SOME GUN RELATED QUESTIONS FOR LIBERALS:

[gfm7175]

YAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! A libtard who actually tried (but failed) instead of outright trolling or otherwise diverting/dodging/distracting!!!!! YAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!

1a) Murder laws likely prevent some of these murders from happening and they almost always prevent recidivism. I do not think gun restrictions will prevent 100% of these murders from occurring, but they will prevent some, and saving some children's lives is worth it. We should at least try and see if it helps, rather than do nothing.

Not what I asked you. My question uses the word 'stop', NOT the word 'prevent'.

(I would ask, do you think abortion laws would prevent all abortion?)

My question uses the word 'stop', NOT the word 'prevent'. Abortion laws would not stop abortion from occurring. Stopping abortion from occurring is not the purpose of abortion laws.

1b) No

So doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is NOT insanity?? If not, then what is?

2) I am for certain people being allowed to have certain types of weapons.

Not what I asked you. Why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent people for the actions of a select few people?

2b) I am not seeking to punish anyone with gun laws, I am looking to protect our children.

Yet you are supporting the punishing of millions upon millions upon millions of gun owners, all who are COMPLETELY INNOCENT, by infringing upon their right to keep and bear those guns due to your hoplophobia.

Speeding laws are not intended to punish anyone, they are intended to prevent death on the highway.

Apples/Oranges. Speeding laws regulate the flow of traffic, not ban or confiscate vehicles.

3) I do not support any celebrities, but I support people protecting themselves with guns, as long as they are mentally competent, not murderous, and well trained.

No you don't.

I do not oppose certain safety measures at schools, I think it one of the solutions, but I feel turning schools into armed camps is not conducive to producing healthy children or education itself.

Do murderers tend to target "armed camps"? --- But you're still avoiding my question: Given the fact that you support various politicians, celebrities, assemblies, and locations all across the States being protected with guns, why do you oppose protecting schools, and more importantly the children within them, with guns?

Its very difficult to get into my children's school, as a parent it makes it more difficult to be a part of their education and know the teachers. There is a balance, but often having a good guy with a gun does not prevent the tragedy. This murderer crashed the gate with a truck. The police ran.

So the only "good guys with guns" ran while the "bad guy with guns" slaughtered sitting ducks?? Why do you expect police to protect children instead of the parents of the children who actually have a vested interest in protecting their children?

4) I do not blame the gun, just like I do not blame the automobile, but I do support speed limits and safety measures, and limits on who is allowed to drive.

Apples/Oranges. (see above)

4a) I do not blame the gun.

Then why do your "solutions" immediately go towards infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights of INNOCENT people rather than commonalities within the murderers themselves, such as prescription of psychoactive drugs?

4b) I do think we should investigate these similarities. I want a multi prog approach to addressing these problems, but it takes funding and we just cut taxes to the bone.

How does infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights of INNOCENT people have anything to do with stopping mass murders from occurring?

4c) I am not against special preventative safety measures, but locked doors work both ways, and consider a gunman can lock himself in with a room of kids.

The idea is to lock the door BEFORE the gunman is in the room, not after he is in the room.

5) The law, there are laws against having a nuclear weapon in your back yard for example. The Constitution gives the government this right.

There is no such law. You don't get to determine the "needs" of other people.

 

[gfm7175]

I don't but it helps to reduce the mass shootings.

It doesn't even reduce them.

Nope.

So doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is NOT insanity?? If not, then what IS?

I don't.

LIE. You wish to punish them by targeting them via the "additional laws" mentioned in question #1.

Strawman fallacy. Everyone wants to protect the children in schools.

Evasion of question #3 as it was asked.

Strawman fallacy. Different guns have different effects.

Irrelevant to question, as asked. Evasion.

Strawman fallacy.

The autospy result will be revealed.

Evasion of question as asked. You also seem to have no idea what a strawman fallacy is.

Strawman fallacy. It depends on fire code.

Evasion of question as asked.

Nobody. It is not my right.

Then why are you doing it anyway (via your answer to question #1)?

 

[gfm7175]

Cat got your tongue?

Nope, but it's apparently got yours when it comes to directly answering my questions.

 

[AProudLefty]

It doesn't even reduce them.

Yes it does. When the AR-15 was banned under the Clinton Administration, it was reduced.

So doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is NOT insanity?? If not, then what IS?

They are not doing it over and over.

LIE. You wish to punish them by targeting them via the "additional laws" mentioned in question #1.

Ad hominem. Argument of the stone.

Evasion of question #3 as it was asked.

Ad hominem. Argument of the stone.

I do want to know if the shooter was on any drug. I want to get to the bottom of it.


Irrelevant to question, as asked. Evasion.


