Elementary school shooting

[Quantum Windbag]

Douchebag wait so you're saying that your statement in the form of a question was in essence was in agreement with me? Wow who would've known how such coded words would in effect, be something saying exactly the same thing I'm saying.....Dude get a fucking clue you idiot...

BTW you still haven't answered my question

Tell me how budgeting works since you tried to say I don't know shit about school financing.

I see English is not your first, or even your fifth, language. Let me spell it out for you.

I responded to this asinine post with a rhetorical question designed to indicate how idiotic the poster was for suggesting an outright ban on guns.



For some obscure reason that probably escapes me because I cannot wrap my head around utter stupidity, you took offense off a comment that was not even directed at you.

Let me repeat that, I wasn't talking to your dumb ass.

You responded with this.

That is counter-productive and quite a foolish suggestion

I asked for clarification, and you pointed out the utter failure of the war on drugs. One would think that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would recall that I have often advocated for legalizing all drugs. Then again, people with IQs that high usually are smart enough not to be racist dickwads, so I should have known better.

I pointed out that we agree about the war on drugs, and now you want me to tell you about budgeting since I said you don't know anything about it. Care to point out where that happened? My guess is you can't, because I never said it.

Want to explain again how you are the smart one here?

QW, this libtards goal was not to use reason to counter your argument or to make a point of order.

He is simply trying to get you to waste your time responding to his idiot bullshit instead of making more arguments that are effective with people who havent had their brains replaced with ideology like the libtards have.

I actually enjoy putting pretentious jerks in their place.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I see English is not your first, or even your fifth, language. Let me spell it out for you.

I responded to this asinine post with a rhetorical question designed to indicate how idiotic the poster was for suggesting an outright ban on guns.



For some obscure reason that probably escapes me because I cannot wrap my head around utter stupidity, you took offense off a comment that was not even directed at you.

Let me repeat that, I wasn't talking to your dumb ass.

You responded with this.



I asked for clarification, and you pointed out the utter failure of the war on drugs. One would think that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would recall that I have often advocated for legalizing all drugs. Then again, people with IQs that high usually are smart enough not to be racist dickwads, so I should have known better.

I pointed out that we agree about the war on drugs, and now you want me to tell you about budgeting since I said you don't know anything about it. Care to point out where that happened? My guess is you can't, because I never said it.

Want to explain again how you are the smart one here?

QW, this libtards goal was not to use reason to counter your argument or to make a point of order.

He is simply trying to get you to waste your time responding to his idiot bullshit instead of making more arguments that are effective with people who havent had their brains replaced with ideology like the libtards have.

I actually enjoy putting pretentious jerks in their place.

Not me; it makes me feel like I need a shower after posting in response to Starkey and Joeblowme.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One can deal the same damage with any semi auto rifle.

So why don't you be honest for once and just say that you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles and not just the scary looking ones.

I think it would depend on the rifle and it's capabilities.

In the case of an Bushmaster or AR-15, it has all the capabilities of an M-16. A max-effective range of 400 Meters, a 5.56 mm round that "tumbles", doing maximum damage when hitting a pre-schooler, and a fire rate of 40 RPM in semi-automatic mode.

This is a weapon for a soldier, not a Hockey Mom.

I am confused. What, exactly, is it you do not like about that gun? A Winchester 750 does everything an AR-15 does, including take a removable magazine. The only real difference is that a 750 takes a high powered round that does more damage when it hits a preschool kid, or anything else. Should we prevent hockey moms from buying those also?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A semi auto that shoots a .223 is a semi auto that shoots a .223. It does not matter if the gun looks like a traditional style rifle or a military weapon.

It does not matter if it holds a 5, 10, 20 or 100 round magazine. All semi auto .223 rifles can deal out the same damage in about the same time even with multiple magazine change outs.

Rounds per minute fired in a semi auto depends solely on how fast one can pull the trigger and is not dependent on any "mode".

SO maybe just maybe you should learn a little bit about the weapons you want to ban.

And then you would realize that you are indeed calling for the ban of all semiauto rifles and then you can start being honest about it.

Guy, I worked with M16's for 11 years in the US Army. It's not a weapons civilians should have.

