If only there was something we could do...

[leroy jenkins]

14 miles

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/fa...unknown-gunman

Thats really sad, but I asked for a source for your absurd and paranoid 50 a year claim, not just a source that someone got shot sometime.

[Cisco Kid]

That's nice. There's this thing called Duckduckgo

[bennymac]

Ther are also controlling mundane beurocrat narcissists.

No one here wants me to quote you but this kind of big brain talk deserves to be saved for posterity.

[::: :::]

apparently only a gun offers any self-defense option

[Conundrum]

Especially to those who need one immediately but haven’t practiced with it because they don’t already own one.

[Art Shirk]

Especially to those who need one immediately but haven’t practiced with it because they don’t already own one.

Come on, we all know that this type of person is perfectly equipped to dispatch these ever occurring death threat situations without further incident. And that we should ignore a reciprocal gun violence stat to offset the gun defense stat that supports anti regulation actions.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TBS]

^^^Yeah, like the kid who had to read the operating manual for his AR15 in his car before his assault.
https://www.police1.com/active-shoot...wrlRsBlB655oD/

A 19-year-old man who shot and killed three people at a party in suburban Seattle was so unfamiliar with his newly purchased AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that he parked his car across the street and read the firearm’s instruction manual just before the attack, police wrote in a probable-cause statement made public Monday.

[Cisco Kid]

When President Clinton banned assault rifles in 1994, mass shootings dropped by 43%. After Republicans let the ban expire in 2004, they increased by 243%

Facts, why should they matter?

Dangerous weapons should be seen as sex toys. You can own it and keep it in the drawer at home but don't take it to the Little League game.

[Cisco Kid]

When President Clinton banned assault rifles in 1994, mass shootings dropped by 43%. After we let the ban expire in 2004, they increased by 243%

Facts, why should they matter?

Dangerous weapons should be treated like sex toys. Legal to own and use (except in Alabama) but not cool to take them to the town Little League game.

[leroy jenkins]

No one here wants me to quote you but this kind of big brain talk deserves to be saved for posterity.

What exactly is wrong about what I said?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6120976/

[leroy jenkins]

apparently only a gun offers any self-defense option

It offers the most effective safest most equalizing means.

Are you saying you're ok with people killing others in self defense with spears and swords, but not with guns? If so, why does that make any sense?

[leroy jenkins]

That's nice. There's this thing called Duckduckgo

Ok, so you were just making up nonsense cus its emotionally gratifying to you and you're not someone to be taken seriously. I already knew that.

[Timberridge]

Now that Leroy has his own thread what is the proper protocol for Leroy posting in his own thread vs. this one, or others?

[Cisco Kid]

Well Lee, I'm rubber you're glue....

[Cisco Kid]

But since you have seemingly lost the ability to search the web I'll toss you a bone

From Feb 6. Count is up to 12 now and headed for a new record of 50+

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/its...BALI7G6S6WL5I/

[leroy jenkins]

But since you have seemingly lost the ability to search the web I'll toss you a bone

From Feb 6. Count is up to 12 now and headed for a new record of 50+

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/its...BALI7G6S6WL5I/

Nine confirmed shootings in the entire state highway system is not 50 shootings every year on a single interstate.

I mean, its horrible and alarming, but its horrible and alarming enough that you don't need to distort reality. Really strange you seem to want to.

[::: :::]

It offers the most effective safest most equalizing means.

Are you saying you're ok with people killing others in self defense with spears and swords, but not with guns? If so, why does that make any sense?

No, not saying that -- just that it isn't the only option. Why should instant lethality be the first line of defense?

[Cisco Kid]

Reading comp a problem? All those were in my home county.

Sad one. Sniper found their target.

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/fa...unknown-gunman

[anotherVTskibum]

For the record, I'd consider public policy that caused the adoption of swords and spears as common ways to defend oneself as wins. Misthrown spears seem like much less of a general hazard than missed firearm shots, nevermind carrying enough spears to create a mass casualty event.

And, while I'd prefer to avoid either, given the choice between someone with an AR intending to kill as many people as possible and the same person with a katana, I'll take option two.

[UkBCyeti]

[QUOTE=anotherVTskibum;7043383
And, while I'd prefer to avoid either, given the choice between someone with an AR intending to kill as many people as possible and the same person with a katana, I'll take option two.[/QUOTE]

Long time lurker, first time poster in this thread. Just been enjoying the show ( the Leroy show, not the US mass shootings show, just to be clear), but finally ran out of popcorn, so I thought I'd chime in with some questions I had. This reminded me.
As a person who grew up in a country with strong gun control, and that has statistically had low to nil gun deaths because of it, how can some people even argue against the fact that less guns = less people killed by guns?
If gun control meant it was harder to get guns, wouldn't there be less crime related deaths, because people would have to use their hands/knives etc? Surely this means you have to actually feel the implement do the damage, rather than just pulling with your trigger finger from distance?

For those of you that believe gun control is the answer, is it too late?

Trying to get my head round the dilemma, when the answer seems obvious

[heckacali]

This should be good....

Thanks for poking the hornet's nest with common sense.

[ex-powderbroker]

good for another six blocked posts of 16000 words of gibberish, maybe.

[Art Shirk]

Long time lurker, first time poster in this thread. Just been enjoying the show ( the Leroy show, not the US mass shootings show, just to be clear), but finally ran out of popcorn, so I thought I'd chime in with some questions I had. This reminded me.
As a person who grew up in a country with strong gun control, and that has statistically had low to nil gun deaths because of it, how can some people even argue against the fact that less guns = less people killed by guns?
If gun control meant it was harder to get guns, wouldn't there be less crime related deaths, because people would have to use their hands/knives etc? Surely this means you have to actually feel the implement do the damage, rather than just pulling with your trigger finger from distance?

For those of you that believe gun control is the answer, is it too late?

Trying to get my head round the dilemma, when the answer seems obvious

Howling at the moon my man. People like Leroy don’t understand even basic math.

A (mental health) + B (pick your variable) + C (guns) = D (gun violence)


Reduction in C = reduction in D for most normally functioning adults.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[UkBCyeti]

Yeah, Art, I kinda thought that might be the case for that side of the debate.
Serious question for the people in favour of more gun control though.

[Cisco Kid]

It's never too late. With a public education program, we got rid of blasting caps in the 50's and let blacks use any bathroom in the 70's. If you don't live here, you really can't understand the persuasive power of American Marketing (propaganda) to alter the ability of the human brain to think rationally which is the goal of American Marketing. No matter what it is you heard, Tide will NOT make your white clothes a brighter white than your neighbors. But it worked to sell Tide.