Active shooter thread

[henrygandorf 29218]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I think we read this differently. There’s an argument to be made about the popularity or need of some types of arms.  There are 10’s of millions of people that don’t care for an AR, but do not oppose someone’s right to have a 9mm in their bedside safe.   So, no, I do not believe you are likely to rid of all firearms anytime soon, if ever. 

so do you see a need for those who keep guns in their bedside safe (who doesn't have a bedside safe amirite?) to take guns off their property? 

if yes, please explain.

[Willfully Horn 8204]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I think we read this differently. There’s an argument to be made about the popularity or need of some types of arms.  There are 10’s of millions of people that don’t care for an AR, but do not oppose someone’s right to have a 9mm in their bedside safe.   So, no, I do not believe you are likely to rid of all firearms anytime soon, if ever. 
 

I’m not uncomfortable with any of it, other than the actual killing.  I have been more so in the past, but I look at the year over year trend in firearm sales for first time buyers, see the demographics, and it looks a lot different than this board would prefer.  I can afford the additional fees, taxes, licensing, insurance, whatever comes in the future. You have to make the decision if it’s important to you that the people who can’t, should have the right to defend themselves. 

I reject the idea that self defense requires the ability to shoot three plus times before reloading. So, my shotgun serves my needs. I have no issue asking the same of others.
 

If stopping the killing were important enough to you, you’d vote to try and solve the problem. Which is, of course, the easy availability of guns due to sheer volume.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5164]

On 1/24/2023 at 10:13 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Ever seen a cop get shot by someone in a car they pulled over on the road? That cop shouldn’t be allowed to carry?

Yes.  And those cops were all carrying guns.  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Willfully Horn 8204]

21 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

C’mon Jack. 

You’re right. My sentence was flawed. It should have ended: “… I will do whatever it takes to solve the problem.”

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

8 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yes.  And those cops were all carrying guns.  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point is they needed them to respond to a genuine threat. Or are insinuating that if the cops weren’t carrying guns then the drivers or passengers in the stopped cars wouldn’t have shot at them?

Nah, you can’t possibly be suggesting that. That would be asinine. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

31 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so do you see a need for those who keep guns in their bedside safe (who doesn't have a bedside safe amirite?) to take guns off their property? 

if yes, please explain.

Absolutely. I would posit that crimes committed with firearms whilst to and from skeet and trap ranges are next to Zero, if not zero.  So that doesn’t seem to be an issue. I would expect the exact same result with folks traveling to and from their hunting properties.  In other words, there is no violence or danger in the events. They are a non-issue. 
 

28 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I reject the idea that self defense requires the ability to shoot three plus times before reloading. So, my shotgun serves my needs. I have no issue asking the same of others.

So, as long as the firearm is more powerful, fires exponentially more projectiles (while proven more deadly for inhabitants, by the way), and works for you, you are good for it.  Would you like to hear my list of things that I prefer, so should work just fine for you?   And the poor woman who just wants to feel safe, hope she never has to pull for it needs to wield a shotgun?  I’m a big proponent of safe storage. You now have gone from small, inexpensive, biometric safes to very large, very expensive safes.   Do you believe the poor should have the same right to defend themselves that you exercise?  
 

30 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

If stopping the killing were important enough to you, you’d vote to try and solve the problem.

Maybe we should all vote on just issues, instead of parties.  

[henrygandorf 29218]

i think it's pretty obvious that the reason cops don't carry guns in certain countries is because people aren't legally allowed to carry guns in those countries.

i would love for cops not to carry guns in america or need to carry guns in america but i agree that will not happen while americans can walk around carrying weapons, whether perfectly trained and licensed or suffering from mental illness and really mad at someone.

[henrygandorf 29218]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Absolutely. I would posit that crimes committed with firearms whilst to and from skeet and trap ranges are next to Zero, if not zero.  So that doesn’t seem to be an issue. I would expect the exact same result with folks traveling to and from their hunting properties.  In other words, there is no violence or danger in the events. They are a non-issue. 

so you're saying the only reason to have weapons out of the home is for practicing, gaming (skeet, etc), or hunting, correct?  so would you be ok with a law saying those weapons need to be stored/registered with said lease or range, and when moved between them legally, must be non-loaded?

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so you're saying the only reason to have weapons out of the home is for practicing, gaming (skeet, etc), or hunting, correct?  so would you be ok with a law saying those weapons need to be stored/registered with said lease or range, and when moved between them legally, must be non-loaded?

wait, wait, wait. that's approaching "well regulated" and we can't have that shit.

