Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[Beefbisquit]

In a word, No.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing
1.
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).




There can however be statutes that elaborate on what "keep" might mean but you must contract with the society that creates the statute to be bound by it....the right to contract rights away is reserved for you by the Constitution as well.....go to prison some time and find out if they need your siggy to get your 2nd, they do.

This society of course will not directly be honest about this, instead choosing self preservation over honesty.

You should also take note the States are free and reserve rights federal does not.

Of course this is Law.....I believe the other is called Equity.

It's kind of funny you say "In a word, no" then go on to describe how it could happen. lol

 

[Beefbisquit]

Funny thing about prohibition......it never works, ever...yet we all claim evolution exists.

It does work for some things, for the most part.

It depends on the demand.

And yes evolution exists, it's a fact.

 

[kelly4]

Reasons why guns are better than a snow plow for killing people;

1) Guns can be concealed.
2) Guns can hit their targets from far away.
3) Guns are cheaper than a snowplow and truck.
4) There are more guns in the USA than trucks with snow plows.
5) Guns offer the element of surprise.
6) More often than not, center of mass hits will result in death.
7) The type of damage done with a standard HP bullet is difficult to repair.

1) The truck doesn't need concealing, you can drive it to the killing grounds and have cops smile and wave at you.

2) What does that matter when on a suicide mission?

3) Cost doesn't matter when you know you are going to die or go to prison for life.

4) So what? Anyone can go buy (or steal) a truck and plow, today, with no back ground check.

5) You don't think a truck and plow hitting you from behind at 50 mph will surprise you?

6) A truck hitting you at 50 mph with a plow raised 3 feet off the ground won't?

7) Not as difficult as someone who just got ripped in half and run over with 35" mudders.

Obviously, ya can't go on a glamorous school or mall shooting...but, mowing down hundreds at a marathon will probably still make the nightly news.

Truck with plow, FTW.

 

[Beefbisquit]

1) The truck doesn't need concealing, you can drive it to the killing grounds and have cops smile and wave at you. Up until the point you start using it as a weapon.

2) What does that matter when on a suicide mission? Who says it's a suicide mission? Even if it is, hitting targets from further away is still advantageous. A .22LR can shoot though a car/truck door, you don't want to be close to a cop.

3) Cost doesn't matter when you know you are going to die or go to prison for life. It affects your ability to procure one. You can buy illegal guns from guys on the street, not as easy to buy a stolen vehicle and keep it concealed so cops don't bust you. Also, more expensive. You can grab an illegal gun for a couple hundred bucks..... not as easy to find a car that works for $200.

4) So what? Anyone can go buy (or steal) a truck and plow, today, with no back ground check. You think it's that easy to steal a truck and plow combo? LOL Where are all these plow trucks that are just left unlocked, in unlit areas that are begging to be stolen? lol

5) You don't think a truck and plow hitting you from behind at 50 mph will surprise you? I think you can hear it coming, and unless you're the first victim it's not a surprise. A building pretty much limits the usefulness of a truck too.

6) A truck hitting you at 50 mph with a plow raised 3 feet off the ground won't? Yeah, probably. Why do you suppose no one uses a plow to kill? Why do you supose the most commonly used weapon is a handgun? Why do you think that is? You're obviously suggesting that using a snow plow and truck is just as good (lol), why are all these poor misinformed people using guns instead?

7) Not as difficult as someone who just got ripped in half and run over with 35" mudders. Again, why are all these people using guns instead of buying a giant truck, equipping it with expensive, off-road tires, and killing people while they're out walking around? It's so much more efficient than having the ability point and shoot at them...

Quote from Kynes;
'Playing dumb is dumber than being dumb'

Truck with plow, FTW.

If you actually believe that a truck/plow combo is a better weapon, you are a dumbass.

It may be as deadly (or maybe even more) in some situations, but doesn't posess all the qualities that make a gun the best choice.

 

[kelly4]

If you actually believe that a truck/plow combo is a better weapon, you are a dumbass.

It may be as deadly (or maybe even more) in some situations, but doesn't posess all the qualities that make a gun the best choice.

1) So what? By the time cops know what's going on...dozens are already dead.

2) Since we are talking about mass killing people in public. Do you think Adam Lanza thought he was getting away?

3) Someone who wants to kill as many people as possible will find a way. Do you think James Holmes could have afforded a truck? I also didn't realize this argument had a salary cap.

