A bet with anti-gunners

[rightwinger]

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.

Yo going to have 30 people invading your home?

 

[bgrouse]

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

Maybe, maybe not. The North Hollywood shooters had assault rifles. They couldn't kill a single person. Anyone who is not a dumb clown knows an assault rifle over a civilian clone generally only brings one extra feature: automatic fire. Anyone who knows anything about modern military combat will tell you automatic fire of assault rifles is rarely used.

In short: if you want to make a dumb kid school shooter waste his ammo and not kill as many people, give him an assault rifle so he blows through all his ammo with no benefit to kill count.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Yo going to have 30 people invading your home?

Anybody who is not a total retard knows that real CQB situations rarely result in one shot, one kill ratios.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yo going to have 30 people invading your home?

Well, when only 5-15% of professionals' bullets find a target in a shootout, I would say YEAH, YOU IGNORANT FUCK! I NEED AT LEAST 30 ROUNDS!!!

 

[bgrouse]

Yo going to have 30 people invading your home?

Well, when only 5-15% of professionals' bullets find a target in a shootout, I would say YEAH, YOU IGNORANT FUCK! I NEED AT LEAST 30 ROUNDS!!!

9 years and 154,000 posts later, he's still a clueless moron like on day 1.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

No, stupid bet. One would have no way of knowing the true effect of gun control laws. Mass shootings may continue yo increase, but this increase may have been slowed by better gun laws.

"stops all mass murders"

What a stupid fucking standard... as if any law, ever, should be expected to completely eliminate all instances of the banned behavior....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Anybody who is not a total retard knows that real CQB situations rarely result in one shot, one kill ratios

He knows jack shit. That he even halfway believes we can one-shot-one-kill an intruder disqualifies his dumbfuck ass from voting ever again.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

"stops all mass murders"

What a stupid fucking standard...

It's pretty much the only standard worth pursuing (assuming it's worth it at all) given how rare mass public shootings are as it is. Otherwise you're fucking hundreds of millions of people every day with your stupid gun laws to reduce the mass public shootings from...10 per decade to 8 per decade?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

No, stupid bet. One would have no way of knowing the true effect of gun control laws. Mass shootings may continue yo increase, but this increase may have been slowed by better gun laws.

"stops all mass murders"

What a stupid fucking standard... as if any law, ever, should be expected to completely eliminate all instances of the banned behavior....

I would call that the admission we expected and victory for Ray.

Good job, Ray. This thread proved the point.

 

[2aguy]

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?

No.....he murdered his mother to get his guns.....he planned the attack for about 2 years. He chose the one school in the area that didn't have an armed resource officer. As experts will tell you, it is time that is the key, the sooner you get anyone with a gun to confront the shooter the sooner the attack ends....the shooter shot himself as soon as he heard the police sirens on the way to the school......

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's pretty much the only standard worth pursuing (assuming it's worth it at all) given how rare mass public shootings are as it is.

What a silly, stunted way of looking at things... plane accidents are rare, too...

No, the better way is to use information we have available to us, which shows that laws and stricter controls do have effect. For instance, these shooters are not using fully automatic weapons or grenades.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I would call that the admission we expected and victory for Ray.

So, you say stupid shit a lot. But I will have that beer, thanks.

 

[2aguy]

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?

Wrong...you have still failed to secure schools...you need to arm and train the staff.....resource officers can't be everywhere on the campus, as we have seen, and only by taking away the gun free zone status of a school will you keep mass shooters away.....but you need dead kids for political power.....without them, you don't have a gun control movement.

 

[2aguy]

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

good guys need standard capacity magazines since they will be the ones facing one or more armed criminals without help.

Background checks...don't stop criminals or mass shooters....as to mass shooters, the all of them pass background checks...or steal their guns.....the only reason you want background checks on private sales is to get gun registration...

 

[2aguy]

It's pretty much the only standard worth pursuing (assuming it's worth it at all) given how rare mass public shootings are as it is.

What a silly, stunted way of looking at things... plane accidents are rare, too...

No, the better way is to use information we have available to us, which shows that laws and stricter controls do have effect. For instance, these shooters are not using fully automatic weapons or grenades.

So......the last guy used a shot gun and a revolver.....the Virginia Tech shooter used 2 hand guns and killed 32, the Luby's cafe shooter used two hand guns and killed 24..........

Grenades are illegal in Sweden, and muslim drug gangs are throwing them at each other like confetti....

 

[bgrouse]

It's pretty much the only standard worth pursuing (assuming it's worth it at all) given how rare mass public shootings are as it is.

What a silly, stunted way of looking at things... plane accidents are rare, too...

So rare that fucking millions of people to maybe make them safer would be a very stupid idea.

No, the better way is to use information we have available to us, which shows that laws and stricter controls do have effect. For instance, these shooters are not using fully automatic weapons or grenades.

They're not using fully automatic dildos either! What's your point? Fully automatic fire has been proven as less effective than semi automatic fire in such situations, just as a dildo would be less effective, explaining why it's not being used (or at least there's no logical reason to use it).

 

[2aguy]

[
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

That's easy...16, the same average as the other periods.......

There are no loopholes...but please, keep repeating that easily checked lie.

Straw buyers are just people who can pass any background check.....that would mean they can pass private sale background checks too, then they sell or give the gun to a criminal.....background checks are just your gateway to gun registration.

 

[2aguy]

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 .

Wrong...... we currently catch the straw buyers using actual police work without titles.... the problem is that prosecutors don't want to put baby mommas on trial because they just tell the jury their gang banger brother or boyfriend threatened to kill them if they didn't straw buy the gun....

 

[2aguy]

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

Wrong, the weapon type wouldn't have mattered........what stopped him was the armed cop......had a teacher been closer with a gun then the killing would have stopped sooner.

Besides, if he really wanted to kill a lot of people, he would have used a rental truck...

the vegas shooter used 2 rifles from a conealed and fortified position shooting over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, and murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and in 5 minutes murdered 86.

Trucks are far deadlier than rifles.

 

[bgrouse]

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 .

Wrong...... we currently catch the straw buyers using actual police work without titles.... the problem is that prosecutors don't want to put baby mommas on trial because they just tell the jury their gang banger brother or boyfriend threatened to kill them if they didn't straw buy the gun....

Yep, pointless to pass new laws if the system won't prosecute existing ones.