But for----------

[Redfish]

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

Why.

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

I answered, common sense says that no average citizen should be driving a tank or carrying a surface to air missile. Are you being sarcastic or stupid, it has to be one or the other.

 

[miketx]

Why.

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

I answered, common sense says that no average citizen should be driving a tank or carrying a surface to air missile. Are you being sarcastic or stupid, it has to be one or the other.

No he's just trolling like they all do. Trying to make it look like at a glance that you are running away.

 

[Redfish]

Why.

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

You should realize that we all realize that the only reason you want an answer is so you can spin and lie more. No matter what we say, you keep spinning and lying, a proven fact.

He is waiting for one of us to say "weapon control" or "weapon ban" then he will start the lib talking points about AR 15s and rapid fire. Ignore him and all the idiot libs, they are nothing. they are not even good debaters because liberalism has blocked their ability to think.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

Why.

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

AR-15 are not the same as a tank or ground to air missle or nuclear warhead.

I do not need a AR-15 because a pump action shotgun with slug rounds do a good job for me.

Oh, and believe me that weapon of mine can kill and do a lot of damage.

Why do I need it?

Wild Boar, Coyotes, and other wild animals in rural America.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why.

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

I answered, common sense says that no average citizen should be driving a tank or carrying a surface to air missile. Are you being sarcastic or stupid, it has to be one or the other.

You refuse to answer your own posts. Fair enough. Now you are arguing with yourself. Also fair enough.

 

[Redfish]

Why.

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

AR-15 are not the same as a tank or ground to air missle or nuclear warhead.

I do not need a AR-15 because a pump action shotgun with slug rounds do a good job for me.

Oh, and believe me that weapon of mine can kill and do a lot of damage.

Why do I need it?

Wild Boar, Coyotes, and other wild animals in rural America.

of course, but logic and reason never work with liberals, their brains don't work that way. they operate 100% on emoooooooooooooooooootion, and feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

 

[Redfish]

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

I answered, common sense says that no average citizen should be driving a tank or carrying a surface to air missile. Are you being sarcastic or stupid, it has to be one or the other.

You refuse to answer your own posts. Fair enough. Now you are arguing with yourself. Also fair enough.

answered several times, sonny. stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

common sense

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

AR-15 are not the same as a tank or ground to air missle or nuclear warhead.

I do not need a AR-15 because a pump action shotgun with slug rounds do a good job for me.

Oh, and believe me that weapon of mine can kill and do a lot of damage.

Why do I need it?

Wild Boar, Coyotes, and other wild animals in rural America.

of course, but logic and reason never work with liberals, their brains don't work that way. they operate 100% on emoooooooooooooooooootion, and feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

Major issue with most anti-gun individuals they live in the city and never had to deal with rural life or border life.

They never had to deal with wild boar, coyotes or wild dogs.

They never had to deal with illegal smuggling by cartels that bring in human traffic.

They believe the Police are a phone call away and Animal Control will take care of wild boar while reality in rural America a shotgun is a daily tool.

 

[Redfish]

No, why would you not want the average citizen driving a tank or walking around with a ground to air missile.

It's a bitch when you can't answer your own posts isn't it.

AR-15 are not the same as a tank or ground to air missle or nuclear warhead.

I do not need a AR-15 because a pump action shotgun with slug rounds do a good job for me.

Oh, and believe me that weapon of mine can kill and do a lot of damage.

Why do I need it?

Wild Boar, Coyotes, and other wild animals in rural America.

of course, but logic and reason never work with liberals, their brains don't work that way. they operate 100% on emoooooooooooooooooootion, and feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

Major issue with most anti-gun individuals they live in the city and never had to deal with rural life or border life.

They never had to deal with wild boar, coyotes or wild dogs.

They never had to deal with illegal smuggling by cartels that bring in human traffic.

They believe the Police are a phone call away and Animal Control will take care of wild boar while reality in rural America a shotgun is a daily tool.

also very useful and necessary in many of our cities. some animals walk on two legs

 

[frigidweirdo]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

 

[miketx]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

lol what a crock of bullshit. You lie when the truth sounds better. So if you don't own a gun then you won't be murdered?

 

[Redfish]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

ok, if a guy breaks into my house to steal my stuff and kill me and my wife, am I better off if I can shoot him before he shoots us or not? this is not complicated, dude. same question with the guy trying to rob and kill us on the street, better with a gun or not?

