Author Topic: Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal? (Read 6134 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #180 on:** September 27, 2003, 02:22:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
But thanks for making my argument. I guess CNN is just doing what I did and misrepresented the "facts".

LOL! "facts"? You use that term losely don't you?

They weren't outgunned, but that's the phrase you and CNN chose to use. Why? There were 200 officers... how could 2 people have them outgunned?

Oh... wait... the assailants had body armor that was inpenetrable with pistols and shotguns. That seems to have made the difference. That seems to be what created the scene. That seems to be why the standoff occured. But I'll be damned if anyone said that other than a witness. It was because the police were "outgunned" and because the robbers used "assault weapons". Weapons that did not kill any of the 10 police officers they hit. Weapons that didn't kill anyone despite several hundred rounds being fired.

You do know this thread was actually about assault weapons... right? And you know you were talking about the destructive power of assault weapons when YOU reffered to this scene... right?

MiniD

Mini D · « **Reply #181 on:** September 27, 2003, 02:23:32 PM »

PS... you also know those weapons being used were already illegal in california... right?

MiniD

Curval · « **Reply #182 on:** September 27, 2003, 02:37:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
PS... you also know those weapons being used were already illegal in california... right?

MiniD

Relevance? They are legal in Nevada right. Just a short ride to Cali from there.

Curval · « **Reply #183 on:** September 27, 2003, 02:43:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! "facts"? You use that term losely don't you?

MiniD..you were the one who said "Don't let the facts get in the way. " and then you quote a source that backs up my point about them being outgunned and then accuse me of using the term "facts" loosely. Forgive me for finding that funny.

Tell ya what...quote me a source that says they weren't outgunned and then we can haggle over facts. Or are you somehow a better source than CNN?

capt. apathy · « **Reply #184 on:** September 27, 2003, 02:51:25 PM »

mini, you can feel free to quote me. I would bet that on the subject of guns I am a better source than cnn.

I find it funny that these people go to anti-gun groups (whos members presumably don't own guns) for their source of knowledge on gun related issues.

Mini D · « **Reply #185 on:** September 27, 2003, 02:52:17 PM »

LOL! You aren't really arguing that because CNN says it... it is fact are you curval?

Really... read the article and tell me what cause the "outgun" situation... was it guns or body armor? Really curval... try and think for yourself on this one because rhetoric is making you look like a handsomehunk right now.

MiniD

Dune · « **Reply #186 on:** September 27, 2003, 02:56:04 PM »

Curval, you cannot say they were outgunned. There were at least 30, perhaps as many as 50 so let's say 40, police officers at the scene. Each one armed with a semi-auto handgun of 9mm or better. There's one shotgun per car usually, but many ride alone, so let's say there were 20 shotguns. Against two men with semi-auto rifles.

That's about 60 pistols and shotguns against 2 semi-auto rifles. If .223 semi-auto rifles were so powerful that 2 of them would put 40 trained officers, armed with over 60 of their own weapons, in an out-gunned state, the Geneva Convention would have outlawed AR-15's years ago.

Curval · « **Reply #187 on:** September 27, 2003, 03:15:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! You aren't really arguing that because CNN says it... it is fact are you curval?

Really... read the article and tell me what cause the "outgun" situation... was it guns or body armor? Really curval... try and think for yourself on this one because rhetoric is making you look like a handsomehunk right now.

MiniD

That is not what I am saying at all. I'm just confused as to why you think YOU are a better source than CNN. Were you there?

It was a combination of both. I saw the footage after it happened. The guys were blazing away with automatic weapons. Most of the cops had hand-guns...which is why they raided that shop.

Why don't we ask Mr. McBride: "Added the LAPD's McBride: "We have many suspects who have multiple guns, and they continue to out-gun us and fire at us at will."

Is he a handsomehunk too?

Maybe apathy is a better source than him...I don't know.

You are being a handsomehunk trying to hint that because they are illegal in California you had some sort of point.

Curval · « **Reply #188 on:** September 27, 2003, 03:21:06 PM »

Mini D - They weren't outgunned, but that's the phrase you and CNN edit: and Mr McBridechose to use. Why? There were 200 officers... how could 2 people have them outgunned?