4)do you think that every Mercedes and BMW stolen is left unlocked in a dark alley?


5) If the truck is doing 50 mph from behind... How much noise does it make? How much time would it take for everyone to realize what's going on? How many shots would have to be fired to kill me? Also, how many marathons are ran inside of buildings?


6) I'm saying it's better. How many we're killed in Sandy Hook? You seriously don't think an F350 with lift, mudders, plow, and a suicidal driver on a marathon course would kill more people?


7) I didn't realize that we were talking about efficiency of killing...when was efficiency brought into the equation? If we're going to talk efficiency, then guns lose out to bombs. Just ask Timothy Mcveigh. Or doesn't that count since most people can't afford a bomb that big?




I never said a plow truck was a better weapon. I said it's a better choice than a gun if you want a higher death toll in a mass killing.

 

[Beefbisquit]

1) So what? By the time cops know what's going on...dozens are already dead.

2) Since we are talking about mass killing people in public. Do you think Adam Lanza thought he was getting away?

3) Someone who wants to kill as many people as possible will find a way. Do you think James Holmes could have afforded a truck? I also didn't realize this argument had a salary cap.

4)do you think that every Mercedes and BMW stolen is left unlocked in a dark alley?


5) If the truck is doing 50 mph from behind... How much noise does it make? How much time would it take for everyone to realize what's going on? How many shots would have to be fired to kill me? Also, how many marathons are ran inside of buildings?


6) I'm saying it's better. How many we're killed in Sandy Hook? You seriously don't think an F350 with lift, mudders, plow, and a suicidal driver on a marathon course would kill more people?


7) I didn't realize that we were talking about efficiency of killing...when was efficiency brought into the equation? If we're going to talk efficiency, then guns lose out to bombs. Just ask Timothy Mcveigh. Or doesn't that count since most people can't afford a bomb that big?




I never said a plow truck was a better weapon. I said it's a better choice than a gun if you want a higher death toll in a mass killing.

Why does no one use a truck to commit mass murder then? You think you're the first person to think of it?

It's easier to rack up a body count with a firearm.

Guns are the best for many reasons;

range
cost
ease of use
availability

Bombs have a good/great range, can be cheap, usually aren't easy to use or require specialty knowledge, and aren't available commercially. Not the best choice.

Trucks don't have jack shit for range, you actually have to physically hit someone, they cost a lot, they're pretty easy to use, and plow trucks aren't readily available. They're also easily disabled. Not the best choice.

Guns have excellent range, are cheap as fuck, have a huge illegal market, are easy to use, and readily available (legally and illegally). The best choice.

As history has, and will continue to, demonstrate.

Playing dumb is dumber than being dumb. Although, I'm leaning more towards you actually being dumb now.

 

[NoDrama]

If you actually believe that a truck/plow combo is a better weapon, you are a dumbass.

It may be as deadly (or maybe even more) in some situations, but doesn't posess all the qualities that make a gun the best choice.

Blunt objects are the most used weapon to kill, not handguns.

Far more people die in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. i.e. vehicles are more dangerous than firearms.

 

[Beefbisquit]

3) Someone who wants to kill as many people as possible will find a way. Do you think James Holmes could have afforded a truck? I also didn't realize this argument had a salary cap.

It's called being reasonable. The public can buy a marauder;

That fucker would take some people out big time, it can withstand a 10lb C4 explosive charge and still drive away. $750,000 is all. If it's a suicide mission and the killer doesn't have to pay people back, why wouldn't the killer just use this? I mena, according to you this is just as feasible, right?

You want to know why there's a salary cap for this argument? Because it's unreasonable to assume people are going to spend large sums of money to kill people in a mass murder. I don't like dealing with arguments from absurdity, because well, they're absurd. It's a tactic a lot of people use on here and it's just dumb.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Blunt objects are the most used weapon to kill, not handguns.

Far more people die in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. i.e. vehicles are more dangerous than firearms.

According to... everyone.... Firearms are the most used weapon in homicide.

[h=1]Weapon[/h]

Firearm	111,289
Knife	20,503
Other	11,364
Personal weapons	10,079
Blunt object	7,049
Strangulation	1,536
Fire	1,342
Asphyxiation	1,225
Drugs	638
Drowning	239
Poison	130
Explosives	53
Pushed/thrown out window	35

http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all


From the Wall Street Journal - stats form 2000-2010.

