Guest viewing is limited

Donald Trump running for president

jswain34 said:
What is your point though? Im pro-second amendment, but I really don't understand how this proves your point that equal damage can be done by other means. So 1 guy killing 19 people and injuring 45 is the same thing as 1 guy killing 56 people and injuring over 500? Its about 3x as many killed and over 10x as many injured.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that most of his links are multiple attackers and/or in places where an attacker with a knife couldn't easily be stopped by those being attacked. For example, a school full of elementary school children or a home for the disabled and handicapped.

Granted, the attacker in Vegas couldn't easily be stopped, but he was using a weapon with a high rate of fire.

Maybe he could have thrown knives from the 32nd floor and killed more people?
 
Misfit28 said:
What does that last sentence even mean?

Also, I seriously doubt one dude with a knife would have caused more casualties in the situation under discussion. Bow and arrow? We're talking an estimated 9 rounds per second versus a bow and arrow?
Click to expand...

It means that people who advocate for little/less gun control believe they are entitled to defend themselves if they are economically able to obtain one.

Also I was splitting your argument up why was irrelevant, anyways the main reasoning behind my statement is that anything can be used to kill, there are many things that can be more deadly and untraceable yet aren't used. Be happy people are using firearms rather than chemical agents that and be made in a household. Killing is normal, minimizing unjustified killings needs to be dealt with logically. In prison there are no firearms yet they fashion shanks out of anything they can, they makes drugs out of anything they can, and they do whatever they really want to even if it's not allowed because it's possible.
 
Jiigzz said:
You cannot be serious man. A bow and arrow?

Let me get this straight, your equating a bow and arrow to a gun and bullet?

Lets say I have a 30 round magazine and 10 magazines. That's 300 rounds. I can shoot 30 rounds in 15 seconds or less. How long does it take to load and fire a bow? How long would it take to fire 300 arrows? Don't be an idiot.

A knife can wield more casualties?!?!?! According to who?!

Your logic is terrible.
Click to expand...

I addressed my statement already and yes I over exaggerate but what I really meant was taking away firearms will only hold more opportunities in other categories. It's better to have weapons that can be monitored more widely available to limit weapons that cannot be monitored used.
 
Misfit28 said:
In a facility for handicapped and disabled people. Once again, not much of a chance of being stopped there either, I would assume. These are all apples to oranges comparisons.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

It's not a strawman argument. You both said knives aren't weapons capable of mass casualty. Evil people will use what tools they can get. You're argument that disabled people can't fight back so it doesn't count is a joke. No chance of stopping the knife killer because no one had a weapon available. Kids in Columbine couldn't fight back. Kids in Sandy Hook couldn't fight back. People in a coral in a parking lot for a country couldn't fight back.
 
youngandfree said:
What inside info do you have? Otherwise you just look like a liar.
Click to expand...

I don't need inside info since the facts are now public and they used the guns to try and trace them to the cartel, but the plan obviously blew up in their faces and should have never been attempted in the first place. However, in this case I have quite a bit inside info since I was married at the time to one of the federal prosecutors who made a deal with the Flores twins so they could get Guzman.

You could have just said, oops, that was my mistake, but you doubled down and now you're just a lying douche. Anything else?
 
youngandfree said:
It's not a strawman argument. You both said knives aren't weapons capable of mass casualty. Evil people will use what tools they can get. You're argument that disabled people can't fight back so it doesn't count is a joke. No chance of stopping the knife killer because no one had a weapon available. Kids in Columbine couldn't fight back. Kids in Sandy Hook couldn't fight back. People in a coral in a parking lot for a country couldn't fight back.
Click to expand...

It is a strawman. It's simple: one dude with a knife would not be capable of killing 58 people and wounding over 500 others in that situation.

I think your fallacious arguments are the joke here.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I don't need inside info since the facts are now public and they used the guns to try and trace them to the cartel, but the plan obviously blew up in their faces and should have never been attempted in the first place. However, in this case I have quite a bit inside info since I was married at the time to one of the federal prosecutors who made a deal with the Flores twins so they could get Guzman.

You could have just said, oops, that was my mistake, but you doubled down and now you're just a lying douche. Anything else?
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed

Then why didn't any of the Democrats call for investigations into the ATF? The ATF established onerous reporting regs on Federally licensed dealers in border states,and made the implication that gun stores where the ones breaking the laws?
 
Misfit28 said:
It is a strawman. It's simple: one dude with a knife would not be capable of killing 58 people and wounding over 500 others in that situation.

I think your fallacious arguments are the joke here.
Click to expand...

