Wonder why NZ police didn't show up sooner at the mosques? They are UNARMED!

[TomS]

If they actually showed up, they just would have become more victims! They are out-gunned by anyone with a .22!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Police#Equipment
I am more armed than they are, and would have fought back if I were there.

[Bigbird]

LOL, and Trump would have run into the school...

...did you mean take on the shooter or the police; you have far more in
common with the shooter.

Stupid little boys don't realise that they are the problem. More guns
equal more shooters.

--
Thousands of falsehoods fact-checked by multiple sources. No-one with
an iota of intelligence would deny Trump is a pathological liar.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+lies

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You would have been a BIG-assed target: kiss your sorry ass goodbye! NZ is just one, big target-rich zone incapable of self-defense. Do you know that some of the Muslims disarmed the attacker, but didn't know how to use the weapon they stripped from him? So, he went to his car, got ANOTHER rifle, came back, and killed MORE!

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 11:21:37 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > If they actually showed up, they just would have become more
> > > victims! They are out-gunned by anyone with a .22!
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Police#Equipment I am
> > > more armed than they are, and would have fought back if I were
> > > there.
> >
> > LOL, and Trump would have run into the school...
> >
> > ...did you mean take on the shooter or the police; you have far
> > more in common with the shooter.
> >
> > Stupid little boys don't realise that they are the problem. More
> > guns equal more shooters.
> >
> > --
> > Thousands of falsehoods fact-checked by multiple sources. No-one
> > with an iota of intelligence would deny Trump is a pathological
> > liar. https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+lies
>
> Hey Tweety,

Grow up.

>
> You would have been a BIG-assed target:

WTF, stupid little boy.

> kiss your sorry ass goodbye!

WTF stupid little boy.

> NZ is just one, big target-rich zone

You speak just like a shooter...

> incapable of self-defense. Do
> you know that some of the Muslims

"some of the Muslims" not just "people"? why the distinction?

> disarmed the attacker, but didn't
> know how to use the weapon they stripped from him? So, he went to his
> car, got ANOTHER rifle, came back, and killed MORE!

Stupid little boy. All legal guns... therein lies the problem and you
are part of it.

You are a potential shooter and if you think you don't make one big
fucking ugly target you are mistaken.

It's not just the proliferation of guns but the mentality of the
people. Americans do not have the mentality to be safe with guns.
Nevertheless more guns and your extremist views equals more shooters.

He would have popped your head like a melon. :) Anyone can talk the
talk... and I have no reason to think you can do anything else.

...and in case you are wondering, yes I do have firearms training and
yes I am/was a marksman and a member of a shooting team.

Guns don't worry me, it's people like you having access to guns that
worried me. The less that is possible the safer we all are.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

Can't admit that the most effective way to take out a mass shooter is to SHOOT HIM, can you? Maybe you would have tried to reason with him by calling him a "fuckwit" or "cuntface" - I would have just shot him.

[Bigbird]

Your failure to address your bigotry is noted.

> >
> > > disarmed the attacker, but didn't
> > > know how to use the weapon they stripped from him? So, he went to
> > > his car, got ANOTHER rifle, came back, and killed MORE!
> >
> > Stupid little boy. All legal guns... therein lies the problem and
> > you are part of it.
> >
> > You are a potential shooter and if you think you don't make one big
> > fucking ugly target you are mistaken.
> >
> > It's not just the proliferation of guns but the mentality of the
> > people. Americans do not have the mentality to be safe with guns.
> > Nevertheless more guns and your extremist views equals more
> > shooters.
> >
> > He would have popped your head like a melon. :) Anyone can talk the
> > talk... and I have no reason to think you can do anything else.
> >
> > ...and in case you are wondering, yes I do have firearms training
> > and yes I am/was a marksman and a member of a shooting team.
> >
> > Guns don't worry me, it's people like you having access to guns that
> > worried me. The less that is possible the safer we all are.
> >
> > --
> > Thousands of falsehoods fact-checked by multiple sources. No-one
> > with an iota of intelligence would deny Trump is a pathological
> > liar. https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+lies
>
> Hey Tweety,

Grow up you stupid little boy.

>
> Can't admit that the most effective way to take out a mass shooter is
> to SHOOT HIM, can you?

Stupid little boy. Why are you trying to change the discussion, I
assume you are unable to rebut or refute a single word above.

I have no problem with the police shooting an active shooter including
an arsehole like you if you were stupid enough to let loose and put
others in danger.; but we all know you would have wet your pants and
run home long ago.

> Maybe you would have tried to reason with him
> by calling him a "fuckwit" or "cuntface"

Whereas you would have made fun of his name? Stupid little lizard face
boy.

> I would have just shot him.

No, you would simply have been shot, melon head. You are just a victim
of your own stupidity. Stupid people like you with guns are responsible
for a huge number of deaths in the USA every year.

I read today that killings by white supremacists has doubled under
Trump. All normal Trump supporters with guns, just like you.

You are not even brave behind a keyboard, you run like the coward you
are from any discussion.

[TomS]

Whereas I would have SHOT HIS SORRY ASS! You would be a blubbering, little woman.

>
> > I would have just shot him.
>
> No, you would simply have been shot, melon head. You are just a victim
> of your own stupidity. Stupid people like you with guns are responsible
> for a huge number of deaths in the USA every year.
>
> I read today that killings by white supremacists has doubled under
> Trump. All normal Trump supporters with guns, just like you.
>
> You are not even brave behind a keyboard, you run like the coward you
> are from any discussion.
>
> --
> Thousands of falsehoods fact-checked by multiple sources. No-one with
> an iota of intelligence would deny Trump is a pathological liar.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+lies

Hey Tweety,

Well, you WOULD wet your pants because that's ALL you could do, besides crying your eyes out, begging for mercy. And forget about the police bailing your sorry ass out: didn't happen in NZ, didn't happen in Parkland (they stood outside picking their noses), didn't happen in Jacksonville, etc.
You're a PATHETIC LOSER!

[Bigbird]

...and noted again.

Big SHOUTY words from a very little man.

Cowards often make such claims then run with their tales between their
legs.

Your repeated misogyny is noted.

> >
> > > I would have just shot him.
> >
> > No, you would simply have been shot, melon head. You are just a
> > victim of your own stupidity. Stupid people like you with guns are
> > responsible for a huge number of deaths in the USA every year.
> >
> > I read today that killings by white supremacists has doubled under
> > Trump. All normal Trump supporters with guns, just like you.
> >
> > You are not even brave behind a keyboard, you run like the coward
> > you are from any discussion.
> >
> > --
> > Thousands of falsehoods fact-checked by multiple sources. No-one
> > with an iota of intelligence would deny Trump is a pathological
> > liar. https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+lies
>
> Hey Tweety,
>

Hey Melon Head (Splat)

> Well, you WOULD wet your pants because that's ALL you could do,
> besides crying your eyes out, begging for mercy. And forget about the
> police bailing your sorry ass out: didn't happen in NZ, didn't happen
> in Parkland (they stood outside picking their noses), didn't happen
> in Jacksonville, etc. You're a PATHETIC LOSER!

Whereas all your words are those of very scared cowardly loser. That is
pathetic.

Your response to a serious issue is childish and inane. That is because
the issue scares you and you cannot think rationally. You would be the
same if you were caught up in any such situation. You would panic. The
signs are there in all your comments. They are those of a scared little
man whose balls have shrunk and retreated into his stomach. Your words
are as empty as your ballsack.

