2 guys, 2bats, one woman with a gun...guess who won?

[theDoctorisIn]

1. How much gun control do you think Obama "wants", and how did you come to that conclusion?

Obama wants to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Obama backs new assault weapons ban

Your link doesn't come close to supporting your claim.
"Rifles, shotguns and pistols" would not be banned under a reinstated assault weapons ban.

Really? What then does the AWB ban, if not rifles, pistols and shotguns?
Crossbows? Slingshots?

1. How much gun control do you think Obama "wants", and how did you come to that conclusion?

Obama wants to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Obama backs new assault weapons ban

Unsurprisingly, you're a liar, and consequently pose a greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any of your mythical 'gun-grabbers.'

The president has never advocated for the 'banning' of all rifles, shotguns, and pistols, to maintain otherwise is ignorant idiocy, as such a measure would be clearly un-Constitutional.

1: I never said he advocated the banning of all rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
2: I DID say he wants to rifles, pistols and shotguns, and then posted a citation proving just that.
Undeniable truth, both points.

Don't be a jackass. You neglected to qualify your statement, which implies you meant "all".

If you didn't mean "all" rifles, handguns and shotguns, then you should have said so, rather than trying to trap us in a "gotcha".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't be a jackass. You neglected to qualify your statement, which implies you meant "all".

Your misinterpretation of my statement does not in any was invalidate my statement.
Does Obama want to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols?
Yes, indeed. Impossible to argue otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

Interesting.
This means you think he only offers two possible responses to his questions, and you believe there are valid aswers to the question other than the two he allows for.
So... show this false dichotomy -- what answers do you have that he does not allow for?
.

"False dichotomy" probably isn't really the right term, but it does apply somewhat here.

so...for you anti gunners out there...you would prefer that she had gone with those guys right? it only made the situation worse that she had that gun...right?

so...and I never get a response to this...if you could go back in time to the scene of a rape, murder, brutal beating or robbery...and provide the victim with a gun to stop the crime...you wouldn't...right? You would let the crime happen, and the victim suffer the attack...right?

Are you really claiming those "questions" are legitimate questions that I should answer, and not ridiculously leading and rhetorical?

Depends -- have you taken a position where, if you had your way, this woman woudl have not had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question?
If so, then the questions are legitimate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

Interesting.
This means you think he only offers two possible responses to his questions, and you believe there are valid aswers to the question other than the two he allows for.
So... show this false dichotomy -- what answers do you have that he does not allow for?
.

"False dichotomy" probably isn't really the right term, but it does apply somewhat here.

so...for you anti gunners out there...you would prefer that she had gone with those guys right? it only made the situation worse that she had that gun...right?

so...and I never get a response to this...if you could go back in time to the scene of a rape, murder, brutal beating or robbery...and provide the victim with a gun to stop the crime...you wouldn't...right? You would let the crime happen, and the victim suffer the attack...right?

Are you really claiming those "questions" are legitimate questions that I should answer, and not ridiculously leading and rhetorical?

Depends -- have you taken a position where, if you had your way, this woman woudl have not had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question?
If so, then the questions are legitimate.

I don't believe I have taken any position like that, and no one else in this thread has either.

So you agree that the questions in the OP are illegitimate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Don't be a jackass. You neglected to qualify your statement, which implies you meant "all".

Your misinterpretation of my statement does not in any was invalidate my statement.
Does Obama want to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols?
Yes, indeed. Impossible to argue otherwise.

You wanted us to misinterpret your statement, so you could "score" a "gotcha".

You worded your statement in a intentionally ambiguous way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't be a jackass. You neglected to qualify your statement, which implies you meant "all".

Your misinterpretation of my statement does not in any was invalidate my statement.
Does Obama want to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols?
Yes, indeed. Impossible to argue otherwise.

You wanted us to misinterpret your statement, so you could "score" a "gotcha".
You worded your statement in a intentionally ambiguous way.

As I said, your misinterpretation does not invalidate my statement.
You agree that I am correct; that's all that matters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

Interesting.
This means you think he only offers two possible responses to his questions, and you believe there are valid aswers to the question other than the two he allows for.
So... show this false dichotomy -- what answers do you have that he does not allow for?
.

"False dichotomy" probably isn't really the right term, but it does apply somewhat here.

so...for you anti gunners out there...you would prefer that she had gone with those guys right? it only made the situation worse that she had that gun...right?

so...and I never get a response to this...if you could go back in time to the scene of a rape, murder, brutal beating or robbery...and provide the victim with a gun to stop the crime...you wouldn't...right? You would let the crime happen, and the victim suffer the attack...right?

Are you really claiming those "questions" are legitimate questions that I should answer, and not ridiculously leading and rhetorical?

Depends -- have you taken a position where, if you had your way, this woman woudl have not had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question?
If so, then the questions are legitimate.

