Mentally ill shooter kills three policeman in Pittsburgh

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

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?

Ashamed to admit you can't figure it out?

I know exactly what it means and so do others here. You're not fooling anyone.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

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.

Oklahoma City.
World Trade Center.
The Pentagon.
Countless others.
All much more efficient than a gun.

More efficient? Yes

Reasonable? No!

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

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.

Oklahoma City.
World Trade Center.
The Pentagon.
Countless others.
All much more efficient than a gun.

More efficient? Yes

Reasonable? No!

Mass murder is rarely reasonable.

I guess you missed the word "scenario".

happy jack wrote:

I guess you missed the word "scenario".

Did I?
The Frog Belches.[/quote]

You are just so clever. Is that a new tactic you learned on your vacation?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

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.

Oklahoma City.
World Trade Center.
The Pentagon.
Countless others.
All much more efficient than a gun.

More efficient? Yes

Reasonable? No!

Why are these scenarios not 'reasonable'? They are events that actually occurred, in case you've forgotten. That in and of itself makes them 'reasonable'.

Hijacking a plane,flying it into a building,or packing a Ryder truck with explosives are not something your average lunatic wingnut would be able to accomplish as easily as concealing a gun and opening fire.

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.

Um... that's exactly what I meant by "sans explosives". That I doubt he would have been able to do as much damage with any weapon other than a firearm save for explosives....

LoisLane wrote:

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.

Really? I must have missed that one. I guess we're both unfamiliar with each other.

99.9% of ALL the murders committed in the United States, are committed by criminals who could not LEGALLY buy guns in the 1st place.
The anti-gun crowd is exploiting these few incidents to promote their agenda, which is the disarming of the law abiding citizens. IF you would take away the guns from those who illegally have them, you would see the murder rate drop across the country, to almost nothing.

Jack, our pet frogs, Freddy and Tad, do not belch, but they do go croaka-croaka !

happy jack wrote:

Quote :

Why are these scenarios not 'reasonable'? They are events that actually occurred, in case you've forgotten. That in and of itself makes them 'reasonable' .

No it doesn't.
Buying an M15 at a gun show is much more easier & convenient than renting a Ryder truck, buying a ton of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, a 50 gal drum of fuel oil, blasting caps, & actually having the know how of putting it all together without blowing yourself up.

It doesn't take much brain power or skill to aim & pull a trigger.

Not even close to being 'reasonable.'

Tiger1 wrote:

99.9% of ALL the murders committed in the United States, are committed by criminals who could not LEGALLY buy guns in the 1st place.

Study Says Mass Murders are Driven by Legal Guns and Convenient Access

Quote :

The more complex issue is guns. Firearms were used 88 percent of the time in the study. Addressing gun control and assault-weapon bans, the study noted 63 percent of the guns used in mass-murder sprees were purchased legally and the buyer underwent a background check.

Tiger1 wrote:

99.9% of ALL the murders committed in the United States, are committed by criminals who could not LEGALLY buy guns in the 1st place.

That's why they take advantage of loopholes in weak gun laws.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/

Quote :

The anti-gun crowd is exploiting these few incidents to promote their agenda, which is the disarming of the law abiding citizens.

No, nobody is trying to disarm law abiding citizens. Repeating NRA, bullshiit wingnut propaganda lies ad nauseam doesn't make it fact.

Quote :

IF you would take away the guns from those who illegally have them, you would see the murder rate drop across the country, to almost nothing.

really?

sparks wrote:

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.

Explosives can be made from fertilizer, and other household products. They are more readily available than firearms.

LoisLane wrote:

Explosives can be made from fertilizer, and other household products. They are more readily available than firearms.

Yes,but they're a lot more difficult to transport and and conceal then a gun. As Sparks also pointed out,they would have to have the expertise to construct one,not to mention the discipline and planning involved. I also believe that as a result of all those steps one would have to go through,they might be a lot more likely to change their minds and not follow through.

markh wrote:

Why did Tim McVeigh, a Christian, park a truck-bomb and run away, when he could have driven the truck into the building and detonated the bomb with much greater effect? He was a coward. Based on the logic you have used, one could conclude that all Christians are cowards because, unlike Muslims, they do not believe in dying for their cause...

He was no Christian, he was a hate-filled coward, who labeled HIMSELF as a Christian. True Christians are peace loving people, not cowards, who WILL die for their faith, but NOT by committing terrorist attacks on others.

The continuous terrorist attacks, show that the moslems are indeed cowards.

LoisLane wrote:

sparks wrote:

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.

Explosives can be made from fertilizer, and other household products. They are more readily available than firearms.

To detonate a bomb made from fertilizer,a blasting cap is required.To purchase blasting caps,you have to have a permit from the federal government. These permits are only issued to people who use blasting caps in businesses such as mining or demolition. Without a blasting cap, the fertilizer is only good for it's intended use,which is farming. In order words, without a blasting cap,your bomb would be nothing more than a harmless,smelly mess.

markh wrote:

Tiger1, I'm glad you agree that Tim Mcveigh was a coward. It reinforces my statement that by happy jack's logic, all Christians are cowards.

Mark, that is not what I said or implied. Read it again. TRUE CHRISTIANS are the opposite of Timothy McViegh. He was no Christian in any way, shape, or form. Happy Jacks logic is impeccable, yours needs to be re-tweaked.