Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

tobinates559 said:

hitler and stalin wanted the gun control too,, and all the people that say its a ridiculous argument that armed civilians could make a difference to a tyrannical government in the modern day are wrong...its really only takes a small group of well trained well armed men to make a BIG difference

Click to expand...

please describe to me what it took to defeat the nazis.

tobinates559 said:

hitler and stalin wanted the gun control too,, and all the people that say its a ridiculous argument that armed civilians could make a difference to a tyrannical government in the modern day are wrong...its really only takes a small group of well trained well armed men to make a BIG difference

Click to expand...

More regurgitated right wing rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that Hitler loosened gun regulations by quite a bit. When you contrast the 1928 german gun laws compared to the regulation passed under Hitler in 1938, he greatly extended the ability of the populous to arm themselves. Among the changes were the lowering of the minimum age required to purchases a firearm, extending the length of firearm permits, changing restrictions so that only handguns were restricted (Whereas both handguns and long guns were restricted under the 1928 legislation), deregulated the transfer of rifles and shotguns, and adding greatly to the list of groups who were exempted from needing gun permits. The only people who faced stricter gun regulations under Hitler were the Jews, who lost many more rights under Hitler than just the right to bear arms. You can read all about it in this article. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf. Or (more likely) you can ignore it and keep spewing your uninformed garbage. But the reality is, Hitler's views on gun control were much more in line with right wingers than with leftists.

Ace Yonder said:

More regurgitated right wing rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that Hitler loosened gun regulations by quite a bit. When you contrast the 1928 german gun laws compared to the regulation passed under Hitler in 1938, he greatly extended the ability of the populous to arm themselves. Among the changes were the lowering of the minimum age required to purchases a firearm, extending the length of firearm permits, changing restrictions so that only handguns were restricted (Whereas both handguns and long guns were restricted under the 1928 legislation), deregulated the transfer of rifles and shotguns, and adding greatly to the list of groups who were exempted from needing gun permits. The only people who faced stricter gun regulations under Hitler were the Jews, who lost many more rights under Hitler than just the right to bear arms. You can read all about it in this article. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf. Or (more likely) you can ignore it and keep spewing your uninformed garbage. But the reality is, Hitler's views on gun control were much more in line with right wingers than with leftists.

Click to expand...

Both of you ignore key points of the historical record. Him by making sweeping statements; and you by disregarding that the group targeted for oppression was categorically deprived of gun ownership.

kpmarine said:

Both of you ignore key points of the historical record. Him by making sweeping statements; and you by disregarding that the group targeted for oppression was categorically deprived of gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Really?? Sure looks like he spoke to that point to me..

Ace Yonder said:

The only people who faced stricter gun regulations under Hitler were the Jews, who lost many more rights under Hitler than just the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

please describe to me what it took to defeat the nazis.

Click to expand...

The French resistance was a major part. The US made a point of supplying arms to irregular militia, which helped weaken German forces in France, which made the invasion more feasible. If you're heading to the point where you compare foreign invasion apples to insurrection oranges; I'd say they are incomparable on many levels.

thecannacove said:

Really?? Sure looks like he spoke to that point to me..

Click to expand...

Disregarding does not mean you don't mention something. It means you fail to acknowledge the importance of it.

kpmarine said:

Disregarding does not mean you don't mention something. It means you fail to acknowledge the importance of it.

Click to expand...

So because he didn't write a history book for you he's disregarding it?

dis·re·gard
ˌdisriˈgärd/Submit
verb
1.
pay no attention to; ignore.
"the body of evidence is too substantial to disregard"
synonyms:ignore, take no notice of, pay no attention/heed to; More

thecannacove said:

So because he didn't write a history book for you he's disregarding it?

dis·re·gard
ˌdisriˈgärd/Submit
verb
1.
pay no attention to; ignore.
"the body of evidence is too substantial to disregard"
synonyms:ignore, take no notice of, pay no attention/heed to; More

Click to expand...

