Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Surprised? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#15 : November 04, 2013, 11:29:50 AM

We both know what the picture inferred, and we also both know that the gun used didn't matter. Again, you're mocked by literally everyone for a reason.

Do politicians and the supreme court always make the right decisions? The fact that you posted that little bit of info shows you didn't understand what I was saying. I'll give you some more time to think it over. While you're at it, think of a way the airport situation would have turned out differently had a handgun been used. Thanks princess.

Look, you keep posting things that are just wrong, I can't help that . . . just like I can't help that you keep trying to cover up your wrong with names like "coward" and "princess."  In fact, I expect that kind of response, frankly.

No one says you have to respond at all. I posted a picture, not my fault you're so defensive about it that you went off on some tangent that I never intended. I have already posted that in this instance it was the killer's plan and not the gun type that dictated the number of deaths, that was your point.  Mine was that is tis NOT the least bit surprising that a person intent on mass murder would choose an "assault rifle." I guess it is because you have no response  TO THAT that you keep coming back with "coward" and "princess" .  . .

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#16 : November 04, 2013, 11:34:53 AM

Your first post in the thread:

you're the most harassed person on this forum.

 people as cowardly as you

amazing. a simple picture . . .  so defensive . .  . right to the name calling.

Now, Escobar . . .  you were calling me all these names in your very first post, rather than offering a fact to refute my point (people bent on mass murder chose "assault rifles") . . . . because the facts are on your side?   roflmao

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#17 : November 04, 2013, 11:40:00 AM

The only people that defend the usage of semi-automatic rifles are the same ones that lack brain cells.

Most rational gun owners use a shotgun or a pistol for home defense or use a hunting rifle for hunting.  These bozos that defend the use of modern semi-automatic rifles in "hunting" or "home defense" are not exactly smart.  Before some one comes in and tells me a repeating rifle can be considered semi automatic let me remind them that a repeating rifle has a far more limited magazine than a modern semi-automatic rifle.

Most Americans agree with background checks but limits on magazines is probably going to be supported by most Americans at some point as well.


Who are you to put limitations on what people can own? People lack brain cells because they have hobbies that are different than your own? An unbelievably small percentage of gun owners commit violent acts and the rules need to be changed for all? What kind of ass backwards nonsense is that?

the kind that occurs when "an unbelievably small percentage" support a very powerful gun manufacturer's lobby in its effort to block ALL gun control measures offered by a substantial majority, such that there are 300 million guns even though gun owners are a tiny minority. 

As I have posted repeatedly, its the fear-driven refusal to accept any measure, no matter how reasonable or small, that will one day lead to a gross overreaction (i.e., sweeping, overbroad gun legislation).

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7110
Offline
#18 : November 04, 2013, 11:42:23 AM

The point is that in this situation the type of gun used didn't matter in the least. You posted a picture of an assault rifle as if to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

Both those comments^^^ are just FLAT WRONG.  The type of gun does matter and I did not post the picture to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

I posted the picture to illustrate the point that it is not the least bit surprising that people bent on mass murder choose assault rifles and OF COURSE the choice of gun matters.  This guy did far less harm then he could've but that was due, at least in part, to the fact that his target was TSA people, not just random citizens. He rep[orderly went around asking people if they were TSA and then moved on when he received a negative response.

 If you don't think the type of gun matters, then why did the Sandy Hook killer use an assault rifle when many other guns were available, why did this guy pick one, why did the Santa Monica killer choose one, why did the Colorado killer choose one? The answer is simple, the weapons are, at a minimum, perceived to be the most EFFECTIVE choice when hoping to kill many people. In a perverse way, assault rifles are glamorized for their killing power, both in original advertising and in culture. That's the reason they are "attractive." Could you kill a lot of people with less firepower? Sure.  Didn't the VA Tech guy use handguns? But, that does not change the fact that assault rifles -- which serve no reasonable social purpose other than sporting uses -- are effective weapons for killing a lot of people in a densely occupied space.

