Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Taichiliberal said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again....if we treat all gun purchases like this country treats car purchases, you'd have a better tracking system and mandatory class to pass in handling the item. Won't stop all nuts and evil doers, but it'll cut down the number of incidences.

Oh, and for all the 2nd Amendment/NRA/pro-gun lobby bullhorns: where were all the CCW heroes that you people swore would save the day at these tragedies? It was in Texas, ya know. :thinking:
Click to expand...



Gun was obtained illegally. The psycho gave plenty of warning signs, that were not acted upon.
 
Taichiliberal said:
WTF is the matter with you, bunky? YOU made it a point that an "arsenal" isn't carried by mass shooters. The link made you out to be dead wrong...something you either didn't read or chose to ignore/deny. Thus, your first sentence is comically moot and of no help to justify your previous assertion. A pathetic ploy on your part to avoid acknowledging error, because guess what? When one gun is empty, it's easier to pick up another loaded, chambered one ready to go than re-load. Mass shooters are killing PEOPLE, you simp, NOT hunting game. If you can't grasp that simple concept, then no one can help you.

Your next 3 sentences are regurgitations that ignore the previous responses...and you once again you display ignorance in basic police procedure. Any police detectives responding to a break in/theft (after the uniforms do their thing) do a complete check of the premises for signs of things that the owner may not catch...I already covered this, and you don't have the cojones to either check it with local cops or just acknowledge what I said is true. Again, you keep trying to take what I say out of context to justify your absurd stubbornness....and get a clue, because your playing dumb doesn't cut it in printed exchange medium. Your parroting NRA talking points and this silly dodge and deny tactic is just lame.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your expertise on the "arsenals" all these mass shooters are toting with them. Do they haul them along with a little red wagon? A person cannot fire more than 2 firearms at a time, that is a fact. You gave one example, the only example, of that asshole firing from a hotel window with a cache of weapons at hand. The rest had one, maybe 2 guns on them to commit their heinous crimes.
Oh, and no shit they're shooting people and not hunting game. Why would you think otherwise?

You obviously know nothing about break in "procedures" or investigations. Unless there's been an injury or the place was ransacked, if you think "detectives" come in (after the uniformed officers ask what is missing and possibly dust for fingerprints) and go through your home, you're nuts! How could they know what you own, much less find it missing? No, neither the uniformed officers (who's job it is to do the investigation anyway) nor any "detectives" go through and search your home. You must watch too many fictitious police shows.

As for the NRA, you know even less about them. And I didn't deny or dodge anything. Your inability to comprehend is not my problem, it's yours.
 
RB 60 said:
Thanks for sharing your expertise on the "arsenals" all these mass shooters are toting with them. Do they haul them along with a little red wagon? A person cannot fire more than 2 firearms at a time, that is a fact. You gave one example, the only example, of that asshole firing from a hotel window with a cache of weapons at hand. The rest had one, maybe 2 guns on them to commit their heinous crimes.
Oh, and no shit they're shooting people and not hunting game. Why would you think otherwise?

You obviously know nothing about break in "procedures" or investigations. Unless there's been an injury or the place was ransacked, if you think "detectives" come in (after the uniformed officers ask what is missing and possibly dust for fingerprints) and go through your home, you're nuts! How could they know what you own, much less find it missing? No, neither the uniformed officers (who's job it is to do the investigation anyway) nor any "detectives" go through and search your home. You must watch too many fictitious police shows.

As for the NRA, you know even less about them. And I didn't deny or dodge anything. Your inability to comprehend is not my problem, it's yours.
Click to expand...


your insipid stubbornness keeps reaffirming your gross stupidity in your attempts to push NRA talking points


arsenal
[ˈärs(ə)n(ə)l]

NOUN
a collection of weapons and military equipment stored by a country, person, or group.
"Britain's nuclear arsenal"
synonyms:
weapons · weaponry · arms · armaments
a place where weapons and military equipment are stored or made.
synonyms:
armory · arms depot · arms cache · ordnance depot · magazine · ammunition dump
an array of resources available for a certain purpose.
"an arsenal of computers at our disposal"

Grow up and deal....you were proven wrong. deal with it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
your insipid stubbornness keeps reaffirming your gross stupidity in your attempts to push NRA talking points


arsenal
[ˈärs(ə)n(ə)l]

NOUN
a collection of weapons and military equipment stored by a country, person, or group.
"Britain's nuclear arsenal"
synonyms:
weapons · weaponry · arms · armaments
a place where weapons and military equipment are stored or made.
synonyms:
armory · arms depot · arms cache · ordnance depot · magazine · ammunition dump
an array of resources available for a certain purpose.
"an arsenal of computers at our disposal"

Grow up and deal....you were proven wrong. deal with it.
Click to expand...

