Looks like another school shooting.....

[Into the Night]

There is no place called "anywhere", Sybil. You deny basic science. Fallacy of the Impacted Penis in your Anus. Mantra 45b. Lame.

I am not you, Sybil.

 

[IBDaMann]

What's so hard to understand?

I was just going to ask you the same question. Dead people don't kill nearly as many people as living shooters.

What kind of advanced powers of logic do you think are needed to figure out that just having armed personnel visible on a school campus decreases the risk of violent crime. Do you know what primary purpose is served by a bouncer, a military, a security officer, etc..?

You're the one who can't present a valid argument

You still haven't presented a valid argument whereas I have. You can't post anything that isn't immediately refuted, and instead of refuting anything that I have posted, you simply EVADE.

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

I'm happy to leave you without any argument and without having refuted anything that I have posted. You are essentially forfeiting. Great.

 

[IBDaMann]

You two loser homos have nothing.

That's still no argument. Let me know when something changes.

 

[Diogenes]

It's a PRIVATE school. Ergo, no government mandate either way.

 

[Nomad]

I was just going to ask you the same question. Dead people don't kill nearly as many people as living shooters.

What kind of advanced powers of logic do you think are needed to figure out that just having armed personnel visible on a school campus decreases the risk of violent crime. Do you know what primary purpose is served by a bouncer, a military, a security officer, etc..?


You still haven't presented a valid argument whereas I have. You can't post anything that isn't immediately refuted, and instead of refuting anything that I have posted, you simply EVADE.


I'm happy to leave you without any argument and without having refuted anything that I have posted. You are essentially forfeiting. Great.

I've posted over a dozen links to statistically based studies by experts, every single one of which arrives at the exact same conclusion.... Guns in schools increases the risk to students and faculty.

You've posted nothing but your ignorant, uninformed, uneducated, halfwit redneck opinion, and what you're claiming has been roundly debunked as a myth.

I back up my position with reports by experts.

You just flap your fat, stank-ass, trumpsucker N4T lips.

That's still no argument. Let me know when something changes.

Let me know when you graduate to something higher than a troll.

 

[IBDaMann]

I've posted over a dozen links to statistically based studies by experts,

Studies are scams; they aren't science. Studies are just someone's opinion written into the report. That's why one should always follow the money on a report and find out whose opinion is being published.

Anyway, I reject most "studies" because they're crap.

Present your own argument, or do you really need someone to do your thinking for you?

You've posted nothing but your ignorant, uninformed, uneducated, halfwit redneck opinion

Incorrect. You're so undereducated that you don't even recognize a valid argument when it's right in front of you. Go back to school or something. You make this forum dumber every post you make.

, and what you're claiming has been roundly debunked as a myth.

No one has ever debunked my argument, which is why you can't debunk it. Actually, you can't debunk anything; you need someone else to do it for you. Have you considered competing in the hardware Olympics as a doorknob?

I back up my position with reports by experts.

You back up your "bent-over-furniture" positions by pointing to the equally mistaken opinions of others who are similarly bent over furniture. That's not supporting a position; that's joining a mindless collective.

Post an original argument.

 

[IBDaMann]

SO YOU'RE ADMITTING THAT ...

Instead of posting any original argument, all you have are your desperate attempts to declare that your opponents have admitted defeat.

Stay awake in school in the next life.

 

[Nomad]

Studies are scams; they aren't science. Studies are just someone's opinion written into the report. That's why one should always follow the money on a report and find out whose opinion is being published.

Stupidest thing I've ever read.

Anyway, I reject most "studies" because they're crap.

Of course you reject them.

The people who produce them are generally experts who use empirical data and statistics.

You're just some random idiot who doesn't know his asshole from a pothole.

Present your own argument, or do you really need someone to do your thinking for you?

I already have.

You have yet to present anything, much less an argument.

Just a lot of hot air as always.

Incorrect. You're so undereducated that you don't even recognize a valid argument when it's right in front of you. Go back to school or something.

