So, you want the NRA/pro-gun side to compromise...?

[Jarlaxle]

[

Now, your sexist stupidity aside, the fact is, guns are ALMOST NEVER USED for self defense.

Advocating a gun in the house is like advocating a rabid pit pull for home protection.

That is another of your lies.

You need to stop lying!

 

[GuyPinestra]

You're a victim of rich people, who can't defend his home or family against violent criminals and who blames the inanimate object, not the man.

I also suspect you sit when you pee.

I blame big corporations selling these things to people who never should have had them to start with.

Nancy Lanza was batshit crazy, but someone at Freedom Works decided she was the ideal market demagraphic... and that's the problem.

Now, your sexist stupidity aside, the fact is, guns are ALMOST NEVER USED for self defense.

Advocating a gun in the house is like advocating a rabid pit pull for home protection.

Tell that to the folks up the road in Kennesaw, Ga.

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][19]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Guess what happened? Home burglaries dropped over 50% that next year, and ANOTHER 60% the next. Kennesaw now bills itself as the safest city in Cobb County.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Now, your sexist stupidity aside, the fact is, guns are ALMOST NEVER USED for self defense.

Advocating a gun in the house is like advocating a rabid pit pull for home protection.

That is another of your lies.

You need to stop lying!

According to FBI statisitic, guns were used in "justifiable homicides" in exactly 201 cases in 2010.

So out of 300 million guns, only 201 were used by good guys to kill bad guys.

So your gun has exactly a 1 out of 1.5 million chance of killing a bad guy.

Your chance of getting struck by lightening is 1 in a million.

 

[GuyPinestra]

[

Now, your sexist stupidity aside, the fact is, guns are ALMOST NEVER USED for self defense.

Advocating a gun in the house is like advocating a rabid pit pull for home protection.

That is another of your lies.

You need to stop lying!

According to FBI statisitic, guns were used in "justifiable homicides" in exactly 201 cases in 2010.

So out of 300 million guns, only 201 were used by good guys to kill bad guys.

So your gun has exactly a 1 out of 1.5 million chance of killing a bad guy.

Your chance of getting struck by lightening is 1 in a million.

How many times were those guns used against bad guys where they were only wounded instead of killed?

How many times were the bad guys stopped by the simple brandishment of the gun?

Give us the REST of the story, Joe...

 

[NYcarbineer]

With over 90% of Americans supporting universal background checks, there's no need for compromise, because there's no one left to compromise with.

Relying on a poll, how quaint.

If you asked people "do you want free money" you would get 99%. Tell them that it would be from robbing other people, and the percentage would go down.

Background checks respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. That used to matter to gun rights people.

 

[Lakhota]

With over 90% of Americans supporting universal background checks, there's no need for compromise, because there's no one left to compromise with.

Relying on a poll, how quaint.

If you asked people "do you want free money" you would get 99%. Tell them that it would be from robbing other people, and the percentage would go down.

Background checks respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. That used to matter to gun rights people.

Exactly - and it used to matter to the NRA before they went nuts in the late 70's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

With over 90% of Americans supporting universal background checks, there's no need for compromise, because there's no one left to compromise with.

Bullshit.

I don't believe that number

I don't believe anyone with an IQ over 100 ever used the expression 'shroom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Relying on a poll, how quaint.

If you asked people "do you want free money" you would get 99%. Tell them that it would be from robbing other people, and the percentage would go down.

Background checks respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. That used to matter to gun rights people.

Exactly - and it used to matter to the NRA before they went nuts in the late 70's.

The NRA's business nowadays is to sell guns on commission and collect dues and contributions from paranoid rightwingers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. That used to matter to gun rights people.

Exactly - and it used to matter to the NRA before they went nuts in the late 70's.

The NRA's business nowadays is to sell guns on commission and collect dues and contributions from paranoid rightwingers.

Ths is a lie.
That you have to lie to make your point only shows that you know your point is unsound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you want the NRA/pro-gun side to compromise...?

Many of us are pro-gun - but do not agree or support the extremist NRA positions.