Evasion of question as asked. You also seem to have no idea what a strawman fallacy is.

Evasion of question as asked.

Ad hominem. Argument of the stone.

I did not evade your question. Security measures are already in place. I have no clue why the doors were not locked. That needs to be looked in.

Then why are you doing it anyway (via your answer to question #1)?

Ad hominem. Argument of the stone.

Quote me telling people what they can't have.

 

[archives]

[1a] Given the fact that murder laws do not stop mass murders from happening, why do you believe that additional laws (e.g. gun regulation/confiscation laws) will somehow stop mass murders from happening?

[1b] Isn't your belief in [1a] the very definition of insanity?

[2] MANY millions of Statesman own guns and have not committed any crimes with them. Why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent people for the actions of a select few people?

[3] Given the fact that you support various politicians, celebrities, assemblies, and locations all across the States being protected with guns, why do you oppose protecting schools, and more importantly the children within them, with guns?

[4a] Why do you immediately blame the gun rather than the person using it?

[4b] Why do you never examine the murderers themselves in order to find common links between them which could then be addressed (e.g. prescription of psychoactive drugs)?

[4c] Why do you never consider taking simple preventative measures (e.g. installing special doors that can be quickly closed and locked)?

[5] What gives you the right to tell other people what they do or do not "need"?

Inane question, traffic laws don’t stop traffic fatalities, so we should do nothing in regards to making driving safer? It is all about access to guns, especially given America has more guns out there than people

As fatuous as first question

How is regulating access to guns punishing “many million of Statesman who own guns?”

Don’t, rather admit the obvious, no one can predict the next target, you can play defense, but there exists too many targets to defend them all, if you mobilize the 101st Airborne Division to protect schools, the next dimwit will just find another target, senior citizen housing or public libraries for example

The issue is preventing more mass shootings, and no one knows who the next shooter will be, but we all do know what makes it all possible, what allows him to slaughter people in seconds, the gun

(4b and 4b are addressed above)

And lastly, another pointless question, who gives anyone the right to say you have to stop at the corner Stop sign? All goes back to the social contract, and please, none of the “freedom” and “rights” crap, only the right can turn abstract concepts into bumper sticker chliche, rights are based on reason, not desire

 

[Guno צְבִי]

[1a] Given the fact that murder laws do not stop mass murders from happening, why do you believe that additional laws (e.g. gun regulation/confiscation laws) will somehow stop mass murders from happening?

[1b] Isn't your belief in [1a] the very definition of insanity?

[2] MANY millions of Statesman own guns and have not committed any crimes with them. Why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent people for the actions of a select few people?

[3] Given the fact that you support various politicians, celebrities, assemblies, and locations all across the States being protected with guns, why do you oppose protecting schools, and more importantly the children within them, with guns?

[4a] Why do you immediately blame the gun rather than the person using it?

[4b] Why do you never examine the murderers themselves in order to find common links between them which could then be addressed (e.g. prescription of psychoactive drugs)?

[4c] Why do you never consider taking simple preventative measures (e.g. installing special doors that can be quickly closed and locked)?

[5] What gives you the right to tell other people what they do or do not "need"?

Hey bird turd , libs leftys also own guns, how about people going though a gun safety and handling course during where a nut can be identified as such , they don't hand out licences to drive like that

 

[Supposn]

[1a] Given the fact that murder laws do not stop mass murders from happening, why do you believe that additional laws (e.g. gun regulation/confiscation laws) will somehow stop mass murders from happening?

[1b] Isn't your belief in [1a] the very definition of insanity?

[2] MANY millions of Statesman own guns and have not committed any crimes with them. Why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent people for the actions of a select few people?

[3] Given the fact that you support various politicians, celebrities, assemblies, and locations all across the States being protected with guns, why do you oppose protecting schools, and more importantly the children within them, with guns?

[4a] Why do you immediately blame the gun rather than the person using it?

[4b] Why do you never examine the murderers themselves in order to find common links between them which could then be addressed (e.g. prescription of psychoactive drugs)?

[4c] Why do you never consider taking simple preventative measures (e.g. installing special doors that can be quickly closed and locked)?

[5] What gives you the right to tell other people what they do or do not "need"?

GFM7175, you're asking 5 questions that seem facets of the same topic. If you choose one of your questions, I'll try to respond to it. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[gfm7175]

Inane question, traffic laws don’t stop traffic fatalities, so we should do nothing in regards to making driving safer?

Apples/Oranges. Speeding laws regulate the flow of traffic, not ban or confiscate vehicles.

It is all about access to guns, especially given America has more guns out there than people

Irrelevant.

How is regulating access to guns punishing “many million of Statesman who own guns?”

RQAA.

