Strom Thurmond, Blake Farenthold, Roy Moore.
Oh, and Donald Trump. You know, the guy who boasted about grabbing women by the pussy? That guy that the GOP nominated amd Republican leaders boosted to the Presidency even after they acknowledge his misbehavior.
Your arguments hold water about as well as a colander.
Stranger
Just like the recent Texas bomber got his very own pitting because he was raised as a fundamentalist Christian? Except…there’s not one.
You’re so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Yeah, I also know about Bill Clinton, probably the most egregious example of many. He’s, you know, the guy who exposes himself to women, chases them around the room when they come to him in times of trouble seeking employment, calls troublesome ones ‘bimbos’, and rather than grabbing, actually ravages women by the pussy.
Even NOW was silent.
And then of course we’ve had endless wailing and gnashing of teeth over how could anyone vote for Trump, he’s such a liar! This after twenty years of Bill and Hillary Clinton, about whom I’ve often wondered whether they get together in private and chuckle over how much they can lie to people and get away with it. Remember Hillary’s lies about Bosnian sniper fire? After she lied about it her husband tried to get her off the hook by claiming she was tired and misspoke, when the reality is that she’d relayed that same story over and over at different campaign stops over a number of days. So he was lying about her lies. Thanks pretty much solely to those two I roll my eyes every time I see or hear some Democrat whining about Trump’s lies. At least his are obvious where with the Clintons you have to pay attention and employ at least some critical thinking.
But enough of this hijack. I’d really like to hear more of people’s thoughts about the tragic woman who’s the actual subject of the thread.
You shouldn’t assume Projammer’s gender.
Eh, I’m more interested in your views on Mark Anthony Conditt. If we’re talking about people “getting a pass” and all.
I guess we should see this as progress. I mean, in past days “Iranian” would demanded an answer to the question of when was she last in contact with ISIS, since, clearly, being Iranian means she must be Muslim and therefor, de facto, a terrorist!
'Course this, “clearly mentally ill, and generally people are given a pass from criticism for their actions whenever little doubt exists that they are genuinely troubled and aren’t capable of thinking straight” is in it’s own right disturbing.
CMC fnord!
From what I’ve read on this board, once the initial shock has gone it’s never really been a pitting of the shooter. It’s been about how that person managed to get guns to shoot people.
So, to the OP, HOW THE HELL DID THE SHOOTER MANAGE TO GET A GUN TO SHOOT PEOPLE?
That’s right, even loony vegan/PETA/crazy women can get a fucken gun in the US.
I pit the shooter, and the stupidly loose regulations in the US that allow loons to own a gun.
Is that OK??
And so now we immediately get to the problem when it comes to gun control advocates. Are we now to deny gun permits to anyone who rails against social media companies? And especially so if they demonstrate such identifiable loony characteristics as veganism and support for PETA - which according to you clearly indicates she was a crazy woman.
The reality is that no one can predict this kind of behavior. Even the woman’s family has stated they had no idea she would ever do anything like what she did.
But I digress.
So now we’re denying guns to vegans, PETA supporters, and people pissed off at social media companies. Next we’ll be denying guns to impassioned sports fans (especially if they’re soccer fans :D). And I suppose we should deny guns to people with aggressive driving offenses on their record. And then anyone who ever got into a fight in high school. And then anyone who ever spanked their kids. And then anyone who watches football games or boxing. And on and on until: PROFIT! Nobody has guns! (Except of course for the bad guys whose guns you never knew anything about, and who are all to willing to victimize the now unarmed and essentially defenseless citizenry.)
It’ll be liberal Nirvana.
Every gun proponent in the country knows you people can’t be trusted not to use any and every method at your disposal to deprive people of their constitutional right to own firearms, and that to give you an inch just takes you that much closer to the mile you’ve been after all along. Thanks, kambuckta, for making the reason for their convictions crystal clear.
It’s hard to get worked up about this case because so far there are no murders (yet) and, so far it seems that it was just basically a sad person lashing out and commiting suicide.
,
You really are a bloody idiot.
