Guns, guns, guns, guns

I believe I have. Perhaps you are simply too stupid to understand.
Yes...you have. You are making an omniscience fallacy. You are also being a bigot. You are also seriously underestimating just what the citizens of this country can do. You are also seriously underestimating the result of a split military.
Because I have an education. And I like taking care of losers in Florida when their trailer gets destroyed by yet another hurricane.
The illiterate like you have no education. You can't lie that way! Making up stories about yourself accomplishes nothing.
LOL. You're hilarious. Couldn't make it out of high school? Had to go for the GED? LOLOL. Go back to your trailer, meth mouth.
Bigotry. Omniscience fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
 
Yes...you have. You are making an omniscience fallacy. You are also being a bigot. You are also seriously underestimating just what the citizens of this country can do. You are also seriously underestimating the result of a split military.

The illiterate like you have no education. You can't lie that way! Making up stories about yourself accomplishes nothing.

Bigotry. Omniscience fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

iSLGUyV.jpg
 
...and like usual, you turn to insults. No argument presented.

How is what I posted an insult? You wear one, don't you? If not you should be VERY CAREFUL. Joe Biden is listening into your thoughts as we speak! And you know that man is so ebil that he will do horrible things with your thoughts.

Maybe mother Melania can bless you with safety!
2mRGi1d.jpg
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
My father was a NYC cop to homicide detective for 30 years. His service revolver was either on top of the kitchen refrigerator or in my parents bedroom on top of the chest of drawers. I have 2 younger brothers.....NOBODY WENT NEAR THAT GUN! Parental discipline took care of that. Just saying.

So, you're saying parental discipline kept your younger brothers from that gun? Not any one of those 20,000 gun laws (or the addition of any more) already on the books?
Yet you blame guns and their manufacturers and want to ban guns from responsible gun owners. Kind of hypocritical, isn't it?
It's about time you admit it's a parent's responsibility to teach their kids not to kill other kids. I've been saying that for years.

I'm saying that this was BEFORE various state gun laws. I agree that the "law" were a gun has to be unloaded and locked away is unnecessary in a household with sane, responsible parents. Bottom line: the "locked box" scenario really pertains to teenagers and potential theft, NOT little kids.

The rest of your screed is misleading, as the mass shootings were committed by teens on up, who either legally purchased their weapons of choice or obtained them through illegal means. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from some little kid grabbing Dad's loaded gun and accidentally shooting someone (which still happens occasionally in this country).

It's about time YOU acknowledge the FACTS that the weapons of choice for the majority of mass shootings in the last 25 years were those that were formally banned. Register guns like cars, and you lower criminal purchase...couple this with renewing the 1994 AWB, and you change the dynamic regarding mass shootings.

Again and again, I point
 
I generally agree with you and was raised much the same way with guns in the house but a dad who instilled training on the importance and danger of them. But the overall point is that it is a statistical game. The more guns you have around houses the higher the probability that there is going to be someone who accidentally blows half his face off (or worse).

That's the biggest problem in the US. Not that guns are somehow "bad", but rather that we have so saturated our society with guns that statistically more bad things start happening. More gun ownership? Expect more guns to be stolen. More gun ownership? Expect EXACTLY what the studies show: more people murdered by family members in their own home or more people committing suicide with a gun.

It's just numbers.

And do those numbers show exactly how many gun owners with kids have the kids obtain those weapons and accidentally shoot someone as opposed to the general number? My point is that you are NOT going to ban all weapons from American civilians.....that's just a fantasy which requires a homogenous society with a fully efficient police force...a society devoid (or with greatly reduced) race, class & caste prejudices. Until then, we make improvements where we can .... as proposed in the OP.
 
I'm saying that this was BEFORE various state gun laws. I agree that the "law" were a gun has to be unloaded and locked away is unnecessary in a household with sane, responsible parents. Bottom line: the "locked box" scenario really pertains to teenagers and potential theft, NOT little kids.

The rest of your screed is misleading, as the mass shootings were committed by teens on up, who either legally purchased their weapons of choice or obtained them through illegal means. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from some little kid grabbing Dad's loaded gun and accidentally shooting someone (which still happens occasionally in this country).

It's about time YOU acknowledge the FACTS that the weapons of choice for the majority of mass shootings in the last 25 years were those that were formally banned. Register guns like cars, and you lower criminal purchase...couple this with renewing the 1994 AWB, and you change the dynamic regarding mass shootings.

