22 dead, dozens wounded (and counting) in USA’s latest 2nd Amendment celebration

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You can buy an AR in about an hour, but it took MANY DAYS of planning to implement 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Federal bombing.

 

So?  they killed hundreds or thousands of people. This killed 18.

Quote

There is no comparison;

Agreed - the ar is no where near as deadly as those attacks

 BTW - the ar takes time  to train how to use effectivey.  This guy had hundreds of hours of training.  Sooooo - maybe not so much of a difference as you think. If you were under the impression you can walk into a gun store, buy one and be out shooting an hour later with no training or experience or practice.... well...  there you go,

[robosmith]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:14 AM, Deluge said:

Yes, stoopid. You didn't answer my question. It's obvious that letting ill people own guns makes their misuse much more likely. 

THE QUESTION IS, are you trying to tell me that your issue with gun ownership stops at the mentally ill? 

No lDIOT, I'm trying to tell you what I told you, and you've correctly identified it as "obvious."

Obviously, it is NOT ONLY the mentally ill whom are misusing guns. Duh

But the ones who use them for mass murder are much more likely to be mentally ill than thinking rationally.

[robosmith]

On 10/27/2023 at 8:11 AM, Deluge said:

I see you're trying not to, so let's talk about the OP, shalle we? Do you agree that 2nd Amendment supporters celebrate mass murder?

The caption reads 22 dead, dozens wounded (and counting) in USA’s latest 2nd Amendment celebration. 

Do you agree with Beaver that 2nd Amendment supporters celebrate mass murder? 

Many do; esp the gun manufacturers who profit greatly from the fear fomented by mass murder.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I still remember a CNN story about an SUV that plowed through a parade. 

The issue? The driver was black. Black people are victims, but his track record showcased him as a sociopath. Precicely the type who would drive through a parade to kill people.

Yup. "Car crash" ? https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/24/us/waukesha-car-parade-crowd-wednesday/index.html

It was the second time that guy's car crashed into 1 or more people. He ran over the mother of his own child with that same car about two months earlier. So unlucky.

Edited October 28, 2023 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

You tried to use the number of kids who either killed themselves or each other as relevant to a discussion on gun control as a way of dealing with the mass murder of children at mass shootings.  It's on record.  You can dodge and duck as much as you like, but it's right there, a few posts back.

 

Bullshit.

The number of children killed in mass shootings every year on average is very close to zero.  The numbers i gave for accidents is MUCH higher. The number of children killed by guns is mostly due to accidents.

And - if you DID disagree with the number for that age of children then you could have given ones you felt correct - INSTEAD you ADDED 6 years and included suicides.  So  if you're telling the truth and that's the problem - why didn't you just give the number for mass killings?

And the simple reaosn is you're a lying sack of shit.  When i called you on your bullshit THEN suddenly you come up with this.

FACT -  more kids are killed by pools OR car accidents than  by guns - a fact you've been unable to argue against.

BUT - YOU insist that people who guns are uncaring parents becasue they must love their guns more than kids - but claim that's not true for parents who own OTHER things that kill MORE kids.

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

But deaths from traffic accidents and pools are inevitable. 

No they're not - ban pools.  Done. Poof.  Nobody NEEDS a pool. Totally avoidable. Are you saying you love pools more than children?

And there we see the hypocrisy of the left. You've got no problem with the death of children provided the cause of death is something you approve of.

And you wonder why nobody is interested in giving even an inch to your kind on the gun control front.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by CdnFox

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Bullshit.

The number of children killed in mass shootings every year on average is very close to zero.  The numbers i gave for accidents is MUCH higher. The number of children killed by guns is mostly due to accidents.

And - if you DID disagree with the number for that age of children then you could have given ones you felt correct - INSTEAD you ADDED 6 years and included suicides.  So  if you're telling the truth and that's the problem - why didn't you just give the number for mass killings?

And the simple reaosn is you're a lying sack of shit.  When i called you on your bullshit THEN suddenly you come up with this.

FACT -  more kids are killed by pools OR car accidents than  by guns - a fact you've been unable to argue against.