Cowards carry weapons because they have an inordinate fear on almost
non-existent threats.

Giving cowards access to weapons is why you have the highest firearms
related death rate in first world countries.

Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous. Any country who would let a very
scared and angry old fart like you with the mind of a child have access
to firearms gets what it deserves; a death rate 60 times that of more
responsible countries.

50 people died in NZ, how many thousands die every year in the US due
to firearms or even just "mass shooters"?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

Did you notice something? You are ALL ALONE here - not a single one of you libtard friends support what you are saying (although it is difficult to actually pin down exactly what you are saying). You, apparently, would rather confront the shooter unarmed than armed - that it would be cowardice to be armed! You don't even say that the POLICE should be armed! It is pretty clear here WHO is STUPID!!

[-hh]

> of you libtard friends support what you are saying ...

Oh, Bigbird has done fine on his own. If there's anything material
to comment on, it would have been to note where your poor statements.

> (although it is difficult to actually pin down exactly what you are saying).

Oh, that's not hard either: he's been noting just how ill-informed
your comments are.

> You, apparently, would rather confront the shooter unarmed than armed
> - that it would be cowardice to be armed!

That's not what he's stated but is instead your attempt at projection.

> You don't even say that the POLICE should be armed!

Because he's not taken a position on that question.

> It is pretty clear here WHO is STUPID!!

Certainly not the non-braggart who's had sufficient training
to understand that real life isn't like a Hollywood movie.


-hh

[Bigbird]

Grow up.

> Did you notice something?

That you are a blow hard coward...

> You are ALL ALONE here - not a single one
> of you libtard

Grow up.

I don't have any "libtard" friends. There are people here who share
certain problems with Trump and his idolisers world view but that just
classifies them as decent intelligent human beings who do not and will
not support racism, misogyny, lies and a narcissist.

> friends support what you are saying

by the same token no-one in this world supports your inane comments.

> (although it is
> difficult to actually pin down exactly what you are saying).

Only because you are a thick cunt.

> You,
> apparently, would rather confront the shooter unarmed than armed -
> that it would be cowardice to be armed!

That is not what I have said. What I have made clear is that more
people like you with access to guns equal more innocent people being
shot. That is a fact.

> You don't even say that the
> POLICE should be armed!

Well you are just a thick cunt so when I said" I have no problem with

the police shooting an active shooter including an arsehole like you if

you were stupid enough to let loose and put others in danger." perhaps
you didn't realise I meant 'with a gun'.

> It is pretty clear here WHO is STUPID!!

Pep... and a blow hard... and a coward.

--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,625 false claims
Last week’s total: 42 false claims
That’s the 33rd-worst week of his presidency out of 113 weeks so far.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> It is pretty clear here WHO is STUPID!!

Can I ask, what exactly is your experience of confronting or facing
anyone with a gun.

Let's put some flesh on the bones of your big mouth claims and see if
you are just what you appear to be.

I have been threatened with a gun. Nobody died. If I were you I assume
from you big mouthed cowardly comments someone would have died. I
wasn't that happy about the lad going to prison but presumably from you
big mouthed cowardly comments... if all went as you would hope he would
have died.

So what exactly is your experience that makes you hold such a view?

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Did you notice something? You are ALL ALONE here - not a single one
> of you libtard friends support what you are saying

Did you notice the NZ government support what I have been saying?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47648549

They want to ban dangerous cunts like you from getting their hands on
the more dangerous weapons.

They don't want to just hand out weapons to everyone to defends
themselves as you would have; funny that isn't it.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You are REALLY DENSE - that article DID NOT address the topic, as you haven't even one time, which is NZ police are UNARMED! All NZ is doing is punishing law-abiding citizens. Terrorists like Brenton Tarrant will simply find other ways of accomplishing death and destruction. He already proved that enhanced background checks are worthless.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 11:17:44 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > Did you notice something? You are ALL ALONE here - not a single
> > > one of you libtard friends support what you are saying
> >
> > Did you notice the NZ government support what I have been saying?
> >
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47648549
> >
> > They want to ban dangerous cunts like you from getting their hands
> > on the more dangerous weapons.
> >
> > They don't want to just hand out weapons to everyone to defends
> > themselves as you would have; funny that isn't it.
> >
> > --
> > Trump fact check:
> > The grand total as of Sunday: 4,625 false claims
> > Last week’s total: 42 false claims
> > That’s the 33rd-worst week of his presidency out of 113 weeks so
> > far.
>
> Hey Tweety,
>

Grow up little, little man

> You are REALLY DENSE -

You have proved yourself an unreliable judge of anything.

> that article DID NOT address the topic

From your OP "I am more armed than they are, and would have fought back
if I were there."

If you can't join the dots the go SHOUT in the mirror.
(I can explain if you are having trouble, thicko)

I think I have mentioned previously that your persistent SHOUTYNESS
just appears to confirm that you are an angry old man with mental
health issues; a potential shooter for sure.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You refuse to say what YOU would have done in that situation, unlike me. I think you would have SHOUTED and SWORE at the guy right before he shot you sorry ass.

[TomS]

Hey Welcher,

Tweety refuses to understand the situation at all. I bet you would have put a "No Firearms Allowed" sign out front so the shooter was guaranteed a free-fire zone.

[Bigbird]

Grow up.

>
> Tweety refuses to understand the situation at all.

I understand completely that you do not want to discuss most aspects of
"the situation".

> I bet you would
> have put a "No Firearms Allowed" sign out front so the shooter was
> guaranteed a free-fire zone.

Well, yes, that would seem normal for a place of worship.

Are you saying that you think mosques should each have an arsenal,
purely for self defence of course? Are you hypocritical enough to
attend church and if so do you take semi-auto weapons inside with you?
Are you that scared?

[Bigbird]

No, you say what you claim that you would do. You are just pissing up a
wall. It is easy to make brave claims when you have never been faced
with a situation. You do not know what you would have done because you
were not there. You have proved you are a scared old man, a coward. I
have not seen anything to make your claim believable. You are like a
child fantasising.

I had friends in Vegas when a gun toting country man of yours with an
attitude like yours went on the rampage. They witnessed your fellow
nationals panic a run around screaming while they kept their cool and
did what they were told.

I expect that hundreds of those people panicking and running would
happily have made claims like yours before the event.

The only thing that could have prevented such a massacre was not giving
the angry man such easy access to so many guns and accessories to make
them even more deadly.

I would have put a blanket over your remains so children would not have
had to look at your exploded melon head; other than that I see no point
in speculating.

What is not speculation is how I reacted when I was threatened with a
gun. Also not speculation is that when a friend of mine was caught up
in a suspected terrorist incident in Oxford Street a year or so ago she
called me to come and save her; that is how my friend sees me. Not as
a coward who hides behind self congratulatory words of his own imagined
courage.

> I think you would have SHOUTED and SWORE at the guy right before
> he shot you sorry ass.

I think we all know who the SHOUTY one is around here. :D

[-hh]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:49:54 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>
> Tweety refuses to understand the situation at all.

The tactical situation is one where an assault rifle armed active shooter who
has been doing live fire tactical practices with his equipment may be confronted
by a civilian with a slow-to-deploy CCW sidearm who's obviously not maintained
his perishable skills and is overconfident in his abilities and tools.