The M-16 was specifically designed to make that .223 round a lot more deadly by increasing the tumble rate and the amount of propellent behind it. It was made to require low maintenance, and a high rate of fire comparable to the damage meeted out by its contemporary, the AK-47.

And it just plain shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.

You don't think civilians should have reliable weapons that are easy to maintain?

By the way, the newer NATO rounds are designed to penetrate, not tumble, not to mention that any bullet that actually tumbled when it went through the air would be highly inaccurate and leave a much larger hole in a paper target than the ones you get from firing even a Vietnam era round through an M-16.

Tell me something how is it that I, not being anything close to an expert on guns, routinely show you, a self declared Army expert on guns, up? Is the truth that, even though you were in the Army, you never actually learned about the gun you were using?

REMF forever, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are still hearing those kids? Bullshit, then why dont you support doing something that is PRVEN to STOP those types of killings?

Because you DONT WANT THEM TO STOP. You cry big crocodile tears and I wouldnt be surprised if most libtards are eagerly looking forward to the next massacre so they can push their gun grabgbing campaign yet more.

I do.

I completely support removing guns from people who are mentally unstable or unqualified to have them.

Everything else is bullshit.

What makes a person qualified to have a gun?

 

[9thIDdoc]

This says nothing in defense of your argument to arm teachers.

Just more evidence you either don't, or can't, read. My arguement is (and has been) that we require armed security in schools. Allowing school staff to arm themselves is an example of a possible way to provide that at little cost to the school system.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I think most people agree with that, Joeblowme.

The trick, as you well know, is in what constitutes 'qualified to have them'. You want to leave guns only in the hands of the jack boots, while most of us want to keep them out of the hands of the criminals and mentally unstable.

So, once again, you FAIL.

No, guy, you want guns to be available to everyone... you haven't proposed one alternative to keep them out of the hands of criminals...

 

[JoeB131]

You are still hearing those kids? Bullshit, then why dont you support doing something that is PRVEN to STOP those types of killings?

Because you DONT WANT THEM TO STOP. You cry big crocodile tears and I wouldnt be surprised if most libtards are eagerly looking forward to the next massacre so they can push their gun grabgbing campaign yet more.

I do.

I completely support removing guns from people who are mentally unstable or unqualified to have them.

Everything else is bullshit.

What makes a person qualified to have a gun?

1) A full training course
2) A full background check.
3) Licenising, consumerate with the level of lethality of the weapon.
4) Insurance, based on same.

 

[Aristotle]

This says nothing in defense of your argument to arm teachers.

Just more evidence you either don't, or can't, read. My arguement is (and has been) that we require armed security in schools. Allowing school staff to arm themselves is an example of a possible way to provide that at little cost to the school system.

This says nothing about arming teachers

 

[JoeB131]

[

By the way, the newer NATO rounds are designed to penetrate, not tumble, not to mention that any bullet that actually tumbled when it went through the air would be highly inaccurate and leave a much larger hole in a paper target than the ones you get from firing even a Vietnam era round through an M-16.

Tell me something how is it that I, not being anything close to an expert on guns, routinely show you, a self declared Army expert on guns, up? Is the truth that, even though you were in the Army, you never actually learned about the gun you were using?

REMF forever, right?

Well, you couldn't get in because you're a crazy person...

I wouldn't know about the "newer" NATO rounds, as I haven't been in for 21 years. I do know that the M-16 is a pretty awesome weapons and not something any sane person would give to a crazy person to have in a room full of preschoolers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do.

I completely support removing guns from people who are mentally unstable or unqualified to have them.

Everything else is bullshit.

What makes a person qualified to have a gun?

1) A full training course
2) A full background check.
3) Licenising, consumerate with the level of lethality of the weapon.
4) Insurance, based on same.

1. Full training, what does that mean? As far as I am concerned, once a person knows which end the bullet comes out of they are qualified to have a gun. The military pretty much agrees with that assessment, which is why they let you have one.
2. We already do background checks on gun purchases, stop acting like it is a new idea.
3. Lethality of the weapon? Do some guns kill people more than once? if not, they are all equally lethal.
4. Insurance based on the fact that some guns can kill you two, or more, times. How do you expect to make that work?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

By the way, the newer NATO rounds are designed to penetrate, not tumble, not to mention that any bullet that actually tumbled when it went through the air would be highly inaccurate and leave a much larger hole in a paper target than the ones you get from firing even a Vietnam era round through an M-16.