You haven't made a valid argument or even an invalid one.

All you've done so far is talk about making an argument.

That's not an argument.

That's just running your mouth to hear the sound of your own voice.

You make this forum dumber every post you make.

You make this world dumber just by being in it.

No one has ever debunked my argument, which is why you can't debunk it. Actually, you can't debunk anything; you need someone else to do it for you.

One cannot debunk something that does not exist.

Like your non-existent, sham of an argument.

Have you considered competing in the hardware Olympics as a doorknob?

No, but I see you're competing for the job of trump's butt plug.

You back up your "bent-over-furniture" positions by pointing to the equally mistaken opinions of others who are similarly bent over furniture. That's not supporting a position; that's joining a mindless collective.

Explain exactly how the data cited in the linked reports I posted several posts back,are nothing more than "mistaken opinions". Exactly what do you base that bullshit statement on?

Explain exactly how the sources I posted links to are incorrect.

Post an original argument.

I have.

Now it's your turn.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Nomad]

Instead of posting any original argument, all you have are your desperate attempts to declare that your opponents have admitted defeat.

Stay awake in school in the next life.

They have

Diodogshit refuses to answer the question I asked him about his opinion re: allowing guns in schools, even after I offered him a deal.

He answers my question, I answer his.

But he ran like a bitch.

That's his admission of defeat.

You admit defeat by not making an argument at all.

All you do is lie about having presented one, without actually presenting one.

That is your admission of defeat.

You're both losers.

I win.

 

[Diogenes]

It's a PRIVATE school. Ergo, no government mandate either way.

 

[IBDaMann]

Stupidest thing I've ever read.

You expect people to believe that you can read?

Of course you reject them.

That's what I wrote.

The people who produce them are generally experts who use empirical data and statistics.

Nope. The people who produce them are always paid to produce certain "conclusions". The responsibility is on the think tank to cherry-pick data to "support" the predetermined conclusions. Ergo, follow the money and simply find out who, e.g. the DNC, needs an opinion to look like unbiased, gospel truth, to fool really stupid, undereducated, gullible people, such as yourself who need others to tell them what to believe.

You still have not presented any rational argument beyond "deterrents to violent crime cause more violent crime." You're a blathering idiot.

No, but I see you're competing for the job of trump's butt plug.

Considering your level of TDS, I can't think of anyone who is expecting anything value-added from you. You aren't capable of forming a valid argument in the first place, but as unhinged as you are, you can't even form a coherent thought on any topic.

Explain exactly how the data cited in the linked reports

I'm not going to waste my time legitimizing someone's WACKY opinion by considering cherry-picked and irrelevant data.

Let me know when you can support your claim that defenselessness makes people safer.

 

[IBDaMann]

They have Diodogshit refuses to answer the question I asked him about his opinion re: allowing guns in schools, even after I offered him a deal. He answers my question, I answer his. But he ran like a bitch. That's his admission of defeat. You admit defeat by not making an argument at all. All you do is lie about having presented one, without actually presenting one. That is your admission of defeat. You're both losers.

Too funny. So you're throwing away your opportunity to explain your ZANY theory that defenselessness makes people safer? Fair enough. That's your choice.

I win.

You win the Projector Award. Get with @gfm7175 for your prize.

 

[Nomad]

You expect people to believe that you can read?


That's what I wrote.


Nope. The people who produce them are always paid to produce certain "conclusions". The responsibility is on the think tank to cherry-pick data to "support" the predetermined conclusions. Ergo, follow the money and simply find out who, e.g. the DNC, needs an opinion to look like unbiased, gospel truth, to fool really stupid, undereducated, gullible people, such as yourself who need others to tell them what to believe.

You still have not presented any rational argument beyond "deterrents to violent crime cause more violent crime." You're a blathering idiot.


Considering your level of TDS, I can't think of anyone who is expecting anything value-added from you. You aren't capable of forming a valid argument in the first place, but as unhinged as you are, you can't even form a coherent thought on any topic.