Outgunned, outmaneuvered, out-trained ... it doesn't end well for that
self-proclaimed 'good guy with a gun', nor is there compelling evidence to
suggest that he was even able to fully draw his weapon before he's engaged
and taken down. Case in point, from a controlled study:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s>

> I bet you would have put a "No Firearms Allowed" sign out front so the
> shooter was guaranteed a free-fire zone.

A straw man attempt ... which is a spectacular failure on your part.


-hh

[Bigbird]

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1105894812396519425

[TomS]

Well, yes I would - it's a target of opportunity. In fact, a friend of mine is part of an ARMED security team at his church. They have daily services open to the public, and some strange street people show up. They all have wireless headsets and are constantly scanning the crowd. Churches ARE NOT gun-free (target-rich) zones.

Long past time for YOU to grow up!

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

LOL! You are a JOKE! You fail to admit that if you were there, you would have been FUCKED! Everything you have said points to this:

"The only thing that could have prevented such a massacre was not giving
the angry man such easy access to so many guns and accessories to make
them even more deadly."

No, what stops a shooter is ANOTHER shooter. You, of course, wouldn't have put anything over anybody because your SORRY ASS WOULD BE DEAD! You're so fucking dumb you can't even figure that out.
I, on the other hand, would have set up near the door so I could take a head shot as soon as he poked his face thru the door, and he would have had to turned to see me, giving me a second or two to squeeze off 3-4 shots. Someone with a handgun taking on a shooter with a rifle wants to get as close as possible to the target to maximize the mobility of the handgun, and minimize the long-distance accuracy of the rifle. This is just common sense.

[TomS]

Hey Welcher,

How, exactly, are you going to counter-attack an armed assailant w/o a weapon? Throw a Quran at him? And you would be lying dead right next to Tweety.

Yeah, you probably would put up a "No Firearms Allowed" sign, and probably would think that it would work, too.

A few of the Muslims DID successfully counter-attack the shooter, WITHOUT weapons. Unfortunately, they assumed that the police were coming and didn't use the shooter's own weapon against him when he came back with a backup weapon.

This proves that libtards can't be reasoned with. You're only line of reasoning that makes any sense is that the probability of being a part of such an attack is extremely low (but it was 100% for the Muslims in those mosques). The only other justification for not carrying is that you are so incompetent at using the weapon you might just shoot yourself.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> > > Tweety refuses to understand the situation at all.
> >
> > I understand completely that you do not want to discuss most
> > aspects of "the situation".
> >
> > > I bet you would
> > > have put a "No Firearms Allowed" sign out front so the shooter was
> > > guaranteed a free-fire zone.
> >
> > Well, yes, that would seem normal for a place of worship.
> >
> > Are you saying that you think mosques should each have an arsenal,
> > purely for self defence of course? Are you hypocritical enough to
> > attend church and if so do you take semi-auto weapons inside with
> > you? Are you that scared?
> >
> > --
> > Trump fact check:
> > The grand total as of Sunday: 4,625 false claims
> > Last week’s total: 42 false claims
> > That’s the 33rd-worst week of his presidency out of 113 weeks so
> > far.
>
> Well, yes I would - it's a target of opportunity.

Where isn't? if arseholes like you weren't allowed guns there wouldn't
be a problem.

> In fact, a friend
> of mine is part of an ARMED security team at his church. They have
> daily services open to the public, and some strange street people
> show up. They all have wireless headsets and are constantly scanning
> the crowd. Churches ARE NOT gun-free (target-rich) zones.
>
> Long past time for YOU to grow up!

You really are in no position to suggest anyone else 'grows up' given
your infantile behaviour and comments.

You name call like you are in a school playground, you SHOUT all the
time in the same vein, you fantasise about being being a hero in your
own lunch hour and you are perpetually scared to the point where you
feel you need to have a gun in order to feel safe in a church. If you
really are that scared you might as well put that gun to your own head
an put yourself out of your misery. You have lost the war on terrorism
when you give in like the coward you clearly are.

Now you even assert that mosques should have arsenal as if that would
go down well with your white nationalist society... in the same week
that your president lent his support to some loud mouth TV pundit who
denigrated a member of your own government for being muslim.

You are the the most dangerous kind of person in society, a man with
the mind of a child in a society which allows angry half wits to own
and carry guns in public.

You refuse to comprehend that you are the problem.

I find it interesting which posts you have replied to and which you
have dodged.

It seems you started this thread as a part of your fantasy of being a
hero.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 3:32:52 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:49:54 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > >
> > > Tweety refuses to understand the situation at all.
> >
> > The tactical situation is one where an assault rifle armed active
> > shooter who has been doing live fire tactical practices with his
> > equipment may be confronted by a civilian with a slow-to-deploy CCW
> > sidearm who's obviously not maintained his perishable skills and is
> > overconfident in his abilities and tools.
> >
> > Outgunned, outmaneuvered, out-trained ... it doesn't end well for
> > that self-proclaimed 'good guy with a gun', nor is there compelling
> > evidence to suggest that he was even able to fully draw his weapon
> > before he's engaged and taken down. Case in point, from a
> > controlled study:
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s>
> >
> >
> > > I bet you would have put a "No Firearms Allowed" sign out front
> > > so the shooter was guaranteed a free-fire zone.
> >
> > A straw man attempt ... which is a spectacular failure on your
> > part.
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> Hey Welcher,
>

Grow up and stop fantasising you stupid, cowardly little man.

[-hh]

Tom brags:

> I, on the other hand, would have set up near the door so I could take a head shot as soon
> as he poked his face thru the door, and he would have had to turned to see me, giving me
> a second or two to squeeze off 3-4 shots.

Congratulations, you just murdered your church’s priest.


-hh

[Bigbird]

Grow up, you stupid, cowardly old fart.

Your child like need to fantasise about being a hero just emphasises
that you are detached from reality.

It's pathetic and only goes to confirm what I have long thought about
you and your mental instability.

[infantile hero fantasy snipped]

[TomS]

> Outgunned, outmaneuvered, out-trained ... it doesn't end well for that
> self-proclaimed 'good guy with a gun', nor is there compelling evidence to
> suggest that he was even able to fully draw his weapon before he's engaged
> and taken down. Case in point, from a controlled study:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s>

Here's a REAL situation:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34089/concealed-carry-holder-stops-shooting-school-event-ryan-saavedra

The bottom line is if you are armed you have a CHANCE - if you are unarmed you are a TARGET.

[TomS]

Congratulations at a false equivalency. First off, mosques DON'T have priests. Second, anyone coming thru the door with a firearm and not identifying themselves as police is a target. This is Firearm Defense 101: identify your target.
At least you see the logic of positioning yourself in a superior defensive location. On second thought, no, you probably don't see that...

[-hh]

Tom delivers the koolaid with:

> -hh wrote:
>> Outgunned, outmaneuvered, out-trained ... it doesn't end well for that
>> self-proclaimed 'good guy with a gun', nor is there compelling evidence to
>> suggest that he was even able to fully draw his weapon before he's engaged
>> and taken down. Case in point, from a controlled study:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s>
>
> Here's a REAL situation:
> <https://www.dailywire.com/news/34089/concealed-carry-holder-stops-shooting-school-event-ryan-saavedra>

Nope, that’s just one isolated incident and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Here’s what the aggregated statistical data concludes on the topic:

“One justified gun death per 2 accidental deaths.
Five justified deaths per accidental child death.
About 1000 illegal deaths per justified death.
About 100 suicides per justified death.
About 100 homicides per 2 justified deaths.

