0
   

BABY STOMPED TO DEATH; BYSTANDERS OBEY GUN LAWS

 
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 06:23 am
Quote:
Its a little funny that u answer me,
knowing that I will read it (which is true),
but u r afraid to read my exposure of your errors
in your earlier post; no matter -- inconsequential.



I am not responsible for what happened at that scene just as you are not responsible for not being there " with your gun "
Sorry, I have no errors.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 06:30 am
These clowns never think of the unintended consequences of the stupidity they recommend. Take this incident. Guy is stomping toddler--if you've got a child under the age of two, it is unlikely that he or she will survive a single stomp, let alone more than one. Nevertheless, one or more jokers in the crowd pull out their guns and shoot the idiot. What is the likelihood that one or more bystanders will be shot? How could anyone guarantee that the people packing guns will have sufficient training to assure that they hit the target and no one and nothing else?

This **** got trotted out after the Virginia Tech shootings. What is going to happen if a police SWAT team shows up, knowing only that there is a shooter, and they might not know if it were more than one shooter--what is going to happen when they encounter some tinhorn hero with a gun in his or her hand? Once again, ten or twelve idiots running around with loaded guns in their hands dramatically increases the risk to bystanders. When the police show up, they are unlikely to miss what they are shooting at, although there might still be some risk to bystanders. But how are they to tell the alleged criminal from the alleged citizen heroes? What if they call out to someone to put down the gun, that person turns to face them, not understanding, confused or just frozen with fright? What is the likelihood that the police will shoot down one or more of the would be heroes? How are they supposed to tell the "bad guys" from the "good guys" without a scorecard?

What is really disgusting about I'msickDavid is that he exploits the tragic and horrifying death of this child. He doesn't give a rat's ass for that child, i'll guarantee it--all he cares about is pushing his sick, dim-witted and ill-considered hand gun agenda.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 06:48 am
shewolfnm wrote:
Quote:
Its a little funny that u answer me,
knowing that I will read it (which is true),
but u r afraid to read my exposure of your errors
in your earlier post; no matter -- inconsequential.



I am not responsible for what happened at that scene
just as you are not responsible for not being there " with your gun "
Sorry, I have no errors.

1) U have no way of knowing that,
given the fact of your self-declared, self-imposed ignorance
of what those errors were found to be,
since u refuse to read my answer to u.

2) By your chosen philosophy, sabotaging and defeating the efforts to rescue the baby,
morally u have participated in causing the baby s brutal death.
In other words, if folks like u had not caused California to enact victim disarmament anti-gun laws,
then there is a good chance at ONE of the witnesses wud have been equipped to end the fatal attack.

DON 't TAKE THIS TO HEART.

I 'm ONLY SPEAKING IN THE ABSTRACT.
I DON 'T WANT TO ACTUALLY HURT YOUR FEELINGS.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 07:03 am
David, there are other methods of rescue or protection besides guns. Using a gun can prevent you from using your head.

This monster should have been grappled by several people working in concert. There is absolutely NO excuse whatsoever for standing by watching that horrible event. No matter how hurt you may get yourself, that baby was defenseless, and I hope those people are ashamed of their inaction. Even just to snatch the baby away would have been better.

Guns are not the answer. More violence is not the answer. We get that you believe the reverse but it's getting or has gotten really old. Can you not put in a new tape?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 07:07 am
Quote:
2) By your chosen philosophy, sabotaging and defeating the efforts to rescue the baby,
morally u have participated in causing the baby s brutal death.
In other words, if folks like u had not caused California to enact victim disarmament anti-gun laws,
then there is a good chance at ONE of the witnesses wud have been equipped to end the fatal attack.

The fatal attack was ended by the police.

Someone having a gun is not evidence that the attack would not have been fatal. Based on the description by the first witness and the report on how badly the child was beaten, to the point where the only way to make an identification was DNA, it is highly unlikely that the attack would not have been fatal even if the first person on the scene had shot the man.


By ur chosn filosfy Om, U hav shone urself to not be kapabel of thinkn kleerli.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 07:32 am
DrewDad wrote:
I don't see anything in the article to indicate that the witnesses had been disarmed, by the government or anyone else.

I imagine that had they been the type of folk to carry guns, they would have.

