The truth about gun control

[Crepitus]

The Santa Fe High School shooting destroys all arguments for gun-control.
Video: The Truth About Gun Control




We can make assault weapons from anything
such as .

Assault pencil
Assault cars
Assault bottle
Assault chair
Assault brick

Are you getting the picture how MSM feeds you dumbasses all this BS on what an assault weapon is Jesus lmao.

Which one of those allows you to kill and wound a couple dozen people in a matter of minutes from a distance?

Bombs (McVeigh) and vehicles still excel at killing large groups of people from a distance (you can theoretically activate it with a cellphone from the other side of the globe) and the one part of that formula that you can't build at home is still far easier to get and use on a public road than a gun. And you know what else? Not too many of the bed-wetting liberals are arguing to ban those. It reveals and agenda: they fear "scary looking" black guns.

And the frequency of large scale bombins in the US?

Compaired to mass shootings with 4 or more victims?

Big difference.

Might be because bombs are illegal.

Cars are used to kill more people than guns. You're in favor of banning cars to cut the premature death rates down?

"Used to kill" implies intent. Please provide evidence of cars being used to commit more murders than gun.

 

[MindWars]

The Santa Fe High School shooting destroys all arguments for gun-control.
Video: The Truth About Gun Control




We can make assault weapons from anything
such as .

Assault pencil
Assault cars
Assault bottle
Assault chair
Assault brick

Are you getting the picture how MSM feeds you dumbasses all this BS on what an assault weapon is Jesus lmao.

Which one of those allows you to kill and wound a couple dozen people in a matter of minutes from a distance?

Bombs (McVeigh) and vehicles still excel at killing large groups of people from a distance (you can theoretically activate it with a cellphone from the other side of the globe) and the one part of that formula that you can't build at home is still far easier to get and use on a public road than a gun. And you know what else? Not too many of the bed-wetting liberals are arguing to ban those. It reveals and agenda: they fear "scary looking" black guns.

And the frequency of large scale bombins in the US?

Compaired to mass shootings with 4 or more victims?

Big difference.

Might be because bombs are illegal.

Cars are used to kill more people than guns. You're in favor of banning cars to cut the premature death rates down?

"Used to kill" implies intent. Please provide evidence of cars being used to commit more murders than gun.

Just gotta search the terms.

 

[bgrouse]

The Santa Fe High School shooting destroys all arguments for gun-control.
Video: The Truth About Gun Control




We can make assault weapons from anything
such as .

Assault pencil
Assault cars
Assault bottle
Assault chair
Assault brick

Are you getting the picture how MSM feeds you dumbasses all this BS on what an assault weapon is Jesus lmao.

Which one of those allows you to kill and wound a couple dozen people in a matter of minutes from a distance?

Bombs (McVeigh) and vehicles still excel at killing large groups of people from a distance (you can theoretically activate it with a cellphone from the other side of the globe) and the one part of that formula that you can't build at home is still far easier to get and use on a public road than a gun. And you know what else? Not too many of the bed-wetting liberals are arguing to ban those. It reveals and agenda: they fear "scary looking" black guns.

And the frequency of large scale bombins in the US?

Compaired to mass shootings with 4 or more victims?

Big difference.

Might be because bombs are illegal.

Cars are used to kill more people than guns. You're in favor of banning cars to cut the premature death rates down?

"Used to kill" implies intent. Please provide evidence of cars being used to commit more murders than gun.

If I had meant to say that, I would have used "used to kill with the intent to kill." The rest of your request is based on that false premise.

 

[Crepitus]

Which one of those allows you to kill and wound a couple dozen people in a matter of minutes from a distance?

Bombs (McVeigh) and vehicles still excel at killing large groups of people from a distance (you can theoretically activate it with a cellphone from the other side of the globe) and the one part of that formula that you can't build at home is still far easier to get and use on a public road than a gun. And you know what else? Not too many of the bed-wetting liberals are arguing to ban those. It reveals and agenda: they fear "scary looking" black guns.

And the frequency of large scale bombins in the US?

Compaired to mass shootings with 4 or more victims?

Big difference.

Might be because bombs are illegal.

Cars are used to kill more people than guns. You're in favor of banning cars to cut the premature death rates down?

"Used to kill" implies intent. Please provide evidence of cars being used to commit more murders than gun.

If I had meant to say that, I would have used "used to kill with the intent to kill." The rest of your request is based on that false premise.

No, my request was reasonable given what you were implying.

You tried to draw a false connection. It is now dismissed.

 

[bgrouse]

Bombs (McVeigh) and vehicles still excel at killing large groups of people from a distance (you can theoretically activate it with a cellphone from the other side of the globe) and the one part of that formula that you can't build at home is still far easier to get and use on a public road than a gun. And you know what else? Not too many of the bed-wetting liberals are arguing to ban those. It reveals and agenda: they fear "scary looking" black guns.

And the frequency of large scale bombins in the US?

Compaired to mass shootings with 4 or more victims?

Big difference.

Might be because bombs are illegal.

Cars are used to kill more people than guns. You're in favor of banning cars to cut the premature death rates down?

"Used to kill" implies intent. Please provide evidence of cars being used to commit more murders than gun.

If I had meant to say that, I would have used "used to kill with the intent to kill." The rest of your request is based on that false premise.

No, my request was reasonable given what you were implying.

You tried to draw a false connection. It is now dismissed.

I don't care about your delusions. The facts are, in the USA:

1. The use of cars results in (you like that phrasing better snowflake?) MORE deaths than the use of guns.
2. Cars are generally legally EASIER to buy, keep, and bear openly on public property.
3. Retarded liberals like you want to keep their cars and ban/control guns.

 

[Crepitus]

And the frequency of large scale bombins in the US?

Compaired to mass shootings with 4 or more victims?

Big difference.

Might be because bombs are illegal.

Cars are used to kill more people than guns. You're in favor of banning cars to cut the premature death rates down?

"Used to kill" implies intent. Please provide evidence of cars being used to commit more murders than gun.

If I had meant to say that, I would have used "used to kill with the intent to kill." The rest of your request is based on that false premise.

No, my request was reasonable given what you were implying.

You tried to draw a false connection. It is now dismissed.

I don't care about your delusions. The facts are, in the USA:

1. The use of cars results in (you like that phrasing better snowflake?) MORE deaths than the use of guns.
2. Cars are generally legally EASIER to buy, keep, and bear openly on public property.
3. Retarded liberals like you want to keep their cars and ban/control guns.

Lol, get back to me when you can be honest about things.

Have a nice day.

 

[bgrouse]

Cars are used to kill more people than guns. You're in favor of banning cars to cut the premature death rates down?

"Used to kill" implies intent. Please provide evidence of cars being used to commit more murders than gun.

If I had meant to say that, I would have used "used to kill with the intent to kill." The rest of your request is based on that false premise.

No, my request was reasonable given what you were implying.

You tried to draw a false connection. It is now dismissed.

I don't care about your delusions. The facts are, in the USA:

1. The use of cars results in (you like that phrasing better snowflake?) MORE deaths than the use of guns.
2. Cars are generally legally EASIER to buy, keep, and bear openly on public property.
3. Retarded liberals like you want to keep their cars and ban/control guns.

Lol, get back to me when you can be honest about things.

Have a nice day.

Obviously you can't handle the truth. Typical retarded freedom-hating liberal...

Go ahead, humor me. Which one of my points is wrong?