Tell me something how is it that I, not being anything close to an expert on guns, routinely show you, a self declared Army expert on guns, up? Is the truth that, even though you were in the Army, you never actually learned about the gun you were using?

REMF forever, right?

Well, you couldn't get in because you're a crazy person...

I wouldn't know about the "newer" NATO rounds, as I haven't been in for 21 years. I do know that the M-16 is a pretty awesome weapons and not something any sane person would give to a crazy person to have in a room full of preschoolers.

We switched to the newer NATO round in the 1980s. Unless my math is off that was more than 30 years ago.

Want to prove your expertise again?

 

[JoeB131]

1. Full training, what does that mean? As far as I am concerned, once a person knows which end the bullet comes out of they are qualified to have a gun. The military pretty much agrees with that assessment, which is why they let you have one.
   

If you really think that was the extent of the military's weapons training, you are kind of an idiot in addition to being a crazy person.

 

[JoeB131]

We switched to the newer NATO round in the 1980s. Unless my math is off that was more than 30 years ago.

Want to prove your expertise again?

News to me... we used the same rounds the whole time I was in, 5.56 mm ball...

But that's okay, I know you need to believe taht somehow, we made the weapons more humane....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. Full training, what does that mean? As far as I am concerned, once a person knows which end the bullet comes out of they are qualified to have a gun. The military pretty much agrees with that assessment, which is why they let you have one.

If you really think that was the extent of the military's weapons training, you are kind of an idiot in addition to being a crazy person.

I did not say that was the extent of it, I said that is all you need before they give you one.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Full training, what does that mean? As far as I am concerned, once a person knows which end the bullet comes out of they are qualified to have a gun. The military pretty much agrees with that assessment, which is why they let you have one.

If you really think that was the extent of the military's weapons training, you are kind of an idiot in addition to being a crazy person.

I did not say that was the extent of it, I said that is all you need before they give you one.

That's not true, either... but I'm really not wasting more time on you because you are a crazy person.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We switched to the newer NATO round in the 1980s. Unless my math is off that was more than 30 years ago.

Want to prove your expertise again?

News to me... we used the same rounds the whole time I was in, 5.56 mm ball...

But that's okay, I know you need to believe taht somehow, we made the weapons more humane....

You probably didn't notice anything because you know nothing about guns.

 

[JoeB131]

We switched to the newer NATO round in the 1980s. Unless my math is off that was more than 30 years ago.

Want to prove your expertise again?

News to me... we used the same rounds the whole time I was in, 5.56 mm ball...

But that's okay, I know you need to believe taht somehow, we made the weapons more humane....

You probably didn't notice anything because you know nothing about guns.

Well, no, I know what I needed to know...

I just don't have the weird fetish you guys have, clinging to your gun in fear the government will take it away...

"Waaaah, the Founding Slave-Holders said I could have a gun!!!!"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

News to me... we used the same rounds the whole time I was in, 5.56 mm ball...

But that's okay, I know you need to believe taht somehow, we made the weapons more humane....

You probably didn't notice anything because you know nothing about guns.

Well, no, I know what I needed to know...

I just don't have the weird fetish you guys have, clinging to your gun in fear the government will take it away...

"Waaaah, the Founding Slave-Holders said I could have a gun!!!!"

You know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, which is all you needed to know to qualify with a gun in the Army.

Thanks for making my point.

Another thing, I do not now, nor have I ever, owned a gun. Hopefully, I never will, I don't particularly like them. That does not mean I want the government telling me I can't own own one, nor does it mean I have to pretend to be an expert in order to argue about them.

 

[JoeB131]

You know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, which is all you needed to know to qualify with a gun in the Army.

Thanks for making my point.

Another thing, I do not now, nor have I ever, owned a gun. Hopefully, I never will, I don't particularly like them. That does not mean I want the government telling me I can't own own one, nor does it mean I have to pretend to be an expert in order to argue about them.

If you can't own a gun, it's probably because you are on every mental health watch list in the country, but that's neither here nor there.

Point is, military grade weapons should not be in the hands of crazy people. Period.

If you guys can't self-police, someone will do it for you.