Don’t, rather admit the obvious, no one can predict the next target, you can play defense, but there exists too many targets to defend them all, if you mobilize the 101st Airborne Division to protect schools, the next dimwit will just find another target, senior citizen housing or public libraries for example

Seems like they sure love to target advertised "gun free zones", eh?

The issue is preventing more mass shootings, and no one knows who the next shooter will be, but we all do know what makes it all possible, what allows him to slaughter people in seconds, the gun

Mass murder doesn't require a gun. Banning guns, besides punishing innocent people, will only put guns into the hands of criminals (who don't follow laws anyway, by definition). How well did prohibition work out??

And lastly, another pointless question, who gives anyone the right to say you have to stop at the corner Stop sign? All goes back to the social contract, and please, none of the “freedom” and “rights” crap, only the right can turn abstract concepts into bumper sticker chliche, rights are based on reason, not desire

 

[gfm7175]

GFM7175, you're asking 5 questions that seem facets of the same topic. If you choose one of your questions, I'll try to respond to it. Respectfully, Supposn

Either answer the questions or run away with your tail between your legs. Your choice.

 

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
GFM7175, you're asking 5 questions that seem facets of the same topic. If you choose one of your questions, I'll try to respond to it. Respectfully, Supposn

Either answer the questions or run away with your tail between your legs. Your choice.

GFM7175, you posted rhetorical questions with comments you cannot without embarrassment uphold? You fear exposing your lack of logic? You're unable to further discuss any single item of your initial post? That's your choice.

 

[archives]

Apples/Oranges. Speeding laws regulate the flow of traffic, not ban or confiscate vehicles.


Irrelevant.


RQAA.


Seems like they sure love to target advertised "gun free zones", eh?


Mass murder doesn't require a gun. Banning guns, besides punishing innocent people, will only put guns into the hands of criminals (who don't follow laws anyway, by definition). How well did prohibition work out??

No one is banning or confiscating guns, shows your reaching now having to throw in radio rhetoric

Not irrelevant, the point

Have no clue what “RQAA” is suppose to mean, other than, showing you have no response

And that is irrelevant

Seen a lot of mass murders done with knives? Mass murders with vehicles are now common in America? Have we had a lot of bombs going off somewhere lately? Guns is the implement designed purposely for killing as many people as possible in a short period of time, that is their purpose

 

[LurchAddams]

Okay so who is calling for confiscation of any or all guns?

That's their strawman. When we say, you don't need the AR15's they respond: No, you want to take all my guns. Me like to kiss my guns. Go away.


Republican rednecks suck.

 

[LurchAddams]

Are you here to troll or are you going to answer the thread questions?

Irony.

 

[LurchAddams]

My questions are very straightforward. You are simply here to troll. I'm not interested in your trolling atm.

No, your questions are leading and your responses laden with stinky strawmen.

 

[LurchAddams]

Can libtards like yourself EVER answer a simple straightforward question about ANYTHING??

All you have is trolling...

Toothless rednecks slobbers, what?

 

[LurchAddams]

Sighs. I want to answer your questions. Why are you refusing to answer my question?

Can you provide an example of a politician calling for the confiscation of all guns? If you can, then I will answer your questions.

Actually Beto did. That's how he lost to Ted Fucking Cruz. That's why I wasn't a fan of Beto until a couple of days ago when he walked into Abbotts press conference and let the asshole have it. That was awesome!

 

[gfm7175]

Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
GFM7175, you're asking 5 questions that seem facets of the same topic. If you choose one of your questions, I'll try to respond to it. Respectfully, Supposn
GFM7175, you posted rhetorical questions with comments you cannot without embarrassment uphold? You fear exposing your lack of logic? You're unable to further discuss any single item of your initial post? That's your choice.

Tail between your legs it is then. Got it.

 

[gfm7175]

No one is banning or confiscating guns, shows your reaching now having to throw in radio rhetoric

Joe Biden says differently: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
So does Chuck Schumer: https://www.chuckschumer.com/issues/gun-violence/

 

[LurchAddams]

Tail between your legs it is then. Got it.

You oughta know you cowardly little bitch-troll. The only time people feel they need to be armed is when they see you coming.

 

[AProudLefty]

Joe Biden says differently: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
So does Chuck Schumer: https://www.chuckschumer.com/issues/gun-violence/

The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings.

Chuck Schumer helped write and pass the 1994 assault weapons ban, which outlawed the manufacture and importation of semi-automatic weapons like the AK-47. The original assault weapons ban expired in 2004, and Congress has not renewed it since then. Semi-automatic assault weapons were designed for war and have no place in our communities, our streets or our schools, so Chuck believes the Senate should debate a new assault weapons ban.