[fattyflattie 4640]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so you're saying the only reason to have weapons out of the home is for practicing, gaming (skeet, etc), or hunting, correct?  so would you be ok with a law saying those weapons need to be stored/registered with said lease or range, and when moved between them legally, must be non-loaded?

I have 3 properties I regularly hunt in TX, not including La, and if my tags will ever pull, western states. I shoot tournaments at 4 ranges around Houston area, regularly. You tell me how that works, I’ll listen.  

I understand your “gotcha”. Unfortunately the castle doctrine here doesn’t agree with you.  I don’t concealed carry, but I support your right to. I don’t care for or support open carry, I think it’s absolutely dumb af.  One should be able to defend themselves if they are attacked with lethal force. 

[henrygandorf 29218]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wait, wait, wait. that's approaching "well regulated" and we can't have that shit.

i'm willing to have a good faith conversation with someone who has a differing opinion about something. 

i just like to dig a little and see where the motivation comes from.  that's what writers do with characters and i am on deadline so i have to waste time here until it comes to me.

[henrygandorf 29218]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I have 3 properties I regularly hunt in TX, not including La, and if my tags will ever pull, western states. I shoot tournaments at 4 ranges around Houston area, regularly. You tell me how that works, I’ll listen.  

I understand your “gotcha”. Unfortunately the castle doctrine here doesn’t agree with you.  I don’t concealed carry, but I support your right to. I don’t care for or support open carry, I think it’s absolutely dumb af.  One should be able to defend themselves if they are attacked with lethal force. 

i don't have a gotcha.  there are a variety of pro-gun people for a variety of reasons.  i am not a pro-gun person.  i do not have a rational stance on guns.  i have repeated so dozens of times on this thread.  i am trying to figure out where the line is, and you do that through personal interaction.  i am not talking about present-day laws or doctrines or even principles.  i'm just having a conversation.

as for "how that works", i'm asking if you would be ok with a law that states that your "out of the house" guns (range, hunting, skeet) must be registered or affiliated with one or multiple properties and must live on one of those affiliated properties.  when it is being transported, it must be not loaded.  it doesn't seem like a very hard law to enforce.

in louisiana you have to register with your id in order to access internet porn, so i'm assuming anything is possible in the more oppressive states.

[C-Man 27685]

2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

That story DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! The 6-year-old shooter has such bad disability/behavioral issue that he's fucking shadowed by one parent or the other EVERY SINGLE DAY (not that week, though) and admin has been advised he has a gun on three occasions and still nothing was done until the teacher is shot in the fucking chest with said firearm????

[Sawbonz 28081]

2 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Church.  Then lots of drinking and sinning.

Then?

[Biff Tannen 46061]

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That story DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! The 6-year-old shooter has such bad disability/behavioral issue that he's fucking shadowed by one parent or the other EVERY SINGLE DAY (not that week, though) and admin has been advised he has a gun on three occasions and still nothing was done until the teacher is shot in the fucking chest with said firearm????

[Satchel 6982]

Has anybody ever been able to explain why the “well regulated militia” phrase was included in 2nd amendment if it so irrelevant as to be ignored?

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692]

Just now, Satchel said:

Has anybody ever been able to explain why the “well regulated militia” phrase was included in 2nd amendment if it so irrelevant as to be ignored?

Scalia'd 

[fattyflattie 4640]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't have a gotcha.  there are a variety of pro-gun people for a variety of reasons.  i am not a pro-gun person.  i do not have a rational stance on guns.  i have repeated so dozens of times on this thread.  i am trying to figure out where the line is, and you do that through personal interaction.  i am not talking about present-day laws or doctrines or even principles.  i'm just having a conversation.

as for "how that works", i'm asking if you would be ok with a law that states that your "out of the house" guns (range, hunting, skeet) must be registered or affiliated with one or multiple properties and must live on one of those affiliated properties.  when it is being transported, it must be not loaded.  it doesn't seem like a very hard law to enforce.

in louisiana you have to register with your id in order to access internet porn, so i'm assuming anything is possible in the more oppressive states.

Cool. I’ve stated my detailed thoughts on the subject dozens of times, no one cares to rehash it. There’s lots of steps we can take to curb some violence. But we are Americans, it’s all or nothing it seems. 

