Elementary school shooting

[bigrebnc1775]

C'mon, man. Just say something that will convince me that you were once a cop. My son is a cop, so I will have no problem verifying your statement.

C'mon.....make me look silly and force me to apologize.

My son is a cop

I don't believe it. Prove it. is that how it's done?

You have yet to even try to convince me. Why is that again?

I don't believe your son is a cop prove.

 

[saveliberty]

You can make your own gun AND ammunition idiot lefties.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

So you really couldn't answer her point, then?

Here's the thing. When we found out the threshold for DUI was too high, we lowered it. When the Ford Pinto was found to be the "Barbaque that seats four", there were actions taken against Ford to make them correct it. We've mandated seat belt laws and air bags and other things to make cars safer.

If we treated guns like cars - licensed, registered and insured before you could own one, we'd have a lot less tragedies like Friday's.

And, gun regulations get stricter and stricter.

She had no point.

Oh, please. if anything, they are getting looser. How many states have "concealed Carry laws" now compared to 20 years ago?

The gun regulations are not strict enough. Not when Joker Holmes can walk into a gun store and buy a 100 round clip despite being batshit crazy.

Oh, dear.

We have another one who doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

 

[LoneLaugher]

To both of you.......I do not pretend to know. But I want our lawmakers to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner. To ignore the firearms completely is kind of dumb.

We are a people who value our right to own guns. They will always be part of our deal. We have to figure out a way to deal with this problem while preserving that right. Sometimes, in order to preserve something, some concessions need to be made.

Concessions on infringement of the right to bear arms have been made for decades and during those decades, gun fatalities have increased.

You make these blanket statements that do not show cause and effect. They are meaningless. A combination of factors has resulted in the increase in mass killings with and without firearms. The concessions you speak of ( if the reall have been any considering the sheer number of guns in the country ) are not the sole reason for the increase in gun fatalities. I don't think that they are even a part of the reason.

I could waste some breath and argue that the ban on guns in Japan is responsible for the fact that there are no more than a handful of gun related deaths in Japan each year. But that would ignore all the other cultural factors that go along with the ban. So...I'll just say that the ban has something to do with it.

Logic. Try it sometime.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't believe it. Prove it. is that how it's done?

You have yet to even try to convince me. Why is that again?

I don't believe your son is a cop prove.

Why would I lie about that?

 

[saveliberty]

You have yet to even try to convince me. Why is that again?

I don't believe your son is a cop prove.

Why would I lie about that?

Habit?

 

[Dreamy]

To both of you.......I do not pretend to know. But I want our lawmakers to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner. To ignore the firearms completely is kind of dumb.

We are a people who value our right to own guns. They will always be part of our deal. We have to figure out a way to deal with this problem while preserving that right. Sometimes, in order to preserve something, some concessions need to be made.

You are calling for increased regulations but you can't name one new law to bring forth that would have prevented this mass killing.

Would it be wrong for me to consider you just another person trying to politicize this tragedy by going after a hot button issue but with you, like far too many, offering no real solutions that will actually prevent this from ever happening again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To both of you.......I do not pretend to know. But I want our lawmakers to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner. To ignore the firearms completely is kind of dumb.

We are a people who value our right to own guns. They will always be part of our deal. We have to figure out a way to deal with this problem while preserving that right. Sometimes, in order to preserve something, some concessions need to be made.

Concessions on infringement of the right to bear arms have been made for decades and during those decades, gun fatalities have increased.

You make these blanket statements that do not show cause and effect. They are meaningless. A combination of factors has resulted in the increase in mass killings with and without firearms. The concessions you speak of ( if the reall have been any considering the sheer number of guns in the country ) are not the sole reason for the increase in gun fatalities. I don't think that they are even a part of the reason.

I could waste some breath and argue that the ban on guns in Japan is responsible for the fact that there are no more than a handful of gun related deaths in Japan each year. But that would ignore all the other cultural factors that go along with the ban. So...I'll just say that the ban has something to do with it.

Logic. Try it sometime.

Logic? Well let's use England as an example when they went for hand gun bans the citizens gave concessions and allowed their right too own a hand gun away for the safety of the public. then the government went further and started taking other firearm rights away.
All because the people gave concessions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't believe your son is a cop prove.

Why would I lie about that?

Habit?

I can't say that I have caught him in a lie, but I can say that I have not been to concern to pay attention.

 

[NoNukes]

why do you guys even try to debate with joe????It is a exercise in futility. He has proven he cant understand the simplest of things and is programed to lick progressive boots.

But he is entertaining.........

You cannot debate with Joe because he is so much smarter and clued in than any of you.

 

[Si modo]

So you really couldn't answer her point, then?

Here's the thing. When we found out the threshold for DUI was too high, we lowered it. When the Ford Pinto was found to be the "Barbaque that seats four", there were actions taken against Ford to make them correct it. We've mandated seat belt laws and air bags and other things to make cars safer.

If we treated guns like cars - licensed, registered and insured before you could own one, we'd have a lot less tragedies like Friday's.

And, gun regulations get stricter and stricter.

She had no point.

Oh, please. if anything, they are getting looser. How many states have "concealed Carry laws" now compared to 20 years ago?

The gun regulations are not strict enough. Not when Joker Holmes can walk into a gun store and buy a 100 round clip despite being batshit crazy.

Wrong.