 

[kelly4]

Why does no one use a truck to commit mass murder then? You think you're the first person to think of it?

It's easier to rack up a body count with a firearm.

What's the body count in the single highest domestic mass killing event, which was carried out by a single person using firearms?


I don't know about your town, but people flock to the 4th of July parade here. Kids and their parents lined up 2 deep, side by side for hundreds of yards... Maybe a half mile. What percentage of the hundreds do you think would die when hit by a plow doing 50. How many rounds do you think will hit me in 30 seconds? Of couse, this is just my town. If I really wanted to kill, I would do some research first to pick the best event to maximize the carnage.

For maximum death, I'll use my truck...not my gun.

 

[kelly4]

It's called being reasonable. The public can buy a marauder;

That fucker would take some people out big time, it can withstand a 10lb C$ explosive charge and still drive away. $750,000 is all. If it's a suicide mission and the killer doesn't have to pay people back, why wouldn't the killer just use this? I mena, according to you this is just as feasible, right?

You want to know why there's a salary cap for this argument? Because it's unreasonable to assume people are going to spend large sums of money to kill people in a mass murder. I don't like dealing with arguments from absurdity, because well, they're absurd. It's a tactic a lot of people use on here and it's just dumb.

Translation: "I don't like to lose an argument, so I'm gonna move the goal posts."

 

[Beefbisquit]

Blunt objects are the most used weapon to kill, not handguns.

Far more people die in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. i.e. vehicles are more dangerous than firearms.

Car deaths are by and large, accidental.

Gun deaths are by and large, not accidental.

People use cars much more frequently than guns, so deaths from usage are expected to be higher. It would be weirder if they weren't higher.

Also, criminals don't use cars as prevalently as criminals use guns for crimes. Ever been mugged by a guy in a minivan threatening to run you over if you don't give him your wallet? But according to Kelly, cars are just as useful for killing and committing crimes as guns....

"Hey don't run away! I have to do a 4 point turn so I can follow you while avoiding the lamp posts, in an attempt to run you over on the sidewalk, then get out, grab your wallet, and get back into my vehicle and drive away!"....

So plausible.

 

[Beefbisquit]

What's the body count in the single highest domestic mass killing event, which was carried out by a single person using firearms?


I don't know about your town, but people flock to the 4th of July parade here. Kids and their parents lined up 2 deep, side by side for hundreds of yards... Maybe a half mile. What percentage of the hundreds do you think would die when hit by a plow doing 50. How many rounds do you think will hit me in 30 seconds? Of couse, this is just my town. If I really wanted to kill, I would do some research first to pick the best event to maximize the carnage.

For maximum death, I'll use my truck...not my gun.

How many people do you think would get the fuck out of the way?

So, one day, July 4th, compared to any day at the mall or theater with a gun. Nice analogy. Fail.

Stick with your retarded story. You and The Rockodile Hunter would make one hell of a team..... You driving with a snowplow, and Doer in the back with a bag of Rocks.... Why haven't we sent idiots in pickups over seas to take out terrorists? They're better at "maximum death" than firearms.

Go home, snipers! Hello Silverado pickup with a snowplow!

Fuck, think of the carnage....

 

[NoDrama]

Guns have excellent range, are cheap as fuck, have a huge illegal market, are easy to use, and readily available (legally and illegally).

I think you have an exaggerated view of firearms. Do you watch a lot of Hollywood movies?

There is no HUGE ILLEGAL market as you call it, most gun sales are legit and legal except the ones run by the justice department.

Most handguns are useless past 15 meters for the majority of average shooters. Of course if you watch movies everyone can hit a dime at half a mile away with a .22 or cut a rope with a single shot. Things that are near impossible in the real world happen regularly in Hollywood.

Cheap as fuck? Cheap shitty guns are cheap, good guns are not cheap at all. My last firearm purchase set me back nearly $18,000.

Easy to use? You hear every year how some dumbass killed himself by accident while cleaning his firearm? Ever hear of anyone killed by a snow plow while washing it?

Most people could not figure out how to load an AK-47 unless they were shown. Congress people have proven this.

I can drive 800 miles with my truck, none of my bullets can go further than 2 or 3 miles.