I didn't choose the gun, he did. I just said its not surprising.

This is where you, and thankfully him are totally wrong and demonstrates why people should not run off lecturing people about which they know nothing about. The most EFFECTIVE weapon in a close environment like this where you are targeting specific crowds of people would have been a semi automatic hand gun. The shooter could have got a lost closer before he needed to reveal his weapon and would have been able to shoot a lot more rounds, faster and reload quicker than with this ar-15.

He pulled out his rifle and everybody screams and runs away. If he had a handgun the first people would have known about it is when he pulls the trigger and someone hits the deck.
: November 04, 2013, 11:44:54 AM spartan

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#19 : November 04, 2013, 11:46:37 AM

Vin I don't care if every single "mass murder' (you know that only one person died right?) was carried out by this type of weapon. Even if that were true the percentage of gun owners who commit these kinds of acts would still be laughably small. How can you not see how ludicrous your stance is? You chose a side without thinking and now because of your massive ego you refuse to acknowledge how flawed your opinions are, that's what this is really about.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#20 : November 04, 2013, 11:55:26 AM

Vin I don't care if every single "mass murder' (you know that only one person died right?) was carried out by this type of weapon. Even if that were true the percentage of gun owners who commit these kinds of acts would still be laughably small. How can you not see how ludicrous your stance is? You chose a side without thinking and now because of your massive ego you refuse to acknowledge how flawed your opinions are, that's what this is really about.

Escobar, you must misunderstand my position. 

I don't think that a ban an assault rifles is justified by the numbers, I think it is precisely the type of emotional response that will come from gun control advocates in the face of  the NRA's unreasonable stance on a number of issues. I also think "assault rifles" are an easy target because unlike hand guns, which at least have a defensible role in self-defense, "assault rifles" have very, very low social utility. "Assault rifles" are basically used for sport. Also, "assault rifles" are "glamorized" for their killing ability, so they are an obvious focus for people who think gun violence is out of control.

Also, I would NOT characterize this latest guy or the other people who used assault rifles for mass murder (whether attempted or successful) as "gun owners."  That is, these are not for the most part people who owned guns for security or sport as much as they are people who bought or acquired guns near the time of their act, solely to kill people. As I have said, they intentionally chose "assault rifles"

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#21 : November 04, 2013, 11:56:13 AM

The point is that in this situation the type of gun used didn't matter in the least. You posted a picture of an assault rifle as if to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

Both those comments^^^ are just FLAT WRONG.  The type of gun does matter and I did not post the picture to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

I posted the picture to illustrate the point that it is not the least bit surprising that people bent on mass murder choose assault rifles and OF COURSE the choice of gun matters.  This guy did far less harm then he could've but that was due, at least in part, to the fact that his target was TSA people, not just random citizens. He rep[orderly went around asking people if they were TSA and then moved on when he received a negative response.

 If you don't think the type of gun matters, then why did the Sandy Hook killer use an assault rifle when many other guns were available, why did this guy pick one, why did the Santa Monica killer choose one, why did the Colorado killer choose one? The answer is simple, the weapons are, at a minimum, perceived to be the most EFFECTIVE choice when hoping to kill many people. In a perverse way, assault rifles are glamorized for their killing power, both in original advertising and in culture. That's the reason they are "attractive." Could you kill a lot of people with less firepower? Sure.  Didn't the VA Tech guy use handguns? But, that does not change the fact that assault rifles -- which serve no reasonable social purpose other than sporting uses -- are effective weapons for killing a lot of people in a densely occupied space.

I didn't choose the gun, he did. I just said its not surprising.

This is where you, and thankfully him are totally wrong and demonstrates why people should not run off lecturing people about which they know nothing about. The most EFFECTIVE weapon in a close environment like this where you are targeting specific crowds of people would have been a semi automatic hand gun. The shooter could have got a lost closer before he needed to reveal his weapon and would have been able to shoot a lot more rounds, faster and reload quicker than with this ar-15.

