knives don't stab people people stab people!

[onlinebiker]

Carottop is a suck ass prop comedian. Lizard boy isthe cunt who keeps posting whatta bad guy I am - whilst he spews threats and hatred.

Perhaps if he got his shnozz and bug- eyed face outta my asccrack - he' d feel better.

Watch for it - he' s soon to follow.....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, no movement on your phony facts regarding firearm homicides vs vehicular homicides, then?

Boru

[onlinebiker]

So, no movement on your phony facts regarding firearm homicides vs vehicular homicides, then?

Boru

Go look - as you won't accept what I say.

Show your work.


In acts if terrorism - in any single incident - what is the highest number killed by firearm - and by vehicle?


Answer - vehicles win - hands down.

The most killed in total? By bombs.

There are more INCIDENTS by gun - but the numbers killed are relatively low per incident.

Getting rid of the guns would prompt terrorists to use more effective means like fire, bombs and vehicles.

Does this mean do we need more guns you ask? Don' t be a cunt. No, it does not mean that. It means that getting rid of guns is a poor way to combat terrorism. It always has been.

But it is as it' s always been - a good first step at enslaving the masses.

[downbeatplumb]

So, no movement on your phony facts regarding firearm homicides vs vehicular homicides, then?

Boru

Go look - as you won't accept what I say.

Show your work.


In acts if terrorism - in any single incident - what is the highest number killed by firearm - and by vehicle?


Answer - vehicles win - hands down.

The most killed in total? By bombs.

There are more INCIDENTS by gun - but the numbers killed are relatively low per incident.

Getting rid of the guns would prompt terrorists to use more effective means like fire, bombs and vehicles.

Does this mean do we need more guns you ask? Don' t be a cunt. No, it does not mean that. It means that getting rid of guns is a poor way to combat terrorism. It always has been.

But it is as it' s always been - a good first step at enslaving the masses.

In a single incident in Mumbai 166 people where killed by guns.

In the UK civilians aren't armed or enslaved. 

Is it because your countries history of enslavement is so recent that you fear the return of the bad old days?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, no movement on your phony facts regarding firearm homicides vs vehicular homicides, then?

Boru

Go look

I did.

as you won't accept what I say.

I don't accept it because it's factually wrong.

Show your work.

I have done, links included.  Scroll back.

Answer - vehicles win - hands down.

Not true.

The most killed in total? By bombs.

True worldwide, but irrelevant to the discussion.

There are more INCIDENTS by gun - but the numbers killed are relatively low per incident.

How can you not see that this isn't the point?  Over the course of a year, more people are killed deliberately by firearms than are deliberately killed by any other method.  To refresh your memory, 74% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms. Scroll back, there's a link.

Getting rid of the guns would prompt terrorists to use more effective means like fire, bombs and vehicles.

Terrorists already use those means (as you've pointed out), but that's irrelevant to the discussion because (as I've pointed out), I'm not suggesting getting rid of guns.

Does this mean do we need more guns you ask? Don' t be a cunt. No, it does not mean that. It means that getting rid of guns is a poor way to combat terrorism. It always has been.

But it is as it' s always been - a good first step at enslaving the masses.

Irrelevant, same reason.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Carottop is a suck ass prop comedian. Lizard boy isthe cunt who keeps posting whatta bad guy I am - whilst he spews threats and hatred.

Perhaps if he got his shnozz and bug- eyed face outta my asccrack - he' d feel better.

Watch for it - he' s soon to follow.....

And does anybody else see this person? Or just you? If it's just you I'd ask for the rehab money back.

---

But it is as it' s always been - a good first step at enslaving the masses.

♫Paranoia strikes deep,
Into your mind it will creep...♫

[onlinebiker]

Told ya.


The dude' s incapable of keeping his nose outta my ass..


I' d be flattered if he wasn' t such a toady looking cunt.

[Amarok]

Go look

I did.

as you won't accept what I say.

I don't accept it because it's factually wrong.

Show your work.

I have done, links included.  Scroll back.

Answer - vehicles win - hands down.

Not true.

The most killed in total? By bombs.

True worldwide, but irrelevant to the discussion.

There are more INCIDENTS by gun - but the numbers killed are relatively low per incident.

How can you not see that this isn't the point?  Over the course of a year, more people are killed deliberately by firearms than are deliberately killed by any other method.  To refresh your memory, 74% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms. Scroll back, there's a link.

Getting rid of the guns would prompt terrorists to use more effective means like fire, bombs and vehicles.

Terrorists already use those means (as you've pointed out), but that's irrelevant to the discussion because (as I've pointed out), I'm not suggesting getting rid of guns.

Does this mean do we need more guns you ask? Don' t be a cunt. No, it does not mean that. It means that getting rid of guns is a poor way to combat terrorism. It always has been.

But it is as it' s always been - a good first step at enslaving the masses.

Irrelevant, same reason.

Boru

Also i pointed why this supposed fact is irrelevant

[onlinebiker]

Go look - as you won't accept what I say.

Show your work.


In acts if terrorism - in any single incident - what is the highest number killed by firearm - and by vehicle?


Answer - vehicles win - hands down.

The most killed in total? By bombs.

There are more INCIDENTS by gun - but the numbers killed are relatively low per incident.

Getting rid of the guns would prompt terrorists to use more effective means like fire, bombs and vehicles.

Does this mean do we need more guns you ask? Don' t be a cunt. No, it does not mean that. It means that getting rid of guns is a poor way to combat terrorism. It always has been.

But it is as it' s always been - a good first step at enslaving the masses.

In a single incident in Mumbai 166 people where killed by guns.

In the UK civilians aren't armed or enslaved. 

Is it because your countries history of enslavement is so recent that you fear the return of the bad old days?

Do the math. That was 10 terrorist wielding 10 guns. Per gun - less than 17.


Single bombs or vehicles have killedin the 100s.

[Amarok]

But it is as it' s always been - a good first step at enslaving the masses.

Nope the masses were enslaved long before and in some cases it was barley a factor .

---

Do the math. That was 10 terrorist wielding 10 guns. Per gun - less than 17.


Single bombs or vehicles have killedin the 100s.

If only that's what the math reflected and if it were relevant in the first place