 

[NoDrama]

People use cars much more frequently than guns, so deaths from usage are expected to be higher. It would be weirder if they weren't higher.

There are more firearms in the USA than there are vehicles. over 6 million carry CCW or in other words they use their gun 24/7 365.

http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/how-many-guns-in-the-united-states/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

 

[Beefbisquit]

I think you have an exaggerated view of firearms. Do you watch a lot of Hollywood movies?

There is no HUGE ILLEGAL market as you call it, most gun sales are legit and legal except the ones run by the justice department.

Most handguns are useless past 15 meters for the majority of average shooters. Of course if you watch movies everyone can hit a dime at half a mile away with a .22 or cut a rope with a single shot. Things that are near impossible in the real world happen regularly in Hollywood.

I was in the Infantry for 4 years. Save the spiel.

Cheap as fuck? Cheap shitty guns are cheap, good guns are not cheap at all. My last firearm purchase set me back nearly $18,000.

You can get a pretty awesome BRAND NEW Norinco for cheap as fuck. Especially if it's stolen, which is what criminals use, stolen guns.

Stolen pistols routinely sell for a couple hundred bucks.

Easy to use? You hear every year how some dumbass killed himself by accident while cleaning his firearm? Ever hear of anyone killed by a snow plow while washing it?

I've heard of people being run over by cars because they forgot to put the E-brake on, or something similar. Likewise, I've heard of people forgetting to unload their firearm before cleaning, and dying that way. Both are careless mistakes.

Most people could not figure out how to load an AK-47 unless they were shown. Congress people have proven this.

Pretty easy to figure out a revolver. Why did we all of a sudden jump to AK-47's? What about a break action shotgun? Or my .300 win mag TC Pro-hunter Encore? It's pretty fucking easy. I bet most people couldn't load a Styr Aug either. Point?

I can drive 800 miles with my truck, none of my bullets can go further than 2 or 3 miles.

Correction; Can send multiple bullets 2-3 miles in..... 5 seconds?

The truck can drive 800 miles in.....11 hours. Not counting gas stops and traffic.

 

[Beefbisquit]

There are more firearms in the USA than there are vehicles. over 6 million carry CCW or in other words they use their gun 24/7 365.

http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/how-many-guns-in-the-united-states/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

No. They MIGHT carry their firearm. They might not, there's absolutely ZERO evidence that says they USE their firearm at all.

I remember reading a stat, I don't have the reference, but I will continue to look; that said that only 4% of CCW holders fired their gun within 3 years of getting their permit.

I don't expect anyone to beleive me without a source.

 

[kelly4]

Car deaths are by and large, accidental.

Gun deaths are by and large, not accidental.

People use cars much more frequently than guns, so deaths from usage are expected to be higher. It would be weirder if they weren't higher.

Also, criminals don't use cars as prevalently as criminals use guns for crimes. Ever been mugged by a guy in a minivan threatening to run you over if you don't give him your wallet? But according to Kelly, cars are just as useful for killing and committing crimes as guns....

"Hey don't run away! I have to do a 4 point turn so I can follow you while avoiding the lamp posts, in an attempt to run you over on the sidewalk, then get out, grab your wallet, and get back into my vehicle and drive away!"....

So plausible.

You are either confused or retarded, can't tell. We were talking about the use of a truck for mass killings... not muggings.

"Please sir, drop the goal posts and nobody gets hurt!"

 

[Beefbisquit]

You are either confused or retarded, can't tell. We were talking about the use of a truck for mass killings... not muggings.

"Please sir, drop the goal posts and nobody gets hurt!"

Trucks aren't even remotely as good at killing as guns.

No one in the world uses trucks instead of guns for good reasons, which I've listed.

You are a nincompoop.

[video=youtube;sFacWGBJ_cs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFacWGBJ_cs&feature=kp[/video]

The ability to 'kill' means nothing without possessing the other abilities that make firearms preferential.

 

[NoDrama]

Car deaths are by and large, accidental.

Gun deaths are by and large, not accidental.

Let me get this straight. Guns are more dangerous than automobiles because most vehicle deaths are accidental? 32,000 people were killed in vehicles per year, while firearms killed less than half that, yet firearms are more dangerous? Death isn't death if it was accidental eh?

Do you tell your children to not worry about looking both ways before crossing the street seeing as its not dangerous considering it would be an accident and not on purpose if your child was run over?