Dune - There were at least 30, perhaps as many as 50 so let's say 40, police officers at the scene.

Which is it boys?

Mini D · « **Reply #189 on:** September 27, 2003, 04:37:07 PM »

Curval, you are the person that brought up this incident that is basically an issue of body armor while arguing about the destructive capabilities of assault weapons. Don't try to pin the "getting signals crossed" thing on me.

A situation in which assault weapons were not the issue was used as a "talk to police offices that were there" example of how destructive assault weapons are.

Come now Curval, you aren't going to try and go on pretending you didn't have your head up your bellybutton on this one are you?

MiniD

Curval · « **Reply #190 on:** September 27, 2003, 04:44:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Curval, you are the person that brought up this incident that is basically an issue of body armor while arguing about the destructive capabilities of assault weapons. Don't try to pin the "getting signals crossed" thing on me.

A situation in which assault weapons were not the issue was used as a "talk to police offices that were there" example of how destructive assault weapons are.

Come now Curval, you aren't going to try and go on pretending you didn't have your head up your bellybutton on this one are you?

MiniD

What you keep ignoring is the fact that you have not backed up your claim that this was solely an issue of body armour and not the police being outgunned with anything...nothing, zippo zilch. Your argument is just "I'm right and you are wrong". I say it was a combination of body armour and the fact that the police were outgunned.

You argue one side and post a link that contracticts yourself which includes quotes by a police officer and you claim that my head is up my ass. Again I can only laugh.

LOL!

capt. apathy · « **Reply #191 on:** September 27, 2003, 04:46:27 PM »

Quote

You are being a handsomehunk trying to hint that because they are illegal in California you had some sort of point.

I disagree, I think he makes a very valid point. the point I see is that while the guns where outlawed it didn't stop outlaws from having them.

Mini D · « **Reply #192 on:** September 27, 2003, 05:00:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
What you keep ignoring is the fact that you have not backed up your claim that this was solely an issue of body armour and not the police being outgunned with anything...nothing, zippo zilch. Your argument is just "I'm right and you are wrong". I say it was a combination of body armour and the fact that the police were outgunned.

You argue one side and post a link that contracticts yourself which includes quotes by a police officer and you claim that my head is up my ass. Again I can only laugh.

LOL!

Tell me how 2 guys can out-gun scores of police officers. Please curval, though I know you didn't use the term... you sure as hell argue it enough.

These cops that were "out-gunned" were able to go into a store and re-arm then come back and kill the assailants... is it because they went in and bought some assault rifles? I doubt it since the store is not allowed to carry them. They gave them slugs for their shotguns because why? Come on now Curval... share with everyone.

It can't be that the story used the key term "assault weapon" and you are simply trained to translate that to "outgunned". Nah.

I can hear your muffled laugh from here. Either that or you have indigestion. You are being a classic example right now curval... well... to be honest I expect no less from you. Thank you for helping take away credibility from the "ban guns" argument.

MiniD

Mini D · « **Reply #193 on:** September 27, 2003, 05:03:58 PM »

BTW curval, the article cited served 2 points. It showed nobody was killed by the "assault weapons" that are somehow more increadibly destructive and effective than normal weapons. AND it showed that "out-gunned" is thrown in by the gun control crowd regardless of the situation.

You chose to call it "fact" because CNN said it.

MiniD

Dune · « **Reply #194 on:** September 27, 2003, 05:30:39 PM »

Just to point out, I guessed at 40. I have no idea how many officers showed up but I bet it was at least 40. If it was closer to 200, so what? It just goes to further prove D's and my point.

Besides, there is no context to what the officer said. Is he saying that when compared one to one, the bad guy had him out gunned? "Assualt weapon" to pistol? Ok, I can buy that. But, if he's saying that those two "assault weapons" outgunned every officer who responded to the scene put together, then I'll say it.

He's a handsomehunk.

Either way, we'll never know unless one of us asks him. Or takes the opinion of someone who has a lot of experience with firearms. And we already know that you don't like that idea.