I never said they could. You keep arguing knives aren't capable of kilong masses of people, then said 19 dead and 45 wounded isn't a valid example. If the Vegas loon would have been in the crowd with knives, he very easily could have killed and injured many people.
 
youngandfree said:
I never said they could. You keep arguing knives aren't capable of kilong masses of people, then said 19 dead and 45 wounded isn't a valid example. If the Vegas loon would have been in the crowd with knives, he very easily could have killed and injured many people.
Click to expand...

That is seriously questionable.

So the guy from Vegas could have killed 48 people and them himself, as well as injure over 500 people before being stopped in a crowd of 22,000 people? Most concerts have security as well.

The fact that it was from above and a practically automatic rifle is what resulted in so much death and injury. No way a guy in the crowd with a knife could have done that.
 
youngandfree said:
How did the Japanese guy stab 45 people then?
Click to expand...


Invalid Link Removed

1. He wasn't a stranger. He was a previous employee, so he knew how to get in and where people were located.

2. He broke in at around 2:30AM, and most (if not all) of the residents were asleep.

3. He tied up staff members and extracted info from them about where the most severely disabled residents were sleeping and stabbed them in the neck.

That's a helluva lot easier than wandering through a crowd of 22,000 people and randomly lethally stabbing people.
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

Then why didn't any of the Democrats call for investigations into the ATF? The ATF established onerous reporting regs on Federally licensed dealers in border states,and made the implication that gun stores where the ones breaking the laws?
Click to expand...

Go back and read my post to you. I'm not saying they didn't send the guns; I'm saying why they sent them. The reason why they sent them was idiotic, so much so that you don't have to make **** up about it. They need no help looking stupid, but when you make stuff up, it's easy to discount your entire statement, including the accurate parts.

You shouldn't be surprised that Democrats or any government official were being hypocrites by sending guns and then complaining about too many guns. That's status quo and job security. Also, no Democrat was going to go against Obama on that. They enjoy getting re-elected just like Republicans do.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Go back and read my post to you. I'm not saying they didn't send the guns; I'm saying why they sent them. The reason why they sent them was idiotic, so much so that you don't have to make **** up about it. They need no help looking stupid, but when you make stuff up, it's easy to discount your entire statement, including the accurate parts.

You shouldn't be surprised that Democrats or any government official were being hypocrites by sending guns and then complaining about too many guns. That's status quo and job security. Also, no Democrat was going to go against Obama on that. They enjoy getting re-elected just like Republicans do.
Click to expand...

He's not one for detail.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I don't need inside info since the facts are now public and they used the guns to try and trace them to the cartel, but the plan obviously blew up in their faces and should have never been attempted in the first place. However, in this case I have quite a bit inside info since I was married at the time to one of the federal prosecutors who made a deal with the Flores twins so they could get Guzman.

You could have just said, oops, that was my mistake, but you doubled down and now you're just a lying douche. Anything else?
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

I can't find anything tying the Flores twins to Fast and Furious. So it's a moot point.
 
what do those opposed to guns propose?

I think the list of doable things would be limited. there are a few things I could get behind, but I would like to see a list of proposals-that would still pass constitutional laws.
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

I can't find anything tying the Flores twins to Fast and Furious. So it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

Apparently, your search skills are lacking.

Invalid Link Removed

'Somewhere in America, in the witness-security wing of an undisclosed federal prison, sit the two men whose testimony will seal Chapo's fate. Margarito and Pedro Flores, identical twins in their thirties, are two of the least fearsome thugs on the planet, nerds who somehow noodled their way to the center of Chapo's circle. "They're, like, five-foot-five and a buck-40," says Lorino, who spent months debriefing them when they surrendered, in 2008. "I laugh when I read that they're Latin Kings. Real Kings would eat 'em for lunch and still be hungry."'

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
He's not one for detail.
Click to expand...

Yu mean like arguing bull**** semantics like "Obama only had 4 months of control of the Senate", because they didnt have 60 votes. Disregarding Harry Red being the leader of the Senate and changing long standing rules of order when he didn't have the 60 votes, in order to keep Republicans from being able to introduce amendments to legislation.
 
thebigt said:
what do those opposed to guns propose?

I think the list of doable things would be limited. there are a few things I could get behind, but I would like to see a list of proposals-that would still pass constitutional laws.
Click to expand...

I honestly wish I knew. I am not wanting to take everyone's guns away, even though that's what people say whenever you mention it.
 
youngandfree said:
Yu mean like arguing bull**** semantics like "Obama only had 4 months of control of the Senate", because they didnt have 60 votes. Disregarding Harry Red being the leader of the Senate and changing long standing rules of order when he didn't have the 60 votes, in order to keep Republicans from being able to introduce amendments to legislation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those are details. You can call it semantics if you want, but the simple truth is that details matter.

