• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Uber killer had 11 guns [W 168]

MaggieD said:
If duck and cover or run away is the "reasonable thing," then why are they dead?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking someone whose position has no hope of being even remotely based on logic or facts to answer you with facts and logic?
 
TurtleDude said:
Why are you asking someone whose position has no hope of being even remotely based on logic or facts to answer you with facts and logic?
Click to expand...

Lol! How about because where there's life there's hope??
 
MaggieD said:
Lol! How about because where there's life there's hope??
Click to expand...

optimism is a good thing. Futility on the other hand is silly
 
Soho gator said:
Yet no American has ever stopped a mass shooter. Best defense is to duck and cover and if possible run away.
Click to expand...

That's because if you stop a mass shooter before he can commit a mass shooting then he's not a mass shooter.

Saying that no American has ever stopped a mass shooter is true, but horrifically, almost intellectually disgustingly ****ing dishonest to the point where you should never engage in 2A debates anymore. Not because you're wrong, but because it's a slimy tactic to use such wording, and it is easily spotted and flagged as utterly moronic by any rational human being.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
stop lying. that is complete crap. you are using dishonest terminology. iF someone kills a shooter before they shoot "enough" people, its not a mass shooter. If they kill the shooter after he kills "enough" victims, you claim he wasn't stopped (even though he was stopped before he killed more)
Click to expand...

Ehhhh and I was beat to this by an hour... Oh well.

I just like my post because it's more immature and is way more vulgar when giving the same message :)
 
Luftwaffe said:
That's because if you stop a mass shooter before he can commit a mass shooting then he's not a mass shooter.

Saying that no American has ever stopped a mass shooter is true, but horrifically, almost intellectually disgustingly ****ing dishonest to the point where you should never engage in 2A debates anymore. Not because you're wrong, but because it's a slimy tactic to use such wording, and it is easily spotted and flagged as utterly moronic by any rational human being.
Click to expand...

So you agree with me but are desperately angry because my point is irrefutable. Good.
 
Soho gator said:
Yet no American has ever stopped a mass shooter. Best defense is to duck and cover and if possible run away.
Click to expand...

Is that your basis for a successful defense department?

Should LEOs do the same if they encounter bad folks with guns?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is that your basis for a successful defense department?

Should LEOs do the same if they encounter bad folks with guns?
Click to expand...

We don't have a defense department we have a department of war.

LEO's what ever you think of them are highly weaponized, somewhat trained and due to overwhelming force not scared to act unlike the average gun owner
 
Soho gator said:
Yet no American has ever stopped a mass shooter. Best defense is to duck and cover and if possible run away.
Click to expand...

Who are the brave foreigners that Americans have relied upon to do so?

Of course, if a shooter was stopped before attaining "mass shooter" status then you simply don't count that at all. On the other hand, once a shooter attains that "mass shooter" status then it is simply too late to stop them from having done so. ;)
 
Soho gator said:
We don't have a defense department we have a department of war.

LEO's what ever you think of them are highly weaponized, somewhat trained and due to overwhelming force not scared to act unlike the average gun owner
Click to expand...

No it is a Department of Defense.

On 26 July 1947, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, which set up a unified military command known as the "National Military Establishment", as well as creating the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, National Security Resources Board, United States Air Force (formerly the Army Air Forces) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The act placed the National Military Establishment under the control of a single Secretary of Defense.[12][13][14] The National Military Establishment formally began operations on 18 September, the day after the Senate confirmed James V. Forrestal as the first Secretary of Defense.[13] The National Military Establishment was renamed the "Department of Defense" on 10 August 1949, in an amendment to the original 1947 law.[15]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense#The_War_Department
 
Soho gator said:
After 2 guns a yellow flag should go up. Red flag at 5. Personal in home interview warranted by local LEO
Click to expand...

I cannot think of anyone I know who hunts or target shoots that has less than 5 guns and none are criminals.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I cannot think of anyone I know who hunts or target shoots that has less than 5 guns and none are criminals.
Click to expand...

How do you know? I have several gun nutter friend including two ex seals and none admits to having five or more guns.
 
Soho gator said:
very troubling. With a registry this could have been a red flag.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter that he had 11 guns? Its not like it was possible for him to use his guns all at ounce. Was he too lazy to change magazines and he carried extra guns in back pack and expect his victims to hold on a sec while he reached in his back pack for another gun?
 
Soho gator said:
How do you know? I have several gun nutter friend including two ex seals and none admits to having five or more guns.
Click to expand...

I got friends with more than 50 guns. Please.
 
Soho gator said:
very troubling. With a registry this could have been a red flag.
Click to expand...

What does him being an Uber driver have to do with anything? i'm genuinely curious. It's being mentioned all over the media but I don't see the relevance. Did he go on this shooting spree because uber was mistreating him?
 
Soho gator said:
How do you know? I have several gun nutter friend including two ex seals and none admits to having five or more guns.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't.....
 
jet57 said:
Well, we're not Paris where the illegal weapons were smuggled in by a terrorist front, and secondly, the San Bernadino weapons were smuggled to the terrorists and then modified. But - gee, what if those rifles had not been available on the public market?

Maybe there'd have to have been a pressure cooker bomb? What if those guys in Boston had had Uzis with about ten or twelve 30 round mags?
Click to expand...

They would have used different rifles and killed just as many if not more.....
 
Soho gator said:
After 2 guns a yellow flag should go up. Red flag at 5. Personal in home interview warranted by local LEO
Click to expand...

Care to explain what this would have accomplished? You make goofy, drive by statements like this but do not explain how it would have anything. So red flag goes up, cop visits, sees nothing wrong and leaves.....wooooooo...you really need to think these ideas through Soho...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom