A bet with anti-gunners

[cnm]

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

If you agree it is no different from a flame thrower or a nuke I do too. An inanimate object used for killing. And requiring regulating.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

This useless post is topped only by the continual diatribe posted by one danielpalos (A/K/A Sanchito).

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

if mass killing is so easy how come only 1% of murders occur in mass shootings

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

At what cost?

Who bears the burden of your "trying" bullshit?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

No different from a flame thrower or a nuke. An inanimate object used for killing.

No different from a hammer, screw driver, saw, drill, etc all can be used to kill

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

You are uninformed.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

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

No, because guns and nukes are not the same. The 2nd amendment doesn't address nukes because they weren't around, guns were. Guns are ok.....deal with it. So technically the 2nd amendment doesn't address nukes at all, but ships and other stuff, the answer is yes, because they did have private owned ships called privateers in that time.

 

[kaz]

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.

The left would take the bet then renege. Look at Obamacare. They lied and lied and lied. And we still have it and will until they get single payer.

The left only have to win once. We have to win every time

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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...

Please name the private individual who has the money and ability to purchase, house, and use a nuclear weapon.

Please.

For the love of Thor.

Fucking....Iran can't even get nukes without Obama's help.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What is the significance in that absurd post?

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

No guns are closer to hammers than nukes......and no we don't need to ban those. But guns do stuff other than kill people.....If I need to explain the difference between nukes and guns you are a tard.....and have you ever been in a rural area for more than a day?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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...

Please name the private individual who has the money and ability to purchase, house, and use a nuclear weapon.

Please.

For the love of Thor.

Fucking....Iran can't even get nukes without Obama's help.

LOL great point

 

[Pilot1]

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

The absurdity is comparing nuclear weapons to rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

 

[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.

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'.

We have gun free zones, oh look they don't do shit.
People should have weapons.......why are you guys so afraid of people being able to defend themselves?

 

[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?

if mass killing is so easy how come only 1% of murders occur in mass shootings

Does that somehow mitigate the horror of a mass killing?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

At what cost?

Who bears the burden of your "trying" bullshit?

Not much of a burden my friend

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not much of a burden my friend

No?

Losing inalienable rights is not a burden?

Fuck you!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

if mass killing is so easy how come only 1% of murders occur in mass shootings

Does that somehow mitigate the horror of a mass killing?

Puts it in perspective

If it was as easy as you say wouldn't a higher percentage of murders be committed in mass shootings?

We know where most murders occur and no one gives a shit because it's young urban minorities killing other young urban minorities.

These murder happen in very small very distinct areas.

But no one cares about the murder rate as much as they do gun control so no one addresses the real problem

 

[Pilot1]

Does that somehow mitigate the horror of a mass killing?

No, it doesn't, and that is why we should be doing everything with in reason to limit them.

Hardening Schools
Examining the drugs being used on kids
Making sure government, and law enforcement do their jobs

We should be doing everything that does not limit our freedoms, and Rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But no one cares about the murder rate as much as they do gun control so no one addresses the real problem

Which is why there is no point in discussing it further.

No more gun control and total repeal or we start shooting.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We should be doing everything that does not limit our freedoms, and Rights.

Funny how they go right for the most invasive thing first.

We need a shooting war with these fuckers.

I am prepared. Machine guns or Valhalla!