BUT - YOU insist that people who guns are uncaring parents becasue they must love their guns more than kids - but claim that's not true for parents who own OTHER things that kill MORE kids.

Nevertheless,

You tried to use the number of kids who either killed themselves or each other as relevant to a discussion on gun control as a way of dealing with the mass murder of children at mass shootings.  It's on record.  You can dodge and duck as much as you like, but it's right there, a few posts back.

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No they're not - ban pools.  Done. Poof.  Nobody NEEDS a pool. Totally avoidable. Are you saying you love pools more than children?

And there we see the hypocrisy of the left. You've got no problem with the death of children provided the cause of death is something you approve of.

And you wonder why nobody is interested in giving even an inch to your kind on the gun control front.

Finally we're coming close to agreement.  Banning guns is extreme, but if you can get enough support for the idea, I'm in!

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Already proven several times over in great detail.  See - this is why everyone thinks you're a liar.  You KNOW the answer,  yet you pretend not to. You can't tell the truth to save your life,

No , you can't answer so you have to resort to calling people liars. Really quite pathetic.

Doubling the provinces output would require 10 more Site C's. Where you going to put them?

Edited October 29, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Nevertheless

Nevertheless the numbers i gave were perfectly fine to demonstrate the point, which is why you didn't complain about what they were, you tried to substitute something different and claim that somehow that was a 'discrepancy'.

In short, as soon as you realized i was correct you desperately tried to change the channel, Which is what you're doing again.

And what we've seen here today is that you don't give a crap about children or anyone else dying, you will say ANYTHING to try to justify your hatred and bigotry of gun owners.

Quote

Finally we're coming close to agreement.  Banning guns is extreme, but if you can get enough support for the idea, I'm in!

On the contrary - i can get enough support to get rid of some of Canada's uselss gun laws, a lot of it's useless gun bans, and in the states gun owners have enough support to prevent the dems from  acting on their hatred and bigotry.

So no, we won't be banning any more guns   Even trudeau knew better, putting the 'gun ban' off till a week after the next election date.

But that's GREAT news for you - because we both know that you care more about having it to virtue signal about than you do about deaths or injuries or the like

But thanks for admitting you support banning all guns. It's about time the left stopped pretending otherwise.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No , you can't answer

Already did.  And we both know it.  You looked so stupid in that thread that other people joined to laugh at you.

So we both know what kind of person you are.  What we DON'T know is why so many on the left prefer lies to facts?  I mean like i said you know you're not telling the truth -  why?  We see it from SO many on the left who just don't care what the facts are. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nevertheless the numbers i gave were perfectly fine to demonstrate the point, which is why you didn't complain about what they were, you tried to substitute something different and claim that somehow that was a 'discrepancy'.

In short, as soon as you realized i was correct you desperately tried to change the channel, Which is what you're doing again.

And what we've seen here today is that you don't give a crap about children or anyone else dying, you will say ANYTHING to try to justify your hatred and bigotry of gun owners.

On the contrary - i can get enough support to get rid of some of Canada's uselss gun laws, a lot of it's useless gun bans, and in the states gun owners have enough support to prevent the dems from  acting on their hatred and bigotry.

So no, we won't be banning any more guns   Even trudeau knew better, putting the 'gun ban' off till a week after the next election date.

But that's GREAT news for you - because we both know that you care more about having it to virtue signal about than you do about deaths or injuries or the like

But thanks for admitting you support banning all guns. It's about time the left stopped pretending otherwise.

Just make sure you keep away from anything breakable.

 

[Aristides]

The trouble with extremists is there is no middle ground. Mention sensible gun controls and you are accused of banning all guns. It's just an avoidance mechanism. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Just make sure you keep away from anything breakable.

 

Like your ego, which shatters so badly people get hit by the shrapnel every time you realize you're wrong?

It's ok - my skin's pretty thick and watching you twist and turn is always funny

 Bottom line is as i've shown parents don't love guns more than their kids, and the left is hate filled and hoplophobc and can't be reasoned with, which is why no laws will change in the states.

Thanks for playing  

[Aristides]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Already did.  And we both know it.  You looked so stupid in that thread that other people joined to laugh at you.