Those odds are way worse than flipping a coin. At least then a gun would
have a 50% chance of killing a bad guy. But no. A person pulling the trigger
on a gun is most likely to be shooting themselves, then their family, then
commit a felony, then way, way, way down the line, if they're lucky, they hit
a bad guy.”

<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/statistical-life/201701/the-true-odds-shooting-bad-guy-gun>

> The bottom line is if you are armed you have a CHANCE - if you are unarmed you are a TARGET.

Continuing from the above:

“It's totally reasonable to argue that the odds of shooting a bad guy without a gun are zero.
But it's a bit like drinking a steady regimen of Drano to prevent parasites that may not ever
actually appear. It's not wise, but it could work.

The reality [is] when you use one to shoot someone, about 99 times out of a 100, you will
commit a felony, shoot yourself, or shoot someone by accident. In one out of a hundred cases,
you shoot the bad guy.”


-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> > Outgunned, outmaneuvered, out-trained ... it doesn't end well for
> > that self-proclaimed 'good guy with a gun', nor is there compelling
> > evidence to suggest that he was even able to fully draw his weapon
> > before he's engaged and taken down. Case in point, from a
> > controlled study:
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s>
>
> Here's a REAL situation:
>
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34089/concealed-carry-holder-stops-shooting-school-event-ryan-saavedra
>

So someone just like you with easy access to a gun got angry and
started shooting... you think that should make people feel safer about
you carrying a gun in public?

Here is a list of people just like you.

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

Total People Killed By Concealed Carry Killers - 1300

> The bottom line is if you are armed you have a CHANCE - if you are
> unarmed you are a TARGET.

Why do more people die in your country from mass shootings than any
other?

You give your citizens easy access to guns and you make yourselves
targets; America is a target rich environment.

Unlike your fantasies that is fact.

[TomS]

Hey Welcher,

That was a REAL situation vs you phony one. There have been others. Your "statistics" are phony - they don't cover most defensive gun uses, just justified homicides. Also, there are anywhere from 500,000 to 3 M defensive gun uses per year - if those would-be victims had their guns striped from them, there would have been far more deaths and injuries.

[Alan Baker]

You did say you'd wait until you saw his face and a gun...

>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-22 4:39 p.m., TomS wrote:

And what prevents the bad guys from identifying themselves as police?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

The facts are that CCW permit holders commit crimes at a lower rate than POLICE! And we stop FAR MORE would-be crimes (500,000 to 3 M a YEAR).
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:13:00 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > Tom brags:
> > > I, on the other hand, would have set up near the door so I could
> > > take a head shot as soon as he poked his face thru the door, and
> > > he would have had to turned to see me, giving me a second or two
> > > to squeeze off 3-4 shots.
> >
> > Congratulations, you just murdered your church’s priest.
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> Congratulations at a false equivalency. First off, mosques DON'T have
> priests.

And you wouldn't have a firearm in New Zealand... but it's your
fantasy...

> Second, anyone coming thru the door with a firearm and not
> identifying themselves as police is a target.

So that includes anyone with a gun like yourself or are you the only
one carrying in your fantasy?

So now you are walking it back to some form of identification of target
at least.

Of course police, with all their up to date training, never
accidentally kill the wrong guy or an unarmed man in shooting
situations so why would you...
or do they?

> This is Firearm Defense
> 101: identify your target. At least you see the logic of positioning
> yourself in a superior defensive location. On second thought, no, you
> probably don't see that...

The superior position is likely inside the Mosque where the killer
would have time and line of sight to see your sorry arse and pop your
melon with his superior weapon... or were you going to just start
shooting up the mosque.

In your fantasy did you consider he may fire at you from behind a human
shield?

So tell us, little Tom, when if ever was your last tactical firearms
training. When, if ever, have you faced an armed villain?

So far you appear to be avoiding telling us of your real life
experience.

So far your fantasies have more in common with FPS games than real life.

I think it's pretty clear there was more chance of you being a victim
or even a murderer than helping.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:44:24 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > > Outgunned, outmaneuvered, out-trained ... it doesn't end well
> > > > for that self-proclaimed 'good guy with a gun', nor is there
> > > > compelling evidence to suggest that he was even able to fully
> > > > draw his weapon before he's engaged and taken down. Case in
> > > > point, from a controlled study:
> > > >
> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s>
> > >
> > > Here's a REAL situation:
> > >
> >
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34089/concealed-carry-holder-stops-shooting-school-event-ryan-saavedra
> > >
> >
> > So someone just like you with easy access to a gun got angry and
> > started shooting... you think that should make people feel safer
> > about you carrying a gun in public?
> >
> > Here is a list of people just like you.
> >
> >
http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/
> >
> > Total People Killed By Concealed Carry Killers - 1300
> >
> > > The bottom line is if you are armed you have a CHANCE - if you are
> > > unarmed you are a TARGET.
> >
> > Why do more people die in your country from mass shootings than any
> > other?

Failure to respond noted.

> >
> > You give your citizens easy access to guns and you make yourselves
> > targets; America is a target rich environment.

Failure to respond noted.

> >
> > Unlike your fantasies that is fact.
> >
> > --
> > Trump fact check:
> > The grand total as of Sunday: 4,625 false claims
> > Last week’s total: 42 false claims
> > That’s the 33rd-worst week of his presidency out of 113 weeks so
> > far.
>
> Hey Tweety,

Hey Tom "hero in your own lunchtime" Spineless

>
> The facts are that CCW permit holders commit crimes at a lower rate
> than POLICE!

Why does that surprise you? Should it surprise me? Are people with
criminal records allowed CCW permits? I would have thought not so you
should be able to join a few dots...

Yet they shoot more innocent people than unarmed law abiding citizens.

> And we stop FAR MORE would-be crimes (500,000 to 3 M a
> YEAR).
>
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler

That cite does not support the claim it follows. Is that a deliberate
falsehood or just ineptness?

We? Do you feel like you belong to a club?

When is the last time you stopped a crime, little Tommy?

The facts remain the same; because you have easy access to firearms
more people die.

You have a homicide rate 4 times that of the UK and a suicide rate
double that of the UK. Firearms play a large part in that difference
with a homicide by shooting 75 times that of the UK, something like 90%
of your homicides. You are 50 times more likely to shoot your own
brains out.

[TomS]

I didn't state the obvious - if you're going to take a head-shot, you OBVIOUSLY have to see the head. DUH!

[TomS]

Stupidity. But it could happen - I was warned of this in a concealed carry class. Bottom line: you have to use your best judgment. In this case the shooter had left the scene before the first police even had arrived.

[TomS]

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:19:38 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:13:00 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > Tom brags:
> > > > I, on the other hand, would have set up near the door so I could
> > > > take a head shot as soon as he poked his face thru the door, and
> > > > he would have had to turned to see me, giving me a second or two
> > > > to squeeze off 3-4 shots.
> > >
> > > Congratulations, you just murdered your church’s priest.
> > >
> > >
> > > -hh
> >
> > Congratulations at a false equivalency. First off, mosques DON'T have
> > priests.
>
> And you wouldn't have a firearm in New Zealand... but it's your
> fantasy...

Hey Tweety,

I would, and do, here. This is all hypothetical, so my hypothetical is NZ legalized CCW.