[hayden_horn 11401]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Cool. I’ve stated my detailed thoughts on the subject dozens of times, no one cares to rehash it. There’s lots of steps we can take to curb some violence. But we are Americans, it’s all or nothing it seems. 

it's not all or nothing, nor is that what gandorf is insinuating.

matter of fact, most of us recognize it's not all or nothing. we have a half dozen firearms in this household. my son is very much into shooting. 

but that doesn't mean we must have them in our household if that means hundreds of americans die every year in shootings. i'd give those guns up right fucking now if it meant uvalde didn't happen or any of the other terrible shootings that are largely committed by legal firearms in this country.

there's a point, when something legal is very bad for us, we should maybe think about regulating it. leaded gas? lead in paint? lead pipes? lead at all? we got rid of it because it's very bad for us to ingest lead. while that seems like a lead pun, it's not intended as such. but it was a case of us looking critically at a thing that was bad for us and said to us "hey, us, let's not do that bad thing anymore, it's bad for us" and we stopped.

that's going to happen with guns, permanently and without your contribution if this shit continues. 

gun owners need to be out front owning this topic and this conversation and this narrative, because gun safety is the fucking cornerstone of responsible gun ownership.

why are they not?

[hayden_horn 11401]

15 hours ago, Satchel said:

Now is the time for us to politicize the epidemic of gun violence.

when is?

in your estimation, when should the poilitical conversation about the epidemic of gun violence begin?

[Willfully Horn 8204]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

So, as long as the firearm is more powerful, fires exponentially more projectiles (while proven more deadly for inhabitants, by the way), and works for you, you are good for it.  Would you like to hear my list of things that I prefer, so should work just fine for you?   And the poor woman who just wants to feel safe, hope she never has to pull for it needs to wield a shotgun?  I’m a big proponent of safe storage. You now have gone from small, inexpensive, biometric safes to very large, very expensive safes.   Do you believe the poor should have the same right to defend themselves that you exercise?  

Three round capacity. Or less, of course. As for space, and size, and gun safe deflections:

[softlynow 1893]

31 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

when is?

in your estimation, when should the poilitical conversation about the epidemic of gun violence begin?

He said now. As in now now.

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The point is they needed them to respond to a genuine threat. Or are insinuating that if the cops weren’t carrying guns then the drivers or passengers in the stopped cars wouldn’t have shot at them?

Nah, you can’t possibly be suggesting that. That would be asinine. 

But I bet being pulled over for "driving while black" would plummet.  

Give 'em a taser and tell them to have fun.  If they don't like it, they can go sell insurance in Katy.   

 

[fattyflattie 4640]

28 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

gun owners need to be out front owning this topic and this conversation and this narrative, because gun safety is the fucking cornerstone of responsible gun ownership.

why are they not?

They are.  And firearms are regulated, heavily so.  And I believe you know that.  You want further regulation, and that's where the discussion begins.  I put the person who thinks we shouldn't have any access in the same camp as the person who feels we should have unlimited access.  The literal definition of opposite ends of a spectrum.  

 

28 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

that's going to happen with guns, permanently and without your contribution if this shit continues. 

No, it wont. Not in my children's lifetimes.  But I fear it would lead to a very, very bloody period in our history, if it ever did.  

 

9 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Three round capacity. Or less, of course. As for space, and size, and gun safe deflections:

Three rounds our less?  So any bench rifle ever built?  My brothers .50 Serbu?  Need to install plugs like we're shooting dove?

[henrygandorf 29218]

38 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Cool. I’ve stated my detailed thoughts on the subject dozens of times, no one cares to rehash it. There’s lots of steps we can take to curb some violence. But we are Americans, it’s all or nothing it seems. 

 

21 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's not all or nothing, nor is that what gandorf is insinuating.

yeah, no.  "all or nothing" is the equivalent of "they're coming to take your guns".  it's a bogeyman and it's absolutely intentional.

you (fatty) started out this conversation by pointing out to me that there are millions of gun owners of all shapes and sizes across all divides.  i agree with that.  i assume you mentioned it so that this would not devolve into a partisan discussion/argument, which it hasn't.  i think it was also positioned in front of me to let me know that gun ownership is a popular if not completely populist notion.  one that if reversed would anger millions of people on both sides of the aisle.

so i'm looking for another divide, something more realistic.  if tens of millions of people feel like they need to have guns, regardless of their reasoning, then i'm curious to know where gun owners stand on certain regulations and restrictions.  nobody says, "i want to have my guns because i might get really mad at somebody", at least not out loud.