I know what an arsenal is, and with the exception of one stationary individual, none of the shooters had an arsenal on them. That is a fact.

NRA talking points? What might those be? Be specific.

Grow up? Wrong? Uh, no, I'm not wrong. The only thing wrong is your inability to comprehend simple fact.
 
RB 60 said:
I know what an arsenal is, and with the exception of one stationary individual, none of the shooters had an arsenal on them. That is a fact.

NRA talking points? What might those be? Be specific.

Grow up? Wrong? Uh, no, I'm not wrong. The only thing wrong is your inability to comprehend simple fact.
Click to expand...

The chronology of the posts shows that YOU DENIED THAT EVEN ONE RECENT MASS SHOOTER HAD A ARSENAL OF WEAPONS. Now in a half assed manner you concede the point that you were WRONG.

And don't play dumber than you are regarding all the rehash of NRA bullshit. You're just trying to cover your butt about being proven wrong on several points. You can claim you
re not wrong til doomsday....factually proving such a claim is a whole other smoke, by which you fail miserably. Carry on.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As you can see, dear reader, STY has a reading problem...he just ignores what doesn't fit his beliefs. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see how one has to couch their analysis in order to deny the loophole. I've highlighted where it shows how both sides concede how the language of the law allows for the label. STY is insipidly stubborn, as most oathers/threepers/libertarians are
Click to expand...
.you're talking about yourself again...........it doesn't matter about both sides conception of the law if the law SPECIFICALLY STATES that private sales are exempt. if there's any smoke blowing going on, its coming from you, charlie.
Click to expand...

Newsflash for ya, genius.....Other people besides you and I read these posts and threads, so I'm hardly talking to myself when I address them. Your second sentence is incredibly foolish, as you again display willfully ignorant myopia. Here, for your education: Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)
 
Taichiliberal said:
The chronology of the posts shows that YOU DENIED THAT EVEN ONE RECENT MASS SHOOTER HAD A ARSENAL OF WEAPONS. Now in a half assed manner you concede the point that you were WRONG.

And don't play dumber than you are regarding all the rehash of NRA bullshit. You're just trying to cover your butt about being proven wrong on several points. You can claim you
re not wrong til doomsday....factually proving such a claim is a whole other smoke, by which you fail miserably. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Read my damn post and comprehend it. No one can fire more than 2 weapons at a time (unless they have more than 2 hands). What they cannot carry (meaning what they may have stashed somewhere else) is irrelevant.

What NRA "bullshit" are you referring? I don't think you have a clue of what you're babbling about.
Wrong? Wrong about what? The fact that only one stationary shooter had more than 2 guns with him?
No, I'm not wrong, you're just too incompetent to read and comprehend. Not my fault.
 
RB 60 said:
Read my damn post and comprehend it. No one can fire more than 2 weapons at a time (unless they have more than 2 hands). What they cannot carry (meaning what they may have stashed somewhere else) is irrelevant.

What NRA "bullshit" are you referring? I don't think you have a clue of what you're babbling about.
Wrong? Wrong about what? The fact that only one stationary shooter had more than 2 guns with him?
No, I'm not wrong, you're just too incompetent to read and comprehend. Not my fault.
Click to expand...

Then why did he carry all those weapons to the spot, jackass? Clearly, he planned on something other that what you deem is law. Idiot.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Then why did he carry all those weapons to the spot, jackass? Clearly, he planned on something other that what you deem is law. Idiot.
Click to expand...

Again, dipshit, I acknowledged ONE STATIONARY shooter had an assortment of firearms in a hotel room 300 yd. from his "targets."

Why did he carry all those weapons to that hotel? Why are you asking me that? Of course he planned it, simpleton. And just what "red flags" would have come up, he had a clean record, both criminally and mentally (he was a pilot, wasn't he?)? Do tell.

So then, why aren't you addressing my post on your ridiculous insurance idea? Or the fact that only ONE shooter had more than 2 (most only had one) guns while committing their heinous crimes?
What about your comment on the NRA? Why are we responsible? You keep moving the goal posts. It just shows you are ignorant of the subjects you are attempting to address.
 
RB 60 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Then why did he carry all those weapons to the spot, jackass? Clearly, he planned on something other that what you deem is law. Idiot.
Click to expand...


Again, dipshit, I acknowledged ONE STATIONARY shooter had an assortment of firearms in a hotel room 300 yd. from his "targets."

Why did he carry all those weapons to that hotel? Why are you asking me that? Of course he planned it, simpleton. And just what "red flags" would have come up, he had a clean record, both criminally and mentally (he was a pilot, wasn't he?)? Do tell.

