Your Weekly Mass Shooting

xsanguine wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

I used to date a girl who's father made guns in his basement. First time I went to her house and spent the night with her in her room in the basement. I came out in the morning to see about 2 dozen guns that look like they were meant to be mounted on the top of a jeep... huge fucking things.

Even prohibition and confiscation won't do much except create a black market for machinists to get very rich like drug dealers.

You don't say? But prohibition has worked so well in the US on other problems, I think applying it to guns is the answer. After all it worked in Australia.

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

Talk about trolling and over generalization. You are becoming the king of that, which is why Bob hits you with the legitimate rape troll all the time. You refuse to talk sensibly and instead throw these ridiculous straw men up every chance you get. At least xsanguine acknowledges arguments and addresses actual points, you just wave your arms and scream at the top of your lungs (virtually).

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

Talk about trolling and over generalization. You are becoming the king of that, which is why Bob hits you with the legitimate rape troll all the time. You refuse to talk sensibly and instead throw these ridiculous straw men up every chance you get. At least xsanguine acknowledges arguments and addresses actual points, you just wave your arms and scream at the top of your lungs (virtually).

For a minute he was when I got him to just talk about what he actually thinks. He reverted back to the mean though.

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

Well, if 1 guy legally purchased 4 guns...a proposal to limit the amount of guns you could purchase to 2 wouldn't be complete prohibition or confiscation. That's hypothetical, of course.

But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

Well, if 1 guy legally purchased 4 guns...a proposal to limit the amount of guns you could purchase to 2 wouldn't be complete prohibition or confiscation. That's hypothetical, of course.

But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition.

but... FREEDOM!!

and.. PERTECKT!!

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Tell the women to:
reduce or stop drinking.
stay with friends
dress conservatively (Jeans and a top - not talking anything too radical)


If just those things happened I'd bet actual rapes would decrease by 90% or more.

And supported by research by experts unlike your bullshit spewed here. It's been linked in many threads and ignored by you. Just as you ignore any fact that doesn't fit your fucked up world view. Your hope in this thread of a right wing nut doing the shooting has died so you fall back on that shit - happens every time when you're proven wrong.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

Well, if 1 guy legally purchased 4 guns...a proposal to limit the amount of guns you could purchase to 2 wouldn't be complete prohibition or confiscation. That's hypothetical, of course.

But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition.

And that would have reduced the fatalities here by?

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

And supported by research by experts unlike your bullshit spewed here. It's been linked in many threads and ignored by you. Just as you ignore any fact that doesn't fit your fucked up world view. Your hope in this thread of a right wing nut doing the shooting has died so you fall back on that shit - happens every time when you're proven wrong.

You seem to be applying gun nut logic to rape. Or am I reading that wrong?

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

Talk about trolling and over generalization. You are becoming the king of that, which is why Bob hits you with the legitimate rape troll all the time. You refuse to talk sensibly and instead throw these ridiculous straw men up every chance you get. At least xsanguine acknowledges arguments and addresses actual points, you just wave your arms and scream at the top of your lungs (virtually).

in all honesty, when that it someone's thought process, it's not at all a big jump to believe that they want everyone in America to have an assault rifle...

all I can do is be thankful that someone of that ilk doesn't have children in the East Lansing school district.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Well, if 1 guy legally purchased 4 guns...a proposal to limit the amount of guns you could purchase to 2 wouldn't be complete prohibition or confiscation. That's hypothetical, of course.

But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition.

And that would have reduced the fatalities here by?

That's a hypothetical also. But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition...which is what you said.

NigelUno wrote:You seem to be applying gun nut logic to rape. Or am I reading that wrong?

Explain how you're reaching that conclusion?

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

And that would have reduced the fatalities here by?

That's a hypothetical also. But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition...which is what you said.

So you'd be happy with the outcome if they had all been shot with fewer guns? Silliness.