if people want guns for self-defense/home defense, then would those people be ok with restricting that/those firearms to the home in question.  you sounded like you're ok with that.  if people want different guns for range/sport/hunting, and there were restrictions on where those guns were kept and how they were transported, i think plenty of people would be ok with that.

the point isn't to get rid of guns, the point is to get rid of gun violence.  the problem is that we've tried nothing and it doesn't seem to work, so maybe we should try something instead.  other countries had problems with gun violence, and they decided that getting rid of guns was the only solution, and those countries still exist.

so it's not all or nothing, it's measures that restrict who gets guns, where they're allowed to be carried, and how they're able to be used.  it also might have to do with the punishment for breaking these laws.  this doesn't really affect the mass shooters, because most of those people don't expect to live through the day.  but it does affect all other gun violence or regular violence that escalates into gun violence.  

gangs, hate-speech, mental illness - you can put them all into categories if you want.  but the one common element is the guns.  so if we as americans are unwilling to accept a gun ban - as you said, they are very popular - then what can be done?  you personally said you would be ok with some of these restrictions as i imagine a majority of gun owners would be as well.

doctors used to prescribe heroin and cocaine, people used to smoke on airplanes and drive as fast as they wanted without seatbelts.  you used to be able to have open containers in cars not very long ago.  evolution can be ugly, but it will happen.

[henrygandorf 29218]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I put the person who thinks we shouldn't have any access in the same camp as the person who feels we should have unlimited access.  The literal definition of opposite ends of a spectrum.

and this is a problem.  if the issue is gun violence (deaths and injuries from guns) then one of those ends solves the entire problem.  the other one doesn't.  they are not the same.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I engaged Fatty similarly earlier in this thread. I will commend him that at least he isn’t a coward like some other right wing people here that can’t even have a discussion. Having said that, it ended in somewhat of a cop out. I believe his stance was he will continue to vote for politicians that he knows wont support even his own ideas of gun control because politicians slip all kinds of other things into proposed bills. I think that frustrates every American, but that is the current system that we have to navigate. Fatty, please correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I will have to dig up the comment.

[fattyflattie 4640]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, no.  "all or nothing" is the equivalent of "they're coming to take your guns".  it's a bogeyman and it's absolutely intentional.

I don't believe that's your goal, even with your personal feelings on them.  But to try and keep it as non-political as we can, there is one side beholden to the NRA to that is for nothing, and there are (contrary to what people say here) bills continually floated by a few reps who we all know the names of, that are on the ALL side of the ledger.  To pretend that is not reality is not going to get us anywhere.  The rest of us lie somewhere in between. 

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think it was also positioned in front of me to let me know that gun ownership is a popular if not completely populist notion.  one that if reversed would anger millions of people on both sides of the aisle.

Correct.  I see folks constantly assume one side would give up their rights because of our endemic of gun violence.  I think they are vastly underestimating who owns, and more importantly, who has been recent first time owners and how those demographics actually look.  We aren't setting yearly sales records damn near year after year for no reason, and it's not all redneck hillbilly R's buying.  Quite the contrary, if you believe the data. 

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if people want guns for self-defense/home defense, then would those people be ok with restricting that/those firearms to the home in question.  you sounded like you're ok with that.  if people want different guns for range/sport/hunting, and there were restrictions on where those guns were kept and how they were transported, i think plenty of people would be ok with that.

You'll probably get an entire range of opinions on this. You want to talk about more restrictive classes, insurance, etc. to be able to travel with arms, lets discuss.  I'm sure a large swath of folks would be fine with it never leaving their safe, and them not having to do extra classes/insurance.  There's lots of movement and good discussion to be had in this space, I'm certain. 

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so it's not all or nothing, it's measures that restrict who gets guns, where they're allowed to be carried, and how they're able to be used.  it also might have to do with the punishment for breaking these laws.  this doesn't really affect the mass shooters, because most of those people don't expect to live through the day.  but it does affect all other gun violence or regular violence that escalates into gun violence.  