I don't believe I have taken any position like that, and no one else in this thread has either.
So you agree that the questions in the OP are illegitimate.

They are legitimate questions for anyone who has taken a position where, if they had their way, this woman would not have had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question.
If you have not taken this position, then the question does not apply to you.

 

[Spoonman]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

actually they don't. but what the USA does have along with a growing number of guns is a decreasing rate of homicides by gun. more guns is consistently equaling less deaths. and this patter has been occurring year after year. in fact with out gun bans the rates are dropping faster in the USA than in countries with gun bans.

The percentage of Americans who have guns in their houses has been steadily dropping for the last 40 years.

The "growing number of guns" is due to a smaller number of people owning many guns, not more gun owners.

not true at all. in fact there is not one legitimate study that indicates the number of households that own guns is declining, other than liberal spin articles. gun owners happen to be the fastest growing demographic in the nation. 20,000,000 new requests for gun permits in 2013. not current gun owners buying another gun. new gun owners. and of this expanding group, the majority are women and newly legal young adults.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Do you have a link that supports your claims?

Poll Household Gun Ownership on Rise in U.S.

Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts

I put this last article because it tells an interesting story. and it reflects the un reliability of polls. especially in todays gun grabbing environment. as me in a poll if I own a gun, the answer will be no. for one, its none of your business and second, I want no record of my ownership anywhere. my state has the safe act with mandatory registration. I did not register any of my guns. anyone I know did not register their guns. the state estimates maybe 10% complied. also look at our household. 5 years ago it had one gun owner. today it has 4. on any statistic, we're a non owning household.
Gun ownership in the US what the data can tell us Harry J Enten Comment is free theguardian.com
but you look at FBI statistics. 20,000,000 new requests for permits. first time gun owners.are on the rise. more people that ever are buying guns from sources other than gun store that require background checks. people today are making their own banned gun. its easy and you can learn how to do it on youtube. and kids today are smarter than the politicians who are trying to restrict their constitutional rights.

 

[ChrisL]

and yet...regular people with those guns stop those crimes...but in Britain,,Australia...those victims are just that...victims...and they suffer for it...

It angers me when someone suggests that I shouldn't have the right to defend MYSELF against an intruder or someone who may do me harm. Usually in such situations, the police don't arrive until AFTER you have been raped, murdered or otherwise violated.

Your anger is predicated on a misconception, as no one is advocating one be denied the right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Yes they do, all the time.

 

[ChrisL]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

Interesting.
This means you think he only offers two possible responses to his questions, and you believe there are valid aswers to the question other than the two he allows for.
So... show this false dichotomy -- what answers do you have that he does not allow for?
.

"False dichotomy" probably isn't really the right term, but it does apply somewhat here.

so...for you anti gunners out there...you would prefer that she had gone with those guys right? it only made the situation worse that she had that gun...right?

so...and I never get a response to this...if you could go back in time to the scene of a rape, murder, brutal beating or robbery...and provide the victim with a gun to stop the crime...you wouldn't...right? You would let the crime happen, and the victim suffer the attack...right?

Are you really claiming those "questions" are legitimate questions that I should answer, and not ridiculously leading and rhetorical?

Depends -- have you taken a position where, if you had your way, this woman woudl have not had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question?
If so, then the questions are legitimate.

I don't believe I have taken any position like that, and no one else in this thread has either.
So you agree that the questions in the OP are illegitimate.

They are legitimate questions for anyone who has taken a position where, if they had their way, this woman would not have had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question.
If you have not taken this position, then the question does not apply to you.

I say give her a gun and let her blow their brains out!

It's a simple yes or no question. The people who refuse to answer this question don't want to admit that they would most certainly give the woman a gun. That is how silly they are!!!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

Interesting.
This means you think he only offers two possible responses to his questions, and you believe there are valid aswers to the question other than the two he allows for.
So... show this false dichotomy -- what answers do you have that he does not allow for?
.

"False dichotomy" probably isn't really the right term, but it does apply somewhat here.

so...for you anti gunners out there...you would prefer that she had gone with those guys right? it only made the situation worse that she had that gun...right?

so...and I never get a response to this...if you could go back in time to the scene of a rape, murder, brutal beating or robbery...and provide the victim with a gun to stop the crime...you wouldn't...right? You would let the crime happen, and the victim suffer the attack...right?

Are you really claiming those "questions" are legitimate questions that I should answer, and not ridiculously leading and rhetorical?

Depends -- have you taken a position where, if you had your way, this woman woudl have not had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question?
If so, then the questions are legitimate.

I don't believe I have taken any position like that, and no one else in this thread has either.
So you agree that the questions in the OP are illegitimate.

They are legitimate questions for anyone who has taken a position where, if they had their way, this woman would not have had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question.
If you have not taken this position, then the question does not apply to you.