By failing to simply pay any regard to the repercussions of maintaining disarmament of one specific group of people. He completely disregarded the significance of a major point. He emphasized the fact that everyone who wasn't a jew could own a gun (Read: The people who wanted to shoot the jews.); as if that somehow changed the fact that those those who were armed wished to shoot could not. That's some serious lack of regard for the facts of the matter.

There always seems to be one or two dickheads you can't please...

kelly4 said:

Hey, dum dum, The question at hand is not if I can kill everyone who is on the street. The question is can I kill more with my plow truck than a person armed with guns.

Let the people scream all they want. They can blow whistles and blow horns if they want to. If the street is crowded and I'm moving...people are dead, lots of them. If I'm going 50 mph, how far will screams travel before my truck gets there? You are aware that people don't bounce off of raised plows, right? Nobody will start screaming until people are getting hit. In the time it took you to read this sentence, I could run over 50 more. The plow raised, tearing people into pieces, giant tires easily rolling over the bodies.

You know, the more I think about it, the better the places I'm coming up with. It's my new game.



Seriously though, I keep hearing about how bad guns are. How many thousands upon thousands of shootings there are every year. Yet, 27 deaths are the result of the deadliest attack. There are numerous cases of people trying to shoot as many people as they can, but the single biggest death count is 27. 27? LOL.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

Vehicle @ 50mph - 73ft/s
Sound @ 767mph - 1,125ft/s

So, one second after the initial scream, people 1,125ft away could have heard the scream.

One Mile is 5280ft, so five seconds after the first scream, people a mile away are aware something is happening, and you've traveled a max distance of.... 365 feet, in a single direction, in your truck.

The instant after the first scream, an AR has an accurate range of 985 feet virtually instaneously, in all directions, with the projectile traveling at over 3,000ft second.

You could effectively kill people before they hear the gun shot, or the scream.

In your scenario with a busy street after a game. If you casually pulled up in your truck to a sidewalk, stopped, and got out with an AR with a 100 round drum mag, and another attached to your belt, you could kill more people, faster than with a truck. Not only is the initial reach of a firearm further, it can be instantaneously used in all directions without having to turn around.

This argument for all intents and purposes is retarded.

The only dangerous aspect on both sides is the person using the gun/truck.

NoDrama said:

If you aren't stupid, you can jump out of the way and not get hurt at all, that's what you said. You said only stupid people would get injured by a automobile speeding towards them.

So whose the dolt?

Click to expand...

You don't think, do you?

Does it say every person who was injured attempted to jump out of the way and was still injured by the vehicle? We were discussing a car on the sidewalk or crosswalk, not a farmers market where people were standing at stalls. Guy speeding down road in giant truck with snow plow =/= guy smashing through walls and stalls at a farmers market. For all you know some of the 63 people had scraped knees from wood splinters, or two people bumped heads.

Stick to the discusson at hand.... Focus and stop making assumptions when there's no evidence to support what you say, big boy.

I'm sure you can get through this without making yourself looking more retarded than you already do.

Why do you jump to these stupid conclusions based on your own ignorance and assumptions when no one suggested what you're saying? Just another strawman to huff and puff at? This is what people who lack intelligence do, they attack something that's not even being discussed and pretend like they're contributing to the conversation. You haven't said anything useful this entire time. Nothing. Not one damn thing.

NoDrama said:

The Butt hurt must have been epic for you to create an avatar and a thread to attack Doer.

Click to expand...

Butt hurt? It was hilarious! I got sooooo much +rep and so many PM's form that, it was awesome!

Apparently, there are a LOT of people that think The Rockodile hunter is an idiot too. (And a liar!)

kpmarine said:

By failing to simply pay any regard to the repercussions of maintaining disarmament of one specific group of people. He completely disregarded the significance of a major point. He emphasized the fact that everyone who wasn't a jew could own a gun (Read: The people who wanted to shoot the jews.); as if that somehow changed the fact that those those who were armed wished to shoot could not. That's some serious lack of regard for the facts of the matter.

