A challenge to the anti-gun crowd here. - part deux

[USFREEDOM911]

But what has been proven is that those States with greater gun regulation has less gun violence than those with less

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nce-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

Gun regulations mean nothing to a criminal, so do you have something that has excluded criminals killed by other criminals?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

From your article.



Doesn't that skew your claims about "gun violence"?

It also doesn't exclude criminals that were killed by other criminals.

You know, the ones who don't care about a State's gun regulations.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Hardly, the facts remain we have more guns out there than any other developed nation and we have more gun deaths than any other developed nation, and we do lead all developed nations in the number of gun related deaths per year

And common sense dictates that if you have a gun in your house your probability of being hurt by that gun are astronomically higher than a guy who doesn't have a weapon in his residence, fact of proximity and probability

You haven't explained why there aren't MILLIONS of gun owners "hurt" by the weapons they have in their residence, if the fact gatherers are correct.

 

[StoneByStone]

It would also make it less useful in a defensive encounter.

Not really. You could easily scare off a group of thugs with a ten shooter.

Why to you want to punish law abiding citizens?

I don't. When you take a lighter away from a small child, you're not punishing the child.

 

[countryboy]

Bullets are needed to kill people. A gun with less bullets can kill less people.

Including assailants, who wish to do you and your family harm.

 

[StoneByStone]

Now that you've expressed your opinion, may I prove you to be in error or will you just deny it and make excuses; because I have information that will refute your conclusion?

You have information that disproves the theory that bullets are used to kill people? Or that reload times are real?

 

[StoneByStone]

Including assailants, who wish to do you and your family harm.

You could chase off an assailant with ten bullets. You probably wouldn't even need to fire the gun.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not really. You could easily scare off a group of thugs with a ten shooter.




I don't. When you take a lighter away from a small child, you're not punishing the child.

But if you "ban" or restrict the availability to own a lighter, then you are punishing those who are legally able to own a lighter.

And how is it going to scare off the "thugs", when they have 15 or 20 round magazines?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You have information that disproves the theory that bullets are used to kill people? Or that reload times are real?

The bullet "theory" is something that I never address.

This was about you saying that restricting guns to 10 round magazines, will cause less people to die.

Are you willing to stay on tangent or do you now intend to move the discussion; because I have irrefutable information that will show you're in error, regarding magazine size.

 

[countryboy]

Not really. You could easily scare off a group of thugs with a ten shooter.

Complete and utter nonsense. Deadly force isn't intended to scare people off, it's intended to end the threat. "Not really" doesn't cut it. You have no right to limit my ability to protect myself and my family.

I don't. When you take a lighter away from a small child, you're not punishing the child.

We're not discussing children playing with lighters.

 

[countryboy]

You could chase off an assailant with ten bullets. You probably wouldn't even need to fire the gun.

Often times you don't need to fire. But often times you do. Many thugs aren't easily intimidated.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You could chase off an assailant with ten bullets. You probably wouldn't even need to fire the gun.

First you talk about "thugs" (plural) and then you change up "an assailant".

Decided to add an edit and point out that if you would stay on the subject matter (guns and magazine size) this could be resolved faster.

 

[countryboy]

First you talk about "thugs" (plural) and then you change up "an assailant".

Decided to add an edit and point out that if you would stay on the subject matter (guns and magazine size) this could be resolved faster.

It could also be resolved faster if you would just say what you're getting at. Trying to trap these gun-grabbers isn't going to accomplish anything. Just go ahead and educate him already.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It could also be resolved faster if you would just say what you're getting at. Trying to trap these gun-grabbers isn't going to accomplish anything. Just go ahead and educate him already.

I'm not trying to trap anyone; but I have learned that if liberals don't commit to something, then it allows them a way to deny evidence.

I want Stone to state unequivocally that he believes that having smaller magazines is proof that less people will die, during a situation where there are numerous possible victims.

 

[countryboy]

I'm not trying to trap anyone; but I have learned that if liberals don't commit to something, then it allows them a way to deny evidence.

I want Stone to state unequivocally that he believes that having smaller magazines is proof that less people will die, during a situation where there are numerous possible victims.

It doesn't matter man, you can hit liberals with every fact known to mankind and they will put their fingers in their ears and chant lalalalala. You just have to make your point for the benefit of others who may read this who are more reasonable.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

MIA

STONE??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It doesn't matter man, you can hit liberals with every fact known to mankind and they will put their fingers in their ears and chant lalalalala.

But Stone needs to commit, if this is truly what he FEELS; because I can PROVE him to be in error.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

STONE??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like Stone signed off and just couldn't bring himself to have to face being shown up.

 

[countryboy]

But Stone needs to commit, if this is truly what he FEELS; because I can PROVE him to be in error.

He ran off, and you never did make your point. You didn't prove anything. What did you accomplish? Nothing.

 

[countryboy]

Looks like Stone signed off and just couldn't bring himself to have to face being shown up.

You certainly didn't show him up. He got his issued talking points in, regurgitated like a good little drone. And you never countered. He won, you lost.