So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings.

[CHNOPS]

Originally Posted by BotanyBoy

LOL and what the fuck do you expect that to do with a few hundred million modern guns circulating the population, stashed all over the fucking place like little pots of gold or something??

Cat is out of the bag you fucking retard...lol

awesome post bro you should post more lol mgm hahah pot rulez!!!!!

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by BotanyBoy

LOL and what the fuck do you expect that to do with a few hundred million modern guns circulating the population, stashed all over the fucking place like little pots of gold or something??

Cat is out of the bag you fucking retard...lol

Seanh is establishing his preeminence in the field of wishful thinking and intellectual brinkmanship.

[kbate]

Originally Posted by SeanH

I see Vette and his bottom don't get it. OK, here's how it works. The right has been propounding a theory that more guns will prevent nutjobs shooters. It only takes ONE example of that not being the case to falsify the theory. Just one. Which I did in the OP.

That is not logical nor is it true.

You cannot begin your debate with a lie and nobody has ever claimed more guns will prevent 100% of shootings.

by your own logic, one example of a nutjob shooter being stopped by a firearm is adequate to entirely validate the theory that more guns is the answer to gun violence.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by kbate

That is not logical nor is it true.

You cannot begin your debate with a lie and nobody has ever claimed more guns will prevent 100% of shootings.

by your own logic, one example of a nutjob shooter being stopped by a firearm is adequate to entirely validate the theory that more guns is the answer to gun violence.

Wayne LaPierre pretty much did.

[kbate]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Wayne LaPierre pretty much did.

In one post, you are now down to 'pretty much' instead of "One Example proves".

Shall we go for another post?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by kbate

In one post, you are now down to 'pretty much' instead of "One Example proves".

Shall we go for another post?

Hardly. Our tiny penised RWCJ have been telling us for weeks that the way to stop school shootings is to arm teachers or employ armed guards on school premises. It only takes one photon going through the wrong slit to fuck up the particle theory of light.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Hardly. Our tiny penised RWCJ have been telling us for weeks that the way to stop school shootings is to arm teachers or employ armed guards on school premises. It only takes one photon going through the wrong slit to fuck up the particle theory of light.

You're practically begging to die tired.

Or get tossed.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

You're practically begging to die tired.

Or get tossed.

Dying tired is a possibility. And, unlike Vettebigot, I prefer anyone tossing me to not have a penis.

[RobDownSouth]

Originally Posted by kbate

In one post, you are now down to 'pretty much' instead of "One Example proves".

Shall we go for another post?

I've got an idea, instead of your usual smug, bitchy, above-the-fray meta-commentary, why not propose your own solution to gun violence in America?

It would be somewhat refreshing to see you offer a solution to a problem for a change.

[kbate]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Hardly. Our tiny penised RWCJ have been telling us for weeks that the way to stop school shootings is to arm teachers or employ armed guards on school premises. It only takes one photon going through the wrong slit to fuck up the particle theory of light.

Just as it only takes one example of it working to prove it works.

Your example (the one proof) where a man shoots his wife in a courthouse and then in a shootout with guards is killed (or kills himself) and an innocent (or not so) is apparently hit in the crossfire (or also killed with intent). Is of insufficient strength to prove anything.

It would appear that the armed guards probably stopped this man from committing a mass killing and most definitely prevented him from casually walking up to each potential victim and shooting them.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by kbate

Just as it only takes one example of it working to prove it works.

.

Utterly wrong. The photon can go through the bottom slit a billion times and it doesn't prove the theory. It only has to go through the top slit once to falsify it.

[John Doe]

The argument as I understand it is that it would minimize the casualties as compared to shootings in "gun-free" zones. I don't recall anyone claiming that it would prevent shootings entirely.

Only three dead is better than thirty dead.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Wayne LaPierre pretty much did.

No he didn't. Not "pretty much" or otherwise.