I'm not going to waste my time legitimizing someone's WACKY opinion by considering cherry-picked and irrelevant data.

Let me know when you can support your claim that defenselessness makes people safer.

Yeah, right.

You talk a lot of shit about how these reports are wrong, but you can't explain how or why they're wrong.

Yet another admission that you've LOST the argument.

Too funny. So you're throwing away your opportunity to explain your ZANY theory that defenselessness makes people safer? Fair enough. That's your choice.


You win the Projector Award. Get with gfm7175 for your prize.

I'm not throwing away anything.

You and your girlfriend diane-ogenes have both steadfastly refused and avoided explaining your position so you two are the ones who've thrown away your opportunities which = admitting defeat.

Otherwise you're both LOSERS.

 

[Diogenes]

It's a PRIVATE school. Ergo, no government mandate either way.

 

[Nomad]

I've got nothing here. Just stupid harping on irrelevant nonsense.

Not to mention how stupid you're making yourself look, Diana.

 

[Diogenes]

Not to mention how stupid you're making yourself look, Diana.

Reminding you of your factual error seems to make you SO MAD, so I'll keep doing it.

 

[Nomad]

Reminding you of your factual error seems to make you SO MAD, so I'll keep doing it.

Knock yourself out, Diana.

 

[IBDaMann]

You talk a lot of shit about how these reports are wrong,

We're right back to your inability to read for comprehension. You were the one asserted that he believes every word that he reads on the internet as long as it is called a "study", believing that because it is called a "study" that it must certainly be true.

I, on the other hand, simply pointed out that all studies are products for paying customers, and that customers don't pay for what they don't want. Customers tell think tanks what conclusions they want gullible people to believe, and the think tank "researches" (i.e. cherry-picks) data that supports that conclusion, and collects a paycheck. My policy on "studies" is to follow the money. Your policy is to believe whatever you read on the internet.

You do you, and I'll do me. If you are ever wondering why your positions are always so stupid, you might want to revisit this point.

Yet another admission that you've LOST the argument.

I forgot, you're still declaring that your opponents have admitted to losing, because you have no choice, you don't have any argument for them to lose in the first place.

 

[Nomad]

We're right back to your inability to read for comprehension. You were the one asserted that he believes every word that he reads on the internet as long as it is called a "study", believing that because it is called a "study" that it must certainly be true.

I, on the other hand, simply pointed out that all studies are products for paying customers, and that customers don't pay for what they don't want. Customers tell think tanks what conclusions they want gullible people to believe, and the think tank "researches" (i.e. cherry-picks) data that supports that conclusion, and collects a paycheck. My policy on "studies" is to follow the money. Your policy is to believe whatever you read on the internet.

You do you, and I'll do me. If you are ever wondering why your positions are always so stupid, you might want to revisit this point.

I forgot, you're still declaring that your opponents have admitted to losing, because you have no choice, you don't have any argument for them to lose in the first place.

Your idiotic screen name "IBDaBiggestMoronAtJPP", doesn't do you credit.

You're not only the biggest moron, you're also the biggest liar, biggest obfuscator, biggest deflector and side-stepper, and all around biggest bloviating jackass clown.

You're nothing but a substance free hot air bag troll who couldn't make a point with a pencil sharpener.

 

[IBDaMann]

Your idiotic screen name "IBDaBiggestMoronAtJPP", doesn't do you credit.

You're not only the biggest moron, you're also the biggest liar, biggest obfuscator, biggest deflector and side-stepper, and all around biggest bloviating jackass clown.

You're nothing but a substance free hot air bag troll who couldn't make a point with a pencil sharpener.

I'm looking at your argument here for compulsory defenselessness zones and it still looks pretty weak. You never explain how defenselessness somehow reduces violent crime, how deterrents to violent crime somehow increase violent crime or how everything on the internet somehow becomes true if it is called a "study".

I say work on it a little and I'll review your next draft.