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

[Brain357]

We should close roads for big events.

And you think closing a road will stop an 80,000lb big rig?

You really are clueless.

Sure makes it easy to recognize and stop threats. You think more killing options save
lives?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's easy to drive through sawhorses used to close roads too.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this but no law will stop a person hell bent on murder from committing murder.

And telling people who will never commit murder that they can't have a gun because someone else might kill someone with a gun is beyond stupid

And that makes it easy for law enforcement to recognize and stop threat.

No it doesn't. Cops do not prevent crimes. they show up after the fact.

There was law enforcement at this event. They got shot. They couldn't do much given the weaponry.

Like I said cops do not prevent crime.

What is it that you do not understand about that?

You said show up after clearly. But like in Orlando they were there and killer too heavily armed.

So they were there in the hotel room before he started shooting?

That's the only way they could have prevented it.

Cops react to crime which by definition means the crime has to happen first.

get it?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.

One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.

 

[Brain357]

You argument is dependent on it. Seems your argument is weak.

It's not dependent on what other countries do.
I don't give a **** what other countries do.
I am talking about this country and what WE do to punish violent pieces of shit

Well you should. We have more incarcerated than anywhere. Problem must be something else. Too many guns?

The problem isn't the guns. It's the people.

Like I said, we have an obesity epidemic. Shall we ban all forks? The problem is, we have too much access to eating utensils.

You make it easy to be a mass killer. Easy things happen more often.

I just told you it wasn't easy. We literally have thousands of laws about guns and their misuse, and the barriers to acquiring them.

A background check is difficult? Ok princess.

 

[Brain357]

Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.

One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.

And they would find him in the dark how?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not dependent on what other countries do.
I don't give a **** what other countries do.
I am talking about this country and what WE do to punish violent pieces of shit

Well you should. We have more incarcerated than anywhere. Problem must be something else. Too many guns?

The problem isn't the guns. It's the people.

Like I said, we have an obesity epidemic. Shall we ban all forks? The problem is, we have too much access to eating utensils.

You make it easy to be a mass killer. Easy things happen more often.

I just told you it wasn't easy. We literally have thousands of laws about guns and their misuse, and the barriers to acquiring them.

A background check is difficult? Ok princess.

We have those too you know

 

[Brain357]

And that makes it easy for law enforcement to recognize and stop threat.

No it doesn't. Cops do not prevent crimes. they show up after the fact.

There was law enforcement at this event. They got shot. They couldn't do much given the weaponry.

Like I said cops do not prevent crime.

What is it that you do not understand about that?

You said show up after clearly. But like in Orlando they were there and killer too heavily armed.

So they were there in the hotel room before he started shooting?

That's the only way they could have prevented it.

Cops react to crime which by definition means the crime has to happen first.

get it?

And he would have killed a whole lot less with a derringer.

 

[Pogo]

Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.

One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.

Doesn't address the question of why this guy existed in the first place, does it.

Besides which ---- you want snipers on site to start firing at hotel windows in hopes they hit the right one?
Seriously?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.

One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.

And they would find him in the dark how?

Gee infra red scopes, night vision scopes, or a spot light on a helicopter

 

[Darkwind]

It's not dependent on what other countries do.
I don't give a **** what other countries do.
I am talking about this country and what WE do to punish violent pieces of shit

Well you should. We have more incarcerated than anywhere. Problem must be something else. Too many guns?

The problem isn't the guns. It's the people.

Like I said, we have an obesity epidemic. Shall we ban all forks? The problem is, we have too much access to eating utensils.

You make it easy to be a mass killer. Easy things happen more often.

I just told you it wasn't easy. We literally have thousands of laws about guns and their misuse, and the barriers to acquiring them.

A background check is difficult? Ok princess.

That is all anyone is required to do and if you have a criminal background, yes, it is difficult. Many states don't even allow you to walk out of the shop with a gun on the same day.

Your belief that access to guns is easy is just another delusion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it doesn't. Cops do not prevent crimes. they show up after the fact.

There was law enforcement at this event. They got shot. They couldn't do much given the weaponry.

Like I said cops do not prevent crime.

What is it that you do not understand about that?

You said show up after clearly. But like in Orlando they were there and killer too heavily armed.

So they were there in the hotel room before he started shooting?

That's the only way they could have prevented it.

Cops react to crime which by definition means the crime has to happen first.

get it?

And he would have killed a whole lot less with a derringer.

And he could have killed a lot more with a big truck and a snow plow

 

[airplanemechanic]

Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.

One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.

And they would find him in the dark how?

Videos showed muzzle flashes. If you have to, shoot at the muzzle flashes. The side of the Mandalay bay resort is lit anyway, a good sniper could have taken him out. You don't think cops are trained in sniping at night?

You only fire at the window thats broken that has muzzle flashes coming out of it. I could see which windows were broken with the naked eye, much less with a high power scope.

Some stupid liberals were asking "what happened to the CC holders, why didn't they shoot back? They are supposed to be heros but were running like pussies".

1. Guns were not allowed at this concert. So CC holders who were actually following the law (yes there are a few of them left) wouldn't have had a gun to shoot back.

2. The shooter was over 400 yards away, CC means a handgun, they are useless at 400 yards.

 

[Pogo]

Yep, that's the title. And it has no documentation.

What the **** are you talking about? The person that wrote the god damned article and came up with the 8 talking points is this man: A known liberal and CNN contributor:

Nicholas Kristof - Wikipedia

It really helps to actually READ the article and know WTF you're talking about lest you come out looking like a moron.