There's more to the fact that 60 votes is needed for "full" control (due to the Senate), but I digress. I'm not going to look up and post all that again.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Just saw this on FB. (I know thats an anonymous message board and an unsubstantiated claim. Nor does this mean I support the conspiracy theories). It was just relevant to the discussion going on in here.
 
Misfit28 said:
Apparently, your search skills are lacking.

Invalid Link Removed

'Somewhere in America, in the witness-security wing of an undisclosed federal prison, sit the two men whose testimony will seal Chapo's fate. Margarito and Pedro Flores, identical twins in their thirties, are two of the least fearsome thugs on the planet, nerds who somehow noodled their way to the center of Chapo's circle. "They're, like, five-foot-five and a buck-40," says Lorino, who spent months debriefing them when they surrendered, in 2008. "I laugh when I read that they're Latin Kings. Real Kings would eat 'em for lunch and still be hungry."'

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

None of that indicates any connection to Fast and Furious though, just drug trafficking. I'm not disputing your claim of your wife being a prosecutor in their case.
 
Misfit28 said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Isn't the argument crime prevention? Yea guns are more effective than knives and have been used more but if guns are taken away knives can be used in place. Plus anyone that wants to can create a homemade firearm. There's the 3D printer and other stuff. If you just focus on guns then the argument is useless, without firearms criminals will think outside the box to other more deadlier weapons.
 
jswain34 said:
Invalid Link Removed

Just saw this on FB. (I know thats an anonymous message board and an unsubstantiated claim. Nor does this mean I support the conspiracy theories). It was just relevant to the discussion going on in here.
Click to expand...
ax1 would cream his jeans if this were proven true....just sayin
 
youngandfree said:
None of that indicates any connection to Fast and Furious though, just drug trafficking. I'm not disputing your claim of your wife being a prosecutor in their case.
Click to expand...
Good Lord, just read into it a bit and you will see that Guzman had Fast and Furious weapons at his hideout.

The Flores twins took down Guzman with their testimonies, but I don't believe he said the Flores twins were directly involved with the operation.
 
Misfit28 said:
Good Lord, just read into it a bit and you will see that Guzman had Fast and Furious weapons at his hideout.

The Flores twins took down Guzman with their testimonies, but I don't believe he said the Flores twins were directly involved with the operation.
Click to expand...

He asked how I had inside information. I told him how and now he's combining the two conversations, yet keeps putting down people for having higher education degrees lol.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He asked how I had inside information. I told him how and now he's combining the two conversations, yet keeps putting down people for having higher education degrees lol.
Click to expand...

at least he didn't ask...what's in your wallet...lol
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I don't need inside info since the facts are now public and they used the guns to try and trace them to the cartel, but the plan obviously blew up in their faces and should have never been attempted in the first place. However, in this case I have quite a bit inside info since I was married at the time to one of the federal prosecutors who made a deal with the Flores twins so they could get Guzman.

You could have just said, oops, that was my mistake, but you doubled down and now you're just a lying douche. Anything else?
Click to expand...

Here's your statement. It implies you have inside info on why and how Fast and Furious was implemented and that based on your marriage at the time. Your ex wife prosecuted two guys for drug trafficking with the cartels, but those guys had no links to the gun trafficking.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He asked how I had inside information. I told him how and now he's combining the two conversations, yet keeps putting down people for having higher education degrees lol.
Click to expand...

The information you keep providing doesn't indicate Flores twins were involved in running guns. Two seperate issues.
 
youngandfree said:
Here's your statement. It implies you have inside info on why and how Fast and Furious was implemented and that based on your marriage at the time. Your ex wife prosecuted two guys for drug trafficking with the cartels, but those guys had no links to the gun trafficking.
Click to expand...

She prosecuted Guzman. What part of made a deal with don't you understand? Seriously though, where on the spectrum are you or have you not been diagnosed yet?
 
youngandfree said:
The information you keep providing doesn't indicate Flores twins were involved in running guns. Two seperate issues.
Click to expand...

I never said they were you dense ****. They were used as leverage. If you read the article that YOU posted, you would know that. I'm not giving out any information that isn't public knowledge.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I never said they were you dense ****. They were used as leverage. If you read the article that YOU posted, you would know that. I'm not giving out any information that isn't public knowledge.
Click to expand...

Which still has nothing to do with it. I asked how you knew of the intent and purpose of F&F. You said, this is how I know...
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I don't need inside info since the facts are now public and they used the guns to try and trace them to the cartel, but the plan obviously blew up in their faces and should have never been attempted in the first place. However, in this case I have quite a bit inside info since I was married at the time to one of the federal prosecutors who made a deal with the Flores twins so they could get Guzman.