>
> > Second, anyone coming thru the door with a firearm and not
> > identifying themselves as police is a target.
>
> So that includes anyone with a gun like yourself or are you the only
> one carrying in your fantasy?
>
> So now you are walking it back to some form of identification of target
> at least.
>
> Of course police, with all their up to date training, never
> accidentally kill the wrong guy or an unarmed man in shooting
> situations so why would you...
> or do they?

Well, in your scenario you're DEAD - I'd much rather have a fighting chance. You can fight back w/o a weapon, whatever is handy, but a weapon is MUCH better.

>
> > This is Firearm Defense
> > 101: identify your target. At least you see the logic of positioning
> > yourself in a superior defensive location. On second thought, no, you
> > probably don't see that...
>
> The superior position is likely inside the Mosque where the killer
> would have time and line of sight to see your sorry arse and pop your
> melon with his superior weapon... or were you going to just start
> shooting up the mosque.

The guy is going from room to room, and gunfire started outside the mosque, giving you warning something bad is going down.

>
> In your fantasy did you consider he may fire at you from behind a human
> shield?

Which would give a clear shot at the shooter in my scenario. BTW, I've never heard of this happening. Shooters expect to be unchallenged and don't need shields. If they do, they use body armor.

>
> So tell us, little Tom, when if ever was your last tactical firearms
> training. When, if ever, have you faced an armed villain?

Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn! I HAVE had tactical firearms training. Most cops never deal with armed bad guys. My brother was on the SF force for 40 years and had to fire his sidearm ONCE - and he took out that bad guy who had a shotgun to the head of his ex-girlfriend, saving her life.

>
> So far you appear to be avoiding telling us of your real life
> experience.

How many lives have you personally saved?

>
> So far your fantasies have more in common with FPS games than real life.
>
> I think it's pretty clear there was more chance of you being a victim
> or even a murderer than helping.

I think it's pretty clear you don't know what the shit you are talking about.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> > So tell us, little Tom, when if ever was your last tactical firearms
> > training. When, if ever, have you faced an armed villain?
>
> Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn!

You've been telling us your tedious fantasies for days but all of a
sudden your bored of talking about when it comes to real life
experience? I wonder why.

> I HAVE had tactical firearms training.

So you're not going to tell us when? Not very credible are you.

> Most cops
> never deal with armed bad guys. My brother was on the SF force for 40
> years and had to fire his sidearm ONCE - and he took out that bad guy
> who had a shotgun to the head of his ex-girlfriend, saving her life.
>

(I think this is where I get to catch up on some "SHOUTY".)

IOW... ABSOLUTELY NEVER.

ALL YOUR FANTASISING IS JUST THAT!!!

YOU'VE RUN AROUND A RANGE AND THINK YOU ARE JASON BOURNE.

IT WAS ALL JUST THE IMAGINATION OF SOME INFANTILE JERK WITH ABSOLUTELY
NO REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE... DOES CARRYING A WEAPON MAKE YOU FORGET WHAT
A WEAK FLACCID LITTLE DICK YOU ARE.

NO WONDER YOU HAVE BEEN SO RELUCTANT TO TELL US.

YOU ADMIT IT YOU ARE JUST FULL OF BULLSHIT.

YOUR A SHAMELESS FLACCID LITTLE COWARD.

NO WONDER YOU DON'T SOUND LIKE YOU HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT.

(ah, that's better)

You remind me of guys who claim to have been in 'nam and wear a row of
medals but really cried off because they only had one ball. Oh, they'll
tell you how they would have won that war alright.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> How many lives have you personally saved?
>

Two, one of them twice but I think that still counts as two.

[-hh]

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 7:57:14 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-03-22 4:39 p.m., TomS wrote:
> > On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:13:00 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> >> Tom brags:
> >>> I, on the other hand, would have set up near the door so I could
> >>> take a head shot as soon as he poked his face thru the door, and
> >>> he would have had to turned to see me, giving me a second or two
> >>> to squeeze off 3-4 shots.
> >>
> >> Congratulations, you just murdered your church’s priest.
> >

> > Congratulations at a false equivalency. First off, mosques DON'T have
> > priests. Second, anyone coming thru the door with a firearm and not
> > identifying themselves as police is a target. This is Firearm Defense
> > 101: identify your target. At least you see the logic of positioning
> > yourself in a superior defensive location. On second thought, no, you
> > probably don't see that...
>
> And what prevents the bad guys from identifying themselves as police?

We didn't even need to get to issues of potential deception, for Tom failed to
pedantly note that he did any kind of IFF prior to firing, which for his home use
case requires being of both the individual and any arms borne, which eats up
more time in the engagement timeline's decision loop.

The recurring problem with Tom's sort of what-ifs stems from the scenario
being known, which affords perfect knowledge to know what the correct course
of action is in advance. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way:
ambiguity & 'fog of war' interferes, obstructs and changes the decision making
processes, so there is no simple canned answer. All in all, the predecisional
portion of the engagement timeline is one that is all too often neglected:
deciding if to engage requires far greater cognition than pulling a trigger.

-hh

--
<https://usaasc.armyalt.com/?iid=160127#folio=60>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTg2C3A_kX0>

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

Are you having you wet dreams AGAIN?

[TomS]

Hey Welcher,

You know what interferes with the decision making loop?

Answer: a 5.56x45 round going thru your head!

Ever had a BIG object coming at you head on at over 300 mph? Well, I have - what would you do? Can't think very long - by the time you read this you're dead.

[TomS]

I will put the same question to you: how many lives have YOU saved? That's directly, not some esoteric hypothetical. Be truthful...

[Bigbird]

Tom is just a simple minded fantasist. He has no business carrying a
lethal weapon. He has shown his naive conceptions to be a danger to
himself and to others. He appears far more likely to add to the tally
than help and would only get in the way of the police and add to the
panic.

He clearly does not have the training and has zero experience.

He is shameless in parading his fantasies in the wake of such an
atrocity. I find it disgusting behaviour.

[Bigbird]

Hey Flaccid Fantasist,

>
> Are you having you wet dreams AGAIN?

I am unsurprised you have no defence.

[-hh]

A caliber that does pretty well in ballistic gelatin (BTDT), but is spectacularly
unsuited for employment in a CCW handgun.

> Ever had a BIG object coming at you head on at over 300 mph?
> Well, I have - what would you do? Can't think very long - by the time
> you read this you're dead.

That's an airplane, not a bullet. A tad hard to carry around CCW too.


-hh

[-hh]

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 3:15:36 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
>
> Tom is just a simple minded fantasist. He has no business carrying a
> lethal weapon. He has shown his naive conceptions to be a danger to
> himself and to others. He appears far more likely to add to the tally
> than help and would only get in the way of the police and add to the
> panic.
>
> He clearly does not have the training and has zero experience.
>
> He is shameless in parading his fantasies in the wake of such an
> atrocity. I find it disgusting behaviour.

Unfortunately, he's at the stage that's actually worse than being
completely ignorant: he's played with some toys, maybe had an
incident or two and thinks that he actually knows everything, but
in actuality, he doesn't know just how much he doesn't know.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Again: how does seeing a HEAD mean you saw a GUN?

[Alan Baker]

Which changes the problem... ...how?

You're advocating that if essentially EVERYONE were armed, then we'd be
better off.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

I had NO IDEA that you are a certified firearms instructor. Where did you get your training, the NRA?

