On 9/29/2016 11:03 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 01:50:01 +0100, Meanie wrote:

On 9/28/2016 8:28 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:16:04 +0100, Meanie
wrote:

On 9/28/2016 7:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 27/09/2016 19:43, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:10:49 -0700, T wrote:

On 09/26/2016 05:02 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:36:03 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:57 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 18:10, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:35 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 26/09/2016 17:52, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 12:51 PM, Bod wrote:
Why did no civilians use their guns to stop or reduce the
severity of
the attacks or were they all carried out in *no carry*
states?

I thought that the point of having a gun was for protection.
I think in each case it was the police who had to stop the
buggers.

runs and hides behind sofa again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757

bug off

Can you answer the question; were all of those attacks carried
out in
no-carry states?

As Frank said: "bug off"

Do your own research.

I did and I'm not much the wiser. It seems that some can, some
can't.
I need one of your knowledgable gun owners to outline the laws.
Something about 'Concealed Licence Holders' can, etc.

Do more research. People get tired of spoon feeding you.

I do laugh when people can't come up with an answer.


Because you , Willard are ignorant. The answers are in each of the
three state laws and how they apply. Research would provide the
answer. It would only take a little effort to find the answer. So go
fu ck yourself.

It does get tiring when you answer and they don't
listen then they ask the same question again. Over
and over and over.

If would be different if the one asking the questions responded
to the answers and started a dialog.

But then again, you Brits are all about condescending and not
about dialog.

It's a game they play.

That's a bit of a generalisation and happens to be untrue.

Americans don't think clearly when you endanger their idea of the
right
to shoot everything that moves. Remember, they're still dumbass
yeehaas
like in the Western films.


Since you associate one or a small handful of Americans as the typical
American, then you won't have a problem when we do the same for the
idiotic Brit. It seems to fit appropriately since we already know
you're
an idiot.

You're saying only a small handful of Americans like guns? You're not
even familiar with the attitudes of your own country.


Not falling into your idiotic diatribe of providing your with the
attention you seek. Worry about your own pathetic country. I know plenty
about mine.

Answer the question. You can use the word yes or the word no.


Thanks for playing.