If the question doesn't apply to me, why did you repeatedly point out that I hadn't answered it?

I don't see anyone who has taken that position - so therefore the questions don't apply to anyone in the thread.

 

[turtledude]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

That is not true. England has a higher violent rate as does Canada France and Germany.

Actually per capita the US is out matched by a lot of Countries. Here is a link

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com Check the per capita rates.

No, that's just a right wing internet meme, not actual truth.

It's impossible to compare, since Britain and the US use entirely different definitions of "violent crime".

white americans have a lower rate of gun crime than white Europeans.

 

[2aguy]

do you have a source for that stat...that would be very interesting if you can link it....?

 

[ChrisL]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

That is not true. England has a higher violent rate as does Canada France and Germany.

Actually per capita the US is out matched by a lot of Countries. Here is a link

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com Check the per capita rates.

No, that's just a right wing internet meme, not actual truth.

It's impossible to compare, since Britain and the US use entirely different definitions of "violent crime".

white americans have a lower rate of gun crime than white Europeans.

Is that true? Because the libs are always talking about how much

do you have a source for that stat...that would be very interesting if you can link it....?

This article says that America's crime rates are exaggerated. America also has a much more diverse culture than most any other country in the world. ALL of these things need to be taken into consideration, especially since violence is a result of CULTURE and not the weapon used.


America in the World s Briefings America and Crime

Conclusion

When compared with the rest of the developed world, America's non-murder crime rate appears strikingly good. Americans suffer crime far less than residents of most European states and significantly less than other English-speaking peoples do. That goes for all types of crime, property and violence. America's reputation as a country overrun by crime might have been deserved in 1989, but now it's a misconception. The data suggests the United States is one of the safest places to live in the developed world.

 

[turtledude]

do you have a source for that stat...that would be very interesting if you can link it....?

after Columbine, the usual herd of garment soiling hoplophobes started whining for gun bans. NR did an extensive study of US crime (based onFBI statistics) and European Crime (Interpol statistics) and concluded that white americans had a lower rate of gun violence than Brits and Continental Europeans. I don't have a cite-just a good memory but given more than 50% of US murders are committed by less than 5% of the US population (black males between the ages of 12-40) its pretty obvious

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are legitimate questions for anyone who has taken a position where, if they had their way, this woman would not have had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question.
If you have not taken this position, then the question does not apply to you.


They are idiotic questions, as no one is advocating this woman – or anyone, for that matter – have his firearm 'taken away,' or that anyone be 'prohibited' from possessing a firearm.


You're delusional, you've created a mythical 'gun-grabbing' monster that doesn't exist, which is why the premise of your thread fails as a fallacy.

 

[turtledude]

They are legitimate questions for anyone who has taken a position where, if they had their way, this woman would not have had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question.
If you have not taken this position, then the question does not apply to you.


They are idiotic questions, as no one is advocating this woman – or anyone, for that matter – have his firearm 'taken away,' or that anyone be 'prohibited' from possessing a firearm.


You're delusional, you've created a mythical 'gun-grabbing' monster that doesn't exist, which is why the premise of your thread fails as a fallacy.

so it is your position that there are no politicians in America who desire gun bans?

are you fucking kidding?

 

[ChrisL]

They are legitimate questions for anyone who has taken a position where, if they had their way, this woman would not have had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question.
If you have not taken this position, then the question does not apply to you.


They are idiotic questions, as no one is advocating this woman – or anyone, for that matter – have his firearm 'taken away,' or that anyone be 'prohibited' from possessing a firearm.


You're delusional, you've created a mythical 'gun-grabbing' monster that doesn't exist, which is why the premise of your thread fails as a fallacy.

so it is your position that there are no politicians in America who desire gun bans?

are you fucking kidding?

Of course there are. Anyone who says otherwise is naive.

 

[ChrisL]

I think the government would like nothing better than to be able to restrict our rights.

What would you libs do if the republicans tried to take over the world?

Just kidding, but you know, one minute you love and trust the government, and the next you think that they are racist, dumb, blah, blah, you get the picture. The hypocritical positions that you guys take are so obvious though!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They are legitimate questions for anyone who has taken a position where, if they had their way, this woman would not have had her gun and then been kidnapped/assaulted/raped/killed by the perps in question.
If you have not taken this position, then the question does not apply to you.


They are idiotic questions, as no one is advocating this woman – or anyone, for that matter – have his firearm 'taken away,' or that anyone be 'prohibited' from possessing a firearm.


You're delusional, you've created a mythical 'gun-grabbing' monster that doesn't exist, which is why the premise of your thread fails as a fallacy.

so it is your position that there are no politicians in America who desire gun bans?

are you fucking kidding?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any major politician in this country who supports any sort of comprehensive "gun ban" - but that's entirely beside the point anyway, since politicians, as a rule, don't post on this message board.