YOU are not - and you failed to address the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With over 90% of Americans supporting universal background checks, there's no need for compromise, because there's no one left to compromise with.

Relying on a poll, how quaint.

If you asked people "do you want free money" you would get 99%. Tell them that it would be from robbing other people, and the percentage would go down.

Background checks respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns.

Background checks assume the law abiding are breaking the law and restrain thei exercise of their right until the state determines otherwise.
To say that this "respepcts" the rights of the law abiding necessitates that the term "resepct" be redefined.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.
What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rights side?

You get to keep your peashooters, but with caveats attached. Sound fair to me..

We already have that. What do you have to offer in return for compromise on the NRA/pro-gun ide?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I blame big corporations selling these things to people who never should have had them to start with.

Nancy Lanza was batshit crazy, but someone at Freedom Works decided she was the ideal market demagraphic... and that's the problem.

Now, your sexist stupidity aside, the fact is, guns are ALMOST NEVER USED for self defense.

Advocating a gun in the house is like advocating a rabid pit pull for home protection.

Tell that to the folks up the road in Kennesaw, Ga.

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][19]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Guess what happened? Home burglaries dropped over 50% that next year, and ANOTHER 60% the next. Kennesaw now bills itself as the safest city in Cobb County.

That is another of your lies.

You need to stop lying!

According to FBI statisitic, guns were used in "justifiable homicides" in exactly 201 cases in 2010.

So out of 300 million guns, only 201 were used by good guys to kill bad guys.

So your gun has exactly a 1 out of 1.5 million chance of killing a bad guy.

Your chance of getting struck by lightening is 1 in a million.

How many times were those guns used against bad guys where they were only wounded instead of killed?

How many times were the bad guys stopped by the simple brandishment of the gun?

Give us the REST of the story, Joe...

Where did you go, Joe??

 

[JoeB131]

[

How many times were those guns used against bad guys where they were only wounded instead of killed?

How many times were the bad guys stopped by the simple brandishment of the gun?

Give us the REST of the story, Joe...

Probably very few, but since your side never produces any statistics on it, I won't bother arguing the fallacy.

I also don't bother posting the unknowable times people were merely WOUNDED when a gun was used to settle that argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best. Or how many times a Redneck in a trailer park used a gun to threaten his family when they whined about being hungry because he won't find a job.

It's fairly easy to extrapolate, though, that with 30,000 gun deaths and only 201 being "justifiable homicides", that "justifiable woundings" and "justifiable pant wettings" are equally low percentages.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You get to keep your peashooters, but with caveats attached. Sound fair to me..

We already have that. What do you have to offer in return for compromise on the NRA/pro-gun ide?

What are the pro gunners giving up in the first place?

:roll:
You want them to compromise on universal background checks, 'assault weapon' bans and 'hi-cap' magazine bans.
What do you have to offer in return for their compromise on these issues?

 

[Nosmo King]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.

What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rights side?

Increased public safety.

 

[martybegan]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.

What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rights side?

Increased public safety.

[ame=http://youtu.be/FopyRHHlt3M]Laugh harder - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Nosmo King]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.

What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rights side?

Increased public safety.

[ame=http://youtu.be/FopyRHHlt3M]Laugh harder - YouTube[/ame]

Very articulate! Well argued! I guess we should really take you guys seriously now, eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.
What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rights side?

Increased public safety.

Laugh harder - YouTube

Indeed.
It's beyond clear that gun control has -nothing- to do with public safety, both in effect and intent.

 

[martybegan]

Increased public safety.

[ame=http://youtu.be/FopyRHHlt3M]Laugh harder - YouTube[/ame]

Very articulate! Well argued! I guess we should really take you guys seriously now, eh?

How is public safety increased by disarming people who havent and will probably not commit any crimes, while criminals ignore any law you manage to pass?

Hey! those guns are illegal now! stop doing what your doing!!!

Hey!, You are a criminal! Don't do anything Criminal to get a gun!!!!

Hey!, Dont commit armed robbery because with the gun your using we tack on an additional 3 months on top of the 20-25 years you do because of the actual armed robbery!