He pulled out his rifle and everybody screams and runs away. If he had a handgun the first people would have known about it is when he pulls the trigger and someone hits the deck.

My point is that things weren't worse because of the gun chosen. Could it have been worse if a handgun were used? Sure, I could see that being the case. I wasn't arguing against that as much as I was that the gun chosen didn't create the situation. This is Vin's stance, he's just too cowardly to admit it at the moment. We know this is his stance because if it weren't, why would he bother posting the picture he did, or debating about the "dangers of assault rifles" for months and months? He wouldn't. Vin posted this picture because he wanted to "prove" that this incident wouldn't have happened if these types of guns were completely banned.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#22 : November 04, 2013, 11:58:07 AM

The point is that in this situation the type of gun used didn't matter in the least. You posted a picture of an assault rifle as if to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

Both those comments^^^ are just FLAT WRONG.  The type of gun does matter and I did not post the picture to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

I posted the picture to illustrate the point that it is not the least bit surprising that people bent on mass murder choose assault rifles and OF COURSE the choice of gun matters.  This guy did far less harm then he could've but that was due, at least in part, to the fact that his target was TSA people, not just random citizens. He rep[orderly went around asking people if they were TSA and then moved on when he received a negative response.

 If you don't think the type of gun matters, then why did the Sandy Hook killer use an assault rifle when many other guns were available, why did this guy pick one, why did the Santa Monica killer choose one, why did the Colorado killer choose one? The answer is simple, the weapons are, at a minimum, perceived to be the most EFFECTIVE choice when hoping to kill many people. In a perverse way, assault rifles are glamorized for their killing power, both in original advertising and in culture. That's the reason they are "attractive." Could you kill a lot of people with less firepower? Sure.  Didn't the VA Tech guy use handguns? But, that does not change the fact that assault rifles -- which serve no reasonable social purpose other than sporting uses -- are effective weapons for killing a lot of people in a densely occupied space.

I didn't choose the gun, he did. I just said its not surprising.

This is where you, and thankfully him are totally wrong and demonstrates why people should not run off lecturing people about which they know nothing about. The most EFFECTIVE weapon in a close environment like this where you are targeting specific crowds of people would have been a semi automatic hand gun. The shooter could have got a lost closer before he needed to reveal his weapon and would have been able to shoot a lot more rounds, faster and reload quicker than with this ar-15.

He pulled out his rifle and everybody screams and runs away. If he had a handgun the first people would have known about it is when he pulls the trigger and someone hits the deck.

Spartan, note the word in bold. I left off "perceived" at the end, sorry.  I agree that hand guns are more effective in some instances BUT there is a reason that these people keep choosing "assault rifles"  Why do you suppose that is?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#23 : November 04, 2013, 12:00:27 PM

The point is that in this situation the type of gun used didn't matter in the least. You posted a picture of an assault rifle as if to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

Both those comments^^^ are just FLAT WRONG.  The type of gun does matter and I did not post the picture to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

I posted the picture to illustrate the point that it is not the least bit surprising that people bent on mass murder choose assault rifles and OF COURSE the choice of gun matters.  This guy did far less harm then he could've but that was due, at least in part, to the fact that his target was TSA people, not just random citizens. He rep[orderly went around asking people if they were TSA and then moved on when he received a negative response.

 If you don't think the type of gun matters, then why did the Sandy Hook killer use an assault rifle when many other guns were available, why did this guy pick one, why did the Santa Monica killer choose one, why did the Colorado killer choose one? The answer is simple, the weapons are, at a minimum, perceived to be the most EFFECTIVE choice when hoping to kill many people. In a perverse way, assault rifles are glamorized for their killing power, both in original advertising and in culture. That's the reason they are "attractive." Could you kill a lot of people with less firepower? Sure.  Didn't the VA Tech guy use handguns? But, that does not change the fact that assault rifles -- which serve no reasonable social purpose other than sporting uses -- are effective weapons for killing a lot of people in a densely occupied space.