It absolutely has something to do with it.  I don't want to delve into the stiffer penalties don't deter discussion, but I believe it does, contrary to the studies.  At least to some degree.  Also, there's ALOT of folks who don't value their life.  It doesn't take long to look at where the gang shooting rack up in "mass shootings" (4+ people shot, not including shooter)

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

gangs, hate-speech, mental illness - you can put them all into categories if you want.  but the one common element is the guns.  so if we as americans are unwilling to accept a gun ban - as you said, they are very popular - then what can be done?  you personally said you would be ok with some of these restrictions as i imagine a majority of gun owners would be as well.

Certainly.  And there is absolute value in determining the difference between each, even if the result of the action is similar.  I'm not worried about gang violence, I largely purchased my way out of that,  but mental illness is everywhere.   I'm certain the majority of owners are willing to come to the table, too.  And it could easily start with loosening dumb fucking laws like our current NFA stamps for suppressors.  

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I engaged Fatty similarly earlier in this thread. I will commend him that at least he isn’t a coward like some other right wing people here that can’t even have a discussion. Having said that, it ended in somewhat of a cop out. I believe his stance was he will continue to vote for politicians that he knows wont support even his own ideas of gun control because politicians slip all kinds of other things into proposed bills. I think that frustrates every American, but that is the current system that we have to navigate. Fatty, please correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I will have to dig up the comment.

100%.  The pork was part of that discussion, but not at the root.  I just believe that's why it doesn't get done. 

The root is I can't fathom siding with the group that supports Feinstein, SJL, and Beto's version of firearm ownership in the US.  If those do not represent the true intention of the Democratic party, then I would suggest the party leaders tell them to stfu and sit in the corner, maybe take their bullhorn away.  But like it or not, those are the most vocal representatives of the Democratic party with regards to gun ownership, with Mr. Newsome coming in hot. So, on this issue, I'll have to stick with the shitheels currently peddling equally asinine shit across an entire host of issues.  

We often discuss how long it would take to get things done by breaking down individual issues and voting on them.  I find that unbelievably hard to believe.  And any type of progress, even in small samples is better than gridlock, or bridges to nowhere, etc.  That's not the system we have, or want, apparently.  I believe that system gets us all but the staunchest of fascists and progressives towards the middle.   But then what would we fight about, and what kind of needless free shit can we bring back to our constituents?

[Willfully Horn 8204]

44 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

to install plugs like we're shooting dove?

Want to address mass casualty shootings? Or, nah?

 

[jimmyjazz 46972]

What's the point of engaging fatty?  This has happened over and over.  There is no interest on his part to actually consider other viewpoints.  He's a fucking troll.  Stop.

[hayden_horn 11401]

47 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

They are.  And firearms are regulated, heavily so.  And I believe you know that.  You want further regulation, and that's where the discussion begins.  I put the person who thinks we shouldn't have any access in the same camp as the person who feels we should have unlimited access.  The literal definition of opposite ends of a spectrum.  

No, it wont. Not in my children's lifetimes.  But I fear it would lead to a very, very bloody period in our history, if it ever did.  

yeah, that is where the discussion begins. but you just fucking pigeonholed it straightaway into some bullshit villain for you to argue against. you see that, right?

that said, i guess, let me ask you a direct question: do you think we should have any further regulation in order to stop mass shootings?

[hayden_horn 11401]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

The root is I can't fathom siding with the group that supports Feinstein, SJL, and Beto's version of firearm ownership in the US. 

who asked you to do that?

[fattyflattie 4640]

19 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Want to address mass casualty shootings? Or, nah?

 

I guess.  I was just trying to establish what is an acceptable firearm in your eyes. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What's the point of engaging fatty?  This has happened over and over.  There is no interest on his part to actually consider other viewpoints.  He's a fucking troll.  Stop.

Am I not considering @Willfully Hornviewpoints? Or @henrygandorf  Where am I trolling?  

19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, that is where the discussion begins. but you just fucking pigeonholed it straightaway into some bullshit villain for you to argue against. you see that, right?

that said, i guess, let me ask you a direct question: do you think we should have any further regulation in order to stop mass shootings?

Not my intent.  Not a threat.  Just a fear I would have.  

