A bet with anti-gunners

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Good job making your argument about inanimate objects. Nobody gives a rat fuck. But, pat yourself on the ass.

Nukes are not relevant to a discussion about firearms.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Would any of them have impacted Sandy Hook?

 

[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.

We have 300 million guns in our society

Regardless of what legislation you pass, you are not going to stop all 30,000 gun killings

But just because you can’t stop all killings, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any. With mass killings, the question is........why are we making it easier for them?

How are we making it easier for them? Some schools have adopted armed teachers, other have hired armed security. Many schools have purchased metal detectors for their doors.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Actually, we already did that.

We passed a Assault Weapon ban in the 1990's, and the number of mass shootings decreased. Then we let it lapse, and the number of mass shootings increased.

Once again, you stupid clown, mass public shootings are a tiny fraction of the violent crime pie. They are statistically insignificant compared to the rest of violent crime.

 

[Pilot1]

Schools should NOT be "Gun Free Zones". It screams SOFT TARGET to everyone with bad intent.

 

[rightwinger]

Background checks
Databases of those who aren’t allowed to have guns

Suck it up Buttercup

Give and take. If I am perfectly safe with guns, I will submit to your new, redundant background check and redundant database (as if we don't already have one) and in exchange, I am no threat, and therefore, should have no restrictions.

No more of this take, take, take, with zero give.

Otherwise, the status quo is just fine, if not in bad need of serious repeal.

Plenty of give

We are giving 30,000 gun deaths a year and massacres every month
This has gone on for two decades and we have done nothing

How much more can this country give?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Ban high capacity magazines......nobody needs them
Keep your semi auto....too many out there
Background checks on every sale.....even private ones
Ban bump stocks....Period

 

[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.

Why have laws against having hand grenades, criminals have them in large numbers anyway. No actually they don't, because they are heavily regulated and laws are very strict on having them.

To cons it's just another inanimate object so why regulate hand grenades. They think people don't like them because they are 'scary looking'.

Cons your thought processes are so f'd up it's pathetic. Inanimate objects are how humans harm each other. Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, surely you think they should be as legal to own as your 'harmless inanimate rifles'.

Or do you believe in controlling weapons and keeping them out of the hands of 'law abiding citizens'.

If grenades were in high demand by the criminals, they would get them. If we made guns illegal, it would only make guns more valuable in the black market. Then nobody would be armed except for the criminals and cops.

When they made switch blades illegal, there was no black market because it wasn't that big of a deal. People who fought with knives just used other knives. So it really didn't solve anything.

Nobody can use nukes for self defense. Nobody can use nukes for hunting. Nobody can use nukes for sport. Nobody collects nukes for a hobby.

Apples and oranges really.

 

[Pilot1]

[
Ban high capacity magazines......nobody needs them
Keep your semi auto....too many out there
Background checks on every sale.....even private ones
Ban bump stocks....Period

We already banned Standard Capacity Magazines over ten rounds from 1994 - 2004. It did nothing.

The VAST majority of gun sales already require, and have a background check.

Bump stock are rarely used in crime but have been essentially banned by the ATF.

 

[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.

Within your hypothetical construct, you'd best be careful with the qualifications of such a bet. Would banning all guns cut down on the amount of mass murders? Quite possibly, depending on what your definition of "mass" murder is. You'd need to look at violent crime rates as a whole. Gun panacea Australia reportedly has higher violent crime rates than the U.S. which could easily be attributed to a much lesser threat of defensive gun use, and defensive gun use is impossible to fully measure.

My bet was one mass killing (regardless of what weapon used) in four years. After all, every time we have a mass murder, the left thinks they have the solution to stop it. Okay, if that's the way they feel, would they put their money where their mouths are?

 

[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.

Using gun nut logic: we should not have immigration laws because illegals will just find their way in anyway .

No law is 100%. When you say “criminals will just get them anyway” you are full of crap. You act like you can just pick up an illegal gun on any street corner.

Where do you think illegal guns come from now?

 

[rightwinger]

[
Ban high capacity magazines......nobody needs them
Keep your semi auto....too many out there
Background checks on every sale.....even private ones
Ban bump stocks....Period

We already banned Standard Capacity Magazines over ten rounds from 1994 - 2004. It did nothing.

The VAST majority of gun sales already require, and have a background check.

Bump stock are rarely used in crime but have been essentially banned by the ATF.

How many mass killings did we have between 1994-2004?

The problem with background checks is the loopholes are a mile wide
Too easy to use straw buyers

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So why focused on mass murders alone? Are individual murders a little bit better? The truth is the assault ban didn't work. This last shooting the kid used a shotgun and a revolver.

It worked just fine, in that mass shooting were less fatal because the guns available were less deadly.

Frankly, the fact we have 11,000 gun murders is bad enough, but that's become background noise. We don't even notice unless a crazy person shoots up a school. That's how numb we've become to the problem.

So let's look at that assault weapons ban. Even though we allowed it to expire, this last shooter killed using the same guidelines as the assault weapons ban.

 

[Timmy]

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.

Using gun nut logic: we should not have immigration laws because illegals will just find their way in anyway .

No law is 100%. When you say “criminals will just get them anyway” you are full of crap. You act like you can just pick up an illegal gun on any street corner.

Where do you think illegal guns come from now?

Virtually all guns are born “legal”. Many fall into illegal hands via straw purchases or sold and then claimed “stolen”.

I think having gun titles would cut down on these bogus transactions .

 

[Pilot1]

A shotgun, and revolver were used in the latest mass shooting. He was 17 and stole the firearms from his parents. Neither mag capacity nor a background check were relevant.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Actually, we already did that.

We passed a Assault Weapon ban in the 1990's, and the number of mass shootings decreased. Then we let it lapse, and the number of mass shootings increased.

Once again, you stupid clown, mass public shootings are a tiny fraction of the violent crime pie. They are statistically insignificant compared to the rest of violent crime.

He knows that. He lives in Chicago. More people get killed there in three months than the last four years of school shootings.

 

[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.

Would any of them have impacted Sandy Hook?

Nobody knows. Mom had a huge arsenal with all kinds of weapons.

 

[miketx]

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.

Typical libtard insane post. Like clockwork, you smelling turds always go to nukes. loi

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ban high capacity magazines......nobody needs them

What high capacity mags?

Reloads are risky in home defense situations. We need stansard mags, minimum. 30 rounds are standard.

Everything else you list is fine if you can enforce it.

 

[rightwinger]

A shotgun, and revolver were used in the latest mass shooting. He was 17 and stole the firearms from his parents. Neither mag capacity nor a background check were relevant.

He would have done more damage with an assault rifle