I didn't choose the gun, he did. I just said its not surprising.

This is where you, and thankfully him are totally wrong and demonstrates why people should not run off lecturing people about which they know nothing about. The most EFFECTIVE weapon in a close environment like this where you are targeting specific crowds of people would have been a semi automatic hand gun. The shooter could have got a lost closer before he needed to reveal his weapon and would have been able to shoot a lot more rounds, faster and reload quicker than with this ar-15.

He pulled out his rifle and everybody screams and runs away. If he had a handgun the first people would have known about it is when he pulls the trigger and someone hits the deck.

My point is that things weren't worse because of the gun chosen. Could it have been worse if a handgun were used? Sure, I could see that being the case. I wasn't arguing against that as much as I was that the gun chosen didn't create the situation. This is Vin's stance,he's just too cowardly to admit it at the moment. We know this is his stance because if it weren't, why would he bother posting the picture he did, or debating about the "dangers of assault rifles" for months and months? He wouldn't. Vin posted this picture because he wanted to "prove" that this incident wouldn't have happened if these types of guns were completely banned.

LOL.  I love that you keep calling me a coward while arguing against your own phantom.  That part in bold is 100% WRONG.  LMAO.  It is a total fiction that you created . . .for goodness sake, I reference the VA Tech killing in a much earlier post . .  lol
: November 04, 2013, 12:02:22 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#24 : November 04, 2013, 12:01:25 PM

Vin I don't care if every single "mass murder' (you know that only one person died right?) was carried out by this type of weapon. Even if that were true the percentage of gun owners who commit these kinds of acts would still be laughably small. How can you not see how ludicrous your stance is? You chose a side without thinking and now because of your massive ego you refuse to acknowledge how flawed your opinions are, that's what this is really about.

Escobar, you must misunderstand my position. 

I don't think that a ban an assault rifles is justified by the numbers, I think it is precisely the type of emotional response that will come from gun control advocates in the face of  the NRA's unreasonable stance on a number of issues. I also think "assault rifles" are an easy target because unlike hand guns, which at least have a defensible role in self-defense, "assault rifles" have very, very low social utility. "Assault rifles" are basically used for sport. Also, "assault rifles" are "glamorized" for their killing ability, so they are an obvious focus for people who think gun violence is out of control.

Also, I would NOT characterize this latest guy or the other people who used assault rifles for mass murder (whether attempted or successful) as "gun owners."  That is, these are not for the most part people who owned guns for security or sport as much as they are people who bought or acquired guns near the time of their act, solely to kill people. As I have said, they intentionally chose "assault rifles"

Completely legal or illegal, guess which gun these type of people are going to acquire in the future if they want to carry out this type of attack? The answer is any freaking gun they want. Why? Because as the prohibition and war on drugs proved, outlawing something does literally nothing, and in fact makes matters worse. You can pretend that "you don't think a ban on assault rifles is justified" but your long history of anti-gun nonsense proves otherwise.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#25 : November 04, 2013, 12:04:32 PM

The point is that in this situation the type of gun used didn't matter in the least. You posted a picture of an assault rifle as if to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

Both those comments^^^ are just FLAT WRONG.  The type of gun does matter and I did not post the picture to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

I posted the picture to illustrate the point that it is not the least bit surprising that people bent on mass murder choose assault rifles and OF COURSE the choice of gun matters.  This guy did far less harm then he could've but that was due, at least in part, to the fact that his target was TSA people, not just random citizens. He rep[orderly went around asking people if they were TSA and then moved on when he received a negative response.

 If you don't think the type of gun matters, then why did the Sandy Hook killer use an assault rifle when many other guns were available, why did this guy pick one, why did the Santa Monica killer choose one, why did the Colorado killer choose one? The answer is simple, the weapons are, at a minimum, perceived to be the most EFFECTIVE choice when hoping to kill many people. In a perverse way, assault rifles are glamorized for their killing power, both in original advertising and in culture. That's the reason they are "attractive." Could you kill a lot of people with less firepower? Sure.  Didn't the VA Tech guy use handguns? But, that does not change the fact that assault rifles -- which serve no reasonable social purpose other than sporting uses -- are effective weapons for killing a lot of people in a densely occupied space.

