Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is silly.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.
Double-edge sword. You take it away from would-be mass shooters and save 3 lives a year, but also take it away from home defenders and risk THOUSANDS of lives.But the more shots you can get off, the more kills you are capable of
What a silly, stunted way of looking at things... plane accidents are rare, too...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.
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.
That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.That is silly.
That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.
Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that
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.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... as if any law, ever, should be expected to completely eliminate all instances of the banned behavior....
Risk what thousands?That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.That is silly.
That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.
Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that
Does the phrase "penny wise, dollar dumbfuck" mean anything?
If you don't know, fuck off. You're a goddamn idiot.Risk what thousands?
What high capacity mags?Ban high capacity magazines......nobody needs them
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?
He would have done more damage with an assault rifleA 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.
Risk what thousands?That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.That is silly.
That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.
Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that
Does the phrase "penny wise, dollar dumbfuck" mean anything?
That is silly.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.
That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.
Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that.
Nobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.Double-edge sword. You take it away from would-be mass shooters and save 3 lives a year, but also take it away from home defenders and risk THOUSANDS of lives.But the more shots you can get off, the more kills you are capable of
That is the entire point.
And, it also proves the general point--that your goal is not safety, but fucking commie shit.
We do not trust you and never will.
Nobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.Double-edge sword. You take it away from would-be mass shooters and save 3 lives a year, but also take it away from home defenders and risk THOUSANDS of lives.But the more shots you can get off, the more kills you are capable of
That is the entire point.
And, it also proves the general point--that your goal is not safety, but fucking commie shit.
We do not trust you and never will.
LiesNobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.
Oh, that's easy. Anyone who would own a gun must be insane.So who decides who is sane? How would we go about that?
No. We haven’t. There is no constitutional right to have any kind of weaponry anywhere you like. Restricting certain types of firearms, like fully automatic weapons has withstood the constitutional test. There are thousands of efficient well made guns to choose from for personal protection, so restricting a very small segment of them is hardly walking all over rights. We need to ditch the hyperbole if we are ever going to figure out workable solutions.That is silly.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.
That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.
Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that.
Sure we do, but as I just stated, you're walking all over constitutional rights to achieve this so-called improvement.
So let me ask: what laws would you like to see and how much improvement do you think it would make?
And that is a legitimate question.Nobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.Double-edge sword. You take it away from would-be mass shooters and save 3 lives a year, but also take it away from home defenders and risk THOUSANDS of lives.But the more shots you can get off, the more kills you are capable of
That is the entire point.
And, it also proves the general point--that your goal is not safety, but fucking commie shit.
We do not trust you and never will.
So who decides who is sane? How would we go about that?
Do they all use AK-47’s?Risk what thousands?That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.That is silly.
That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.
Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that
Does the phrase "penny wise, dollar dumbfuck" mean anything?
The thousands that do use firearms for self-defense.
Actually there is no evidence to support one caused the other. There were many other factors involved.What a silly, stunted way of looking at things... plane accidents are rare, too...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.
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.
Until Ferguson, the laws and lack of restrictions we had reduced gun violence and violence in general for a couple of decades.
No. We haven’t. There is no constitutional right to have any kind of weaponry anywhere you like. Restricting certain types of firearms, like fully automatic weapons has withstood the constitutional test. There are thousands of efficient well made guns to choose from for personal protection, so restricting a very small segment of them is hardly walking all over rights. We need to ditch the hyperbole if we are ever going to figure out workable solutions.That is silly.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.
That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.
Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that.
Sure we do, but as I just stated, you're walking all over constitutional rights to achieve this so-called improvement.
So let me ask: what laws would you like to see and how much improvement do you think it would make?
