Mentally ill shooter kills three policeman in Pittsburgh

LoisLane wrote:

You were the one who brought George W. Bush's policies into the debate! Why?

Heretic already wrote:

I wanted to see if you extended such bizarre beliefs to your own range of the political spectrum.

It was all explained on the previous page.

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

You were the one who brought George W. Bush's policies into the debate! Why?

Heretic already wrote:

I wanted to see if you extended such bizarre beliefs to your own range of the political spectrum.

It was all explained on the previous page.

It isn't political. Not everything is.
P.S. Just because my beliefs are 180 degrees from yours does not make me bizarre. If eveyone shared your beliefs, the whole country would be having an Obamagasm, and we'd be a country of zombies.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,you should apologize. You made no attempt to refute what he posted with facts.

I did refute him with facts.
I wrote, "... they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun."
And they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun, not by the NRA.
It doesn't get any more factual than that, does it, Artie?

Here's exactly what you wrote:

Quote :

Very good post.
And if you had demonstrated precisely how the NRA was responsible for this tragedy, it may have even passed for a coherent post.

Show me where you posted any facts to refute his claim. Then explain why you insulted him.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,you should apologize. You made no attempt to refute what he posted with facts.

I did refute him with facts.
I wrote, "... they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun."
And they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun, not by the NRA.
It doesn't get any more factual than that, does it, Artie?

Here's exactly what you wrote:

Quote :

Very good post.
And if you had demonstrated precisely how the NRA was responsible for this tragedy, it may have even passed for a coherent post.

Show me where you posted any facts to refute his claim. Then explain why you insulted him.

Here are the facts to dispute his claim:

happy jack wrote:

I did refute him with facts.
I wrote, "... they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun."
And they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun, not by the NRA.
It doesn't get any more factual than that, does it, Artie?

And I didn't insult him - I commented on his post.

Now, is there anything else I can help you with?

Yeah,try being truthful. Here is the entire post. Nowhere did you post any facts,did you? Your "comment" was a cheap shot insult.

Quote :

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

Chalk another one up for the NRA. The families of three policeman in Pittsburgh have had their lives shattered by a AK47 wielding gunman who felt his right to own firearms was being threatened. Here is part of the story.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm
He always said that if someone tried to take his weapons away he would do what his forefathers told him to do and defend himself."
Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama's election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said.Mr. Poplawski told him he bought his guns "because he felt the quality of life was being diminished," Mr. Vire said.
"He said he'll be ready if there's ever an invasion of the United States and that he had stockpiled foods and guns for that eventuality."
It's time for voters to take a stand against the gun violence that is destroying lives across the country.

Very good post.
And if you had demonstrated precisely how the NRA was responsible for this tragedy, it may have even passed for a coherent post.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Yeah,try being truthful. Here is the entire post. Nowhere did you post any facts,did you? Your "comment" was a cheap shot insult.

I posted my facts in the very next post I made:

Yes,but that wasn't the post I directed my comments at,was it?

happy jack wrote:

And no, I did not insult him. I commented on his post.

You falsely claimed the post was "incoherent" when it clearly wasn't. How about we just settle on "cheap shot",ok?

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

After reading through the news accounts of the ambush, it does sound like the shooter was influenced by the steady wave of distortions coming from the NRA and other gun rights groups in the media. These distortions include the contention that Obama is trying to take our guns ...

... So, it can be argued that the NRA's constant promotion of inflammatory ideas did contribute to three police officers in Pittsburgh dying.

Yes, it can be argued, but it would still be incorrect.
I have heard the same rumors about gun confiscation, and you know what?
I, along with anyone I know who heard the same rumors, have not gone out and ambushed police officers.
I, along with anyone I know who heard the same rumors, have not even remotely entertained the notion of doing something like that.
So clearly it was not the "ideas" of the NRA that are responsible for this tragedy. The responsibility lies with one defective individual.
A normal person would properly place the blame where it belongs - squarely on the person who pulled the trigger.

Just because you haven't been influenced by the inflammatory propoganda of the NRA isn't proof that no one has been.Judging by the news reports, at least one gun owner was influenced by distortions from either the media or the NRA and three police officers are dead because of it. There are tens of millions of guns floating around in this country and thousands of them are owned by mentally unstable people. While it isn't illegal for the NRA to lie about the government taking guns, it clearly is not a responsible course of action. Which is not surprising because much of what the NRA advocates is irresponsible and contributes to firearm deaths here and in other countries. As a side note, Jack. How about dropping the bold print. It is the thought behind your words that makes a post impressive, not the size of the typeface.

happy jack wrote:

You falsely claimed the post was "incoherent" when it clearly wasn't. How about we just settle on "cheap shot",ok?

I posted my facts immediately following the first post.[/quote]

Yeah,but once again that's not the post we're discussing.

Quote :

sparks' post made no sense, and I simply noted that fact.
So, you're wrong twice.
How about we settle on that?

Typical

happy jack wrote:

I'll tell you what: you worry about your posting style, and I'll worry about mine.
Agreed?
And even if it's not agreed, TFB.
'kay?[/b]

What does 'TFB" stand for?

