A bet with anti-gunners

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

After failing the bet the leftists would tell you to go screw yourself and keep the guns... after extracting all your wealth with the government guns of course.

It's foolish to think that gun control has ANYTHING to do with these dead kids. It does not... more people die every year in bath tubs and all kinds of accidents and the leftists don't give a shit. They want your guns so you can't defend yourself against them.

The moment you give them your guns is the moment they will be shooting you with them.

Of course they would never make the bet. I would just like to see the Republicans in Congress write such a bill just to prove that point. Even they know all their suggestions wouldn't change a thing because until you can change the people, taking the guns away is fruitless. You still have the same mental people to deal with.

 

[2aguy]

Elaborate? The policies have been outlined HUNDREDS of times here. Stop trying to make people tire of the discussion by demanding they repeat info that is common knowledge.

I own a firearm. I will still own one if all of the reforms that most Americans want are made.

Dickhead.

What firearm would that be?

Dickhead.

A shotgun? Like the mass shooter down in Santa Fe? Or a revolver?

Your "assault weapons" (scary looking) ban will not change ANYTHING!!!

It's a nice little Glock 21. And I enjoy going to the range. My son the detective gave it to me.

I keep it in a fingerprint safe. So nobody who isn't me will get it. Thats one of the regulations that will save lives. The Santa Fe fucker got hold of his pappy's guns. Pappy ought to be paying a price for that. Don't you agree?

Fucknut.

Depends on how he got the guns, now, doesn't it...if he broke into the dad's gun safe, it isn't his fault..right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I keep it in a fingerprint safe. So nobody who isn't me will get it. Thats one of the regulations that will save lives. The Santa Fe fucker got hold of his pappy's guns. Pappy ought to be paying a price for that. Don't you agree?

I do agree that pappy is responsible, cock-smoke.

I do not agree that all should be under fingerprint lock. What if the wife needs to fight off an intruder?

Penis breath.

 

[miketx]

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.

Have you realized there is absolutely no reasoning with them now?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Nobody has suggested that gun crimes and mass shootings can be eliminated with common sense gun legislation.

The suggestion is that some will be prevented. That it will become less likely. And that is worth the effort.

Asshole.

Oh, it would be worth the effort? So what regulations would you like to see that "would be worth the effort?"

What about high capacity magazines?
What about semi-automatic guns?
What about bump stocks?
What about regulations on gun shows?
What about AR-15's?


Well guess what? These ideas that the left has suggested didn't apply to the last school shooter in Texas. He still killed and injured 20 people.

 

[cnm]

No different from a hammer, screw driver, saw, drill, etc all can be used to kill

Then nukes don't need to be regulated. Fair enough.

 

[cnm]

No, because guns and nukes are not the same. The 2nd amendment doesn't address nukes because they weren't around, guns were. Guns are ok.....deal with it.

Just how impenetrable to logic are you? Weapons are weapons you dumb fuck.

 

[cnm]

Please name the private individual who has the money and ability to purchase, house, and use a nuclear weapon.

If nukes are not inanimate weapons what are they?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Just how impenetrable to logic are you? Weapons are weapons you dumb fuck.

Iran has been trying to get a nuke for 40 years now.

The day you present me with a private citizen in possession of a nuke is the day I will consider your argument equating nukes to firearms.

 

[cnm]

The absurdity is comparing nuclear weapons to rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

The logic is comparing inanimate objects to inanimate objects. The absurdity is expecting rightard dumb fucks to understand their own analogies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Also have never heard anyone say they believe criminals obey laws or that keeping guns away from the mentally ill would stop shootings. Where do you get this stuff?

From you guys. It's the left that insists if we make more regulations, it would stop murders and mass murders. We on the right tell you all the time that criminals don't obey laws. That's why they're criminals in the first place. All these restrictions and regulations would do is make it worse on the law abiding citizen from owning guns.

So, uh ... Silly OP that's intended to star yet another fight.

And yet you joined us anyway. Imagine that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If nukes are not inanimate weapons what are they?

Impossible for private citizens to obtain, house, and use.



Give me the name of a private citizen in possession of a nuke.

 

[cnm]

Iran has been trying to get a nuke for 40 years now.

The day you present me with a private citizen in possession of a nuke is the day I will consider your argument equating nukes to firearms.

If a gun is an inanimate object and a nuke is not your argument is false.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The logic is comparing inanimate objects to inanimate objects. The absurdity is expecting rightard dumb fucks to understand their own analogies

No, the absurdity is comparing everyday items to rarities that WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRIES can't even get.

 

[cnm]

Impossible for private citizens to obtain, house, and use.

That is what they might not be, not what they are, which is inanimate objects. Otherwise they must be animate objects. Hoho, like guns, right? With a will of their own to go out and kill.
That is your argument.

 

[cnm]

No, the absurdity is comparing everyday items to rarities that WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRIES can't even get.

WHICH ARE INANIMATE OBJECTS.

Unbelievable.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If a gun is an inanimate object and a nuke is not your argument is false

It's possible that the tooth fairy is a real person, and possible that he/she/it will get elected president. Should we worry about that possibility?

Now, let's come back to the real world.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

WHICH ARE INANIMATE OBJECTS.

WHICH ARE FUCKING IRRELEVANT, YOU RETARD!!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Elaborate? The policies have been outlined HUNDREDS of times here. Stop trying to make people tire of the discussion by demanding they repeat info that is common knowledge.

I own a firearm. I will still own one if all of the reforms that most Americans want are made.

Dickhead.

What firearm would that be?

Dickhead.

A shotgun? Like the mass shooter down in Santa Fe? Or a revolver?

Your "assault weapons" (scary looking) ban will not change ANYTHING!!!

It's a nice little Glock 21. And I enjoy going to the range. My son the detective gave it to me.

I keep it in a fingerprint safe. So nobody who isn't me will get it. Thats one of the regulations that will save lives. The Santa Fe fucker got hold of his pappy's guns. Pappy ought to be paying a price for that. Don't you agree?

Fucknut.

Depends on how he got the guns, now, doesn't it...if he broke into the dad's gun safe, it isn't his fault..right?

Yeah. That's it.

 

[Pilot1]

[
If a gun is an inanimate object and a nuke is not your argument is false.

Both require a human to activate. Neither operate on their own. Again you're arguing in the extreme, and the absurd. Nobody is saying it is OK for a private citizen to own a device that could take out entire regions of a country. The intent of the 2A was arming the citizen with what the average soldier has, and that isn't nukes.