RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread...

RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 4:42:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I carry a Tarus millenium pro and always sit it the middle seats, best view of the stage, best line too shoot so that isn't a problem for me. Finding a seat in the dark and seeing someone standing in front of the screen are two different things. So you are confident you could still hit the target then. This despite the gunman having thrown smoke and gas canisters at the audience, causing peoples vision to be obscured, skin to itch and eyes iritation. Add to this the panic caused by him then firing his shotgun at the audience and the ceiling before opening fire with his other weapons ? A laughable claim to insist on. Not at all. Gas is heavier than air so it would not reach me he is still illuminated by the screen behind him. This obviously escaped your notice but those milling people you insist would make him hard to pick out would be moving AWAY from him not moving up to form a human shield. What is laughable is the refusal of people who know nothing of these things pretending to be all knowing.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 4:53:37 PM)
Some gasses will eventually settle on the ground, others are lighter than air. Your suggestion everyone will be moving away from him giving you a clear line of sight and that the gases wouldnt have any effect on you is still only your suggestion. The notion I am all knowing isnt true, the notion that at least I can use google, is true though. So far on this thread I have pointed out the shooter used the shotgun first, and that bullets did indeed go through walls and injure people. Two claims those who allegedly "know more than me" have said didnt happen.... Go figure ! edited for spelling

BamaD -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 5:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Some gasses will eventually settle on the ground, others are lighter than air. Your suggestion everyone will be moving away from him giving you a clear line of sight and that the gases wouldnt have any effect on you is still only your suggestion. The notion I am all knowing isnt true, the notion that at least I can use google, is true though. So far on this thread I have pointed out the shooter used the shotgun first, and that bullets did indeed go through walls and injure people. Two claims those who allegedly "know more than me" have said didnt happen.... Go figure ! edited for spelling He used the shotgun because the crappy hi capacity magazines jammed. You failed in your attempt to claim that the armed citizen would have shot through walls into other theaters as they would be firing towards the screen which had no theater behind it. It was not claimed that bullets would not go through walls but that the citizen's bullets would not go into another theater a claim which you spectacularly failed to disprove. Your argument contends that it would have been worse if someone had had the means to fight back. This defies all reason particularly when you consider the fact that upon meting armed opposition the coward instantly surrendered

dcnovice -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 5:17:10 PM)
FR One of my history profs used to say, "'What if?' history is a nice parlor game."

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 5:17:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Some gasses will eventually settle on the ground, others are lighter than air. Your suggestion everyone will be moving away from him giving you a clear line of sight and that the gases wouldnt have any effect on you is still only your suggestion. The notion I am all knowing isnt true, the notion that at least I can use google, is true though. So far on this thread I have pointed out the shooter used the shotgun first, and that bullets did indeed go through walls and injure people. Two claims those who allegedly "know more than me" have said didnt happen.... Go figure ! edited for spelling He used the shotgun because the crappy hi capacity magazines jammed. You failed in your attempt to claim that the armed citizen would have shot through walls into other theaters as they would be firing towards the screen which had no theater behind it. It was not claimed that bullets would not go through walls but that the citizen's bullets would not go into another theater a claim which you spectacularly failed to disprove. Your argument contends that it would have been worse if someone had had the means to fight back. This defies all reason particularly when you consider the fact that upon meting armed opposition the coward instantly surrendered No he didnt, he fired the shotgun first. Hillwill also claimed bullets wouldnt go through walls when I sad that they had done. You really need to read the thread before taking swipes at what I have and havent said. To quote Kirata "you are making shit up" Actually old sport, my assertion, stated to Kirata earlier, is no guns at all would be a better solution. You think I am wrong then feel free to quote me.

BamaD -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 6:19:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Some gasses will eventually settle on the ground, others are lighter than air. Your suggestion everyone will be moving away from him giving you a clear line of sight and that the gases wouldnt have any effect on you is still only your suggestion. The notion I am all knowing isnt true, the notion that at least I can use google, is true though. So far on this thread I have pointed out the shooter used the shotgun first, and that bullets did indeed go through walls and injure people. Two claims those who allegedly "know more than me" have said didnt happen.... Go figure ! edited for spelling He used the shotgun because the crappy hi capacity magazines jammed. You failed in your attempt to claim that the armed citizen would have shot through walls into other theaters as they would be firing towards the screen which had no theater behind it. It was not claimed that bullets would not go through walls but that the citizen's bullets would not go into another theater a claim which you spectacularly failed to disprove. Your argument contends that it would have been worse if someone had had the means to fight back. This defies all reason particularly when you consider the fact that upon meting armed opposition the coward instantly surrendered No he didnt, he fired the shotgun first. Hillwill also claimed bullets wouldnt go through walls when I sad that they had done. You really need to read the thread before taking swipes at what I have and havent said. To quote Kirata "you are making shit up" Actually old sport, my assertion, stated to Kirata earlier, is no guns at all would be a better solution. You think I am wrong then feel free to quote me. You miss the point Hill was trying to get it through to you that even if the citizens shots went through the back wall there was no theater for them to go into. Thus your contention that the citizen would be endangering people in other theaters was totally bogus.

