A bet with anti-gunners

[cnm]

Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.

Hoho, listen to the echoing silence regarding that point...

 

[Pop23]

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'.

Hand grenades are not a great weapon in criminal activity though. They can defeat their own purpose by killing the criminal. However, pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails are sometimes used.

 

[Pop23]

Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.

Hoho, listen to the echoing silence regarding that point...

Sorry, that claim has already been put to rest. A nuclear weapon is purely offensive, not defensive at all. One does not protect self by destroying self.

There I go, bursting bubbles again.

 

[Pop23]

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.

ummm, you pretty much can. Why do you think they run stings?

 

[Pilot1]

Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.

Hoho, listen to the echoing silence regarding that point...

What is the significance in that absurd post? Look up "reductio ad absurdum".

 

[Some Guy]

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.

Mass murder is obviously a bad thing, but it's ultimately irrelevant. If you've got a bunch of single murders happening on a daily basis that are piling bodies up left and right at a much higher, steadier clip than those that come from mass murders, which one is the bigger problem? The main reason people think mass murder is the bigger problem is because the wall to wall media coverage of them and then days on end afterward talking about gun policy. Meanwhile, a bunch of inner city kids continue to kill each other one by one, day after day, and no one gives a shit cause they're all distracted by national media. And why are they distracted? Because the media doesn't want to talk about violent crime rates in big cities government by democrats who've instituted the same policies they're pushing on a national level.

 

[jc456]

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.

Well they will, just like illegals will always get in country. Criminals are criminals and never stop just because there are laws . It’s too bad the left can’t figure that out

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

yep weapons of mass destruction are exactally the same as small arms

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

Nothing you post is anywhere near the truth.

says the guy who claims to have been a republican

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

and most of those are in heavily gun controlled inner cities...you know the place where blacks die but get no attention because whitey isn't involved

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Nothing you post is anywhere near the truth.

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.

Haven't you learned yet that it's worse to commit suicide with a gun than it is to commit suicide in any other way and the only thing worse than getting murdered with a gun is getting murdered with a rifle along with a couple other people

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

you really dont get the issue

your ignorance of the second amendment and WHY it is in the constitution is breath taking.

 

[iceberg]

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.

next time you can buy a nuke at buds gun shop holler.

 

[cnm]

Sorry, that claim has already been put to rest. A nuclear weapon is purely offensive, not defensive at all. One does not protect self by destroying self.

What, are you saying weapons are not inanimate? But we've been assured they are.

 

[cnm]

next time you can buy a nuke at buds gun shop holler.

Another one saying weapons are not inanimate now? My, how the flops flip.

 

[cnm]

yep weapons of mass destruction are exactally the same as small arms

Exactly. They are tools, as you said. Changing your mind now?

 

[cnm]

Mass murder is obviously a bad thing, but it's ultimately irrelevant.

Tell it to the OP.

 

[Skull Pilot]

yep weapons of mass destruction are exactally the same as small arms

Exactly. They are tools, as you said. Changing your mind now?

So you finally admit that a gun is no different from any other tool

 

[cnm]

What is the significance in that absurd post?

That weapons are inanimate objects and therefore do not require control? Absurd all right, I agree.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

We have 300 million guns in our society

Regardless of what legislation you pass, you are not going to stop all 30,000 gun killings

But just because you can’t stop all killings, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any. With mass killings, the question is........why are we making it easier for them?