[TomS]

Translation: NO. This demonstrates target acquisition, conflict resolution and reaction time.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> -hh wrote:

>> Tom wrote:
>> > Ever had a BIG object coming at you head on at over 300 mph?
>> > Well, I have - what would you do? Can't think very long - by the time
>> > you read this you're dead.
>>
>> That's an airplane, not a bullet. A tad hard to carry around CCW too.
>

> Translation: NO. This demonstrates target acquisition, conflict resolution and reaction time.

Oh, target acquisition like this?

<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_BhnX5IB5eg>


-hh

[Bigbird]

I never claimed to be so. Besides no-one needs training to see through
your fantasist bullshit.

NB my weapons training, as it happens, came from many sources including
Royal Military Police (mainly handguns) and SAS (LMG and GPMG). I quite
liked shooting at things when I was young; I was rather good at it.
That you would suggest the NRA just shows how much attention you pay
and/or your knowledge is challenged. My pilot training, as I know you
have an interest, came solely from the RAF.

So I must agree, you seem to have had "NO IDEA" despite me mentioning
my weapons training previously, you know better now. My rifle team made
full time squaddies look like they were holding there dicks more than
once, Flaccid.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> I will put the same question to you: how many lives have YOU saved?
> That's directly, not some esoteric hypothetical. Be truthful...

First, why don't you explain the point of the question. You appear to
be trying to piss up a wall and just getting splash back. Be truthful...

[TomS]

No.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,
So, agreed, you ARE NOT a certified firearms instructor - you just THINK you are!

[Bigbird]

Hey Flaccid,

> So, agreed, you ARE NOT a certified firearms instructor - you just
> THINK you are!

You have confused me with your mirror.

You are the one who was posting as if you had the training and
experience to deal with a terrorist situation. I am the one calling you
on your stupid fantasy.

YOU ARE A FAKE, Flaccid.

I think that is very clear.

[-hh]

> No.

Oh, so you're trying to claim that a Caliber .50 M2 doesn't require target acquisition?

Or is just more likely that your experience/scope is limited to merely PDWs when dismounted?


-hh

[TomS]

You know what you have NEVER addressed: what would YOU do in that situation? Be specific...

[-hh]

> You know what you have NEVER addressed: what would YOU do in that situation? Be specific...

Help the NRA cowboy 'hero' fumbling with his CCW who's begging to be a diversion into
the likely engagement axis to be just that, and then AT & SERE as per training ;-P


-hh

[Bigbird]

You have never said what you would do; only what you fantasise the
conclusion to be.

--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,682 false claims
Last week’s total: 57 false claims
That’s the 23rd-worst week of his presidency out of 114 weeks so far.

[TomS]

Hugh,

You're off your meds - AGAIN, WHAT would YOU do in that situation (don't bother telling me what I would do - I know what I would do)?

[-hh]

Tom dodges with:

> You're off your meds - AGAIN, WHAT would YOU do in that situation (don't bother
> telling me what I would do - I know what I would do)?

Oh, I did explain. Not my problem that you didn’t comprehend.

-hh

—
"Everyone who’s ever held a gun thinks himself a small arms expert"
- Robert Udell (1935-1996)

[TomS]

Hugh,

As usual, you DIDN'T! You did give a rambling, nonsensical, fantastical response, but you DIDN'T say what YOU would do! On virtually everything else, you go on ad nauseam about minutia details - this is a very simple, honest question: what would YOU do in such a situation. I am VERY curious about what YOUR plan of action would be - surely you must have one.

[Alan Baker]

And yet you won't say...

[Bigbird]

No, you really don't. Childish fantasies apart, you have nothing.

You are a blow hard coward.

[-hh]

After the sarcastic preamble, I stated that I'd follow my training (and listed them).

> And yet you won't say...

Actually, Tom did say what he'd do, which was to accidentally attempt to murder an
innocent with an ambush head shot because he failed to do IFF before engaging.

Unfortunately, that's way too easy to do once the adrenaline flows; if one hasn't
had training which has stressed participants to where they do make such mistakes
(to really no kidding learn IFF under stress), then it was poorly designed training.


-hh

[Bigbird]

Not really a plan at all. Defeating the enemy is always a good strategy
being tactically unaware is not a way to go about it.

Did he even mention how he would happen to have a gun on him in NZ?

> Unfortunately, that's way too easy to do once the adrenaline flows;
> if one hasn't had training which has stressed participants to where
> they do make such mistakes (to really no kidding learn IFF under
> stress), then it was poorly designed training.
>

Tom has more or less conceded that he has no experience of facing
anyone with a gun and has no tactical training outside of a classroom.

His claims of what he would do amount to no more than adolescent
fantasies.

No training, no experience, no plan. He is a liability.

Even if he didn't shoot at the wrong person through his stupidity, to
many he would be indistinguishable from the perps and likely a
distraction and delay for the professionals. Innocents avoiding him
might run straight into the perps line of sight. There are countless
ways in which he could end up adding to the problem and getting himself
and/or others killed.

His fantasy relies on perfect information, perfect hindsight and the
co-operation of the perp.

[TomS]

.
Yeah, right. SERE:Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.

Translation: you would go hide behind the nearest woman.

I choose to have a weapon with which to defend myself and protect others. Something like what this gal did against ARMED home invaders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykiSTkmt5-w

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You would be hiding behind Hugh...

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> -hh wrote:

>> Alan wrote:
>> After the sarcastic preamble, I stated that I'd follow my training (and listed them).
>>
>> > And yet you won't say...
>>
>> Actually, Tom did say what he'd do, which was to accidentally attempt to murder an
>> innocent with an ambush head shot because he failed to do IFF before engaging.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's way too easy to do once the adrenaline flows; if one hasn't
>> had training which has stressed participants to where they do make such mistakes
>> (to really no kidding learn IFF under stress), then it was poorly designed training.
>
>

> Yeah, right. SERE:Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.

That’s one of what was listed. Congratulations on finding it in Google.

> Translation: you would go hide behind the nearest woman.

Incorrect.

> I choose to have a weapon with which to defend myself and protect others.

Unfortunately, you’ve overestimated your tactical skills, as well as how you’ve not been
able to clearly articulate your utility function. Because you don’t like hearing this, you’ve
tried to “shoot the messenger” and make unfounded claims. Lame.

> Something like what this gal did against ARMED home invaders:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykiSTkmt5-w>

Case in point: just which elements in this video illustrate just which tactical errors
made by the defense, but due to dumb luck ... not skill/planning ... she got away with?

Failure to be able to analyze means you aren’t capable of safely carrying, and that
you are thus a greater hazard to others.


-hh

[TomS]

On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:47:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >> Alan wrote:
> >> After the sarcastic preamble, I stated that I'd follow my training (and listed them).
> >>
> >> > And yet you won't say...
> >>
> >> Actually, Tom did say what he'd do, which was to accidentally attempt to murder an
> >> innocent with an ambush head shot because he failed to do IFF before engaging.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, that's way too easy to do once the adrenaline flows; if one hasn't
> >> had training which has stressed participants to where they do make such mistakes
> >> (to really no kidding learn IFF under stress), then it was poorly designed training.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, right. SERE:Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.
>
> That’s one of what was listed. Congratulations on finding it in Google.
>
> > Translation: you would go hide behind the nearest woman.
>
> Incorrect.

DAMN STRAIGHT that's right - just EXACTLY what a coward like YOU would do!