As is this whole argument that somehow gun laws are going to stop terrorism. Too bad France didn't think of that. Too bad we didn't pass laws prohibiting flying airplanes into buildings prior to 9/11. That makes as much sense as what you're proposing.

my thoughts and prayers are with everyone that will be murdered during next week's mass shooting..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Talk about trolling and over generalization. You are becoming the king of that, which is why Bob hits you with the legitimate rape troll all the time. You refuse to talk sensibly and instead throw these ridiculous straw men up every chance you get. At least xsanguine acknowledges arguments and addresses actual points, you just wave your arms and scream at the top of your lungs (virtually).

in all honesty, when that it someone's thought process, it's not at all a big jump to believe that they want everyone in America to have an assault rifle...

all I can do is be thankful that someone of that ilk doesn't have children in the East Lansing school district.
[/quote]

And altering my words/meaning - so in plain language - lying. All good for you. Once again I'll ask if you've sent the same kind of bullshit to the researchers that came to the same conclusions?

per CNN:

Police found 12 pipe bombs, 2,000 9mm rounds, 2,500 .223 rifle rounds and hundreds of tools in the San Bernardino shooters' home.

America!!

thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families during this incredibly difficult time.

Bob, I have to assume you're for disarming cops, right? Considering all of the high profile shootings of individuals...

It's funny to read through these and just see everyone lining up on their side of the aisle

You're wrong!
no, you're wrong!

xsanguine wrote:Bob, I have to assume you're for disarming cops, right? Considering all of the high profile shootings of individuals...

see - that's the crazy thing.

I'm not against guns.. I mean, I've never held one or anything - but I don't have a problem with them as long as they're used responsibly.

what I do have a problem with is the idea that the problem with daily mass shootings in the United States is that there aren't enough guns.. I mean, I'm not real bright (somehow I managed to graduate from college a few times) but I don't think "not enough guns" is the solution.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

It seems you are getting caught up in semantics.

Do a lot of hunters use automatic assault rifle military grade weapons when hunting?

Are you even reading my answers or do you just like to use the word semantics? NO ONE hunts with automatic weapons, as Doc explained earlier they're nearly impossible to obtain and prohibitively expensive. And very few people hunt using media/politician defined "assault rifles" because they're NOT POWERFUL enough.

Well, in Texas you can pay a bunch of money to go up in a helicopter to gun down wild pigs with full auto assault rifles and even machine guns

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

That's a hypothetical also. But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition...which is what you said.

So you'd be happy with the outcome if they had all been shot with fewer guns? Silliness.

As is this whole argument that somehow gun laws are going to stop terrorism. Too bad France didn't think of that. Too bad we didn't pass laws prohibiting flying airplanes into buildings prior to 9/11. That makes as much sense as what you're proposing.

Wait. In a hypothetical scenario, can you shoot more people with fewer guns or more guns?

Did I say gun laws would stop terrorism?

And a law to prevent flying planes into buildings? Why do you have to resort to obvious hyperbole?

pulling69 wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Are you even reading my answers or do you just like to use the word semantics? NO ONE hunts with automatic weapons, as Doc explained earlier they're nearly impossible to obtain and prohibitively expensive. And very few people hunt using media/politician defined "assault rifles" because they're NOT POWERFUL enough.

Well, in Texas you can pay a bunch of money to go up in a helicopter to gun down wild pigs with full auto assault rifles and even machine guns

those are some great Americans right there.

Not only are they gun enthusiasts.. but they're patriots. And I suspect that would like to send their thoughts and prayers to those impacted by yesterday's tragedy.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Jake Sherman ‏@JakeSherman 12m12 minutes ago
“All four guns were legally purchased,” San Bernardino police chief says. No criminal record

========

So. Not a single proposal would have stopped these people from getting guns short of complete prohibition and confiscation.

Well, if 1 guy legally purchased 4 guns...a proposal to limit the amount of guns you could purchase to 2 wouldn't be complete prohibition or confiscation. That's hypothetical, of course.