Click to expand...

You are misinterpreting history by emphasizing the gun ownership part. The Jews were systematically stripped of nearly every civil right, including the right to own land and businesses. This fact is reflected in their being disallowed the possession of firearms, but to say that the targeted removal of the Jews' right to bear arms was more significant than any of their other civil liberties that were stripped is just cherry picking to support your own views on gun control. Even at the time the Jews were prominent supporters of gun control legislation. Removing one single groups right to bear arms was a contributing factor, but by no means the main one. And the only conclusion it supports is that removing a single group's rights to anything is dangerous. It has absolutely no bearing on gun control legislation that affects every group equally. And on another point, your emphasis on the french resistance being a major part of defeating the nazis is pretty shortsighted as well. Hitler underestimating the Russian winter and committing the bulk of his army to fighting a war in weather that they were unequipped for, with clothing that could not keep them warm and guns that were lubricated with oil that froze in the temperatures they were fighting in, combined with refusing to retreat or halt his advance against the advice of his generals, was a much much greater factor in their defeat. So was Britain's achieving air superiority in the Battle of Britain. The French resistance aided the allies fighting in the west, and helped in the eventual liberation of France, but to compare its significance in the overall defeat of Nazism to the disastrous results of Hitler trying to take Stalingrad in the middle of winter is just misguided.

thecannacove said:

No no cupcake. You asserted you could, but nobody asked "can Kelly4 kill more with his plow trick than a person with armed guns?"



Bro get a fucking life.

Click to expand...

Hey, new guy...

We've been having this discussion for years. Thanks for joining the discussion late...

Beefbisquit said:

In your scenario with a busy street after a game. If you casually pulled up in your truck to a sidewalk, stopped, and got out with an AR with a 100 round drum mag, and another attached to your belt, you could kill more people, faster than with a truck. Not only is the initial reach of a firearm further, it can be instantaneously used in all directions without having to turn around.

Click to expand...

You might be able to shoot more people, but I would kill more people. You are also standing on a street, I'm moving at 50 mph. You say one shot from a cop will kill me...not traveling at 50. You also claim cops will be standing everywhere...how will they not shoot you? How is it so easy to kill me driving 50 mph, but not you just standing there? I love how cops will waste me in a second moving at 50 mph, but you will just stand there killing everyone with one shot. LOL! Where are all of these cops that were going to kill me with a single shot? Did they disappear?

Face it, mass murder has been tried with guns by many and their highest kill total is 27.

Beefbisquit said:

Does it say every person who was injured attempted to jump out of the way and was still injured by the vehicle? We were discussing a car on the sidewalk or crosswalk, not a farmers market where people were standing at stalls. Guy speeding down road in giant truck with snow plow =/= guy smashing through walls and stalls at a farmers market. For all you know some of the 63 people had scraped knees from wood splinters, or two people bumped heads. We are discussing any scenario where I could hit people in my truck. Did you forget the part where I said these were just examples?

Stick to the discusson at hand....

I'm sure you can get through this without making yourself looking more retarded than you already do.

Why do you jump to these stupid conclusions based on your own ignorance and assumptions when no one suggested what you're saying? Just another strawman to huff and puff at? This is what people who lack intelligence do,
You mean like using F150's on the battlefield? Moron.

Click to expand...

Why do you say one thing, but do another?

kelly4 said:

You might be able to shoot more people, but I would kill more people.

Click to expand...

How can you possibly know that? You get hit center of mass with a round or two, chances are you're gonna die.

You are also standing on a street, I'm moving at 50 mph. You say one shot from a cop will kill me...not traveling at 50.

Click to expand...

You traveling @ 50mph isn't going to change the fact if you get shot you're still dead. It might be more difficult to shoot you, but you have four large tires that if damaged, will stop or at least seriously fuck up your spree.

