I am a 210 pound, 6 foot tall man, and have 30 years of Kung Fu San Soo. A 4'10" woman weighing 90 pounds with a .38 at 10 feet can defend against me.

You opposes guns because you seek disarmed victims. You want to reassert the feudal compact, that peasants are helpless and must bow to a nobility to protect them. Guns destroyed the feudalism you yearn for. Guns ended the need for knights and professional warriors. Guns liberated the masses from the rule of the nobility, which is why you attack guns.

I oppose guns because they......................................................................................................kill people. It's not that hard to understand.

I support gun ownership because it saves lives... it is not that hard to understand if you are a normal person....the lefties will never get it....

Guns don't save lives, they take them, by design.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And neither simple question could you answer. So be it, John Wayne.

they dont tell the public there policy you idiot

Oh, but they do, dummy: https://www.aba.com/aba/toolbox/brd/3tool.pdf

And: teller instuctions on robbers - Google Search

dont be absurd

no bank reveals their internal securities policies

no wonder you are not to be taken seriously

and are a tool for humorous reasons

--LOL

The policies of banks during robberies is well-known, dumbass. Like 7-11, and all other major chains, it starts with do as he says, give him what he wants, and get him the hell back out the door. The cops can deal with him, they get paid to and you don't. Go after him and your ass is fired. That is all policy for the employees' protection.

Works like this:

"Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

Tuesday Aug 4, 2009 3:15 PM
Email
A Key Bank teller in Lower Queen Anne, Washington, nabbed a bank robber and held him until the police arrived – and was subsequently fired by his employer, which claimed his risky behavior could have endangered bystanders. Was the bank right in upholding their policy? Or was it a harsh reaction?"
Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

And you moved the goal posts...this teller pursued a fleeing bank robber...he was wrong.

I moved nothing. We are discussing why they say give them the damn money.

 

[2aguy]

Yes…if you made all guns disappear then the weak and the outnumbered would simply become the victims of the strong and the more numerous…….just like in gun controlled San Francisco…

Mob in S.F. stabs 2 men at Mission District bus stop

A crew of 10 young assailants viciously stabbed two men at a Mission District bus stop, sending the victims to the hospital, where one man was clinging to life Wednesday, police said.
The attack happened around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday when the attackers, described as between the ages of 18 and 20, approached two men sitting at a bus stop at 18th and Mission streets, San Francisco police officials said.
A fight soon broke out, and one of the suspects repeatedly stabbed one of the victims, a 34-year-old man, in the back. At the same time, another attacker went after the other victim, a 41-year-old man, cutting up his back, police said.

so we should legalize assault and stabbing people because criminals aren't stopped by the law.

got it.

again...this stupid point....

We have laws which define punishments for breaking them. If you use a gun to commit a crime you are arrested and put in jail...unless you have a democrat prosecutor or judge, then you get released quickly.

If you are a felon and are simply caught with a gun you can be arrested on the spot and put in jail...unless you have a democrat prosecutor who doesn't press the gun charge.


Those actions are already against the law and do not require licensing, registering guns or universal background checks to accomplish.....

We support laws that target criminal acts.....you want to make criminals out of law abiding gun owners who do not use their guns to commit crimes.

 

[2aguy]

Guns are no longer necessary, for most, and the rest of the civil rights I defend. It's a liberal thing.

You attack all civil rights, you are a leftist.

Guns are the great equalizer that allow common and weaker people parity with stronger and well trained adversaries.

I am a 210 pound, 6 foot tall man, and have 30 years of Kung Fu San Soo. A 4'10" woman weighing 90 pounds with a .38 at 10 feet can defend against me.

You opposes guns because you seek disarmed victims. You want to reassert the feudal compact, that peasants are helpless and must bow to a nobility to protect them. Guns destroyed the feudalism you yearn for. Guns ended the need for knights and professional warriors. Guns liberated the masses from the rule of the nobility, which is why you attack guns.