But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition.

And you would limit purchases to how many? In what time frame?

And of course California already limits it one handgun per month is allowed to be purchased by law.

So I guess that one didn't work either.

so.. do patriotic gun enthusiasts have a problem with what happened yesterday in California? or is it "meh... just another example of freedoms"?

I can't figure it out. Part of me likes to think that they have a problem with it. The other part of me is searching for evidence of that.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

pulling69 wrote:

Well, in Texas you can pay a bunch of money to go up in a helicopter to gun down wild pigs with full auto assault rifles and even machine guns

those are some great Americans right there.

Not only are they gun enthusiasts.. but they're patriots. And I suspect that would like to send their thoughts and prayers to those impacted by yesterday's tragedy.

I suspect their business is really a front for a clandestine operation to patrol the border to take out Mexicans.

pulling69 wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:those are some great Americans right there.

Not only are they gun enthusiasts.. but they're patriots. And I suspect that would like to send their thoughts and prayers to those impacted by yesterday's tragedy.

I suspect their business is really a front for a clandestine operation to patrol the border to take out Mexicans.

you're probably right..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Bob, I have to assume you're for disarming cops, right? Considering all of the high profile shootings of individuals...

see - that's the crazy thing.

I'm not against guns.. I mean, I've never held one or anything - but I don't have a problem with them as long as they're used responsibly.

what I do have a problem with is the idea that the problem with daily mass shootings in the United States is that there aren't enough guns.. I mean, I'm not real bright (somehow I managed to graduate from college a few times) but I don't think "not enough guns" is the solution.

Fair enough. I guess I got the impression you wanted to limit the freedoms of law abiding individuals to own and possession firearms by some measure.

pulling69 wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Are you even reading my answers or do you just like to use the word semantics?   NO ONE hunts with automatic weapons, as Doc explained earlier they're nearly impossible to obtain and prohibitively expensive.  And very few people hunt using media/politician defined "assault rifles" because they're NOT POWERFUL enough.  

Well, in Texas you can pay a bunch of money to go up in a helicopter to gun down wild pigs with full auto assault rifles and even machine guns

That seems silly to me.

Looks like they fly over a residential area as they are taking off too.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:It's funny to read through these and just see everyone lining up on their side of the aisle

You're wrong!
no, you're wrong!

Yo mama is wrong

pulling69 wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Are you even reading my answers or do you just like to use the word semantics? NO ONE hunts with automatic weapons, as Doc explained earlier they're nearly impossible to obtain and prohibitively expensive. And very few people hunt using media/politician defined "assault rifles" because they're NOT POWERFUL enough.

Well, in Texas you can pay a bunch of money to go up in a helicopter to gun down wild pigs with full auto assault rifles and even machine guns

That's not hunting.

pulling69 wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Are you even reading my answers or do you just like to use the word semantics?   NO ONE hunts with automatic weapons, as Doc explained earlier they're nearly impossible to obtain and prohibitively expensive.  And very few people hunt using media/politician defined "assault rifles" because they're NOT POWERFUL enough.  

Well, in Texas you can pay a bunch of money to go up in a helicopter to gun down wild pigs with full auto assault rifles and even machine guns

Whos' dicks are smaller? These guys or d wags?

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
see - that's the crazy thing.

I'm not against guns.. I mean, I've never held one or anything - but I don't have a problem with them as long as they're used responsibly.

what I do have a problem with is the idea that the problem with daily mass shootings in the United States is that there aren't enough guns.. I mean, I'm not real bright (somehow I managed to graduate from college a few times) but I don't think "not enough guns" is the solution.

Fair enough. I guess I got the impression you wanted to limit the freedoms of law abiding individuals to own and possession firearms by some measure.

oh, heck no - I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt people or advocate hurting people.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Well, if 1 guy legally purchased 4 guns...a proposal to limit the amount of guns you could purchase to 2 wouldn't be complete prohibition or confiscation. That's hypothetical, of course.