Direct answer - yes. There is many things we can do.  Safe storage laws would be soooooo fucking simple, would even appease the free shit army, and would likely have kept several of our historical school shootings, in particular, from happening.  Santa Fe notably standing out.  Stiffer penalties for gun offenses would help remove people willing to use a gun for violence from our society.  We'd need to appease the "I don't think we should imprison people" crowd, but it very quickly removes people willing to use a firearm on another person from society.  I try very hard not to suggest things that don't matter to me, but would affect others, as a rule, but make selling them privately considerably more difficult.  I don't care, I don't sell guns.  That's fucking with a lot of people who've never done anything wrong, but as noted above, we've suffered thru change many a time.  What else, licensing?  Ok, as mentioned before, most here have the resources and time for this to be a nothing burger.  Some don't.  I'm told many can't even afford an ID due to cost or time away from work/travel to DMV...   I'm this close to being a man, so you want to make it 25, OK.   I think that's pretty fucked for the segment of our population that are off into the real world at 18, but it would likely result in less stories where they mention the gunman legally acquired the arm.    What else?   We can really tighten up our existing laws, and start to take them seriously?  Want to lie on your 4473, prosecute them whether they are Kyle Rittenhouse or Hunter Biden (neither of which were held accountable as you or I would).   How about let's not have an oops with a fucking branch of the military, paving the way for the Sutherland Springs fuckstick to commit his evil.     There's ALOT we can do BEFORE we even start the discussion of red flag laws, which pretty clearly would have stopped lots of these mass shootings, IF implemented properly.  Then, we can get down to the discussion of the intricacies of the arms themselves, imo. 

18 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

who asked you to do that?

Well, the "cop out" that Patricio mentioned was me not willing to change the party I vote for over this single issue.  I guess he literally didn't "ask" me to change my vote, but it was one of those "you don't really take this serious/care unless you are willing to vote someone opposite of your beliefs in other areas into office"     

[Satchel 6982]

There should be increasing pressure brought to bear on those who value guns more than people. The onus should be on them to defend mass murders by gun and not on the people who can’t be free to fully pursue happiness because of unchecked gun violence in this country.

[jimmyjazz 46972]

14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Am I not considering @Willfully Hornviewpoints? Or @henrygandorf  e opposite of your beliefs in other areas into office"     

No, you aren't.  Your posting history is well known.  You just dance around the issues, either because you get off frustrating people who are actuallly discussing things in good faith, or worse, you're a fucking sociopath who doesn't actually have any position one way or another.

I vote #2.

[wildcat09 29556]

Imagine thinking Sheila Jackson Lee is a major spokesperson for the Democratic party on any issue.

[fattyflattie 4640]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, you aren't.  Your posting history is well known.  You just dance around the issues, either because you get off frustrating people who are actuallly discussing things in good faith, or worse, you're a fucking sociopath who doesn't actually have any position one way or another.

I vote #2.

Oh I certainly hold a position.  I'm having a discussion with several posters. You have determined it's not in good faith, but that's absolutely not my problem.  Sorry not sorry my position doesn't mirror yours, so it could be held in good faith. 

[aggie08 21732]

Imagine trying to frame Diane Feinstein and Beto fucking O'Rourke as the Democratic thought leaders with regards to gun control and then wanting to be taken seriously. 

If they were "silenced" (because they're so fucking loud already), he'd just construct another bogeyman. It's what these people do.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5164]

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The point is they needed them to respond to a genuine threat. Or are insinuating that if the cops weren’t carrying guns then the drivers or passengers in the stopped cars wouldn’t have shot at them?

Nah, you can’t possibly be suggesting that. That would be asinine. 

Umm, if they got shot, they weren't using their guns to respond to a genuine threat. Their guns may have been on their person but so was a hole where a bullet went in.  

My point was that your particular example was not helpful to your point that cops need guns to keep bad guys from shooting them, because the specific example you used was in fact a situation where bad guys did use guns to shoot the good guys with guns.  The good guy's gun was not a deterrent to the bad guy and furthermore did not keep the good guy safe against the bad guy.  Go back to the drawing board and think of other examples to make your point, because that one was terrible.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

you're a fucking sociopath who doesn't actually have any position one way or another.

Hence why he is on my ignore list.

[Captainant 28383]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh I certainly hold a position.  I'm having a discussion with several posters. You have determined it's not in good faith, but that's absolutely not my problem.  Sorry not sorry my position doesn't mirror yours, so it could be held in good faith. 

Bruh. You think that clear-cutting 80 acres of forest to build an urban driving course for police is what people mean by "police need to be better trained". 

You are not someone to be taken seriously. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Hence why he is on my ignore list.

same. y'all are responding to air for all I know

Edited January 25, 2023 by Longhorn_Fan68

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Imagine trying to frame Diane Feinstein and Beto fucking O'Rourke as the Democratic thought leaders with regards to gun control and then wanting to be taken seriously. 

