How the Second Amendment Was Restored

[pegwinn]

I knew you wouldn't admit the truth. A zealot to the end right? Remember Chris, to you it's an article of faith. To me it is something you must first prove before convincing me of anything.

Click the link below for the yearly chart of gun deaths from 1965 to 1996....

VPC - Who Dies - Appendix One Damn son, it sure took you long enough. See below.

For the purposes of this discussion I will now stipulate that your chart appears to support your opening statement. About damn time too. The ball is in your court. I am ready to actually discuss this now.

So..... Say your piece.

 

[LOki]

VPC - Who Dies - Appendix One

No one killed by guns there. Try again.

 

[Chris]

For the purposes of this discussion I will now stipulate that your chart appears to support your opening statement. About damn time too. The ball is in your court. I am ready to actually discuss this now.

So..... Say your piece.

I presented the facts and you chose to pretend they did not exist.

The needless deaths of 1,000,000 Americans should be a concern for all of us. What if 1,000,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists?

What would the reaction be?

We lead the developed world by far in gun deaths per capita. We could prevent a lot of those deaths with better regulation of handguns.

It's pretty simple really.

 

[Chris]

No one killed by guns there. Try again.

LOki like shinny objects.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If you want to blame something for the thousands of gun deaths, you should start with the war on drugs, and the vicious criminals it breeds. Alcohol prohibition had the same effect, but now that it's legal, there are no turf wars. With the drug war it's even worse, because it's not just turf wars, it's also junkies robbing people to pay for artifically expensive drugs.

Speaking of which, do any of the gun grabbers see the war on drugs as being sensible and practical? I often see people arguing that drugs are too hard to control, they are too easy to smuggle in, etc. (which I agree with), but then turn around and say that we have the ability to keep firearms out of people's hands. It doesn't make sense. And actually, I could turn the question around to those who support gun rights but also support the war on drugs.

 

[pegwinn]

I presented the facts and you chose to pretend they did not exist. Not until the last post I quoted did you present anything that remotely supported your assertion. Instead you made simplistic statements implying that those not in enthusiastic agreement were heathens looking into your true believer church.

The needless deaths of 1,000,000 Americans should be a concern for all of us. What if 1,000,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists? You obviously don't have a clue about the concept of compare/contrast. Please look it up or this discussion is going nowhere quick.

What would the reaction be? To what? A megadeath by terrorists over how long? The shorter the time frame the more likely I would simply become the worlds greatest bounty hunter using the US Marines et al. Over the long term would require critical thinking skills to lay it out. I won't bore you with that since your church doesn't allow rational thought.

We lead the developed world by far in gun deaths per capita. We could prevent a lot of those deaths with better regulation of handguns. This is what we call an Opening Statement. Now you need to expand on it. Details man, details. Come on Chris. If you pull out now your partner will be angry at you finishing too soon.

It's pretty simple really. There is a bold difference between simple and simplistic.

Steeeeeeeerike ONE.

 

[Chris]

I was driving through a bad part of town today and I saw a sign that said, "9mm pistols for sale, no permit needed."

 

[LOki]

When the facts are not on your side . . .

What "facts", precisely, are not on my side?

. . . you resort to personal attacks.

I've made no personal attacks; I've shared an informed opinion.

The needless deaths of 1,000,000 Americans should be a concern for all of us.

I agree. I'm not the one unconcerned here.

What if 1,000,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists? What would the reaction be?

I think the rational reaction would be to persue the terrorists, rather than the tools that their victims might use to defend themseslves.

We lead the developed world by far in gun deaths per capita.

How many times must I ask you this question before you answer it? Why do you prefer "[some other kind of] death" to "gun deaths"?

We could prevent a lot of those deaths with better regulation of handguns.

This is patent nonsense.

We can do better.

At what? Disarming victims?

 

[LOki]

LOki like shinny objects.

Chris has irrational fear of shiny objects.

 

[Chris]

Chris has irrational fear of shiny objects.

LOki no likey?

 

[Chris]

How many times must I ask you this question before you answer it? Why do you prefer "[some other kind of] death" to "gun deaths"?

Because that is the subject of this thread.

 

[pegwinn]

I see that Chris is online and not responding. I will assume he is composing a great, sweeping, powerful argument to support his opening statements.

 

[Chris]

Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine

 

[LOki]

Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine

Meaningless.

All based upon the fatuous presumption that guns kill.

 

[LOki]

Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine

Meaningless.

All based upon the fatuous presumption that guns kill.

 

[Chris]

Meaningless.

All based upon the fatuous presumption that guns kill.

Guns don't kill.

Bullets kill.

 

[Father Time]

Guns don't kill.

Bullets kill.

Yeah and eating utensils make people fat.

 

[LOki]

Guns don't kill.

This is progress. Good.

Bullets kill.

No they don't.

 

[LOki]

Because that is the subject of this thread.

Why is this a reason to not answer the question posed?