But, it clearly wouldn't be complete prohibition.

And you would limit purchases to how many? In what time frame?

And of course California already limits it one handgun per month is allowed to be purchased by law.

So I guess that one didn't work either.

Hold on. Don't jump in without addressing the idea that it wouldn't be complete prohibition. That's just not true. I know you didn't say that, but it seems to be getting skipped over.

LooseGoose wrote:

pulling69 wrote:

Well, in Texas you can pay a bunch of money to go up in a helicopter to gun down wild pigs with full auto assault rifles and even machine guns

That's not hunting.

It is according to them. Who are you to say it's not?

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

That's not hunting.

It is according to them. Who are you to say it's not?

I thought you and Bob supported free speech? It's my opinion that's not hunting, I'm free to express that opinion.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Fair enough. I guess I got the impression you wanted to limit the freedoms of law abiding individuals to own and possession firearms by some measure.

oh, heck no - I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt people or advocate hurting people.

Bob, you're a fantastic human being.

I'd call you a great American but, well... ya know, anarchism and all that shit. Wouldn't be a compliment in my eyes. Not exactly the "patriotic" type. I hope that doesn't offend you.

Fucking Texas man....

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:oh, heck no - I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt people or advocate hurting people.

Bob, you're a fantastic human being.

I'd call you a great American but, well... ya know, anarchism and all that shit. Wouldn't be a compliment in my eyes. Not exactly the "patriotic" type. I hope that doesn't offend you.

thanks man - I'm not easily offended.

There are already too many fragile cupcakes trying to exist in this frightening world. I'll leave the "easily offended" designation to them. I believe in people being who and what they are.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:



It is according to them. Who are you to say it's not?

I thought you and Bob supported free speech? It's my opinion that's not hunting, I'm free to express that opinion.

It's not hunting in my opinion. Those type of weapons are overkill (pun intended) for hunting.

It's not hunting. It's just killing stuff. It's real life replicating a video game.

In my opinion, guns like that should not be sold for hunting purposes. Do you agree? Or is it more important to protect someone's "rights" at the risk of a weapon like that not being used for hunting purposes?

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I thought you and Bob supported free speech? It's my opinion that's not hunting, I'm free to express that opinion.

It's not hunting in my opinion. Those type of weapons are overkill (pun intended) for hunting.

It's not hunting. It's just killing stuff. It's real life replicating a video game.

In my opinion, guns like that should not be sold for hunting purposes. Do you agree? Or is it more important to protect someone's "rights" at the risk of a weapon like that not being used for hunting purposes?

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?

So if someone has a gun like that sitting in their basement... are you in favor of guys with guns coming to his house and taking it from him by force? Like is that the solution? Hasn't harmed anyone or threatened anyone... but because it's in his possession do you think it's right for another individual to determine he is not allowed to have it? Maybe even take him from his home by force and put him in a cage against his will?

We should probably discuss what it actually means when we say things like "Well, he doesn't *need* a gun like that..."

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

It's not hunting in my opinion. Those type of weapons are overkill (pun intended) for hunting.

It's not hunting. It's just killing stuff. It's real life replicating a video game.

In my opinion, guns like that should not be sold for hunting purposes. Do you agree? Or is it more important to protect someone's "rights" at the risk of a weapon like that not being used for hunting purposes?

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?

So if someone has a gun like that sitting in their basement... are you in favor of guys with guns coming to his house and taking it from him by force? Like is that the solution? Hasn't harmed anyone or threatened anyone... but because it's in his possession do you think it's right for another individual to determine he is not allowed to have it? Maybe even take him from his home by force and put him in a cage against his will?

We should probably discuss what it actually means when we say things like "Well, he doesn't *need* a gun like that..."

What? You seem to have fallen into the deep end. Need some help getting out?