I oppose guns because they......................................................................................................kill people. It's not that hard to understand.

I support gun ownership because it saves lives... it is not that hard to understand if you are a normal person....the lefties will never get it....

Guns don't save lives, they take them, by design.

the primary purpose of a gun is to save life...the life of the user....police use guns to keep people safe and the vast majority never fire their weapons. In most defensive shootings the victim never pulls the trigger....

So as always, you are wrong....

 

[2aguy]

they dont tell the public there policy you idiot

Oh, but they do, dummy: https://www.aba.com/aba/toolbox/brd/3tool.pdf

And: teller instuctions on robbers - Google Search

dont be absurd

no bank reveals their internal securities policies

no wonder you are not to be taken seriously

and are a tool for humorous reasons

--LOL

The policies of banks during robberies is well-known, dumbass. Like 7-11, and all other major chains, it starts with do as he says, give him what he wants, and get him the hell back out the door. The cops can deal with him, they get paid to and you don't. Go after him and your ass is fired. That is all policy for the employees' protection.

Works like this:

"Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

Tuesday Aug 4, 2009 3:15 PM
Email
A Key Bank teller in Lower Queen Anne, Washington, nabbed a bank robber and held him until the police arrived – and was subsequently fired by his employer, which claimed his risky behavior could have endangered bystanders. Was the bank right in upholding their policy? Or was it a harsh reaction?"
Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

And you moved the goal posts...this teller pursued a fleeing bank robber...he was wrong.

I moved nothing. We are discussing why they say give them the damn money.

The discussion is about a robber....you are lumping in pursuing the robber when he flees...two different acts, not the same.

And too often you give the money and they kill you anyway.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, but they do, dummy: https://www.aba.com/aba/toolbox/brd/3tool.pdf

And: teller instuctions on robbers - Google Search

dont be absurd

no bank reveals their internal securities policies

no wonder you are not to be taken seriously

and are a tool for humorous reasons

--LOL

The policies of banks during robberies is well-known, dumbass. Like 7-11, and all other major chains, it starts with do as he says, give him what he wants, and get him the hell back out the door. The cops can deal with him, they get paid to and you don't. Go after him and your ass is fired. That is all policy for the employees' protection.

Works like this:

"Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

Tuesday Aug 4, 2009 3:15 PM
Email
A Key Bank teller in Lower Queen Anne, Washington, nabbed a bank robber and held him until the police arrived – and was subsequently fired by his employer, which claimed his risky behavior could have endangered bystanders. Was the bank right in upholding their policy? Or was it a harsh reaction?"
Should a bank teller have been fired for chasing down a robber?

And you moved the goal posts...this teller pursued a fleeing bank robber...he was wrong.

I moved nothing. We are discussing why they say give them the damn money.

The discussion is about a robber....you are lumping in pursuing the robber when he flees...two different acts, not the same.

And too often you give the money and they kill you anyway.

Nope, almost never. That is what created the policy of so many who deal with money.

 

[2aguy]

Knives weren't designed only to kill, nor are they used that way very often at all.

Yep, bullshit.

{According to crime statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), knives are consistently used to kill people far more often than rifles are used. And the numbers aren’t even close: five times as many murders were committed with knives than were committed with rifles last year.}

Knives Killed Five Times As Many People As Rifles Last Year

You anti-liberty types rarely post things that happen to be true.

and yet democrats from coast to coast are now pushing laws to ban AR-15s and standard magazines.....something has made them feel froggy..............and of course AR-15s... there are over 3 million in private hands and only 2-3 a year are used in crimes....so the gun grabbers focus on them....makes you wonder? And the magazines....do nothing to stop crime or prevent mass shootings....and yet they are trying to ban them......

Both fully automatic rifles and standard magazines are completely banned in France...and their terrorists and criminals get them easilyl.......their regular, law abiding citizens....can't get them at all....