So we both know what kind of person you are.  What we DON'T know is why so many on the left prefer lies to facts?  I mean like i said you know you're not telling the truth -  why?  We see it from SO many on the left who just don't care what the facts are. 

No you didn't. Where are you going to put the equivalent of ten Site C's? You can't answer so you accuse people of lying. Pathetic.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The trouble with extremists is there is no middle ground. Mention sensible gun controls and you are accused of banning all guns. It's just an avoidance mechanism. 

Banning all guns IS what the left wing consideres 'sensible gun laws'.

None of their other suggestions are very sensible either.  And they always start out claiming that gun owners are terrible evil people who revel in gun crime just like the headline here (and many of the posters) suggests.

Sorry - the extremists here are the woke left.  If the right thought for a moment that if they agreed to new gun control that it would stop there it would be fine but people like you will never stop there.

Hell man - you couldn't even be honest about a conversation about dams. How on earth would anyone trust you with anything important or believe  a word you said after that?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

No you didn't.

Of course i did  and we both know it   Thats just the kind of scum you are.

but lets bring in a neutral third party if he's around, he can verify, Hey @Nationalist , do you remember that thread where Aristides tried to claim that it wasn't possible to build another dam anywhere in bc and that it requires hundreds of miles behind a dam to build one despite the fact site c is only a few dozen miles down stream of the current one?

[Aristides]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Banning all guns IS what the left wing consideres 'sensible gun laws'.

None of their other suggestions are very sensible either.  And they always start out claiming that gun owners are terrible evil people who revel in gun crime just like the headline here (and many of the posters) suggests.

Sorry - the extremists here are the woke left.  If the right thought for a moment that if they agreed to new gun control that it would stop there it would be fine but people like you will never stop there.

Hell man - you couldn't even be honest about a conversation about dams. How on earth would anyone trust you with anything important or believe  a word you said after that?

No they don't. Personally I don't agree with JT's latest changes, I think our existing laws were a good compromise between ownership and public safety. As much as I don't particularly like PP, I hope he drops the latest changes if he becomes PM. Everything is reduced to right and left for you, it avoids you having to think for yourself.

You can't explain where you are going to put those dams so you call me a liar. Just a sad sack.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

No they don't. Personally I don't agree with JT's latest changes, I think our existing laws were a good compromise between ownership and public safety. As much as I don't particularly like PP, I hope he drops the latest changes if he becomes PM. Everything is reduced to right and left for you, it avoids you having to think for yourself.

 

Don't believe you.  Sorry - but you're so frequently dishonest in what you say that it's impossible to give credence to that.

However - regardless of hwo you might feel one way or another that absolutely is the game of the left wing by  and large in the states and largely in canada.  They  are aware that there's so many hunters that they can't get away with just saying it outright - but they add more and more to the list of 'military' guns all the time usually without even knowing what hte 'shoulder thing that goes up' is.

Again - a quick look at this thread shows the mentality,  The OP is filled with hatred towards gun owners and his politics is more important to him than the loss of life.  We've got bcsapper insisting that people who own guns love their guns more than their children and then making obviously 1diotic and convoluted attempts to try to dance around that belief.  We've got robodolt agreeing that many gun owners AND the manufacturers of guns celebrate this kind of shooting.

And they're actually pretty tame for the left.

There simply can't be a 'rational' discussion about it. The hatred prevents any chance of it.

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Don't believe you.  Sorry - but you're so frequently dishonest in what you say that it's impossible to give credence to that.

However - regardless of hwo you might feel one way or another that absolutely is the game of the left wing by  and large in the states and largely in canada.  They  are aware that there's so many hunters that they can't get away with just saying it outright - but they add more and more to the list of 'military' guns all the time usually without even knowing what hte 'shoulder thing that goes up' is.

Again - a quick look at this thread shows the mentality,  The OP is filled with hatred towards gun owners and his politics is more important to him than the loss of life.  We've got bcsapper insisting that people who own guns love their guns more than their children and then making obviously 1diotic and convoluted attempts to try to dance around that belief.  We've got robodolt agreeing that many gun owners AND the manufacturers of guns celebrate this kind of shooting.

