RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (Full Version)

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



Message


thompsonx -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (3/31/2016 8:38:15 PM)


ORIGINAL: kdsub

I think perhaps too much gun smoke.

"I luv the smell of cordite in the morning"






BamaD -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (3/31/2016 8:51:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Distract... you have got to be kidding... it was my whole point Bama... but as usual common sense, when it comes to guns, and Bama are not compatible. I think perhaps too much gun smoke.

Butch

You agree that most mass shootings are in gun free zones so we need more of them, and you say I lack common sense?
Gun free zones could be better named self defense free zones.




BamaD -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (3/31/2016 8:54:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Distract... you have got to be kidding... it was my whole point Bama... but as usual common sense, when it comes to guns, and Bama are not compatible. I think perhaps too much gun smoke.

Butch

You also need to learn the difference between disagreeing with you and being a infantile barbarian with no common sense.




thompsonx -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (3/31/2016 9:05:28 PM)

ORIGINAL: BamaD


You agree that most mass shootings are in gun free zones so we need more of them, and you say I lack common sense?
Gun free zones could be better named self defense free zones.

No one agrees with this nonsense.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


March 25 edition of USA Today.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, it's been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

Second Amendment activists have long floated this theme, and now lawmakers across the nation are using it too. During a recent floor debate in the Colorado Legislature, Republican state Rep. Carole Murray put it this way: "Most of the mass killings that we talk about have been effected in gun-free zones. So when you have a gun-free zone, it's like saying, 'Come and get me.'"

The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no "good guy with a gun" will be on hand to stop the crime.
With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Thirty-six of the killers committed suicide at or near the crime scene. These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (3/31/2016 9:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

No they are not recent Bama... new gun laws have just reduced them... The same gun free zones today were gun free zones years ago.

Butch

I don't know where you get your information, or what time frame you are talking about but you are wrong. When I went to high school it was not uncommon for students to have rifles in their pick ups at school, not gun free, and no shootings in any high schools. The laws keep narrowing down the places that are not gun free. We recently got a law that narrows the places you can carry.


Well, the places you can carry at the RNC convention in Cleveland are particularly narrow....

(They are....not at all....not even remotely and....NOT).

Yep, promoted by pro gun control people and stopped by the Secret service.



Shit, the nutsuckers are going to let the secret service abridge their constitutional rights? Here I thought nutsuckers were gonna throw the fuck down on the tyrannical government and do their constitutional duty, now you are telling me they are pussies defeated by a pen.

Must be a lot of southerners in that nutsucker battalion, they surrender so easily. I spose, gotta get home to their welfare checks.


Ahhh....the "nutsackers"....anyone the OP thinks is crazy.

All hail the nutsackers.

And anyone he disagrees with he thinks is crazy.
I am assusming you meant Mnottertail not DC



No. I think it is NUTSUCKERS. not SACKERS.

They used to be shitbreathers back in the day. Poor folks. Now they are reduced to nutsucking. Cashews? (Get your mind out of the gutter) :)




mnottertail -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/1/2016 4:51:20 AM)

So, wake up this morning and the nutsuckers are still trying to take our guns away, and shirk their constitutional duty to protect the second amendment. Shameful shitbreathers they are.




thompsonx -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/1/2016 6:03:17 AM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD

You also need to learn the difference between disagreeing with you and being a infantile barbarian with no common sense.

When it comes to infantile you seem to have cornered the market on that.




Lucylastic -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/1/2016 6:13:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


No. I think it is NUTSUCKERS. not SACKERS.

They used to be shitbreathers back in the day. Poor folks. Now they are reduced to nutsucking. Cashews? (Get your mind out of the gutter) :)


It was nutsuckers, if I remember correctly...started with the teaparty and their "teabagging" signs .
The popular "teabagging " amongst people who like sucking on testicles suddenly became the "gay men" slur of its day, so the mods decided that nutsuckers would no longer be able to be used. in an attack.

As one who has enjoyed testicles in many forms over the years, it just makes me think of the less stable posters that have disappeared over the years.
Thats my take on the events as they happened.... YMMV..




mnottertail -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/1/2016 9:15:52 AM)

teabagging is teabagging, no matter if its het or homo. They named themselves. It probably ain't lesbian, and I hate to leave them out, I am pretty inclusive where possible, but, you cant please all the nutsuckers all the time.




mnottertail -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/1/2016 5:12:12 PM)

Are my little nutsuckers out defending my 2nd amendment rights tonight? Didnt think so, fucking shitlicking pussies.




thompsonx -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 5:10:40 AM)

ORIGINAL: BamaD


You agree that most mass shootings are in gun free zones so we need more of them, and you say I lack common sense?
Gun free zones could be better named self defense free zones.