Are you advocating that everyone be armed at all times, even if they don't wish to carry a weapon?


Yes he is. Everyone must understand this. This person has made it clear that he believes that there should be NO laws at all when it comes to guns. He has made it clear that he believes that 6 year olds carrying guns to school should be permissable, and encouraged. He is a stark raving lunatic. He should be held up as an example of the need for gun control. This freak shouldn't be allowed on the same planet as a weapon.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 07:39 am
Of course, in OmSig's world, the stomper also would have been armed...

By the way, this happened one county over from where I grew up. Not an area short on guns, though of course not everybody's armed. And given the prevalence of meth use and random redneck violence in this part of California, I can't think of a worse idea than having everybody there carrying a weapon.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 07:50 am
patiodog wrote:
Of course, in OmSig's world, the stomper also would have been armed...

By the way, this happened one county over from where I grew up. Not an area short on guns, though of course not everybody's armed. And given the prevalence of meth use and random redneck violence in this part of California, I can't think of a worse idea than having everybody there carrying a weapon.




THIS thread is what it took to get a Patiodog?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 08:00 am
Well, it was there...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 08:02 am
patiodog wrote:
Well, it was there...



Of all the threads in all the fora........etc.....
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 08:16 am
I'm planning on having a samich. Anyone want to join me?

A gun can be a usefull tool. When fording a river in a vehicl, should water enter the vehical, a drain hole can be easily made in the footwell.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 08:17 am
Setanta wrote:



Quote:

These clowns never think of the unintended consequences of the stupidity they recommend.
Take this incident. Guy is stomping toddler--if you've got a child under
the age of two, it is unlikely that he or she will survive a single stomp,
let alone more than one.

Everyone KNOWS
that Mr. Setanta is an expert
on the subject of stomping on babies.
No doubt that he studied this at great length and depth.
I heard that he took his master's degree in that subject !



Quote:
Nevertheless, one or more jokers[?] in the crowd pull out their guns and shoot the idiot.

Sounds good for the baby,
but thay have no need to JOKE about it.
Its NOT FUNNY.




Quote:
What is the likelihood that one or more bystanders will be shot?

Very low, except perhaps by overpenetration.
The witnesses were getting shoved away by the stomper.
From that we know that there was direct face-to-face contact,
at point blank range. Obvious.



Quote:
How could anyone guarantee that the people packing guns will have
sufficient training to assure that they hit the target and no one and nothing else?

If it wud make Mr. Setanta more comfortable,
thay cud put the muzzle against his heart,
front or back aspect; lateral shot, upper thorax: even better. That's a lethal shot.
A downward angled shot into the ground,
thru the stomper 's lower intestine with a hollowpointed slug wud slow him down.
I think the baby wud approve of that.
Some folks might be inclined to put the muzzle behind the stomper's medula oblongata.
That wud be the end of his biography for the stomper.




Quote:
This **** got trotted out after the Virginia Tech shootings.

As well it SHUD have been.
U really have a filthy mouth and mind.




Quote:
What is going to happen if a police SWAT team shows up,

Well, HISTORICALLY, what has happened
at Columbine,
thay prove their cowardice by PROMISING to come in (by telephone)
while thay wait safely outside for several hours.



Quote:
knowing only that there is a shooter,
and they might not know if it were more than one shooter--
what is going to happen when they encounter some tinhorn hero with a gun in his or her hand?

It is obvious that no one has any reason
to keep his gun in his hand after ending the threat
to the baby.
The heros (who r unlikely to be possessed of any horns,
TIN, or otherwise) just put their guns back in holsters, where thay got them.
Is THAT too hard for u to understand ? I don 't think it is.

It astonishes me that anyone wud think that thay 'd stand around
with their guns in their hands, after killing the stomper. Strange thinking.






Quote:
Once again, ten or twelve idiots

Observe how Mr. Setanta assumes
that the people who rescue a baby from being stomped to death must have very LOW I.Q.




Quote:
running around with loaded guns in their hands

See how Mr. Setanta,
in an effort to denigrade anyone who 'd save a baby from being
stomped to death goes "running around". He does not tell us
to WHERE anyone is running, nor does he indicate any need to run.
I see no reason to believe that the witnesses,
if thay shot the stomper, wud find a need to be running.
Even if thay chose to leave the scene to avoid contact with police,
thay cud as well walk to their cars; no need to run.






Quote:
dramatically increases the risk to bystanders.

There is no evidence of this.
When police shot the stomper, no one got hurt.



Quote:
When the police show up,
they are unlikely to miss what they are shooting at,

Observe Mr. Setanta's childlike faith
in government employees !
If thay r wearing BADGES, we know thay r OK !
Isn 't he CUTE ???

Quote:
although there might still be some risk to bystanders.
But how are they to tell the alleged criminal from the alleged citizen heroes?

U think maybe thay might ask around ?




Quote:
What if they call out to someone to put down the gun,

What if he just takes his gun out of his holster
and puts it down ?



Quote:
that person turns to face them, not understanding, confused or just frozen with fright?

Again, because anyone who 'd save a baby from getting stomped
is a joker and an "idiot" (he LOVES that word).




Quote:
What is the likelihood that the police will shoot down one or more of the would be heroes?

I think the correct answers are:
minuscule and ridiculous.



Quote:
How are they supposed to tell the "bad guys" from the "good guys" without a scorecard?

Do u think there 's any chance
that thay have any experience of investigating crimes ? (like baby stomping)
Is there a maximum amount of time,
or do thay have a quota as to how fast thay must figure everything out ?





Quote:

What is really disgusting about I'msickDavid is that he exploits the tragic
and horrifying death of this child.

U wud have the same circumstances of witnesses
being unable to help because thay obeyed anti-gun laws happen over n over again,
to further your goal of having the citizenry helpless
and government as progressively more powerful.



Quote:

He doesn't give a rat's ass for that child, i'll guarantee it--
all he cares about is pushing his sick, dim-witted and ill-considered hand gun agenda.

OK, I call upon u to PAY on your guarantee !




David
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 08:40 am
just


































give







































it

































a

























*******














































rest.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 03:29 pm
Feeling GUILTY are we gun controller ?

Guilty because u know
that if the rescuers had used guns,
the baby stomping wud have ENDED ?




dlowan wrote:
just


































give







































it

































a

























****














































rest.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 03:45 pm
shewolfnm wrote:
farmerman wrote:
actually sometimes david axtually says things that are intelligent.


Yes. that is y , when he stoops to this low it really does blow my mind.

All emotional cloudiness and obfuscation aside:
in a well armed society, this will not and cannot happen,
with witnesses around, because the baby stomper 'd be stopped
(maybe permanently) very swiftly by those witnesses.

YOU OPPOSE THIS.
U oppose successful defense of the baby from the stomper.

Is that unconscionable ? Can u live with that ?

I 'm on the side of the angles.
You are supporting the other side.


Its not too late to change.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 03:53 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Feeling GUILTY are we gun controller ?

Guilty because u know
that if the rescuers had used guns,
the baby stomping wud have ENDED ?




dlowan wrote:
just


































give







































it

































a

























****














































rest.




Nope, mad person.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 03:57 pm
I'msickDavid's pathetic attempts to be clever notwithstanding, my position doesn't change. He lives in a fantasy world in which heroic gun owners are our only sure defense against depravity and crime, and in which no gun owner ever makes a mistake, never misses the target, never shoots anyone by mistake, never gets shot down by the police . . . and succeeds in preventing every tragic murder that will ever threaten.

H
O
R
S
E
S
H
I
T

And he cynically exploits the news of the death of this toddler to push his twisted agenda. He disgusts me.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 04:27 pm
Setanta wrote:

I'msickDavid's pathetic attempts to be clever notwithstanding,
my position doesn't change.

When u r rong,
u r rong,
and u will REMAIN RONG no matter HOW MANY babies
get stomped to death.

Quote:
And he cynically exploits the news of the death of this toddler to push his twisted agenda. He disgusts me.

U r FOUL.

U DESERVE TO BE DISGUSTED.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 04:29 pm
dadpad wrote:
I'm planning on having a samich. Anyone want to join me?


If it's a meatloaf sammich . . . count me in.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 05:01 pm
You still haven't explained why children are beaten to death in Alaska. How is that possible since they allow anyone to carry a gun?


Of kors it kud be ur filosfy is flaud
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.13 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 08:13:07