 

[jc456]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

is that taking out the suicide numbers? let see your link.

 

[jc456]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

BTW, how many guns are in the country and how many murders are there with a gun?

 

[easyt65]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

"...which means with a gun you're more likely to be murdered..."

Ummm, NO. I already posted the statistics that show more KNIVES and more HAMMERS are used to kill people than guns., that 11 kids A DAY average die form Texting and Driving.

Based on your reasoning, you are more likely to die from a knife, hammer, and/or cell phone and a car if you own a knife, hammer, or cell phone / car that you are likely to be killed by a gun.

 

[jc456]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

"...which means with a gun you're more likely to be murdered..."

Ummm, NO. I already posted the statistics that show more KNIVES and more HAMMERS are used to kill people than guns., that 11 kids A DAY average die form Texting and Driving.

Based on your reasoning, you are more likely to die from a knife, hammer, and/or cell phone and a car if you own a knife, hammer, or cell phone / car that you are likely to be killed by a gun.

easy, his argument was there were more murders with a gun here rather than the rest of the world. however, I know he didn't take out suicide deaths.

I would then ask him to find the statistics of murder with knives and hammers and the rest of the world. Let's have him stay apples to apples.

 

[jc456]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

"...which means with a gun you're more likely to be murdered..."

Ummm, NO. I already posted the statistics that show more KNIVES and more HAMMERS are used to kill people than guns., that 11 kids A DAY average die form Texting and Driving.

Based on your reasoning, you are more likely to die from a knife, hammer, and/or cell phone and a car if you own a knife, hammer, or cell phone / car that you are likely to be killed by a gun.

easy, his argument was there were more murders with a gun here rather than the rest of the world. however, I know he didn't take out suicide deaths.

I would then ask him to find the statistics of murder with knives and hammers and the rest of the world. Let's have him stay apples to apples.

BTW, he will not answer my post.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

is that taking out the suicide numbers? let see your link.

No, it's murder rate. Why would murder rate include non-murders?

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

USA 4.88 per 100,000
UK 0.92 per 100,000
Switzerland 0.69 per 100,000
Spain o.66 per 100,000
South Korea 0.74 per 100,000
Portugal 0.97 per 100,000
Norway 0.56
New Zealand 0.91
Italy 0.78
Germany 0.85
France 1.58
Finland 1.60
Denmark 0.99

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2016

Now, in 2016 the US's murder rate was 5.3, so this is being a little generous to the US. 2014 was the lowest year for a long (since before the 1960s) time at 4.4.

So, even taking the US's LOWEST rate for fifty five years, it's still double most Western Countries, excluding a few like Canada, Finland and France where it's 2.5 times higher.

Still the highest rate in the Western World by A LONG WAY.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

BTW, how many guns are in the country and how many murders are there with a gun?

Guns in Serbia — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Here's a nice website which you can check out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Think about it from this point of view.

A human without a baseball bat would never, ever hit a home run. Simply said, a human could not get a ball that far without an inanimate object.

They could probably do the ace though.

Getting across the country could be doable without the inanimate object, but you wouldn't get there so quickly.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

People with guns are far more dangerous that people without guns.

We know this. We can see this. A gun is the weapon of choice for US killers. 3/4 of all murders are with guns.

The UK murder rate is 1/4 the US murder rate. A coincidence that the UK murder rate, where gun murders are rare, is about the same as the US non-gun murder rate? I think not.

And without a gun, a person would find it a LOT harder to kill people.

Nor defend himself from someone looking to take away his right like you.

Potentially. However the problem is the statistics show you're wrong. The US has the WORST murder rate in the Western World. Which means, with a gun, you're MORE LIKELY to be murdered....

"...which means with a gun you're more likely to be murdered..."

Ummm, NO. I already posted the statistics that show more KNIVES and more HAMMERS are used to kill people than guns., that 11 kids A DAY average die form Texting and Driving.

Based on your reasoning, you are more likely to die from a knife, hammer, and/or cell phone and a car if you own a knife, hammer, or cell phone / car that you are likely to be killed by a gun.

easy, his argument was there were more murders with a gun here rather than the rest of the world. however, I know he didn't take out suicide deaths.

I would then ask him to find the statistics of murder with knives and hammers and the rest of the world. Let's have him stay apples to apples.

Haha.

You know I didn't take out suicide deaths.

You're a funny guy.

You're arguing a topic you don't know much about, and you're pretending you know all about it, while providing none of the data which is EASY to look up.