>
> > I choose to have a weapon with which to defend myself and protect others.
>
> Unfortunately, you’ve overestimated your tactical skills, as well as how you’ve not been
> able to clearly articulate your utility function. Because you don’t like hearing this, you’ve
> tried to “shoot the messenger” and make unfounded claims. Lame.
>
> > Something like what this gal did against ARMED home invaders:
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykiSTkmt5-w>
>
> Case in point: just which elements in this video illustrate just which tactical errors
> made by the defense, but due to dumb luck ... not skill/planning ... she got away with?

DUMB LUCK?! Typical libtard response! Her "dumb luck" was being ARMED! And she successfully fought off THREE ARMED INVADERS after being wakened by her partner! She waited until she had the advantage, then ATTACKED! Nothing "lucky" about that!

>
> Failure to be able to analyze means you aren’t capable of safely carrying, and that
> you are thus a greater hazard to others.

LOL! Keep kidding yourself and HOPE you don't get caught in a firefight.

LUCKY!?!?!?!?!!?!?!? What a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bigbird]

HEY LYING CUNT,

>
> You would be hiding behind Hugh...

THE PRETENCE IS OVER. IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU ARE A COWARDLY FANTASIST
WITH NO EXPERIENCE.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:
.
> Yeah, right. SERE:Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.

You finally managed to look it up. Shame you don't understand it and
have no training by which to implement it.

>
> Translation: you would go hide behind the nearest woman.

Not everyone is as cowardly as you.

>
> I choose to have a weapon with which to defend myself and protect
> others.

PROVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED IN NZ. IF NOT WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE
DONE?

BLOW HARD COWARD!

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:47:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > Tom wrote:
> > > -hh wrote:
> > >> Alan wrote:
> > >> After the sarcastic preamble, I stated that I'd follow my
> > training (and listed them). >>
> > >> > And yet you won't say...
> > >>
> > >> Actually, Tom did say what he'd do, which was to accidentally
> > attempt to murder an >> innocent with an ambush head shot because
> > he failed to do IFF before engaging.
> > > >
> > >> Unfortunately, that's way too easy to do once the adrenaline
> > flows; if one hasn't >> had training which has stressed
> > participants to where they do make such mistakes >> (to really no
> > kidding learn IFF under stress), then it was poorly designed
> > training.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, right. SERE:Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.
> >
> > That’s one of what was listed. Congratulations on finding it in
> > Google.
> >
> > > Translation: you would go hide behind the nearest woman.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> DAMN STRAIGHT that's right - just EXACTLY what a coward like YOU
> would do!
>

Easy to make such a claim, an infantile insult, but that is all you can
do as you lack any experience or training. Youtube videos and action
films are no substitute for experience training or courage; all things
that you clearly lack.

You have no plan, no tactical awareness, no skills. If you had a gun on
you, which you still haven't admitted that you wouldn't have had in NZ,
you would just be an old man with a dangerous weapon and a fantasy, a
liability.

Everything about you screams COWARD.

Your cowardly insults are as baseless as your fantasies.

[Bigbird]

Bigbird wrote:

> TomS wrote:
>
> > I will put the same question to you: how many lives have YOU saved?
> > That's directly, not some esoteric hypothetical. Be truthful...
>
> First, why don't you explain the point of the question. You appear to
> be trying to piss up a wall and just getting splash back. Be
> truthful...

Evading answering... how Flaccid.

Why would HH give your inane question a moments consideration when you
are unable to explain it's purpose?

Do you know how not to look a complete loser?

--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,682 false claims
Last week’s total: 57 false claims
That’s the 23rd-worst week of his presidency out of 114 weeks so far.

[Bigbird]

Bigbird wrote:

> TomS wrote:
>
> > How many lives have you personally saved?
> >
>
> Two, one of them twice but I think that still counts as two.

Hey Flaccid, hero of your own fantasy,

I note from your LIES that I read this morning that you never responded
nor explained the purpose of your question.

Totally Flaccid.

[-hh]

On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 11:43:49 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:47:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, you’ve overestimated your tactical skills, as well as how you’ve not been
> > able to clearly articulate your utility function. Because you don’t like hearing this, you’ve
> > tried to “shoot the messenger” and make unfounded claims. Lame.
> >
> > > Something like what this gal did against ARMED home invaders:
> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykiSTkmt5-w>
> >
> > Case in point: just which elements in this video illustrate just which tactical errors
> > made by the defense, but due to dumb luck ... not skill/planning ... she got away with?
>

> DUMB LUCK?! Typical libtard response! ...

Yup. Care to make a wager on that Tom? Welch-proof, of course.


-hh

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

Going thru your gun fantasies again, are you? What is left of your mind is fading FAST!

[TomS]

LOL! The Welcher wants a WELCH-PROOF bet? Hey, I got a bridge to sell you...

You're STILL at a loss for words when a tiny, Asian woman, who CERTAINLY is incapable of self-defense, proves you SO WRONG!!!!!

Next up: a SEVENTY NINE YEAR OLD GRANDMOTHER that does the same thing!!!!!!

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 11:43:49 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:47:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, you’ve overestimated your tactical skills, as
> > > > well as how you’ve not been able to clearly articulate your
> > > > utility function. Because you don’t like hearing this, you’ve
> > > > tried to “shoot the messenger” and make unfounded claims. Lame.
> > > >
> > > > > Something like what this gal did against ARMED home invaders:
> > > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykiSTkmt5-w>
> > > >
> > > > Case in point: just which elements in this video illustrate
> > > > just which tactical errors made by the defense, but due to dumb
> > > > luck ... not skill/planning ... she got away with?
> > >
> > > DUMB LUCK?! Typical libtard response! ...
> >
> > Yup. Care to make a wager on that Tom? Welch-proof, of course.
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> LOL! The Welcher wants a WELCH-PROOF bet?

Well he is dealing with a dishonourable, cowardly, liar...

> Hey, I got a bridge to sell
> you...
>

Did you buy it off Trump, thicko.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 2:18:40 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > Bigbird wrote:
> >
> > > TomS wrote:
> > >
> > > > How many lives have you personally saved?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Two, one of them twice but I think that still counts as two.
> >
> > Hey Flaccid, hero of your own fantasy,
> >
> > I note from your LIES that I read this morning that you never
> > responded nor explained the purpose of your question.
> >
> > Totally Flaccid.
> >
> > --
> > Trump fact check:
> > The grand total as of Sunday: 4,682 false claims
> > Last week’s total: 57 false claims
> > That’s the 23rd-worst week of his presidency out of 114 weeks so
> > far.
>
> Hey Tweety,

Hey Flaccid,

>
> Going thru your gun fantasies again, are you? What is left of your
> mind is fading FAST!

Grade school name calling, evasion and lies; you have nothing else in
your arsenal, Flaccid.

I think we ALL know there is only one fantasist in this discussion;
zero experience, zero training, zero intelligence.

You're thru! [sic].

[-hh]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 1:37:58 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:13:45 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 11:43:49 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:47:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, you’ve overestimated your tactical skills, as
> > > > > well as how you’ve not been able to clearly articulate your
> > > > > utility function. Because you don’t like hearing this, you’ve
> > > > > tried to “shoot the messenger” and make unfounded claims. Lame.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Something like what this gal did against ARMED home invaders:
> > > > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykiSTkmt5-w>
> > > > >
> > > > > Case in point: just which elements in this video illustrate
> > > > > just which tactical errors made by the defense, but due to dumb
> > > > > luck ... not skill/planning ... she got away with?
> > > >
> > > > DUMB LUCK?! Typical libtard response! ...
> > >
> > > Yup. Care to make a wager on that Tom? Welch-proof, of course.
> > >
> > >
> > > -hh
> >
> > LOL! The Welcher wants a WELCH-PROOF bet?
>
> Well he is dealing with a dishonourable, cowardly, liar...

