WHEN WILD BOARS ATTACK? Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 163 32 129
Prospect
Let's make the question simpler for you, ye of little brain.

In the incidents in which a mass shooter has been armed with one or more assault weapons and one or more non-assault weapons, which have been the primary weapons used?
1/28/2013 3:06 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I can only think of two.   Aurora fired his shotgun first then used his AW for approximately 30 rounds.  Sandy Hook used his AW for an unknown number of rounds.
1/28/2013 3:37 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
An analogy...

If you are going to drive from Detroit to Cleveland and yu have a corvette and a pick up which will you drive.

Corvette. Its cooler.

Does that make it the only choice, or even the best choice?

It is possible that multiple handguns and shotguns are more dangerous because they force you to aim.

So again is there ANY reason to believe that an HCAW ban will do any good.
1/28/2013 4:01 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 163 32 129
Prospect
Wow.

Did you really just attempt to justify HCAW because you don't have to aim?

Wow.

That's incredibly stupid, even for you.

Do you even realize that's what you said?
1/28/2013 4:21 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect

What I said was it might be less dangerous to have a shooter with an HCAW because he doesnt have to aim, he just points and fires.

A pistol takes more skill. Shotguns take no skill whatsoever. So you might be a higher kill percentage with pistols and shotguns as opposed to HCAWs.

Again this is all trying to show that an HCAW ban will accomplish nothing and lead to calls for a more wide ranging ban.

1/28/2013 4:33 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 163 32 129
Prospect
That is so incredibly unbelievably stupid.  EVEN for you.  Holy ****.
1/28/2013 5:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I know what he's trying to say.   He's saying it poorly.   And, even if he did word it properly, I'm not sure he's right.

When you're firing into a crowd, aim isn't nearly as important as volume.    Of course, he used "percentage" in the follow-up post so maybe he was trying to weasel his way out of his dumbassery.
1/28/2013 6:37 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 163 32 129
Prospect
Accuracy's not important with HCAW.  Just point in a general direction and shoot, and you'll probably kill somebody.  Maybe not the specific person you may have been targeting, but as long as somebody's dead, that's close enough.

Yeah, that's a  great argument in favor of HCAW.
1/28/2013 7:19 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
At least I am stadning up and defending my position.

Can anyone accept my challenge and explain how an HCAW ban will solve any problem.

You dont just get to say because they wont have HCAWs because it isnt enough.

Explain a scenario where it helps...
1/28/2013 7:36 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Defending your position with stupid statements isn't helping. 
1/28/2013 8:03 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 163 32 129
Prospect
You're not defending your position.  You're making a massively retarded argument that makes no sense.  

Check that . . . your argument actually is an argument against HCAW because, in your own words, they kill indiscriminately.

A HCAW ban is one of many components of a solution that attempts to cut down on the frequency and scope of mass shootings.
1/28/2013 8:07 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 277 18
Pro
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/28/2013 4:33:00 PM (view original):

What I said was it might be less dangerous to have a shooter with an HCAW because he doesnt have to aim, he just points and fires.

A pistol takes more skill. Shotguns take no skill whatsoever. So you might be a higher kill percentage with pistols and shotguns as opposed to HCAWs.

Again this is all trying to show that an HCAW ban will accomplish nothing and lead to calls for a more wide ranging ban.

If this were a video game maybe I'd care about kill percentage.  On the other hand, in the real world, if you fire off 50 rounds with a HCAW with a fatal hit percentage of 15%, you just killed 7 or 8 people.  If you fire your 10 rounds from your handgun - which, incidentally, takes AT LEAST as much time as many automatics, and for most people significantly longer - and achieve 60% accuracy, you still have killed less people.  So explain again why I give a **** about kill percentage when the guy with the HCAW is firing 8 or 10 times as many rounds.

1/28/2013 10:18 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Again the point is that the HCAW will have no positive impact.
1/28/2013 11:33 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 277 18
Pro
Which is a ridiculous point.  If you believe it you're even more of a moron than everyone thought.  You really think I can't kill more people with a HCAW than handguns?  I don't even think miketitty would spew bullshit like that.  Sure, you can kill a lot of people with a couple of handguns and/or shotguns.  But not nearly as many as with something automatic that holds a couple of hundred rounds.  Guns like that tend to be expensive, but they are currently on the market and legal.
1/28/2013 11:55 PM
antoncresten
Posts: 9094 (0)
Hall of Famer
296 3
Hall of Famer
MIKET+ SWAMPY= PERFECT TOGETHER!

EVEN BETTAH THAN SWAMP+ DOUGOUT!
1/29/2013 6:40 AM
◂ Prev 1...20|21|22|23|24...26 Next ▸
WHEN WILD BOARS ATTACK? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.