Again ----- same question originally posted ---------- WHERE does it say "Democrat"?

Do you just not understand what the term "Democrat" means? Does the OP not get that either?
Are y'all stupid?

 

[Brain357]

Well you should. We have more incarcerated than anywhere. Problem must be something else. Too many guns?

The problem isn't the guns. It's the people.

Like I said, we have an obesity epidemic. Shall we ban all forks? The problem is, we have too much access to eating utensils.

You make it easy to be a mass killer. Easy things happen more often.

I just told you it wasn't easy. We literally have thousands of laws about guns and their misuse, and the barriers to acquiring them.

A background check is difficult? Ok princess.

That is all anyone is required to do and if you have a criminal background, yes, it is difficult. Many states don't even allow you to walk out of the shop with a gun on the same day.

Your belief that access to guns is easy is just another delusion.

Yes that is all. Not much at all. I could easily and legally go buy any gun right now.

 

[Brain357]

There was law enforcement at this event. They got shot. They couldn't do much given the weaponry.

Like I said cops do not prevent crime.

What is it that you do not understand about that?

You said show up after clearly. But like in Orlando they were there and killer too heavily armed.

So they were there in the hotel room before he started shooting?

That's the only way they could have prevented it.

Cops react to crime which by definition means the crime has to happen first.

get it?

And he would have killed a whole lot less with a derringer.

And he could have killed a lot more with a big truck and a snow plow

Again we can close roads. Can use barriers and spike strips. But you want every option available to killers.

 

[Brain357]

Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.

One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.

And they would find him in the dark how?

Videos showed muzzle flashes. If you have to, shoot at the muzzle flashes. The side of the Mandalay bay resort is lit anyway, a good sniper could have taken him out. You don't think cops are trained in sniping at night?

You only fire at the window thats broken that has muzzle flashes coming out of it. I could see which windows were broken with the naked eye, much less with a high power scope.

Some stupid liberals were asking "what happened to the CC holders, why didn't they shoot back? They are supposed to be heros but were running like pussies".

1. Guns were not allowed at this concert. So CC holders who were actually following the law (yes there are a few of them left) wouldn't have had a gun to shoot back.

2. The shooter was over 400 yards away, CC means a handgun, they are useless at 400 yards.

With all the chaos going on you think he would have quickly found and shot him. Sure.

So rather than gun control which works we need more snipers. Funny.

 

[Pogo]

Not having armed guards on site, armed with scoped sniper rifles and AR-15's is to blame for this, not the guns. When you gather 30,000 people into a tightly packed area, you have to defend them with armed guards.

One guy with a well placed sniper shot could have taken this guy out within seconds.

And they would find him in the dark how?

Videos showed muzzle flashes. If you have to, shoot at the muzzle flashes. The side of the Mandalay bay resort is lit anyway, a good sniper could have taken him out. You don't think cops are trained in sniping at night?

You only fire at the window thats broken that has muzzle flashes coming out of it. I could see which windows were broken with the naked eye, much less with a high power scope.

Some stupid liberals were asking "what happened to the CC holders, why didn't they shoot back? They are supposed to be heros but were running like pussies".

1. Guns were not allowed at this concert. So CC holders who were actually following the law (yes there are a few of them left) wouldn't have had a gun to shoot back.

2. The shooter was over 400 yards away, CC means a handgun, they are useless at 400 yards.

With all the chaos going on you think he would have quickly found and shot him. Sure.

So rather than gun control which works we need more snipers. Funny.

​

Yep, I myself keep a can of gasoline handy in case something I'm cooking catches fire. So I can douse it.

'Scuse me a moment.............

 

[hadit]

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?

We live in a bifurcated world, in which most people who give a flying rat's patoot about politics identify with one of the major parties. No,I don't have concrete evidence that this guy belongs to one party or the other, but the majority of American "journalists" identify with the democrats. This guy is clearly left leaning, and the odds are that he is a democrat. I was being tongue in cheek by sarcastically suggesting that he was a Republican. Obviously, he is not. I would posit, though, that his sympathies would lie on the democrat side of the fence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[boedicca]

Obviously we should ban hotels being within firing range of concert venues.

lolol

But that is after we have passed a law that removes the trigger fingers of all white males.

roflmao

We need to ban GAMBLING. Clearly, it leads to Mass Murder.

And while we're at it, let's ban drinking, dancing, and pre-marital sex. Woke SJWs are the New Puritans of America!

 

[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?

We live in a bifurcated world, in which most people who give a flying rat's patoot about politics identify with one of the major parties. No,I don't have concrete evidence that this guy belongs to one party or the other, but the majority of American "journalists" identify with the democrats. This guy is clearly left leaning, and the odds are that he is a democrat. I was being tongue in cheek by sarcastically suggesting that he was a Republican. Obviously, he is not. I would posit, though, that his sympathies would lie on the democrat side of the fence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you were, but it's the same idiocy as the original idiocy to pretend that the world exists as some idiotic dichotomy like that. I for one belong to the largest political party faction in these United States, which is "NONE".

Aside from that obvious point, while condeding the one ass-umption you've injected several more, to wit: "this guy is clearly left leaning" and "the odds are that he is a democrat [sic]". Bullshit. What you have here is an "Everybody Knows X, therefore X is true" fallacy. Nothing more.

The bottom line still is, if you make an assertion you'd better be ready to back it up. With something a bit more tangible than "it seems likely" or "everybody knows" --- and then submit as your evidence a Wiki page that never mentions it at all.