So then, why aren't you addressing my post on your ridiculous insurance idea? Or the fact that only ONE shooter had more than 2 (most only had one) guns while committing their heinous crimes?
What about your comment on the NRA? Why are we responsible? You keep moving the goal posts. It just shows you are ignorant of the subjects you are attempting to address.
Click to expand...

You wrote: No one can fire more than 2 weapons at a time (unless they have more than 2 hands). What they cannot carry (meaning what they may have stashed somewhere else) is irrelevant.

In typical brain dead NRA flunky fashion, you parrot a line that tries to side step one of your major blunders...I point out that PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO STOCKPILE WEAPONS THAT ARE EITHER LEGAL OR ILLEGAL MAY SOMETIMES GO OFF THE DEEP END AND COMMIT MASS MURDER. As the chronology of the posts shows, you stupidly stated at first that didn't/couldn't happen. Now you double down with a scenario that "well, stockpiling is useless because you can only hold two weapons at a time". No shyte sherlock! That's why the concert shooter had multiple weapons...why stop to reload when you just pick up another loaded weapon ready to go! Once again, even if I buy into your declarations about level head purchase, stockpile and sales (which I don't given your thin skin and irrational rants on these threads), recent history has shown that there are too many with similar actions that are not. That is why my proposal makes sense, and your blathering hissy fit just endorse the status quo....tough luck for the victim's families. :palm:
 
Taichiliberal said:
You wrote: No one can fire more than 2 weapons at a time (unless they have more than 2 hands). What they cannot carry (meaning what they may have stashed somewhere else) is irrelevant.

In typical brain dead NRA flunky fashion, you parrot a line that tries to side step one of your major blunders...I point out that PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO STOCKPILE WEAPONS THAT ARE EITHER LEGAL OR ILLEGAL MAY SOMETIMES GO OFF THE DEEP END AND COMMIT MASS MURDER. As the chronology of the posts shows, you stupidly stated at first that didn't/couldn't happen. Now you double down with a scenario that "well, stockpiling is useless because you can only hold two weapons at a time". No shyte sherlock! That's why the concert shooter had multiple weapons...why stop to reload when you just pick up another loaded weapon ready to go! Once again, even if I buy into your declarations about level head purchase, stockpile and sales (which I don't given your thin skin and irrational rants on these threads), recent history has shown that there are too many with similar actions that are not. That is why my proposal makes sense, and your blathering hissy fit just endorse the status quo....tough luck for the victim's families. :palm:
Click to expand...

So you want me and millions of other responsible gun owners to be victimized because of ONE asshole? Nope. Not in my lifetime.
Irrational? None of my guns (or the guns of millions of other responsible Americans) are used illegally, I won't allow my constitutional
right to be infringed upon because a few assholes choose to break the law. Raise your kids to be responsible, my parents did.
 
RB 60 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You wrote: No one can fire more than 2 weapons at a time (unless they have more than 2 hands). What they cannot carry (meaning what they may have stashed somewhere else) is irrelevant.

In typical brain dead NRA flunky fashion, you parrot a line that tries to side step one of your major blunders...I point out that PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO STOCKPILE WEAPONS THAT ARE EITHER LEGAL OR ILLEGAL MAY SOMETIMES GO OFF THE DEEP END AND COMMIT MASS MURDER. As the chronology of the posts shows, you stupidly stated at first that didn't/couldn't happen. Now you double down with a scenario that "well, stockpiling is useless because you can only hold two weapons at a time". No shyte sherlock! That's why the concert shooter had multiple weapons...why stop to reload when you just pick up another loaded weapon ready to go! Once again, even if I buy into your declarations about level head purchase, stockpile and sales (which I don't given your thin skin and irrational rants on these threads), recent history has shown that there are too many with similar actions that are not. That is why my proposal makes sense, and your blathering hissy fit just endorse the status quo....tough luck for the victim's families. :palm:
Click to expand...




So you want me and millions of other responsible gun owners to be victimized because of ONE asshole? Nope. Not in my lifetime.
Irrational? None of my guns (or the guns of millions of other responsible Americans) are used illegally, I won't allow my constitutional
right to be infringed upon because a few assholes choose to break the law. Raise your kids to be responsible, my parents did.
Click to expand...


"Victimized"? Oh man, you are such the wussy! If you have half the weapons you claim to have, it's a clear example that you can well afford any license and registration fee. Spare me all the hissy fit BS about infringing on your Constitutional rights, as I've stated time and again for your like minded brethren, since you can/could buy a plethora of guns WITH the Brady bill and the 1994 AWB....WITH the provision of prohibiting certain weapons deemed by the state & federal gov't. It's been that way for a few centuries, ya know. And once again, your indifference to human tragedy to protect a perceived threat to your pacifiers speaks volumes to your character....or lack there of. So unless you've got something other than a regurgitation of the guff you previously posted here, I'd say you're done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top