260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[HereWeGoAgain]

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

Why?

What does this have to do with anything?

Stop fucking around and answer my question.

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Bold red letters dont make your case.
Show me where in the Bible where they call for the killing of none believers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

And as if to prove the person you replied to correct, you make a comment and NOTHING to back yourself up with.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

Why?

What does this have to do with anything?

Stop fucking around and answer my question.

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Bold red letters dont make your case.
Show me where in the Bible where they call for the killing of none believers.

I'm done with you.

I'm not playing childish little games.

You should go find a forum where teenagers congregate and talk about stuff that isn't important. Stuff you don't need to back up, like how you think that little girl is so cute, or so cool.

 

[ogibillm]

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

do you really discountthe multitude of demographic and cultural differences?

besides which it doesn't change the fact that IN THE UNITED STATES THOSE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

Why?

What does this have to do with anything?

Stop fucking around and answer my question.

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Bold red letters dont make your case.
Show me where in the Bible where they call for the killing of none believers.

I'm done with you.

I'm not playing childish little games.

You should go find a forum where teenagers congregate and talk about stuff that isn't important. Stuff you don't need to back up, like how you think that little girl is so cute, or so cool.

Hell,I was done with you a long time ago.
I just wanted to see just how ridiculous you'd get.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

do you really discountthe multitude of demographic and cultural differences?

besides which it doesn't change the fact that IN THE UNITED STATES THOSE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS

Capitals dont make your case any stronger.

 

[ogibillm]

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

do you really discountthe multitude of demographic and cultural differences?

besides which it doesn't change the fact that IN THE UNITED STATES THOSE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS

Capitals dont make your case any stronger.

no but they might finally make you acknowledge the facts.

do you deny that the suicide rate for people in the u.s. with access to guns is higher than the rate for people without access?

and just so you know, it's not the capital letters that make my case stronger, it's the scientific studies that support my assertions that do that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

do you really discountthe multitude of demographic and cultural differences?

besides which it doesn't change the fact that IN THE UNITED STATES THOSE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS

Capitals dont make your case any stronger.

no but they might finally make you acknowledge the facts.

do you deny that the suicide rate for people in the u.s. with access to guns is higher than the rate for people without access?

and just so you know, it's not the capital letters that make my case stronger, it's the scientific studies that support my assertions that do that.

Whatever. Everyone I know owns firearms and not a single one of them has killed themselves over the last fifty years.
In fact suicide is actually rare.

 

[ogibillm]

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

do you really discountthe multitude of demographic and cultural differences?

besides which it doesn't change the fact that IN THE UNITED STATES THOSE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS

Capitals dont make your case any stronger.

no but they might finally make you acknowledge the facts.

do you deny that the suicide rate for people in the u.s. with access to guns is higher than the rate for people without access?

and just so you know, it's not the capital letters that make my case stronger, it's the scientific studies that support my assertions that do that.

Whatever. Everyone I know owns firearms and not a single one of them has killed themselves over the last fifty years.
In fact suicide is actually rare.

so scientific study vs your anecdotes.

what a strong case you make

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

do you really discountthe multitude of demographic and cultural differences?

besides which it doesn't change the fact that IN THE UNITED STATES THOSE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS

Capitals dont make your case any stronger.

no but they might finally make you acknowledge the facts.

do you deny that the suicide rate for people in the u.s. with access to guns is higher than the rate for people without access?

and just so you know, it's not the capital letters that make my case stronger, it's the scientific studies that support my assertions that do that.

Whatever. Everyone I know owns firearms and not a single one of them has killed themselves over the last fifty years.
In fact suicide is actually rare.

so scientific study vs your anecdotes.

what a strong case you make

I'll let you know when I give a fuck...

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Good for the VA

With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm

Seriously ? With the amount of pills handed out at the VA they don't need a gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thats a bullshit stat.
Take away guns and those same people would off themselves without a gun.

if what you're saying is true the suicide rate for those with guns would be the same as those without.

that is not the case.

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE WITHOUT

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

Ahh yes the unfounded unproven unreliable "appears" if it ACTUALLY showed it one would not have to claim it "appears" too one could simply claim it did it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

Why?

What does this have to do with anything?

Stop fucking around and answer my question.

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Actually their religious writings call for the killing of all unbelievers. The Prophet Mohammad told his followers to either convert or kill all unbelievers. The only exception is some that are useful can be 3rd class citizens by paying a tax to live under the control of Islam but when their usefulness is gone they either convert or die.

 

[ogibillm]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

so in 48 years why hasn't anyone challenged the law?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

do you really discountthe multitude of demographic and cultural differences?

besides which it doesn't change the fact that IN THE UNITED STATES THOSE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS

Capitals dont make your case any stronger.

no but they might finally make you acknowledge the facts.

do you deny that the suicide rate for people in the u.s. with access to guns is higher than the rate for people without access?

and just so you know, it's not the capital letters that make my case stronger, it's the scientific studies that support my assertions that do that.

Whatever. Everyone I know owns firearms and not a single one of them has killed themselves over the last fifty years.
In fact suicide is actually rare.

so scientific study vs your anecdotes.

what a strong case you make

20000 suicides versus 320 MILLION people give us the percentage of the population that committed suicide with a firearm and then explain why that absolutely incredibly minuscule percentage is meaningful when talking about removing a protected right from all citizens. And then remind us why with the 2nd Amendment should be violated for that reason while you claim the right to vote should not be violated by requiring ID because some small percentage commit fraud without ID?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

so in 48 years why hasn't anyone challenged the law?

Because until THIS year no one denied people their rights that way which you know perfectly well.

 

[ogibillm]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

so in 48 years why hasn't anyone challenged the law?

Because until THIS year no one denied people their rights that way which you know perfectly well.

false

 

[ogibillm]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

what makes a judge competent in deciding if someone is mentally deficient?

 

[ogibillm]

if what you're saying is true the suicide rate for those with guns would be the same as those without.

that is not the case.

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE WITHOUT

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

Ahh yes the unfounded unproven unreliable "appears" if it ACTUALLY showed it one would not have to claim it "appears" too one could simply claim it did it.

You're just cranky because the facts don't match your opinions