Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
12 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Literally a fake quote, you stunned Boomer c*nts will believe anything.

 

1691436805259?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=6FQO

Posted
10 minutes ago, Legato said:

1691436805259?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=6FQO

*laughs in Charles Whitman*

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

*laughs in Charles Whitman*

Although Whitman's autopsy revealed a pecan-sized tumor in the white matter above his amygdala, the tumor was not connected to any sensory nerves. Nonetheless, some experts believe this tumor may have contributed to the violent impulses which Whitman had been exhibiting for several years prior to the massacre.[3]: 54 [5]

 

So the person not the gun.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Legato said:

Although Whitman's autopsy revealed a pecan-sized tumor in the white matter above his amygdala, the tumor was not connected to any sensory nerves. Nonetheless, some experts believe this tumor may have contributed to the violent impulses which Whitman had been exhibiting for several years prior to the massacre.[3]: 54 [5]

So the person not the gun.

He didn't kill 17 people and wound 31 more with his tumor.

 

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
48 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

He didn't kill 17 people and wound 31 more with his tumor.

 

Not with but as a result of. What part of "violent impulses" do you not understand? Oh now I see, you thought the rifle had violent impulses.

Posted
1 minute ago, Legato said:

Not with but as a result of. What part of "violent impulses" do you not understand? Oh now I see, you thought the rifle had violent impulses.

It always cracks me up that you people acknowledge there are violent and disturbed people out there and also think they should be able to have basically unfettered access to firearms.

 

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

He didn't kill 17 people and wound 31 more with his tumor.

 

Yeah. He did. 

That's why he killed people. The tool is irrelevant. They'd be just as dead if he'd used a knife or a truck or a bomb or gasoline or whatever 

So the only common denominator is the tumor and the person.  Take THAT away - no killings. 

It's not the tool. 

Also you're the tool :) 

 

42 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

It always cracks me up that you people acknowledge there are violent and disturbed people out there and also think they should be able to have basically unfettered access to firearms.

 

It always cracks me up that of the two things you just mentioned you think firearms are the problem

Posted
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

It always cracks me up that you people acknowledge there are violent and disturbed people out there and also think they should be able to have basically unfettered access to firearms.

 

Still waiting for you to stop being a coward. Tell us what it is you support. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
Just now, impartialobserver said:

Banning all guns, in theory, would cut down on the number of school shootings.

But increase the number of school stabbings, burnings, chokings etc.   

If we care about the amount of death, then that's one thing. If we ONLY care about murders involving GUNS and all other murders are fine then sure, it may possibly help. 

Posted
1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

But increase the number of school stabbings, burnings, chokings etc.   

If we care about the amount of death, then that's one thing. If we ONLY care about murders involving GUNS and all other murders are fine then sure, it may possibly help. 

Hence why I added the word, "shootings". 

Like it or not, folks view stabbings different from shootings. Shootings are inherently less personal. Walk into a room, not know any of them, but still open fire and kill some or all of them. It speaks to a lack of control. Where as a stabbing, you have to be at most 12 inches away and most times someone has to stab the victim multiple times. The victim may have little to no control over the outcome depending on the situation but they can only stab one person at a time. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Hence why I added the word, "shootings". 

Like it or not, folks view stabbings different from shootings. 

well as the saying goes there should be a special place in hell reserved for anyone who shows up to heaven with that kind of thinking. 

It would be complete hypocrisy to say that a person dying by a knife or being run over by a truck or burned to death or poisoned is somehow less tragic than one dying by a gun.  I really can't help people who are that far gone, their civilization is collapsing anyway. 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah. He did. 

That's why he killed people. The tool is irrelevant. They'd be just as dead if he'd used a knife or a truck or a bomb or gasoline or whatever 

So the only common denominator is the tumor and the person.  Take THAT away - no killings. 

It's not the tool. 

Also you're the tool :) 

I'm not sure he would have hurt anyone with a knife from up in the tower and it wouldn't have been pretty hard to get a truck up there.  Seriously if it's just as easy to kill a large number of people with any of the other methods you list, why are they so much less common than guns? It's because guns are the perfect combination of cheap, easy to use and highly effective compared to everything else.

Quote

It always cracks me up that of the two things you just mentioned you think firearms are the problem

In the hands of psychopaths with violent tendencies they are. Without the means, these people are just disturbed individuals. And of course I'll point out again that you have absolutely no solutions for reducing mass killings, gun crime, or suicides; none at all.

Quote

But increase the number of school stabbings, burnings, chokings etc.   

If we care about the amount of death, then that's one thing. If we ONLY care about murders involving GUNS and all other murders are fine then sure, it may possibly help. 

Forcing would-be killers to resort to far less lethal means would quite obviously reduce the amount of deaths, you utter m0r0n. The Sandy hook shooter killed 27 people in five minutes; what do you think the death toll would have been if he was trying to commit a mass-choking attack?

4 hours ago, User said:

Still waiting for you to stop being a coward. Tell us what it is you support. 

Lol you've never once bothered to even ask me you f*cking loser.

Edited by Black Dog

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
39 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Lol you've never once bothered to even ask me you f*cking loser.

Still being a coward. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
10 hours ago, User said:

Still being a coward. 

I'll post my gun control plan when you share your people control plan, loser.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
10 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I'll post my gun control plan when you share your people control plan, loser.

I did. That is when you said you would rather have the good guys with guns wait outside while the little kids were bleeding to death inside. 

Don't want a firefight. Just let the bad guy kill as many as he wants to. 

That is your plan. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, User said:

I did.

LOl you want SROs, which more than half of schools in the U.S. already have and for which there's no evidence they reduce mass shootings, and armed teachers, which is such a incredibly stupid idea it could only come from someone like you who who jacks off to images of dead kids. Nothing about how to manage mental health (which you claim is the real problem) or keeping psychopaths from arming themselves in the first place. 

Quote

That is when you said you would rather have the good guys with guns wait outside while the little kids were bleeding to death inside. 

lol seriously this such a pathetic lie that it's clear you know you've been well and truly beaten here.

Edited by Black Dog

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

there's no evidence they reduce mass shootings

Yeah, sure, if you ignore the evidence. 

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

lol seriously this such a pathetic lie that it's clear you know you've been well and truly beaten here.

Not a lie. You said you were more fearful of the shootouts stopping a bad guy. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah, sure, if you ignore the evidence. 

You haven't given any evidence to prove that.

Quote

Not a lie. You said you were more fearful of the shootouts stopping a bad guy. 

That's also a lie. Quote me or STFU forever, f*cko.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,819
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...