A bet with anti-gunners

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2015
97,215
37,438
2,290
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms. The left? They believe criminals will obey any and all laws. On the right, we believe (as has been demonstrated in Europe) that even if we could make all guns illegal, that won't stop killers. On the left, they believe that if a mental person doesn't have access to guns, they will take up video games instead. Now to the bet..........

Let's say that the Congress agreed to create a law that read we will give anti-gunners anything they want to stop mass murders (name your poison). The bill would be set to expire in four years. Now if within that time, we see one more mass murder (guns or otherwise) the law would prohibit any further gun restriction legislation for 50 years. If within that time, the law stops all mass murders, we allow the left to keep it and even create more restrictions.

Would any anti-gunner be willing to make this wager?

The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them. It's just something to complain about because we are against their suggestions.
 
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms.
It's not that, it's the fact that laws against guns will always restrict defensive gun use more than offensive gun use because only defensive gun use requires the carrying of a gun at all times, leading to greater possibility of detection.

It's simple:

  • Out of all the people at Santa Fe that day, only the murderer knew when he would strike.
  • Only the murderer had the luxury of needing to have the gun on school grounds only on the day of the shooting.
  • Everyone else would have had to sneak the gun in every day for years and years.
  • You are far, far more likely to get away with sneaking a gun into a school once than you are sneaking the gun into the school 500 times.
  • Mathematically, the gun laws provided a far greater disadvantage to the innocent kids and teachers at that school than they did to any would be murderer.
  • Practically, it allowed the murderer to murder with impunity for a few minutes.
 
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms.
It's not that, it's the fact that laws against guns will always restrict defensive gun use more than offensive gun use because only defensive gun use requires the carrying of a gun at all times, leading to greater possibility of detection.

It's simple:

  • Out of all the people at Santa Fe that day, only the murderer knew when he would strike.
  • Only the murderer had the luxury of needing to have the gun on school grounds only on the day of the shooting.
  • Everyone else would have had to sneak the gun in every day for years and years.
  • You are far, far more likely to get away with sneaking a gun into a school once than you are sneaking the gun into the school 500 times.
  • Mathematically, the gun laws provided a far greater disadvantage to the innocent kids and teachers at that school than they did to any would be murderer.
  • Practically, it allowed the murderer to murder with impunity for a few minutes.

And I think even the anti-gunners know this, it's just they will never admit to it.
 
The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them.
I love the way you move the goalposts in your strawman argument right at the last second while denying you're doing so. That fits with what I've read from you in your other posts.
 
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms.
It's not that, it's the fact that laws against guns will always restrict defensive gun use more than offensive gun use because only defensive gun use requires the carrying of a gun at all times, leading to greater possibility of detection.

It's simple:

  • Out of all the people at Santa Fe that day, only the murderer knew when he would strike.
  • Only the murderer had the luxury of needing to have the gun on school grounds only on the day of the shooting.
  • Everyone else would have had to sneak the gun in every day for years and years.
  • You are far, far more likely to get away with sneaking a gun into a school once than you are sneaking the gun into the school 500 times.
  • Mathematically, the gun laws provided a far greater disadvantage to the innocent kids and teachers at that school than they did to any would be murderer.
  • Practically, it allowed the murderer to murder with impunity for a few minutes.
And?
 
The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them.
I love the way you move the goalposts in your strawman argument right at the last second while denying you're doing so. That fits with what I've read from you in your other posts.
How did he move them? Banning tools doesn't stop killing...….tools are inanimate
 
How did he move them?
By suddenly including 'reduce', as an afterthought, which actually is all anyone can hope for, and which the experience of other countries demonstrates.
Banning tools doesn't stop killing...….tools are inanimate
Ah. So, then, if we take that to a logical conclusion, we don't need to control nukes because they are inanimate.
 
The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them. It's just something to complain about because we are against their suggestions.

Actually, we already did that.

We passed a Assault Weapon ban in the 1990's, and the number of mass shootings decreased. Then we let it lapse, and the number of mass shootings increased.
 
The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them. It's just something to complain about because we are against their suggestions.

Actually, we already did that.

We passed a Assault Weapon ban in the 1990's, and the number of mass shootings decreased. Then we let it lapse, and the number of mass shootings increased.

Too bad you refuse to read the truth or you might learn something this time:

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
 
The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them.
I love the way you move the goalposts in your strawman argument right at the last second while denying you're doing so. That fits with what I've read from you in your other posts.

Then maybe you should learn how to read. How does one move the goalposts when you replied to the OP instead of a later comment? Maybe you don't understand what moving the goalposts means.
 
Too bad you refuse to read the truth or you might learn something this time:

Nothing you post is anywhere near the truth.

MassShootingFour-1024x745.png
 
Too bad you refuse to read the truth or you might learn something this time:

Nothing you post is anywhere near the truth.

MassShootingFour-1024x745.png

So why focused on mass murders alone? Are individual murders a little bit better? The truth is the assault ban didn't work. This last shooting the kid used a shotgun and a revolver.
 
So why focused on mass murders alone? Are individual murders a little bit better? The truth is the assault ban didn't work. This last shooting the kid used a shotgun and a revolver.

It worked just fine, in that mass shooting were less fatal because the guns available were less deadly.