You also claim cops will be standing everywhere...how will they not shoot you? How is it so easy to kill me driving 50 mph, but not you just standing there? I love how cops will waste me in a second moving at 50 mph, but you will just stand there killing everyone with one shot. LOL! Where are all of these cops that were going to kill me with a single shot? Did they disappear?

Click to expand...

You said at an NHL hockey game. Cops park outside of events that house tens of thousands of people, would you like to change the venue to something smaller or more convenient to your argument?

Face it, mass murder has been tried with guns by many and their highest kill total is 27.

Click to expand...

In this post you've argued that the homicide numbers for cars can't be taken seriously, because those numbers aren't the max that a person could really achieve in the perfect scenario. E.g. You, in an F-350, with "mudders", mowing people down outside of an NHL game (with no police anywhere).

Now, you're arguing that the absolute max someone with a gun can do is 27, because 'they've tried'.

This is called special pleading. You're saying 'my scenario is only limited by my imagination, but the gun scenario is limited by real life events'.

It's a BULLSHIT argument. Either I get to use my imagination in a gun scenario (bomb suit armor, dual AA12's with drum mags (or GE M134 with a backpack of ammo) @ a packed Bieber concert) , or we both base our scenarios on reality, which is what I've been attempting to do, while derailing your unstoppable 'hell truck' scenario.

Beefbisquit said:

How can you possibly know that? You get hit center of mass with a round or two, chances are you're gonna die.
It's so easy that dozens have tried and the highest death count is 27. If my plow hits you...you will die.

You traveling @ 50mph isn't going to change the fact if you get shot you're still dead. It might be more difficult to shoot you, but you have four large tires that if damaged, will stop or at least seriously fuck up your spree. Most times people get shot, the shot isn't fatal. They would need a perfect head shot to instantly kill me. Anything other than that and I'm still driving. By the time they could stop my truck...more than 27 are dead.


You said at an NHL hockey game. Cops park outside of events that house tens of thousands of people, would you like to change the venue to something smaller or more convenient to your argument?
I started saying a marathon. I then said hockey game. I also said concert, graduation, football game, or anything better I could think of.


In this post you've argued that the homicide numbers for cars can't be taken seriously, because those numbers aren't the max that a person could really achieve in the perfect scenario. E.g. You, in an F-350, with "mudders", mowing people down outside of an NHL game (with no police anywhere).Your the one who keeps talking about the "perfect scenario"...not me. I have said that I know cops will be there, moron.

Now, you're arguing that the absolute max someone with a gun can do is 27, because 'they've tried'. One of your compatriots here(maybe you, not sure) showed past car killings...then inferred that since that was the death count, that was all that could be killed. Precedence had been set your supporter said.

This is called special pleading. You're saying 'my scenario is only limited by my imagination, but the gun scenario is limited by real life events'.
That was what told to me by you or your supporter. You guys should really get together and get your stories straight, moron......this tactic was used by your side first.

It's a BULLSHIT argument. Either I get to use my imagination in a gun scenario (bomb suit armor, dual AA12's with drum mags) , or we both base our scenarios on reality, which is what I've been attempting to do, while derailing your unstoppable 'hell truck' scenario.

Click to expand...

Use whatever gun you want.

kelly4 said:

Use whatever gun you want.

Click to expand...

M134 minigun. 6,000 rounds per min of NATO 7.62x51mm.

kelly4 said:

You might be able to shoot more people, but I would kill more people. You are also standing on a street, I'm moving at 50 mph. You say one shot from a cop will kill me...not traveling at 50. You also claim cops will be standing everywhere...how will they not shoot you? How is it so easy to kill me driving 50 mph, but not you just standing there? I love how cops will waste me in a second moving at 50 mph, but you will just stand there killing everyone with one shot. LOL! Where are all of these cops that were going to kill me with a single shot? Did they disappear?

Face it, mass murder has been tried with guns by many and their highest kill total is 27.

Click to expand...

33 is the highest number, from Virginia Tech I believe.