The solution is crystal clear. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, it’s simply a case of allowing folks to hold licences if they have a good reason to! So, if you’re a farmer, a registered sports-shooter, a member of a rifle-club or registered as a govt employee to hunt feral stuff in bushland, you DO NOT GET A GUN. Why is this so friggin’ hard??
Yes, normal countries do deny guns to people, that is true.
What if you merely want to be able to defend yourself and your family in your own home? Why is that not a good reason?
And how many people in these ‘normal’ countries get raped, robbed and/or killed because they lack the means to defend themselves?
The goal should be fewer people killed overall, not more killed overall but fewer killed with guns.
Why do you people never…and by that I mean NEVER…take into account the number of lives saved by guns? Or try to ascertain the number of crimes that are prevented by the risk of knowing the would-be victim might be armed?
These are the things that gun advocates take into account, yet it seems the gun control crowd almost studiously ignores them. Basically the anti-gun position seems to be, 'Don’t annoy me with your rationale! I laugh at your rationale, every bit of it, well taken or not! I want guns gone and that’s all there is to it!"
It seems the left’s self-lauded affection for the facts is limited only to those that suit its purpose. For every illicit gun murder that takes place in this country, there are 20,000 guns in existence. The other 19,999 are serving to protect the people who live in this country either by staving off, through the knowledge of their existence, crimes that would otherwise occur, or they are being employed by those victimized by criminals to defend themselves and their families. These things are not throwaways. Why do you people seem not to care in the least about whether people have the ability to protect themselves?
You sad little people are always so scared all of the time, I feel quite sorry for you really. It must be hard to live in such fear.
No, most of us aren’t scared at all. We have guns to protect ourselves. 
Guns made necessary, btw, by the huge spike in crime caused by the counterculture revolution and the left’s affinity for unleashing violent criminals onto the citizenry over and over and over again. In 1960 the country’s population didn’t feel the need to arm itself with concealed and open-carry laws. Nor had the police had to morph into para-military units. It’s ironic that the very same people responsible for Americans’ heightened threat of crime are also the very same ones seeking now to remove their best means of protecting themselves from it. Why is that anyway? What’s wrong with you people?
Indeed. That’s why the hottest thread over in GD for the last couple days has been about discerning the proper protocol for when one might legally run over pedestrians who scare a car’s occupants. Only in America…
But you’re right - we should have pity for them. It’s not their fault they were born in a dystopian shithole.
Has Projammer EVER pitted any other shooter ?
All I remember is him giving participation trophies.
No? You sound very scared to me?
I mean, I grew up in basically a civil war with terrorist groups regularly abducting and shooting civilians and yet I’m not scared at all about the threat of being raped, robbed or killed. I’m not concerned in the slightest about all these violent criminals unleashed on the citizenry, I don’t feel any need whatsoever for a rooty tooty point and shooty to protect me or my family.
I grew up with the Omagh bomb, bloody sunday, Drumcree and the UDA and to me people like you are just are a bunch of sad little weenies that need your little pistols just to feel like men.
You are scared. If you weren’t so scared you wouldn’t need those pea shooters. Just a bunch of scared little men living in fear.
Not only is the OP a clumsy fail, it is also the “remove all doubt” portion of the familiar adage.
And to me you sound like a schoolboy trying to intimidate an adversary into compliance with silly accusations that he’s a scaredy-cat otherwise.
Literally millions of people in this country have had their homes broken into, their cares hijacked, and themselves robbed, raped, stabbed, beaten, killed over the course of this country’s history, and especially so beginning in the late sixties.
If you think you’re going to have any success at all trying to taunt people into willingly giving up their best means of defending themselves from this crap by teasing them about being weenies quaking in their boots, you’re going to get nothing but eye rolls and grins at your stupidity, and anger over your callous disregard and mockery at people’s perfectly understandable desire to be able to protect themselves in their own homes.
But to play along for a minute with your idiotic notion (to the degree you believe it in the first place, that is, which I think we all know you don’t) that we’re all huddled in our homes, quaking with fear. Gun ownership for protection is a form of insurance. You don’t have it because you’re afraid something will happen, you have it so you’re protected in the event something does. Hopefully even you can grasp this concept.
Look, we all know how America treats black people, but what about the guns?