Crime Breaking News, v2: 14 Killed in San Bernardino Mass Shooting, Police in Standoff

Status
Not open for further replies.
i wasn't trying to make that argument, merely trying to keep the discussion factual.

you said you "think"


so how are your thoughts in any way shape or form

"factual"


since you neither know the facts and just "think" something "is"

you apparently dont know shit


i already posted the facts try reading them before "thinking"
 
There's no control. None. There's also zero uniformity in gun laws so they are easy to get around. My point is, current gun laws are entirely ineffective. So citing them as being a failure is completely obvious to anyone. It's not an argument in favor of no gun control, it's an argument that the current half ass "gun control" is complete shit.

So you see a bunch of examples of control and claim, there's no control? :icon_lol:
 
I called it yesterday. Even if you're fucked up enough to kill a bunch of co-workers because of a workplace issue, you don't suddenly acquire assault rifles, body armour and pipe bombs. And you don't suddenly convince your wife and mother of your child it would be a good idea to murder a bunch of innocent people and then go out in a blaze of glory in a fire fight with SWAT.

Attacks like this require prep time. The guy was radicalised. Maybe online, maybe face to face; he visited both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But someone convinced him to take the Magic Carpet Ride to Paradise. He constructed pipe bombs and bought hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of ammo. He bought weapons and body armour not just for himself but his wife.

I'm leaning towards the Hybrid Terror theory myself. This guy was going to snap at some point. Someone recognized him as a loose cannon and decided to aim him where he could do the most damage.

His wife.
 
I don't see the drawback of making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get certain guns. So a guy that never commits a crime won't get his hands on an assault rifle, where's the problem?

Then again, I'm off the spectrum on this issue. I think people can and do live complete and full lives without having a gun. Unlike other rights in the Constitution like free speech, free association, voting, fair trial, etc., owning a gun simply isn't crucial to a free and democratic society. Not even close.

Like I said, the only thing you can really do to add to gun control is mental evaluation. Which 99.9% of people are still going to pass. Liberals always like to scream and yell "Shut the fuck up, no one is taking your guns" all while bitching about guns and coming up with no solution or grey area where we can meet in the middle. It's always portrayed as the gun owners fault for making this a black and white issue but I don't see the other side coming up with solutions, just non stop bitching. So, what's your solution? What would you like to see done?
 
I haven't been responding to these because we aren't talking about the same things.

If you want to know why I will leave you with one word.

Intent.

Good luck.

I have no intent to ever shoot up a bunch of civilians, so can you fuck off already?
 
you said you "think"


so how are your thoughts in any way shape or form

"factual"


since you neither know the facts and just "think" something "is"

you apparently dont know shit


i already posted the facts try reading them before "thinking"

dude, relax. no one was attacking you or your intelligence. just trying to keep this discussion fact based - nothing personal.
 
OK, well the statement that "taking a firearm across sate lines is a felony" is very much not accurate.

you're a little bit down the rabbit hole about sales with the quote above. if you're a Cali resident with a properly stored handgun or rifle (bought in cali) you could RV all over the country as long as you observe state laws as you enter.

no pal stop trying to misconstrue things

Luminaire said

Psst... Nevada and Arizona are 3 hours away with zero boarder control. Outside of looking for Saguaro Cacti at the agriculture check point lol.



I replied with applicable state and federal laws then you
went on some tangent about owning and driving in CA (which has nothing to do with purchasing out of state and transporting)


either you cant read or cant keep up
 
dude, relax. no one was attacking you or your intelligence. just trying to keep this discussion fact based - nothing personal.

you replied to the wrong information

then you tried to use irrelevant facts to back up your incorrect conclusions about your improperly read posts
 
you replied to the wrong information

then you tried to use irrelevant facts to back up your incorrect conclusions about your improperly read posts

well, you seem like a bit of a dick... sorry to ruin your day, Susan.
 

Well... not true.


rtx1biuk.jpg


Two terrorists with "Assault Rifles" terminated by Glock .45. Which by the way is what I used, Model 21.


