5 dead 21 injured in another shooting in Texas (Page 2): In other words, you can't explain so you are putting the onus on me instead of excepting responsibility for yourself. I...

PeterS

Blade_Runner wrote:

Yeah, I can explain, but you wouldn't understand.

In other words, you can't explain so you are putting the onus on me instead of excepting responsibility for yourself. I understand Blade--and don't worry, your peeps will think you brilliant as ever--though both of us know better. After all, what you say affirms their beliefs and that's all the need to believe something true...

PeterS

JFlorio wrote:

A lot better than Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, and Baltimore to name a few. Are you bright enough to figure out what those cities have in common?

Yeah, we are dealing with gangs. Since Texas has established that vigilantes don't stem the flood of mass shootings how do the two correlate?

Tug484

PeterS wrote:

The question Smedley, was why the presence of so m... (show quote)

We can also open carry and don't. Just because we can carry, doesn't mean we're allowed to enter most establishments armed.
Since we have to declare we have a CCL if stopped, I'm not sure many people have them in their vehicle.
I used to leave here everyday and get on Loop 338 like he did. I had to turn on Faudree Road and get to I-20 to get to my car auction.
There was nothing on Faudree Road. Now it is totally built up. He shot one man there by Mission Dorado. He was all over the place.
We had four distinct cars and only a couple of ways to get back to my town from there.
Everyone knew us and our vehicles.
I carried a money bag and you better believe, as it sat on my seat, my long nosed revolver was right on top of it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

PeterS wrote:

In other words, you can't explain so you are putting the onus on me instead of excepting responsibility for yourself. I understand Blade--and don't worry, your peeps will think you brilliant as ever--though both of us know better. After all, what you say affirms their beliefs and that's all the need to believe something true...

Yeah, I can explain why there seems to be a rise in mass shootings, but since that explanation has nothing to do with guns, the availability of guns, or even the existence of guns, I figured you'd fall into another one of your logical fallacy bulls**t routines and try to weasel your way through another of your infamous condemnations of the dreaded "cons".

To put some perspective on this: Since 1982, a total of 116 mass shootings have taken the lives of 939 people, includes those k**led in El Paso, Dayton and Odessa/Midland. You can read all the statistics here, courtesy of Mother Jones.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

PeterS wrote:

Texas of all places. We probably have more guns per capita than any other state, open carry etc, yet it doesn't seem to have slowed down mass shooters at all. So how is it that Texas has done everything right, based on you conservatives, yet mass shooters don't seem to care one bit. What gives? Can any of you gun totin cons explain?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-shooting-five-dead-k**led-injured-midland-odessa-police-white-male-a9087151.html

So set a good example and give up all of your guns and go unarmed to your nearest A****a rally wearing a MAGA hat.

Smedley_buzkill

Airforceone wrote:

Well the Texas agenda of the only way to stop a bad gun with a gun is a good guy with a gun. How’s that working in Texas

Better than Mexifornia, where it's a good guy with no gun. and a cop who will get sued if he or she uses theirs.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

PeterS wrote:

Yeah, we are dealing with gangs. Since Texas has established that vigilantes don't stem the flood of mass shootings how do the two correlate?

Nice try troll. Good guys with guns have stopped bad guys with guns. Your premise is; since they didn't in this case it must never happen. You're a joke.

PeterS

Tug484 wrote:

We can also open carry and don't. Just because we ... (show quote)

If he was all over the place the odds of him running across someone with a gun would be even greater. Yet nothing. Here in Dallas, we can hardly go a day without someone shooting at someone on LBJ. As much testosterone that flows through Midland/Odessa I would be shocked if one in five cars didn't have a driver or passenger who was armed. Yet crickets. The same thing at Walmart where no one in the parking lot showed a gun. Someone had to be armed--yet again silence. And yes I know, talk and actions are two different things but the question remains is do we need everyone armed or just those with the sk**l and fearlessness to charge an armed and active shooter.

And back in the day when I was doing deposits, I carried a gun too and would have had no qualms in using it. But I carried it to defend my money not because I thought someone was going to go all Rambo on me or others. That's not exactly why people are supposed to be carrying guns today...

debeda

PeterS wrote:

The question Smedley, was why the presence of so m... (show quote)

http://trk.cp20.com/click/g5v3-1b2eiu-kpl3yc-br7mr923/
And this is the sort of thing why people believe what they believe

Wonttakeitanymore

PeterS wrote:

Texas of all places. We probably have more guns per capita than any other state, open carry etc, yet it doesn't seem to have slowed down mass shooters at all. So how is it that Texas has done everything right, based on you conservatives, yet mass shooters don't seem to care one bit. What gives? Can any of you gun totin cons explain?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-shooting-five-dead-k**led-injured-midland-odessa-police-white-male-a9087151.html

It’s the drugs!!!!!!! Wake up

JoyV

PeterS wrote:

The question Smedley, was why the presence of so m... (show quote)

Seat belts sometimes fail to prevent serious injuries in an auto accident. Does that mean the premise that seat belts are a preventative of serious injuries in auto accidents is wrong? Has anyone claimed that with less restrictive gun control laws every single incidence of gun violence will be stopped? Since there is far less in Texas than in places with strict gun control laws, I suggest it confirms the premise.

Did your analysis take into consideration how much large powerful cartel activity exists and how close to the shootings? Texas and Arizona have lots of cartel activity crossing our borders. They are well armed organized, and very powerful. They can manipulate the Mexican army and law enforcement. And they are responsible for a good percentage of the gun violence in these states. Eliminating the gun violence surrounding cartel activity would reduce your gun violence figures for Texas quite a bit.

And no. Drug activity is not the equivalent of cartel activity.

JoyV

Airforceone wrote:

Well the Texas agenda of the only way to stop a bad gun with a gun is a good guy with a gun. How’s that working in Texas

Who said "the only way... "?

JoyV

PeterS wrote:

Yeah, we are dealing with gangs. Since Texas has established that vigilantes don't stem the flood of mass shootings how do the two correlate?

Do gangs dictate to the law enforcement? Do they have political clout? Sorry but as bad as gangs are, they are a lot less powerful than cartels. If you want to eliminate gang violence from the equation, you need to also eliminate cartel violence from the equation. Then Texas gun violence outside the home would be very low indeed. Unless someone has the figures on how much of the violence in each place is due to gangs or cartels, we need to stick to the totals.

JoyV

PeterS wrote:

If he was all over the place the odds of him runni... (show quote)

So what is "the reason why people are supposed to carry guns "? Is there some law requiring citizens carry guns in specific situations?

Nuclearian Loc: I live in a Fascist, Liberal State

"Just because that murderer was white,doesn't mean he was conservative...Not all white men are conservative,a lot of them are Liberal snowflakes...So until we know everything about that man,STFU,Petey!!!"

Actually almost 100% of them were Liberals.