Frankly, the fact we have 11,000 gun murders is bad enough, but that's become background noise. We don't even notice unless a crazy person shoots up a school. That's how numb we've become to the problem.
 
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms. The left? They believe criminals will obey any and all laws. On the right, we believe (as has been demonstrated in Europe) that even if we could make all guns illegal, that won't stop killers. On the left, they believe that if a mental person doesn't have access to guns, they will take up video games instead. Now to the bet..........

Let's say that the Congress agreed to create a law that read we will give anti-gunners anything they want to stop mass murders (name your poison). The bill would be set to expire in four years. Now if within that time, we see one more mass murder (guns or otherwise) the law would prohibit any further gun restriction legislation for 50 years. If within that time, the law stops all mass murders, we allow the left to keep it and even create more restrictions.

Would any anti-gunner be willing to make this wager?

The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them. It's just something to complain about because we are against their suggestions.

Using gun nut logic: we should not have immigration laws because illegals will just find their way in anyway .

No law is 100%. When you say “criminals will just get them anyway” you are full of crap. You act like you can just pick up an illegal gun on any street corner.
 
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms. The left? They believe criminals will obey any and all laws. On the right, we believe (as has been demonstrated in Europe) that even if we could make all guns illegal, that won't stop killers. On the left, they believe that if a mental person doesn't have access to guns, they will take up video games instead. Now to the bet..........

Let's say that the Congress agreed to create a law that read we will give anti-gunners anything they want to stop mass murders (name your poison). The bill would be set to expire in four years. Now if within that time, we see one more mass murder (guns or otherwise) the law would prohibit any further gun restriction legislation for 50 years. If within that time, the law stops all mass murders, we allow the left to keep it and even create more restrictions.

Would any anti-gunner be willing to make this wager?

The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them. It's just something to complain about because we are against their suggestions.
Within your hypothetical construct, you'd best be careful with the qualifications of such a bet. Would banning all guns cut down on the amount of mass murders? Quite possibly, depending on what your definition of "mass" murder is. You'd need to look at violent crime rates as a whole. Gun panacea Australia reportedly has higher violent crime rates than the U.S. which could easily be attributed to a much lesser threat of defensive gun use, and defensive gun use is impossible to fully measure.
 
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms. The left? They believe criminals will obey any and all laws. On the right, we believe (as has been demonstrated in Europe) that even if we could make all guns illegal, that won't stop killers. On the left, they believe that if a mental person doesn't have access to guns, they will take up video games instead. Now to the bet..........

Let's say that the Congress agreed to create a law that read we will give anti-gunners anything they want to stop mass murders (name your poison). The bill would be set to expire in four years. Now if within that time, we see one more mass murder (guns or otherwise) the law would prohibit any further gun restriction legislation for 50 years. If within that time, the law stops all mass murders, we allow the left to keep it and even create more restrictions.

Would any anti-gunner be willing to make this wager?

The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them. It's just something to complain about because we are against their suggestions.

I really can't participate much. My solution is to, in the case of mass school shootings, to take the drug that causes most of these out of the equation by prohibiting it's use by anyone under the age of 24.

Guns, target hardening, armed teachers and all that crap would be a thing of fairy tales cuz the shootings would end.

But hey, who am I to stand in the way of spending time and effort on solutions that won't work anyway.

Killers Kill, it's what they do. Worse part is, they are far more creative than you and I. Let's just stop creating them in the first place.
 
In the many discussions of mass murders, the dichotomy is that anti-gunners think they have the solution by restrictions on guns. The pro-gunners think that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Very differing opinions indeed.

On the right, we believe that no matter what gun laws are created, the bad guys will always find access to firearms. The left? They believe criminals will obey any and all laws. On the right, we believe (as has been demonstrated in Europe) that even if we could make all guns illegal, that won't stop killers. On the left, they believe that if a mental person doesn't have access to guns, they will take up video games instead. Now to the bet..........

Let's say that the Congress agreed to create a law that read we will give anti-gunners anything they want to stop mass murders (name your poison). The bill would be set to expire in four years. Now if within that time, we see one more mass murder (guns or otherwise) the law would prohibit any further gun restriction legislation for 50 years. If within that time, the law stops all mass murders, we allow the left to keep it and even create more restrictions.

Would any anti-gunner be willing to make this wager?

The reason I ask is that I don't think for one minute the anti-gunners really believe any of their demands would stop mass murders, or even reduce them. It's just something to complain about because we are against their suggestions.

Why have laws against having hand grenades, criminals have them in large numbers anyway. No actually they don't, because they are heavily regulated and laws are very strict on having them.

To cons it's just another inanimate object so why regulate hand grenades. They think people don't like them because they are 'scary looking'.

Cons your thought processes are so f'd up it's pathetic. Inanimate objects are how humans harm each other. Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.

Or do you believe in controlling weapons and keeping them out of the hands of 'law abiding citizens'.
 
Gun panacea Australia reportedly has higher violent crime rates than the U.S.
Yeah? Care to show the reports? But apart from that, I believe this discussion is about mass murders, even though the OP seems to have resiled from that, and Oz hasn't had too many mass murders since its law reforms, certainly none with military style semi automatics.
 

Forum List

Back
Top