No one agrees with this nonsense.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


March 25 edition of USA Today.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, it's been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

Second Amendment activists have long floated this theme, and now lawmakers across the nation are using it too. During a recent floor debate in the Colorado Legislature, Republican state Rep. Carole Murray put it this way: "Most of the mass killings that we talk about have been effected in gun-free zones. So when you have a gun-free zone, it's like saying, 'Come and get me.'"

The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no "good guy with a gun" will be on hand to stop the crime.
With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Thirty-six of the killers committed suicide at or near the crime scene. These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.


We are still waiting for a response.




mnottertail -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 7:57:08 AM)

guns dont kill people ... people do, string them fuckin murdering infants up by their necks, they are thugs.




AtUrCervix -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 6:13:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

No they are not recent Bama... new gun laws have just reduced them... The same gun free zones today were gun free zones years ago.

Butch

I don't know where you get your information, or what time frame you are talking about but you are wrong. When I went to high school it was not uncommon for students to have rifles in their pick ups at school, not gun free, and no shootings in any high schools. The laws keep narrowing down the places that are not gun free. We recently got a law that narrows the places you can carry.


Well, the places you can carry at the RNC convention in Cleveland are particularly narrow....

(They are....not at all....not even remotely and....NOT).

Yep, promoted by pro gun control people and stopped by the Secret service.



Shit, the nutsuckers are going to let the secret service abridge their constitutional rights? Here I thought nutsuckers were gonna throw the fuck down on the tyrannical government and do their constitutional duty, now you are telling me they are pussies defeated by a pen.

Must be a lot of southerners in that nutsucker battalion, they surrender so easily. I spose, gotta get home to their welfare checks.


Ahhh....the "nutsackers"....anyone the OP thinks is crazy.

All hail the nutsackers.

And anyone he disagrees with he thinks is crazy.
I am assusming you meant Mnottertail not DC


Indeed....it was a "general" nutsacker comment.




AtUrCervix -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 6:18:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

No they are not recent Bama... new gun laws have just reduced them... The same gun free zones today were gun free zones years ago.

Butch

I don't know where you get your information, or what time frame you are talking about but you are wrong. When I went to high school it was not uncommon for students to have rifles in their pick ups at school, not gun free, and no shootings in any high schools. The laws keep narrowing down the places that are not gun free. We recently got a law that narrows the places you can carry.


Well, the places you can carry at the RNC convention in Cleveland are particularly narrow....

(They are....not at all....not even remotely and....NOT).

Yep, promoted by pro gun control people and stopped by the Secret service.


As I understand it, by federal law.

Not sure of the particulars, but the Secret Service couldn't have authorized it or even said "not gunna happen".

It was already established law for these types of events.

(I think).




BamaD -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 6:23:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

No they are not recent Bama... new gun laws have just reduced them... The same gun free zones today were gun free zones years ago.

Butch

I don't know where you get your information, or what time frame you are talking about but you are wrong. When I went to high school it was not uncommon for students to have rifles in their pick ups at school, not gun free, and no shootings in any high schools. The laws keep narrowing down the places that are not gun free. We recently got a law that narrows the places you can carry.


Well, the places you can carry at the RNC convention in Cleveland are particularly narrow....

(They are....not at all....not even remotely and....NOT).

Yep, promoted by pro gun control people and stopped by the Secret service.


As I understand it, by federal law.

Not sure of the particulars, but the Secret Service couldn't have authorized it or even said "not gunna happen".

It was already established law for these types of events.

(I think).

I believe you are most likely correct, but it was the Secret Service that had to put their foot down and make it official.




mnottertail -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 6:37:01 PM)

Nutsuckers wholeheartedly support the abridgement of our second amendment rights, they are trying to take our guns away. Cowards.




Termyn8or -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 9:39:00 PM)

FR jumpthrough

Allow guns everywhere. Allow guns for everyone who hasn't gone postal yet, and ESPECIALLY allow guns where politicians will be out in public.

Who's with me here ?

T




BamaD -> RE: Allow Guns at GOP Convention? (4/3/2016 9:57:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR jumpthrough

Allow guns everywhere. Allow guns for everyone who hasn't gone postal yet, and ESPECIALLY allow guns where politicians will be out in public.

Who's with me here ?

T

In the 90's when Glenn used his position to go back into space I think he had half of a good idea. I am all for sending politicians into space, I'm just not that crazy about bringing them back.




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625