I didn't choose the gun, he did. I just said its not surprising.

This is where you, and thankfully him are totally wrong and demonstrates why people should not run off lecturing people about which they know nothing about. The most EFFECTIVE weapon in a close environment like this where you are targeting specific crowds of people would have been a semi automatic hand gun. The shooter could have got a lost closer before he needed to reveal his weapon and would have been able to shoot a lot more rounds, faster and reload quicker than with this ar-15.

He pulled out his rifle and everybody screams and runs away. If he had a handgun the first people would have known about it is when he pulls the trigger and someone hits the deck.

My point is that things weren't worse because of the gun chosen. Could it have been worse if a handgun were used? Sure, I could see that being the case. I wasn't arguing against that as much as I was that the gun chosen didn't create the situation. This is Vin's stance,he's just too cowardly to admit it at the moment. We know this is his stance because if it weren't, why would he bother posting the picture he did, or debating about the "dangers of assault rifles" for months and months? He wouldn't. Vin posted this picture because he wanted to "prove" that this incident wouldn't have happened if these types of guns were completely banned.

LOL.  I love that you keep calling me a coward while arguing against your own phantom.  That part in bold is 100% WRONG.  LMAO.  It is a total fiction that you created . . .

I've created nothing. Nobody fills up threads more than you when it comes to this topic. And you expect me to believe you just don't care? That you don't want certain guns banned or limitations placed on them? This is why I call you a coward, Vin. You refuse to hold yourself accountable for the things you say. This is a flawless example of that.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#26 : November 04, 2013, 12:06:02 PM

Vin I don't care if every single "mass murder' (you know that only one person died right?) was carried out by this type of weapon. Even if that were true the percentage of gun owners who commit these kinds of acts would still be laughably small. How can you not see how ludicrous your stance is? You chose a side without thinking and now because of your massive ego you refuse to acknowledge how flawed your opinions are, that's what this is really about.

Escobar, you must misunderstand my position. 

I don't think that a ban an assault rifles is justified by the numbers, I think it is precisely the type of emotional response that will come from gun control advocates in the face of  the NRA's unreasonable stance on a number of issues. I also think "assault rifles" are an easy target because unlike hand guns, which at least have a defensible role in self-defense, "assault rifles" have very, very low social utility. "Assault rifles" are basically used for sport. Also, "assault rifles" are "glamorized" for their killing ability, so they are an obvious focus for people who think gun violence is out of control.

Also, I would NOT characterize this latest guy or the other people who used assault rifles for mass murder (whether attempted or successful) as "gun owners."  That is, these are not for the most part people who owned guns for security or sport as much as they are people who bought or acquired guns near the time of their act, solely to kill people. As I have said, they intentionally chose "assault rifles"

Completely legal or illegal, guess which gun these type of people are going to acquire in the future if they want to carry out this type of attack? The answer is any freaking gun they want. Why? Because as the prohibition and war on drugs proved, outlawing something does literally nothing, and in fact makes matters worse. You can pretend that "you don't think a ban on assault rifles is justified" but your long history of anti-gun nonsense proves otherwise.

LOL. you cant let go of your phantom.  Nobody says banning assault rifles will end mass murder . . .  lmao . . . like I said, you like to argue against things no one post.  But, that said, let me just ask you a question:

Why did this guy, the Santa Monica killer, the Colorado movie theater killer and the Sandy Hook killer chose "assault rifles?"  I ask Spartan the same question.  Look forward to the answers. You realize the Santa Monica killer had to build his assault rifle, but still did? You realize the Sandy Hook killer had access to many guns but still chose an "assault rifle?"  Why?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#27 : November 04, 2013, 12:08:32 PM

The point is that in this situation the type of gun used didn't matter in the least. You posted a picture of an assault rifle as if to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

Both those comments^^^ are just FLAT WRONG.  The type of gun does matter and I did not post the picture to say he was only capable of doing what he did because of it.