[kbate]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Utterly wrong. The photon can go through the bottom slit a billion times and it doesn't prove the theory. It only has to go through the top slit once to falsify it.

As I said earlier, you cannot begin the debate on a lie and nobody has stated "100% of shootings" . . . except you in your theory, "armed guards must stop 100% of shootings or armed guards are useless".


Protons don't exist anyway.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth

I've got an idea, instead of your usual smug, bitchy, above-the-fray meta-commentary, why not propose your own solution to gun violence in America?

It would be somewhat refreshing to see you offer a solution to a problem for a change.

Since the biggest percentage of gun violence occurs between the ages of 15-25, deny gun purchases to any citizen under the age of 25, with the military and police exempted. Hey you asked for a solution. Let the lawyers and the Congress figure it out.

[CHNOPS]

Originally Posted by John Doe

The argument as I understand it is that it would minimize the casualties as compared to shootings in "gun-free" zones. I don't recall anyone claiming that it would prevent shootings entirely.

Only three dead is better than thirty dead.

This is essentially an economic argument. To have a shot (no pun) at validity, it has to account for the cost of putting many more guns in circulation, rather than just the benefit.

For example: thirty dead at once is better than 50 dead across 1000 households/additional opportunities.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Hardly. Our tiny penised RWCJ have been telling us for weeks that the way to stop school shootings is to arm teachers or employ armed guards on school premises.

Good thing the huge brained Lefties with their BRILLIANT "Ideas"



are working like fucking wonders aren't they?



Look how well they iz working!!






Obviously this is the path to success and the left has things totally under control...just keep beating that tribal drum and pointing that finger Sean...you become more Busybody by the fucking hour.

[Byron In Exile]

I knew Sean was dumb, but this takes the cake.

[RobDownSouth]

Originally Posted by Byron In Exile

I knew Sean was dumb, but this takes the cake.

Why not tell us everything you know? We'll wait.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth

Why not tell us everything you know? We'll wait.

Ask him about coronal mass ejections that NEVER EVER HAPPEN. Apart from when they do.

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by shoulderblade

Quite odd really as a case of "meaning drift" in a word especially when it contains "deci" a clear indicator of ten/tenth. Perhaps we underestimate the human enthusiasim for destruction.

Sorry for the interruption.
Now back to the regularly scheduled thread.

*snerk*
Good one.
Thanks for the laugh!

[jeninflorida]

clearly the solution is to follow Chicago and create the tightest gun control ever as Chicago has been highly successful with their gun control.






and by gun control, I mean by taking legal gun's away from tax paying citizens

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

Just a side note;
Decimate is to reduce by one tenth. The origin is Roman, who would use the process of decimation to discipline a legion, with one in ten soldiers being selected by lot to be clubbed to death by their comrades.
WMD's are intended to devastate an enemy population/armed force.

I know the two terms are commonly used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing.

Sorry for the interruption.
Now back to the regularly scheduled thread.

Fascinating. I did not know that. I may continue to use the two words interchangeably, but not nearly so often and not without, thanks to you, a twinge of discomfort.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan

Perhaps that's why courts seem to have fewer violent shootings than schools do. That's an anecdotal impression on my part and may not be true, but what if it is? It would seem to suggest that a potentially dangerous environment jammed packed with legal adversaries including violent criminals could be reasonably secured and safely mitigated for the most part through a number of security procedures including armed guards in sufficient numbers.

But if we can agree that even those efforts (and any others you could think of) would not provide a 100% guarantee against gun violence, the question remains, what would?

Within the Constitutional guarantee of an individual right to "keep and bear arms," what is the most effective legal way to prevent the criminal use of firearms?

I think you might be on to something. If we adopted all of the procedures & personnel that the courts have at every school in the country there might be fewer school shootings.

No one in America has a right to own a gun. Gun ownership is a privilege.

[eyer]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

No one in America has a right to own a gun. Gun ownership is a privilege.

Dorothy & Toto called...

...they'd like to know if you're free to travel next week.