Hoho, listen to the echoing silence regarding that point...Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hoho, listen to the echoing silence regarding that point...Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.
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'.
Hoho, listen to the echoing silence regarding that point...Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.
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.
What is the significance in that absurd post? Look up "reductio ad absurdum".Hoho, listen to the echoing silence regarding that point...Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.
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.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.
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 outIn 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.
By suddenly including 'reduce', as an afterthought, which actually is all anyone can hope for, and which the experience of other countries demonstrates.How did he move them?Ah. So, then, if we take that to a logical conclusion, we don't need to control nukes because they are inanimate.Banning tools doesn't stop killing...….tools are inanimate
says the guy who claims to have been a republicanToo bad you refuse to read the truth or you might learn something this time:
Nothing you post is anywhere near the truth.
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 involvedSo 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.
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 peopleToo 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.
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.
next time you can buy a nuke at buds gun shop holler.By suddenly including 'reduce', as an afterthought, which actually is all anyone can hope for, and which the experience of other countries demonstrates.How did he move them?Ah. So, then, if we take that to a logical conclusion, we don't need to control nukes because they are inanimate.Banning tools doesn't stop killing...….tools are inanimate
What, are you saying weapons are not inanimate? But we've been assured they are.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.
Another one saying weapons are not inanimate now? My, how the flops flip.next time you can buy a nuke at buds gun shop holler.
Exactly. They are tools, as you said. Changing your mind now?yep weapons of mass destruction are exactally the same as small arms
Tell it to the OP.Mass murder is obviously a bad thing, but it's ultimately irrelevant.
So you finally admit that a gun is no different from any other toolExactly. They are tools, as you said. Changing your mind now?yep weapons of mass destruction are exactally the same as small arms
That weapons are inanimate objects and therefore do not require control? Absurd all right, I agree.What is the significance in that absurd post?
We have 300 million guns in our societyIn 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.