It is tempting to tell Tom, "put up or shut up", but this is a learning opportunity for him.

What I've said is that Tom's video's defender made tactical errors. I've also stated
that I'm willing to back up this assertion with the wager offer. Thats the offer which
Tom is desperately trying to deflect and run away from.

Tom's not completely stupid; he knows that he's missing something big & obvious,
particularly if he suspects that I only make sucker bets. Its just his arrogance and
pride which prevents him from backing down and just asking. Problem is that in this
line of work, his is precisely the attitude which gets people killed.

BTW, had the photo shoot yesterday to prep for an article which will appear after the
official ribbon cutting on 4/26; more to follow.


-hh

[TomS]

LOL! You need to watch the video AGAIN:
Small, Asian lady 3
Large, armed thugs ZERO

She did EXACTLY what I said I would do: find a defensible space where she had the tactical advantage. These thugs were intending to kill any occupants and DID NOT expect any resistance, and ran as soon as she started firing. And, she pressed her advantage by switching to offense, going after these thugs (killing one OUTSIDE). Remember, the NZ shooter was repulsed, but came back with MORE weapons to continue his killing.

You are suffering from LL: Liberal Lunacy - nobody should be allowed to be armed because we DON'T TRUST YOU! Another good reason to NEVER live in NJ!!! This video SHOULD be a "learning experience" for you, but I predict you will merely keep making excuses for why this doesn't contradict your LL.

[-hh]

I'll give this one to you for free.

Watch the video again, noting her facing as she charges into the room.

Now provide to us the exact timestamps which clearly shows that
her head rotated sufficient distances to allow at least her eyes
to sweep the entire space ... ie, both flanks.

Oops. Completely missed coverage of her right flank ...
... which is the direction that the one perp fled.

As I said, she got lucky.



-hh

[Bigbird]

Which was nothing. Your only comment presumed knowledge that you didn't
have, a firearm which you would not have had, cover across an area that
you do not have any knowledge of... IOW intelligence of which you have
none. You would clearly be more of a danger to yourself and others than
to any perps.

You have no plan just a fantasy. Anyone can be a hero in their own
fantasy.

You are dangerous and stupid.

You are as good a reason to prevent arseholes having access to guns as
ever has been.

Let's imagine you had been lucky and survived long enough, without
killing any innocents so far, to find what you considered a good
position. A man approaches you from behind with a weapon drawn, what do
you do?

[Bigbird]

Any dick can look at a story where the perps are defeated and claim
that's what they would have done, overlooking the number of times the
defender comes off worse and ignoring the reason the perps have access
to guns and choose to carry them in the first place.

Tom is just any dick.

[TomS]

Hey Welcher,

YOU watch the video again: ALL THREE running like hell as soon as she started firing (but not quite fast enough!). She took on THREE ARMED THUGS and WON!

You are making judgments based only on the video. An interview with her revealed that one escaped by breaking a glass back door! She was masterful at quickly assessing the tactical situation and dealing with it.

It is important to note that she emptied the entire mag of her .45. When dealing with that number of threats you need ALL the ammo you've got. For home defense, I have a Beretta with 17 rounds, but for CCW I have a Taurus with just 7+1 rounds.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

What would YOU do?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

Well, we KNOW that you are a pussy that would run screaming: "PLEASE, PLEASE, don't shoot, I am a defenseless libtard who can't fight back!!"

[Bigbird]

Hey Flaccid jessie,

> Well, we

"we"? You are all alone, jessie.

> KNOW that you are a pussy that would run screaming: "PLEASE,
> PLEASE, don't shoot, I am a defenseless libtard who can't fight
> back!!"

LOL, more backdoor fantasising by the big jessie.

I guess you need something to get you through your day at the glory
hole.

Yet I have faced down a person with a gun while you have only ever
talked about it, fantasist jessie.

[Bigbird]

Well she's more a man that you will ever be, fantasist jessie. :)

[Bigbird]

Hey Flaccid jessie

>
> What would YOU do?

Unlike you, I don't fantasise about unlikely situations. We do not let
every sorry for himself jessie carry a gun in order to feel less scared
and just a little macho.

The most likely time you will ever fire your gun in anger is to harm an
innocent person, or twice as likely, shoot yourself in the head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png

I could tell you that from what you have said, in the very real
situation I faced, you would either have got yourself shot or have
killed a young man because that is the only two options you would have
left open. Someone would have died... just because you are scared all
of the time.

You are the one who is so scared that he carries a lethal weapon. Prove
that is a not a stupid and dangerous idea by stopping the fantasising
and accept you don't have a clue what kind of situation you would be
getting in to.

You have zero experience, zero relevant training, zero intelligence.
You are part of a problem not part of a solution.

[-hh]

> > > LOL! You need to watch the video AGAIN:
> > > Small, Asian lady 3
> > > Large, armed thugs ZERO
> > >
> > > She did EXACTLY what I said I would do: find a defensible space
> > > where she had the tactical advantage.
> >
> > I'll give this one to you for free.
> >
> > Watch the video again, noting her facing as she charges into the room.
> >
> > Now provide to us the exact timestamps which clearly shows that
> > her head rotated sufficient distances to allow at least her eyes
> > to sweep the entire space ... ie, both flanks.
> >
> > Oops. Completely missed coverage of her right flank ...
> > ... which is the direction that the one perp fled.
> >
> > As I said, she got lucky.
> >
>

> Hey Welcher,
>
> YOU watch the video again:

So did she rotate her head to clear the right flank? Yes or No?

> ALL THREE running like hell as soon as she started
> firing (but not quite fast enough!).

That they ran also happens to debunk your claim that they
"...were intending to kill any occupants".

> She took on THREE ARMED THUGS and WON!

But she still made a tactical mistake.

> You are making judgments based only on the video.

100% of what was provided. Plus it does have the answer to the
question you were given (but dodged):

"Now provide to us the exact timestamps which clearly shows that
her head rotated sufficient distances to allow at least her eyes
to sweep the entire space ... ie, both flanks."

The answer to that question is that she NEVER LOOKED.

> An interview with her revealed that one escaped by breaking
> a glass back door!

That's retrospective, since she didn't even glance that way
during the engagement.

And this is precisely why I said she got lucky: since she failed
to clear that sector, had perp#3 still been present in that missed
sector, they could have then dropped her from behind because she went past.

> She was masterful at quickly assessing the tactical situation
> and dealing with it.

No, because if she was masterful, there would have been clear evidence in
the video of her sweeping the flank sectors before she crossed the room.

> It is important to note that she emptied the entire mag of her .45.

Didn't know that for sure, but now so noted because that's now yet
another tactical error made on her part, in how to properly deal with
an incompletely cleared space.

> When dealing with that number of threats you need ALL the ammo
> you've got. For home defense, I have a Beretta with 17 rounds,
> but for CCW I have a Taurus with just 7+1 rounds.

Well, a slight congratulations to you for choosing 9mm, as its a
caliber that's not as bad as .45 ACP for domestic home defense.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

I'm wondering if that could really have been a .45 she was using.

She's shooting it mostly one-handed and getting next to no recoil.