TheHeretic -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 6:41:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 no guns at all would be a better solution. If my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle. Staying in the realm of reality, creating uncertainty and discomfort for criminals with armed law abiding folks as a variable is a positive step. I'd swear I went over that once before in here.

BamaD -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 6:46:28 PM)
Fr His making himself up as the Joker means that he would have made a point of being seen clearly.

Rule -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 7:15:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'd swear I went over that once before in here. All subs are equal, but some subs are more equal than others.

Lucylastic -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 7:23:33 PM)
Theres only one pro gun oh maybe two pro gun people who have posted in this thread that I would feel secure going to a movie with in their armed presence.

TheHeretic -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 8:27:59 PM)
Only if you are buying the popcorn and sodas. [;)]

Lucylastic -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/14/2013 8:46:40 PM)
oooooh maybe 3[;)]

tweakabelle -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 12:47:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR One of my history profs used to say, "'What if?' history is a nice parlor game." Indeed. Just like making extravagant claims that tragedies would have been prevented "if only an armed citizen had been present". Just a variation of "What if ...." located in this instance somewhere between wishful thinking and fantasy. The only certainty is that such claims cannot to be taken seriously.

BamaD -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 12:52:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR One of my history profs used to say, "'What if?' history is a nice parlor game." Indeed. Just like making extravagant claims that tragedies would have been prevented "if only an armed citizen had been present". Just a variation of "What if ...." located in this instance somewhere between wishful thinking and fantasy. The only certainty is that such claims cannot to be taken seriously. We provide facts you provide I don't want to believe it. Who can't be taken seriously?

tweakabelle -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 12:59:39 AM)
quote: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR One of my history profs used to say, "'What if?' history is a nice parlor game." Indeed. Just like making extravagant claims that tragedies would have been prevented "if only an armed citizen had been present". Just a variation of "What if ...." located in this instance somewhere between wishful thinking and fantasy. The only certainty is that such claims cannot to be taken seriously. We provide facts you provide I don't want to believe it. Who can't be taken seriously? How can anything that starts with an 'if' be a fact? Any claim of the type: "disaster *could* have been averted if an armed citizen had been present" cannot be factual. Self evidently so.

Kirata -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 3:38:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle How can anything that starts with an 'if' be a fact? I hate to quibble with one of Australia's two premier experts on America, but if I step onto the tracks in front of an oncoming train, I'm going to be killed. Let me know if you need more examples in order to grasp the concept. More directly related to the topic, I'll grant that it is all but impossible to assemble a complete dataset on the subject. Instances of disasters prevented by an armed citizen, especially if the weapon wasn't fired, tend to go unreported. But not all cases fall into that fortunate category. So in addition to the information we can glean from surveys about defensive gun use, we have the facts of cases that did get reported. Based on these, we can assert that disasters have been averted, and none made worse, by armed citizens being present, and are likely to continue to be. Of course, someone might get lucky and survive the train. And the presence of armed citizens may prove to have been unlucky in a case not yet reported. But the facts at hand are not on the side of either. K.

Kirata -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 3:46:24 AM)
~ FR ~ I'm not sure how so many people came by the idea that the shooter was firing from the front of theater, myself included, but it seems not to be true. In reviewing some of the news stories, it appears that he was walking up and down the aisles. And this changes two elements of the analysis: Firstly, he would have been silouetted for some people, depending on where they were seated relative to him and the screen, but not for everyone. Secondly, it's not necessarily true that someone seated toward the middle or rear of the theater would have had to make their way forward in order to get a shot. Some patrons, at least, would have had a silouetted target at virtually point blank range. Others wouldn't have had any shot at all regardless of where they were sitting. And the rest would fall somewhere in between. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 4:05:01 AM)
thank god one person has the intellectual honesty to give the FACTS about what the shooter did and DIDNT do, cut out the maybes and IFS Thank you K...

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 4:46:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You miss the point Hill was trying to get it through to you that even if the citizens shots went through the back wall there was no theater for them to go into. Thus your contention that the citizen would be endangering people in other theaters was totally bogus. I didnt miss any point. The claim was clearly made that he would have needed magic bullets. Others and myself pointed out that wasnt true. I see you have now dropped the bogus claim that he used the shotgun first. Lets digress slightly though, he wasnt infront of the screen either, he was to one side by the door. You assume the next shooter is going to be directly infront of the screen, so what if he had come back through the door and moved up the aisle a tad. Your wwhole scenarion falls apart, while the danger of bullets going through walls becomes less likely. If anyone is missing the fucking point, it certainly isnt me.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/15/2013 4:54:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Fr His making himself up as the Joker means that he would have made a point of being seen clearly. Rich wants reality, so lets have a bit more. Firstly, the joker claim was made by someone in the NYPD. The local police chief, or soemeome in his office, said that as far as he knew that wasnt true. Secondly, the kid didnt make himself up as the joker, he was dressed in protective gear. Thirdly, he also walked up the aisle shooting at those trying to flee.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875