LoisLane wrote:

sparks wrote:

Chalk another one up for the NRA. The families of three policeman in Pittsburgh have had their lives shattered by a AK47 wielding gunman who felt his right to own firearms was being threatened. Here is part of the story.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm
He always said that if someone tried to take his weapons away he would do what his forefathers told him to do and defend himself."
Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama's election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said.Mr. Poplawski told him he bought his guns "because he felt the quality of life was being diminished," Mr. Vire said.
"He said he'll be ready if there's ever an invasion of the United States and that he had stockpiled foods and guns for that eventuality."
It's time for voters to take a stand against the gun violence that is destroying lives across the country.

And.....if that nutcase didn't have a gun, don't you think he could have killed three cops with something else? I remember a post about a month and a half ago, where you claimed that you had a gun. (someone made the off hand remark that a water pistol didn't count, remember?) So, liar liar pants on fire, why are you against guns, and you claim you own one? Or are you just building up your post count?

No, I don't think that guy in Pittsburgh could have killed those police officers without a gun. I don't believe any of the mass murders that have killed over thirty people in the last two months could have happened without high powered firearms.If you know of any cases where a single criminal without a gun killed three police officers responding to a domestic call,post a link. As far as your second remark, the mental midgets OTOB made the claim that liberals don't own guns. There are plenty of liberals who own guns and know how to use them. I'm of the opinion that I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have one. Owning a gun doesn't mean I can't advocate enacting more common sense laws regulating them. "Liar,liar pants on fire"? What are you,twelve?

LoisLane wrote:

It isn't political.

What isn't?

LoisLane wrote:

Not everything is.

I never said or implied everything was.

LoisLane wrote:

Just because my beliefs are 180 degrees from yours does not make me bizarre.

But the idea that a simple vote turns a political candidate into a deity beyond criticism is bizarre. That's the idea I was testing. You keep hilariously referring to Obama as "Messiah" and were unable to level a critical eye at some of Bush policies, even though the difference in probabilities were even greater than the example you used with Artie.

Like I said, this was all explained on the previous page.

LoisLane wrote:

If eveyone shared your beliefs, the whole country would be having an Obamagasm, and we'd be a country of zombies.

That's interesting. What exactly do you understand my "beliefs" to be? Because if you are under the impression that I have ever considered Obama to be some type of savior or that I fit into some neat little liberal/"Dumbocrat" stereotype, then you're apparently not familiar with me or any of my posts. At all.

happy jack wrote:

At least one gun owner was influenced by the movie Taxi Driver, too.
So what?

That's pretty much how I'm looking at it. Jodie Foster and a Disney movie influenced one man enough to try and kill Reagan. But influence doesn't equate to responsibility, though I don't think we can say that such vapid fearmongering by the NRA is having no effect at all.

LoisLane wrote:

And.....if that nutcase didn't have a gun, don't you think he could have killed three cops with something else?

No. Guns are used because of their speed, ease of use, and their lethality. I doubt he would have been able to do as much damage as he did with any weapon other than a firearm (sans explosives... maybe).

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I'll tell you what: you worry about your posting style, and I'll worry about mine.
Agreed?
And even if it's not agreed, TFB.
'kay?[/b]

What does 'TFB" stand for?

It's a secret code that only gun owners can understand.

Ashamed to admit what it really stands for?

Heretic wrote:

No. Guns are used because of their speed, ease of use, and their lethality. I doubt he would have been able to do as much damage as he did with any weapon other than a firearm (sans explosives... maybe).

Really? How about a trip wire and a pipe bomb. Why sans explosives? They are more easily to get. Truly one dimensional thinking.

LoisLane wrote:

And.....if that nutcase didn't have a gun, don't you think he could have killed three cops with something else?

Show us a reasonable scenario as efficient as a gun.

Heretic wrote:

But the idea that a simple vote turns a political candidate into a deity beyond criticism is bizarre. That's the idea I was testing. You keep hilariously referring to Obama as "Messiah" and were unable to level a critical eye at some of Bush policies, even though the difference in probabilities were even greater than the example you used with Artie.

And if you've read any of my posts you'd know that I think George W. Bush was one of the worse presidents ever. You'd also know I am neither Democrat or Republican. I don't vote a party, but I do vote for the person.

LoisLane wrote:

Heretic wrote:

No. Guns are used because of their speed, ease of use, and their lethality. I doubt he would have been able to do as much damage as he did with any weapon other than a firearm (sans explosives... maybe).

Really? How about a trip wire and a pipe bomb. Why sans explosives? They are more easily to get. Truly one dimensional thinking.

The shooter was concerned because he felt the government was trying to take his guns, not his explosives. Since explosives are not available in an "off the shelf" version that the general public can purchase to commit random acts of violence, they are much harder to acquire. A person needs to have access to both the materials needed and have the skills to build a functioning bomb without killing himself in the process.
If you look at the pictures from this gun show in Kentucky, many of these boys are hard pressed to speak in complete sentences. I don't see them building bombs.