"No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."

'More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue - Research - The Chronicle of Higher Education Although some of the data is flawed in the study, the study is solid on indicating that legalizing concealed carry does not increase crime.

Less than 1% of gun deaths in 2009 were by those with conceal carry permits. FBI — Crime2009

 

[LoneLaugher]

To both of you.......I do not pretend to know. But I want our lawmakers to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner. To ignore the firearms completely is kind of dumb.

We are a people who value our right to own guns. They will always be part of our deal. We have to figure out a way to deal with this problem while preserving that right. Sometimes, in order to preserve something, some concessions need to be made.

You are calling for increased regulations but you can't name one new law to brig forth that would have prevented this mass killing.

Would it be wrong for me to consider you just another person trying to politicize this tragedy by going after a hot button issue but with you like far too many offering no real solutions that will actually prevent this from ever happening again?

Sweet like sugar.

Yes that would be wrong of you. I am not focused on gun regs. I am focused on getting the discussion moving toward a place where solutions can be reached. Are you? You seem very focused on gun rights.

I'm not proposing laws. I'm proposing that we consider the matter fully. Can you see the difference. Others have suggested possible regulations. I'm open to considering all of them.

I'll bet when you read "consider" you think " accept". But that is a you problem.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't believe your son is a cop prove.

Why would I lie about that?

Habit?

Interesting.

 

[Si modo]

To both of you.......I do not pretend to know. But I want our lawmakers to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner. To ignore the firearms completely is kind of dumb.

We are a people who value our right to own guns. They will always be part of our deal. We have to figure out a way to deal with this problem while preserving that right. Sometimes, in order to preserve something, some concessions need to be made.

Concessions on infringement of the right to bear arms have been made for decades and during those decades, gun fatalities have increased.

You make these blanket statements that do not show cause and effect. They are meaningless. A combination of factors has resulted in the increase in mass killings with and without firearms. The concessions you speak of ( if the reall have been any considering the sheer number of guns in the country ) are not the sole reason for the increase in gun fatalities. I don't think that they are even a part of the reason.

I could waste some breath and argue that the ban on guns in Japan is responsible for the fact that there are no more than a handful of gun related deaths in Japan each year. But that would ignore all the other cultural factors that go along with the ban. So...I'll just say that the ban has something to do with it.

Logic. Try it sometime.

Of course the ban on guns has something to do with less gun deaths in Japan, moron. However, guns are not the ony way to kill.

Regulations on gun ownership have increased during the last several decades. Fact. Households with guns has decreased. Fact. Gun deaths have also increased. Fact. (all citations posted earlier in this thread, many by me)

So, let me know what ADDITIONAL gun regulations would prevent this.

Moron.

 

[saveliberty]

why do you guys even try to debate with joe????It is a exercise in futility. He has proven he cant understand the simplest of things and is programed to lick progressive boots.

But he is entertaining.........

You cannot debate with Joe because he is so much smarter and clued in than any of you.

I would never want to stand in the way of Joe looking like the retarded ass he is. Why too funny on his own.

 

[NoNukes]

But he is entertaining.........

You cannot debate with Joe because he is so much smarter and clued in than any of you.

I would never want to stand in the way of Joe looking like the retarded ass he is. Why too funny on his own.

Could you write this again so that it makes sense?

 

[Dreamy]

To both of you.......I do not pretend to know. But I want our lawmakers to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner. To ignore the firearms completely is kind of dumb.

We are a people who value our right to own guns. They will always be part of our deal. We have to figure out a way to deal with this problem while preserving that right. Sometimes, in order to preserve something, some concessions need to be made.

You are calling for increased regulations but you can't name one new law to brig forth that would have prevented this mass killing.

Would it be wrong for me to consider you just another person trying to politicize this tragedy by going after a hot button issue but with you like far too many offering no real solutions that will actually prevent this from ever happening again?

Sweet like sugar.

Yes that would be wrong of you. I am not focused on gun regs. I am focused on getting the discussion moving toward a place where solutions can be reached. Are you? You seem very focused on gun rights.

I'm not proposing laws. I'm proposing that we consider the matter fully. Can you see the difference. Others have suggested possible regulations. I'm open to considering all of them.

I'll bet when you read "consider" you think " accept". But that is a you problem.

Tell me what you want done. Is that simple enough of a question to ask you? I have read your posts and you seem to be here, there and everywhere. You mention concessions. Tell me more. You have the floor. You are the boss. What should we do boss to prevent mass killings?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why do you guys even try to debate with joe????It is a exercise in futility. He has proven he cant understand the simplest of things and is programed to lick progressive boots.

But he is entertaining.........

You cannot debate with Joe because he is so much smarter and clued in than any of you.

Both you and Joe are the blind leading the blind.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why would I lie about that?

Habit?

I can't say that I have caught him in a lie, but I can say that I have not been to concern to pay attention.

I have caught you in a lie.

That is partly why I am pushing you on this point. You have yet to even attempt to convince me that you were a cop. I am here waiting to issue an apology. All you have to do is say something that makes me believe that you were once a cop.

It shouldn't be too hard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You cannot debate with Joe because he is so much smarter and clued in than any of you.

I would never want to stand in the way of Joe looking like the retarded ass he is. Why too funny on his own.

Could you write this again so that it makes sense?

Did those big 3 and 4 letter words stump you?