And they're actually pretty tame for the left.

There simply can't be a 'rational' discussion about it. The hatred prevents any chance of it.

There you go again, you can't have a discussion without calling someone a liar. The idea that there could be a middle  ground is totally foreign to you. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

There you go again, you can't have a discussion without calling someone a liar. The idea that there could be a middle  ground is totally foreign to you. 

You very literally are a liar,  proven numerous times over. So when you make a statement that's completely unverifiable, you have to expect people are going to question it. You can't blame others for that.

And i notice you couldn't address any of the other points, which suggests you know they're correct and all you could manage was to pretend to be 'offended' instead.

 So - sounds like we're done here.  As noted there's no chance that people will trust the dems or the left given their behavior and without that there's no chance of meaningful changes to the laws.

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You very literally are a liar,  proven numerous times over. So when you make a statement that's completely unverifiable, you have to expect people are going to question it. You can't blame others for that.

And i notice you couldn't address any of the other points, which suggests you know they're correct and all you could manage was to pretend to be 'offended' instead.

 So - sounds like we're done here.  As noted there's no chance that people will trust the dems or the left given their behavior and without that there's no chance of meaningful changes to the laws.

Just can't stop yourself. You are living proof that tribalism has replaced logic and civil discourse. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Just can't stop yourself. You are living proof that tribalism has replaced logic and civil discourse. 

No, it's not tribalism. It's not right or left its not echo chambers, its not any of that.

When you are a dishonest person - when you are the kind of person you choose to be - then others will not trust you. If you word means nothing to you, then your opinion means nothing to others. It has been this way since the dawn of man. If you wish to be respected you must conduct yourself in a respectable fashion. You choose not to.

That's not me 'not helping myself'.  Thats me recognizing what you are and not having any respect for you, and that's what ALL humans will be like with you if you behave that way with them.

Sorry kiddo. Your parents should have taught you the value of honesty and integrity and they clearly did not. You can't blame that on me or anyone else.

[Aristides]

Good night. I'm done with your projecting yourself on to me.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Good night. I'm done with your projecting yourself on to me.

Sure kid

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I mean look at you - you're THRILLED!!! You're first action is to rush and make your political statement - all a-tingle that you get to virtue signal about evil republicans and guns!!!!

You sure as crap didn't express remorse for the people.

So - nothing false in my statement.  Sorry that pointing out the truth bothers you so much tho

Total BS. You are so shamelessly dishonest it’s disgusting. Just because someone expresses an opinion on a tragedy doesn’t mean they’re “thrilled”. Were conservatives thrilled about the Hamas massacre?  By your logic they must be 

 

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You sure as crap didn't express remorse for the people

Neither did you. Must mean you’re thrilled. 
 

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you're back to blaming others for your own horrible behavior.   "I celebrated the death of dozens of people because it suited my political position but it's the republican's fault because israel'. "   Gotcha.

Wow such pathetic dishonesty from you. Nothing was celebrated and nothing horrible. Not

one word in my post suggests im happy or celebrating. You can lie all you want and falsely claim with zero evidence how I feel  so let’s both play your 1diotic game “you’re THRILLED people got killed, it’s obvious from the way you couldn’t wait to attack people who call for fun control!”

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Of course i did  and we both know it   Thats just the kind of scum you are.

but lets bring in a neutral third party if he's around, he can verify, Hey @Nationalist , do you remember that thread where Aristides tried to claim that it wasn't possible to build another dam anywhere in bc and that it requires hundreds of miles behind a dam to build one despite the fact site c is only a few dozen miles down stream of the current one?

Ya I do remember him yakin' away about too many dams.

As I see it, the biggest problem these Libbies have, is that their agenda is completely irrational. Thus, in order to justify it all, they must warp reality...make lies of omission...and outright lie. It forces them to saddle-up with people and nations that are not worthy of our support. Forces them to impose insanity and suffering on people, including themselves. But to a Libbie...the agenda is everything.

What they refuse to admit...or even acknowledge...is that the goals of their agenda are completely unattainable.