If they were "silenced" (because they're so fucking loud already), he'd just construct another bogeyman. It's what these people do.

By all means, who are the prominent leaders from the party wrt gun control?

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Hence why he is on my ignore list.

Well fuck.  I'm heartbroken.  I'm sorry I messed up the echo of similar thoughts you built around yourself.  It's OK, you are correct about everything.  Just ask all the people you agree with. 

 

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

same. y'all are responding to air for all I know

Again.  Sorry I held dissimilar beliefs than you.  Hopefully you can be reassured you're always correct by placing everyone who disagrees on ignore.  

[Willfully Horn 8204]

28 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I guess.  I was just trying to establish what is an acceptable firearm in your eyes. 

One that is incapable of killing children by the dozen.

And I grew up with guns. I, too, have multiple shotguns and rifles. 
 

But I recognize gun availability is what has crippled this country’s security. And I will vote for folks who will try to remove the threat. Join me.

.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

24 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Umm, if they got shot, they weren't using their guns to respond to a genuine threat. Their guns may have been on their person but so was a hole where a bullet went in.  

Is that what constitutes a cogent argument in your mind? Yikes. That’s pretty sad.

If a guy draws a gun on a cop, I think it’s a good idea for the cop to have a gun with which to defend himself. The cop may or may not get hit by a bullet fired at him. That’s irrelevant. If he draws and fires back and survives the assault, whether by killing or disabling his attacker or forcing his attacker to get back in his car and flee, he’s going to be damn glad he was carrying a gun. And even in situations where the cop loses the shootout and dies, that’s hardly an argument for why the cop shouldn’t carry a gun because it didn’t do him any good. That would be a really stupid argument to make. Even dumber than arguing that if a cop gets shot then it means his gun isn’t a defensive weapon. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5164]

I never made an argument that a cop shouldn't carry a gun.  I was responding to your argument.  You didn't say cops getting shot at, you said cops getting shot.  Like I said, your example sucked for the point you were trying to make. 

To reiterate, I only made an argument that your example for why cops should carry guns was terrible, which it was.

For the record, I do think that cops should carry guns.  I'm generally ok with gun ownership.  In fact, I even have guns in my own house.  So whatever it was you thought I was arguing, hopefully the first two paragraphs are clear enough that my response was about the quality of your argument.  That's it.  Improve your arguments and you might be able to persuade more people to agree with you.  And as a bonus lesson, if you read what people are actually writing and not what you are scared they might have meant to write, it will be good for your blood pressure and make people more willing to have a real conversation with you.  

[henrygandorf 29218]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:18 PM, fattyflattie said:

Oh I certainly hold a position.  I'm having a discussion with several posters. You have determined it's not in good faith, but that's absolutely not my problem.  Sorry not sorry my position doesn't mirror yours, so it could be held in good faith. 

 

On 1/25/2023 at 3:26 PM, aggie08 said:

Imagine trying to frame Diane Feinstein and Beto fucking O'Rourke as the Democratic thought leaders with regards to gun control and then wanting to be taken seriously. 

If they were "silenced" (because they're so fucking loud already), he'd just construct another bogeyman. It's what these people do.

initially, i posted about how eventually (not in our lifetimes) there would be no guns, or at least no gun violence/mass-shootings.  fatty dropped a laugh rep.  then he mentioned some politicians like feinstein and beto, and i will admit, i do not know their exact policy solutions for this and i don't feel like looking them up.  for this exercise, let's assume they want all-out clean sweep zero guns.  ok.

so here is my question - is it laughable to think that eventually there will be no gun violence or objectionable to think that politicians can get rid of guns because:

(1) it's a logistical nightmare because there are just so many fucking guns out there?  or

(2) because the mere thought of living in a society with zero gun ownership is absurd?

take away everything you know about moron americans and how free people think they are, and just try to answer the above question.  why is the idea preposterous to you?  or to any other people on the right - feel free to chime in, i'm genuinely curious.  if thanos snapped his finger tomorrow and guns were gone, would people go on with their lives?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

I think the solution to gun violence in this country is to treat anyone with a gun as a threat.  Just preemptively shoot them.  Cops, carrriers, whatever.   That person has a gun, I have a gun, mine is in working order faster.   There’s millions of them, I’m never gonna finish but you have to start somewhere.  

Edited January 28, 2023 by Judge Roybeanbag