Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Vince Vaughn is (HCH)OKG
Comments
-
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it. -
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not. -
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
-
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not. -
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
I always thought it was the food that killed people. I guess I have another reason avoid fast food.2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
Gun nuts struggle to understand this because they love their guns and are responsible.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Because it's a deadly weapon and violent and insane people shouldn't have accessBlackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars -
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
BHAM!Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
Just line up all the pussified libs who want gun control and shoot em in their gaybob faces. death for those who piss on our constitution (sorry freeloader, ex, J, etc.) No more debate! Nothing left but law abiding Americans with free speech, liberty and guns. Pup for Pres!
