What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

Do you know anyone who manufactures fentanyl or heroin? They come across the border, so will guns. Next?

 

You keep saying that. Maybe you'll believe it one of these days.

Tell me, what happens when you use a bow and arrow or crossbow? Do you perhaps.... shoot with them?

 

You're right. I should stop responding to those posters. It's just that deep down one has a bit of hope that one day they'll actually want to engage in a serious discussion. And that's my excuse for trying to take them seriously. Don't worry... I'll learn....

So THAT was your point? Not very worthwhile, was it?

See what I'm saying. I keep expecting you guys to come up with serious points. I just have to lower my expectations. I should realize that you're just here to get posts you have no response to deleted.

 

When one makes threats aginst a school and claims to be a white supremacist or black supremacist etc they should be charged period and clearly they were all wrong.
People like this guy and others like then leave signs for people to read

 

seems he thinks a ar 15 is a military weapon its not and very few people are killed with rifles .

 

The NY state police investigated the shooter and determined he was not a threat to himself or anyone else.

 

You guys always say its the person not the gun that's the problem, so people control.

 

I wish they went into more detail about the metal printer that was used. I suspect its prohibitively expensive. Someday it may not be.

 

I said exactly what I said, that you guys think that a woman's ONLY defense is a gun.

 

Why does everyone seem intent on believing that "if we only had a law" something would be prevented?

 

You'll have to ask those who scream for more gun control laws after every mass shooting.

 

It was very worthwhile. It showed why you cutting posts the way you do takes things out of context. Or did you forget that I also said "There are other means. However those are not a part of the discussion." See, context. Context which you omitted, and I knew you would omit it. Which is why I included it where as any other time I would have simply ignored such an inane comment. See, you were set up. Because your debate style is predictable. I knew exactly how you would respond. With a condescending attitude of dismissal. Me saying "There are other means. However those are not a part of the discussion." SHOULD have given you a hint. But it doesn't serve your agenda so pfffffttt....out it goes. Deleted. Because you can't see past your agenda. This applies to this OP, your stance on guns, abortion, transgenderism...ALL the topics which you comment on. You can't see the worth of something unless you can use it to further your agenda. Everything else gets tossed.

 

Trolls are like that.
Its why the board has an ignore function.

 

Thanks for proving you're projecting. Nothing I said is about people control.

 

I always said that thinking gun control laws would prevent mass murders was utterly stupid. Mass shootings are often planned weeks, months, even years in advance.

Someone has been planning for a year to commit mass murder at their school or workplace. So one day they find out they can't get the gun they want and what do people think they do?

Say "Oh hell, I guess I'll just go to school (or work)".

That makes no sense.

 

It is expensive currently. Cheapest is around 120k. Although with payments its affordable for most and will pay for itself in the long run. Farmers spend far more for their various farm vehicles. ex: Combiners. And Farmers are not notoriously rich folks.

 

But that was the context of the OTHER post. Not of the one I quoted. Being in multiple discussions at the same time I did, in fact, forget that part from your other post. However, point taken. I withdraw my statement. And I unequivocally admit that yes... you CAN be shot with a bow and arrow.

Now... you STILL have to show ANYWHERE I altered the context in what I quoted

Here is the quote

And I STILL hold that this "broad brush strokes" narrative is some talking point from some MAGA-extremist media source to change the subject from the REAL topic. Which is the hate speech that white supremacists like Tucker Carlson spew, and is meant to draw attention away from the fact that this hate speech motivated the Buffalo massacre.

You REPORTED my post to the mods. So now you need to either SHOW what was taken out of context (NOT eliminated, but actually taken out of context) OR write to the mods withdrawing your report as well as admitting it here.

 

Exactly. It's just a rule. The only truly effective self-defense is one you have complete control over deploying. Most people do not want to do that and that's their choice. Some would rather be killed if confronted like this than take a chance on making an error with deadly self-defense and harming an innocent, and that's fine. I think we can all understand that.

At this point the most effective thing we can do as a society is try him promptly and a swift execution would serve justice.

 

It's a just outcome. I do not see how failing to execute him would prevent anyone from committing a similar crime.

 

Ah, the war on guns. Why would this war be successful when all other prohibition wars failed?

 

Fought by those who want the state to have a monopoly on force.
We don't wonder why.

 

Because that one HAS worked everywhere that it has been implemented.

 

- snort -
Like where?
Implemented how?
Measured by what?

 

Oops, you didn't do your research again.

 

UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, Singapore, ... to name a few.