Again and again, I point

Read the "assault weapon ban," then come back and tell me what was "banned."

"The biggest of the various loopholes in the bill was that it only applied to the specified types of weapons and large-capacity magazines that were created after the bill became law, meaning that there was nothing illegal about owning or selling such a weapon or magazine that had been created before the law was signed."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/understanding-1994-assault-weapons-ban-ended/story?id=65546858

So, every one of my "assault weapons" that I already owned was legal and were NOT BANNED!
In fact, I purchased 2 of them from the Army during Clinton's "Assault weapons Ban." Whaaa...
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I'm saying that this was BEFORE various state gun laws. I agree that the "law" were a gun has to be unloaded and locked away is unnecessary in a household with sane, responsible parents. Bottom line: the "locked box" scenario really pertains to teenagers and potential theft, NOT little kids.

The rest of your screed is misleading, as the mass shootings were committed by teens on up, who either legally purchased their weapons of choice or obtained them through illegal means. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from some little kid grabbing Dad's loaded gun and accidentally shooting someone (which still happens occasionally in this country).

It's about time YOU acknowledge the FACTS that the weapons of choice for the majority of mass shootings in the last 25 years were those that were formally banned. Register guns like cars, and you lower criminal purchase...couple this with renewing the 1994 AWB, and you change the dynamic regarding mass shootings.

Again and again, I point




Read the "assault weapon ban," then come back and tell me what was "banned."

"The biggest of the various loopholes in the bill was that it only applied to the specified types of weapons and large-capacity magazines that were created after the bill became law, meaning that there was nothing illegal about owning or selling such a weapon or magazine that had been created before the law was signed."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/understanding-1994-assault-weapons-ban-ended/story?id=65546858

So, every one of my "assault weapons" that I already owned was legal and were NOT BANNED!
In fact, I purchased 2 of them from the Army during Clinton's "Assault weapons Ban." Whaaa...

:rolleyes: Your quote essentially reiterates the FACT that within the law any weapon that was purchased or sold before the bill was made law was legal...anything like this afterward was illegal.

No shyte?!?! I've been saying that for YEARS. It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR ANYONE WHO SERIOUSLY DEBATES THE ISSUE.

In other words, you just gave a MOOT POINT.

Here, from 2018 is what I'm pointing to. I suggest YOU do your homework:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/ar-15-americas-rifle.html
 
:rolleyes: Your quote essentially reiterates the FACT that within the law any weapon that was purchased or sold before the bill was made law was legal...anything like this afterward was illegal.

No shyte?!?! I've been saying that for YEARS. It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR ANYONE WHO SERIOUSLY DEBATES THE ISSUE.

In other words, you just gave a MOOT POINT.

Here, from 2018 is what I'm pointing to. I suggest YOU do your homework:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/ar-15-americas-rifle.html

I have no interest in subscribing to the New York Times.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Your quote essentially reiterates the FACT that within the law any weapon that was purchased or sold before the bill was made law was legal...anything like this afterward was illegal.

No shyte?!?! I've been saying that for YEARS. It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR ANYONE WHO SERIOUSLY DEBATES THE ISSUE.

In other words, you just gave a MOOT POINT.

Here, from 2018 is what I'm pointing to. I suggest YOU do your homework:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/u...cas-rifle.html



I have no interest in subscribing to the New York Times.

So you're incapable of an honest, objective debate on the subject as you essentially reject out of hand any information that contradicts your beliefs.

When folk use a source that is outrageously biased, I can at least discuss the content of that source while expressing disdain for it. That way, I can logically prove it wrong when necessary.

Obviously, you're incapable/unwilling to do such. So there is no further point in discussing this with you.
 
So you're incapable of an honest, objective debate on the subject as you essentially reject out of hand any information that contradicts your beliefs.

When folk use a source that is outrageously biased, I can at least discuss the content of that source while expressing disdain for it. That way, I can logically prove it wrong when necessary.

Obviously, you're incapable/unwilling to do such. So there is no further point in discussing this with you.

How can I debate something I cannot see? How is that "disdain"?

Yes, I am unwilling to pay for a subscription I have no interest in,
and I won't waste my money just to pacify you.
 
Back
Top