Surprise is good and terrorists don't know who is packing.
lol, Fucking Garland trolled a couple of clowns to death! You'll have a hard time finding any "soft targets" in North Texas.

I also noticed that CNN before they revealed the name of the perp they stressed out that the shooter was AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Its like they are rubbing it in it really seems they are really trying to steer away criticism from the refugees.
I cant wait for the final Republican debate on CNN.

I own, I carry and I was 7 miles away from yesterdays attack. I prefer you do own and carry. Exercise your rights.
I own 3. I have a chl although I rarely carry. I'm glad you're not worried about my 3 guns in a 700 pound safe. That's all the gun control I need.

Yea... again with the "Amendments" are ironclad and for some reason we have to pretend that the spirit of the amendment, "defending against tyrannical governments with single shot muscats" is even applicable today. In that vein you're right, these laws are shit, I need military outfitted Hum Vs, tactical mines, body armor, and a mountable .50 cal. Come at me bro!

But shit, if our forefathers had an inkling of what that amendment would cause 250 years later it's not hard to believe they'd rethink it. Not to mention it's an AMENDMENT, AND many of the wig wearing old men were perfectly fine with slavery at the time, so lets just say they were a little less than infallible yea?

You're right, we should regulate abortions a little more.
 
Somebody take some time and create a v3 of this thread with as much up-to-date accurate information collated as possible, plz. Focus on confirmed facts and accuracy rather than scoops, plz.

Once that is up, I'll close this, and link the new thread.
 
It just so happens that in a world of mental disorders, psychoactive prescription drugs, and religious extremists, that the cost of such freedoms is particularly high.

Again man, I sit here basically bored of it. It's not going to change, this is life now. But I do believe that gun accessibility is part of the problem and those fighting restriction have more self serving interests at heart.

It's similar to corporations lobbying against taxes claiming they create jobs meanwhile execs rake in multi-millions and lobbyists get paid boatloads as well.

The cost is statistically at an historical low. At least that's what the violent crime stats seems to keep saying.

Sure it's self-serving to want to keep your right. Same as it is to take someone's due to perceiving a small gain in personal safety. Framing it that way is kind of a wash between both sides. People defend themselves every day with firearms. Every day. Tell me again why you feel the need to make these people vulnerable when you and everyone else know that crime won't go away even if you make every gun disappear.

In the end it's very simple for me. Respect the Constitution enough to abide by it or change it. Ignoring it or hiding behind intellectually dishonest word games is the epitome of self-serving.
 
well, you seem like a bit of a dick... sorry to ruin your day, Susan.

funny thing

you replied to my post to someone else interjecting yourself into "this"

then you said my info was incorrect based upon your incorrect reading or assumption

after i pointed out your being mistaken you then insult me



seems about right for sherdog and a clear reason i can see you being carded...


have a nice day kiddoh
 
Somebody take some time and create a v3 of this thread with as much up-to-date accurate information collated as possible, plz. Focus on confirmed facts and accuracy rather than scoops, plz.

Once that is up, I'll close this, and link the new thread.

Yes and hopefully focus on what and WHY.

When I read the Daily Beast this morning I saw no mention of religion as a possible motive. As someone who a 2.3/5 on the Islam is inherently a problem scale, even I thought it was weird.
 
His wife.

Could well be. ISTR reading that female terrorists tend to be more fanatical than their male counterparts, because they've had to "prove" themselves more. Hence the saying among elite Hostage Rescue Units regarding engaging terrorist cells made up of both men and women,

Shoot the women first
 
usatoday finally acknowledges possible link to radical ideology. won't say islam though, but it's a baby step inthe right direction
http://www.usatoday.com/

its too bad all the lib wr posters had to show up today with a fucking chip on their shoulder. Im sure the victims families don't give a shit about how the media labels mass shooting perps. or whether or not someone from another country "doesn't feel sorry for us.." Or which president did or said what.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top