|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 22:48:00 GMT
Why don't you answer the points that I raised? The main one being that there were already five 'armed' men on site quickly who were unable to save lives. In practice therefore, the fighting guns with guns thing clearly didn't work in this case. Your link! How can anyone miss the point this badly? Are you a permanent resident of a mental health facility? tsk tsk tsk Just refute ( if you can) or even just answer the relevant and pertinent points that I raised.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 26, 2018 22:59:43 GMT
How can anyone miss the point this badly? Are you a permanent resident of a mental health facility? tsk tsk tsk Just refute ( if you can) or even just answer the relevant and pertinent points that I raised. Your stupidity is inexcusable. How the hell can you not comprehend even the simplest points? They didn't save lives because they didn't even try. You can't stop a shooting inside a building if you stay outside the building. What part of this is complicated for you?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 23:08:04 GMT
tsk tsk tsk Just refute ( if you can) or even just answer the relevant and pertinent points that I raised. Your stupidity is inexcusable. How the hell can you not comprehend even the simplest points? They didn't save lives because they didn't even try. You can't stop a shooting inside a building if you stay outside the building. What part of this is complicated for you? Why didn't they try? They had guns and were trained? If you answer that they were cowards, I will already answer that perhaps they were realists knowing that they were 'outgunned' OR that that the circumstances were such that they couldn't get a clear shot in the chaos and might risk harming students, OR in fact many other things that prove that real life is not like a movie and the good man with the gun can neutralise the bad man with a gun (especially if the bad man has a superior gun) You have swallowed your own propaganda so long that this is actually a wake up call to all you gun nuts that arming everyone is far from the solution. It is just NOT that simple. In fact it is exactly the same stupid argument that the likes of you gives about having a firearm in a robbery or home invasion. The FACTS are the person who gets shot is the one without the better opportunity, the element of surprise or the best gun.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 26, 2018 23:17:45 GMT
Your stupidity is inexcusable. How the hell can you not comprehend even the simplest points? They didn't save lives because they didn't even try. You can't stop a shooting inside a building if you stay outside the building. What part of this is complicated for you? Why didn't they try? They had guns and were trained? If you answer that they were cowards, I will already answer that perhaps they were realists knowing that they were 'outgunned' OR that that the circumstances were such that they couldn't get a clear shot in the chaos and might risk harming students, OR in fact many other things that prove that real life is not like a movie and the good man with the gun can neutralise the bad man with a gun (especially if the bad man has a superior gun) You have swallowed your own propaganda so long that this is actually a wake up call to all you gun nuts that arming everyone is far from the solution. It is just NOT that simple. In fact it is exactly the same stupid argument that the likes of you gives about having a firearm in a robbery or home invasion. The FACTS are the person who gets shot is the one without the better opportunity, the element of surprise or the best gun. Is it possible for you to post two consecutive sentences without a logical fallacy? You are the most clueless person on this board. Cody, Arlon and Erjen combined could not reach the levels of ignorance you somehow manage all on your own.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 27, 2018 1:39:32 GMT
Why didn't they try? They had guns and were trained? If you answer that they were cowards, I will already answer that perhaps they were realists knowing that they were 'outgunned' OR that that the circumstances were such that they couldn't get a clear shot in the chaos and might risk harming students, OR in fact many other things that prove that real life is not like a movie and the good man with the gun can neutralise the bad man with a gun (especially if the bad man has a superior gun) You have swallowed your own propaganda so long that this is actually a wake up call to all you gun nuts that arming everyone is far from the solution. It is just NOT that simple. In fact it is exactly the same stupid argument that the likes of you gives about having a firearm in a robbery or home invasion. The FACTS are the person who gets shot is the one without the better opportunity, the element of surprise or the best gun. Is it possible for you to post two consecutive sentences without a logical fallacy? You are the most clueless person on this board. Cody, Arlon and Erjen combined could not reach the levels of ignorance you somehow manage all on your own. You are deflecting with ad hominem and NOT actually answering the points made. The more you can't answer, the worse it gets. This is heaps fun! How about we stop talking about me, interesting as I am, and address the points I made on the topic? You are starting to look a little....impotent!
|
|