I posted the picture to illustrate the point that it is not the least bit surprising that people bent on mass murder choose assault rifles and OF COURSE the choice of gun matters.  This guy did far less harm then he could've but that was due, at least in part, to the fact that his target was TSA people, not just random citizens. He rep[orderly went around asking people if they were TSA and then moved on when he received a negative response.

 If you don't think the type of gun matters, then why did the Sandy Hook killer use an assault rifle when many other guns were available, why did this guy pick one, why did the Santa Monica killer choose one, why did the Colorado killer choose one? The answer is simple, the weapons are, at a minimum, perceived to be the most EFFECTIVE choice when hoping to kill many people. In a perverse way, assault rifles are glamorized for their killing power, both in original advertising and in culture. That's the reason they are "attractive." Could you kill a lot of people with less firepower? Sure.  Didn't the VA Tech guy use handguns? But, that does not change the fact that assault rifles -- which serve no reasonable social purpose other than sporting uses -- are effective weapons for killing a lot of people in a densely occupied space.

I didn't choose the gun, he did. I just said its not surprising.

This is where you, and thankfully him are totally wrong and demonstrates why people should not run off lecturing people about which they know nothing about. The most EFFECTIVE weapon in a close environment like this where you are targeting specific crowds of people would have been a semi automatic hand gun. The shooter could have got a lost closer before he needed to reveal his weapon and would have been able to shoot a lot more rounds, faster and reload quicker than with this ar-15.

He pulled out his rifle and everybody screams and runs away. If he had a handgun the first people would have known about it is when he pulls the trigger and someone hits the deck.

My point is that things weren't worse because of the gun chosen. Could it have been worse if a handgun were used? Sure, I could see that being the case. I wasn't arguing against that as much as I was that the gun chosen didn't create the situation. This is Vin's stance,he's just too cowardly to admit it at the moment. We know this is his stance because if it weren't, why would he bother posting the picture he did, or debating about the "dangers of assault rifles" for months and months? He wouldn't. Vin posted this picture because he wanted to "prove" that this incident wouldn't have happened if these types of guns were completely banned.

LOL.  I love that you keep calling me a coward while arguing against your own phantom.  That part in bold is 100% WRONG.  LMAO.  It is a total fiction that you created . . .

I've created nothing. Nobody fills up threads more than you when it comes to this topic. And you expect me to believe you just don't care? That you don't want certain guns banned or limitations placed on them? This is why I call you a coward, Vin. You refuse to hold yourself accountable for the things you say. This is a flawless example of that.

It is a flawless example of you arguing against your own creation. If you want to argue against something I actually post then quote it, otherwise its just nonsense (usually because the actual facts bother "you").  Btw, that is NOT why you call me a "coward" . .  and for what it is worth the last thing on earth I would care about is you calling me names. I just point it out because it highlights how weak your position is.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7110
Offline
#28 : November 04, 2013, 12:28:13 PM


I've created nothing. Nobody fills up threads more than you when it comes to this topic. And you expect me to believe you just don't care? That you don't want certain guns banned or limitations placed on them? This is why I call you a coward, Vin. You refuse to hold yourself accountable for the things you say. This is a flawless example of that.

Vin wants all guns banned. He simply sees ar-15's as low hanging fruit as they look mean to the uninitiated.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7110
Offline
#29 : November 04, 2013, 12:30:21 PM


Why did this guy, the Santa Monica killer, the Colorado movie theater killer and the Sandy Hook killer chose "assault rifles?"  I ask Spartan the same question.  Look forward to the answers. You realize the Santa Monica killer had to build his assault rifle, but still did? You realize the Sandy Hook killer had access to many guns but still chose an "assault rifle?"  Why?

The answer is simple, because they believe it is the most effective weapon for the situation.
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Surprised? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools