Guns: how much longer will it take ....

I don't know what weird **** you're into in the NRA, but leave me out of it, and stroke your own ******* whatever it is.

I was sharing incredulity that you seem to be having a completely different conversation to the rest of the English speaking world.

I'd be careful, you don't want any more snide homoeroticism.

Seems to me there is in fact a difference between mass shootings and mass killings. One would include any firing of a gun whether or not anyone was killed, whereas the other would just count killings. 147 shToo damned many guns used too viciously, no matter how you slice it.ootings at schools is 147 too manyl whether or not anyone was actually killed.

I'm not a member of the NRA, nor am I involved in any way with them.

No you weren't. Mr. Hinteler lied about what constitutes a mass shooting. When I called him out on it, he defended his lie by offering up a source that does NOT support his claim:

‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection— ‘‘(A) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident . . .

The meaning of the preceding is so clear that only an idiot could misinterpret it. And only an idiot would defend that idiot.

Says the idiot who doesn't know the difference between a question and a statement.

Let me get you caught up here. Mr. Hinteler said he googled the number of mass shootings for 2019 and said that he stands by that number. I told him that that doesn't change the fact that in 147 of them, no one was killed. He said, "So mass shootings only count as such, if someone is killed?" He was implying that those 147 shootings qualify as mass shootings. And in support of that opinion, he cited PUBLIC LAW 112–265—JAN. 14, 2013 126 STAT. 2435. When I showed him that what he cited failed to back up his position, he suddenly declared that he has no position here. He was wise to remove himself from that situation.

You, on the other hand, felt the need to defend him by trying to make the case that I don't understand English. So you go ahead and explain how what you've just said is relevant to Mr. Hinteler using PUBLIC LAW 112–265—JAN. 14, 2013 126 STAT. 2435 to support his claim when it actually disproves it.

Your interpretation of my "position" is wrong.

To clarify and verify it again: I didn't imply anything with my question - even not, when you got this idea from looking through my responses on other threads during the last 17 years.
I didn't "suddenly declare to have no position", because even now I don't have one ... besides that definition in said law.

Posting random trivia without ever making a point is unusual behavior on a political messageboard.

It is reasonable for people to sometimes mistakenly assume that you intended to make a point.

You were asked a question and because you have problems with language you thought that was someone taking a position. Despite being corrected you still seem unable to appreciate the difference between questions and statements.

You don't need any help from me, you make the case very well all on your own.

Right. And the definition in said law does not does not support the list of mass shootings that you stand by.

Apparently he is here to express his "neutrality" on the issue, and doing a poor job of it.

How in God's holy name do you know that?

You really think that I'm of a rather low intellect with lowest intelligence.
Fine, so stop acted with me.

sociopathy much?

Spare me the virtue signalling. Did your 145 top CEOs get any gun laws passed for you?

Sounds like that police officer is admitting that he has some inferiority problems, if he thinks that's why people carry guns, because presumably he has a gun in his own holster.

Probably all freedom haters have such inferiority problems. European serfs always claim that they are fine with their lack of freedom, but all they ever do is spout bitter name-calling at those of us who actually enjoy freedom.

Let's look at the track record of those 145 top CEOs.


Bipartisan Background Checks Act: ignored by Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8

Enhanced Background Checks Act: ignored by Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1112

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act: ignored by Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1585

Keep Americans Safe Act: ignored by both House and Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1186

Extreme Risk Protection Order Act: ignored by both House and Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1236

Disarm Hate Act: ignored by both House and Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2708


Boy! If I ever want to not get anything done, now I know just which 145 CEOs to turn to.

Once again you make an extremely strong argument for voting out of office every Republican senator running in 2020.

That's not going to happen.

What's going to happen is, you and your 145 top CEOs are not going to get any new gun laws.

No soup for you!