(January 1, 2020 at 4:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(January 1, 2020 at 4:20 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: I've seen the video; It's one person and he was a trained security guard.

Then the tryhards pulled out their guns afterward pretending to do something.

Link?

I'll PM you. I don't think it be appropriate to post it here

(January 1, 2020 at 9:34 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(January 1, 2020 at 7:15 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I guess crazy shooters don't target places with armed guards ....oh wail.

Cite cases where they have.

You have ONE example? Maybe two?


Gee - didn't.you say that wasn't enough?

.....

Here's seven - supporting "the good guy with a gun" scenario.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/i...o-can-you/

Let's see you shown more - where a murdering fuck attacked a place that was known to have armed guards..

(Waiting for the pathetic cry of "that's different!".

Still doesn't refute my original point that it is statistical rare thus still a myth overall

---

Incidence we don't need them we already know mass shooters aren't deterred by guns .So this whole line of reasoning is predicated on an unfounded assumption  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...e-fantasy/

https://fortune.com/2018/02/22/armed-gua...wont-work/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...shootings/

---

(January 1, 2020 at 5:30 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(January 1, 2020 at 4:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Link?

I'll PM you. I don't think it be appropriate to post it here

You don't need to because we don't need to show there are more instances of attacks on area's with guns present .That's simply granting presupposition that it's true mass shooters are deterred by guns and forces us to ignore the reason mass shooters actually pick their targets. Even if he peddels rates of success it's sill based on his initial presupposition.

Well spotted.

(January 1, 2020 at 5:30 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(January 1, 2020 at 4:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Link?

I'll PM you. I don't think it be appropriate to post it here

Yeah...

Uh....


You are wrong.

Plain and simple.


Anyone who checks the news knows it.

Quote:Yeah...

Uh....


You are wrong.

Plain and simple.


Anyone who checks the news knows it.

Yay accusing someone of lying without evidence and then boldly asserting your right because

Such awesome rationality

Do i need to restate the idea we don't need to provide examples of places being attacked with guns present to reject your starting assumption or reject our statically incidental claim (myth)

And this deterrent theory doesn't make sense when you think about it for more than five seconds, because a sizable proportion of mass shooters end up dying by their own hand (or by cops' hands) when the massacre's over anyway. Granted, it's not as constant a factor now as it was in the 2000s, but it's still common enough that, of the 10 incidents catalogued in Mother Jones' Mass Shootings index for 2019, the gunman only survived twice. So, once again, the assumption that the prospect of a shooter getting shot himself will deter them when mass murderers have only a 20% survival rate in 2019?:

And for how badly deterrence fails, I'll tell you a little story. On December 1, a month ago exactly, give or take 14 hours, a mass of tourists descended on New Orleans for the Bayou Classic football game. Because of this, there were extra cops on Bourbon Street that night. Then, all at once, shots were fired. Nobody died, but ten people were injured, two critically. The cops couldn't make out the shooter, and he's still at large.

You've claimed that something like this could be a sign people should stop relying on the police and take matters into their own hands. Well, that's all well and good for white folks, but people of colour? The news is filled with stories of people who looked like they could have been defending themselves, and ended up getting shot for their troubles. A few hours ago, Tara showed you two tales of black people who died because cops just saw a black guy with a BB gun, assumed it was real, and killed them. And I've heard of people getting shot by police for even less potentially plausible reasons. And people of colour who realised they couldn't trust the police to help their communities, banded together, and took matters into their own hands to stay alive? There's a name for that phoenomenon: gangs. And once you catch wind of their activities, well, something tells me that you wouldn't think they're just "protecting themselves."

And, Rev., they didn't get the shooter. NOBODY got the shooter. Maybe if more people where shooting more people would have been able to describe a shooter. OR nine.

---

But remember, we're not talking about mass shootings, that dumbs it down. We're talking about either mass murder or attempted mass murder. Keep it honest.

(January 1, 2020 at 7:31 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(January 1, 2020 at 5:30 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: I'll PM you. I don't think it be appropriate to post it here

Yeah...

Uh....


You are wrong.

Plain and simple.


Anyone who checks the news knows it.

Huh? Are you sure you quoted the right person?

(January 1, 2020 at 7:55 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(January 1, 2020 at 7:31 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Yeah...

Uh....


You are wrong.

Plain and simple.


Anyone who checks the news knows it.

Huh? Are you sure you quoted the right person?

I think he may have been referring to me if not doesn't matter as he never addressed my point and simply saying "i watch he news" isn't a refutation nor proof of his assumption .

(January 1, 2020 at 7:52 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: And, Rev., they didn't get the shooter. NOBODY got the shooter. Maybe if more people where shooting more people would have been able to describe a shooter. OR nine.

And remember that I added that he was still at large.