You could have just said, oops, that was my mistake, but you doubled down and now you're just a lying douche. Anything else?
Click to expand...

You're response when asked about your knowledge of intent of F+F.
 
youngandfree said:
Which still has nothing to do with it. I asked how you knew of the intent and purpose of F&F. You said, this is how I know...
Click to expand...

I said the purpose has been publicly stated so I don't need inside information, BUT since you asked, this is how I have inside information. I'm not telling inside information that can get my head cut off to an internet troll. You have a lot of reading to do and might I suggest something less biased than guns.com. I'm done. Again, repeating for anybody else reading, I have only stated what is publicly available.
 
Jiigzz said:
Who mentioned 9/11 man? Don't strawman me. Im talking about this singular instance only.

And Ax, the boxes are absolutely not indestructible so don't be an ass. There are countless times where boxes have been recovered only to have been destroyed in the impact and the data within unreadable.

In fact, a LOT of the time one or both boxes contain no usable data.

They're not indestructible. And certainly not expected to survive a fully loaded plane impacting a building and vaporizing.

Look up other fatal crashes worldwide and search for cockpit data. You'll be surprised how few of the worst ones (particularly when a plane crashes full of fuel) are salvageable
Click to expand...

I was just ranting off with youngandfree but there was a point to it.. What you are talking about is damaged black boxes. On 9/11 you have 4 claimed airplanes 1 that even crashed on the ground and all 4 black boxes are completely vaporized into oblivion. Scientifically its impossible even through the jet fuel of the towers. They found tiny nail clippings of victims to identify them but not even a single metal chip of the black boxes...4 times in 1 day, 100% impossibility happen 4 times including the lighter "2" crashes (no real evidence of planes anyways) on the ground and pentagon. Dont buy it, I wouldnt say this for the slightly higher majority of things I say but Id put my life own on that one and obviously they dont want the public to know something. An emergency worker came out that he was on the scene in Manhattan and they told him not to talk when the box was discovered but he was discredited because they said he sold a book.
 
Did you guys hear the unedited version of the brothers interview? Just did so myself...that was weird. After he said his brother said he had nothing to do with guns and almost said "Armm" he freaked out to correct himself.
 
ax1 said:
Did you guys hear the unedited version of the brothers interview? Just did so myself...that was weird. After he said his brother said he had nothing to do with guns and almost said "Armm" he freaked out to correct himself.
Click to expand...

Possible alternative theory: his brother killed a bunch of people and then killed himself or was killed...he might be upset and not thinking clearly to give a coherent interview. Or his brother is really the loch ness monster.
 
Jiigzz said:
Dont get me wrong guys, like I said the choice is yours. It won't stop all crime, but can dramatically reduce who has access to weapons.

I get that a lot of you are responsible gun owners and these laws may make it seem like they target people like you who don't intend to do wrong. But they are not put there because of you, they are put there because people abuse their right to own guns. They are put there to prevent officers shooting unarmed people they assume have guns. They are put there to make people have a sense of security and safety.

It's easy to see how it only villifies you personally. But it's done to protect the lives of those who can't protect their own. It's done to keep guns away from those who intend to cause you or a loved one harm.

I don't see NZs lack of guns as a punishment against me as a person. I see it as a way to greatly reduce the harm that a firearm can cause.

Sure, people may resort to knives, machetes and other instruments in the place of a firearm, and it won't stop violent offenders.

But it will reduce the scale of harm it can cause.

Again, you guys might not know what it's like to live in a world without firearms so you make up complex scenarios that you think will happen if they're taken away. Or that you won't feel safe without them.

Travel overseas and you'll see what I mean
Click to expand...

Im overseas in one of the globes most gun free countries as I type this and been coming here for over 12 years and Ive been watching this country turn into a police state ses pool (I cant believe Im saying that about China) due to terrorism concerns in a country people are prone to mass machette murders among other incidents not ever heard on television or most news people tell me here. Some of the stories I hear from actual people Im glad to come back to a country as to where there is closer balance of the people and the longest running democracy in world history. I bet I can find millions and millions of people here in China that wish they had the same gun laws from the USA here.

You cant cherry pick countries that have had this short term success and assume that would be good for the USA, I do wish them eternal peace though.
 
Misfit28 said:
So you're saying that guy would have killed 58 people (59 including himself) and injured over 500 others with a steak knife?
Click to expand...

A nice home made bomb in a airport in a clusterfuqed overloaded line where grannies are getting their breasts groped and children get their privates tickled by Walmart employees then zapped with controversial rays can do it where government pretends they are keeping people safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top