How many democrats own guns?

[Conservative65]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

Joe, like many gun control nuts, seems to think if we have x number of laws on the books it will prevent people from committing crimes related to the content of that law.

 

[Slade3200]

What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?

So.....in this story...Johnny Psycho gets a restraining order on him and let's say they take every single gun he owns...........how does that stop him from burying a 10 dollar Walmart hatchet in her head...?

Arlington Heights man pleads no contest to hacking wife to death in Wisconsin

An Arlington Heights man accused of hacking his wife to death with a hatchet in Wisconsin has taken a plea deal, more than a month before he was slated to go on trial.

The Journal Times of Racine reports that 39-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru pleaded no contest Friday to first-degree intentional homicide in the 2014 slaying. He's accused of killing 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where she went to stay with her boss to hide from her husband.

Women are vulnerable because they are physically weaker than men......you can take away every gun they have and these men will kill their wives.....what you need to do is make it easier for a woman with this problem to get a gun that she can carry........a court order waiving waiting periods and permitting processes and getting her training would work a lot better to save these women........

You are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

 

[JoeNormal]

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What you said is part of my argument. We have lots of laws in place that don't work yet the Liberal mindset is having more of the same will suddenly cause those breaking them to stop because it crossed a numerical threshold.

Crossed a numerical threshold? What are you talking about?

You said laws don't affect anyone not caring about the consequences of following them. Liberals seem to think passing a larger number of laws will mean people will start caring that don't care now.

That's your numerical threshold? Interesting theory but I've never heard anybody state that we need x number of laws to be safe and we only have x-15.

It's not my theory that we need more. My statement was that many Liberals think passing more laws saying what laws we already have on the books say will convince criminals that they shouldn't commit crimes.

I've asked many of the gun control freaks a question. I'll see if you can answer it. I had a gun stolen from my LOCKED vehicle, while sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY, by someone UNINVITED to enter the vehicle or be on the property. The big Liberal push is background checks. What type of background check is that criminal going to go through in order to have the gun he/she stole?

My point is that the laws that gun control freaks want to pass won't affect a criminal that steals the gun they get. Passing more that they will ignore won't suddenly cause them to stop being criminals because a numerical threshold has been passed.

The effectiveness of the law depends upon the percentage of guns that have been stolen in the manner you describe versus the number of guns that would have been kept out of the hands of unstable individuals who had to obtain them in a conventional way.

 

[Slade3200]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

 

[Conservative65]

So.....in this story...Johnny Psycho gets a restraining order on him and let's say they take every single gun he owns...........how does that stop him from burying a 10 dollar Walmart hatchet in her head...?

Arlington Heights man pleads no contest to hacking wife to death in Wisconsin

An Arlington Heights man accused of hacking his wife to death with a hatchet in Wisconsin has taken a plea deal, more than a month before he was slated to go on trial.

The Journal Times of Racine reports that 39-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru pleaded no contest Friday to first-degree intentional homicide in the 2014 slaying. He's accused of killing 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where she went to stay with her boss to hide from her husband.

Women are vulnerable because they are physically weaker than men......you can take away every gun they have and these men will kill their wives.....what you need to do is make it easier for a woman with this problem to get a gun that she can carry........a court order waiving waiting periods and permitting processes and getting her training would work a lot better to save these women........

You are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Do you know what those risky individuals will likely do if they are set on getting a gun? Since you don't, I'll explain it to you. They steal them or buy them on a black market where you admit no background checks occur. What that means is the risky ones will still get guns and the only ones that will be subjected to more laws are those for which you should have no concern. It's what I've trying to get you to understand. The end result is that those you don't want to have guns will still get them and nothing will change except more laws applying to the people for which they don't need to apply.

Interesting how you call speculation a fact. When you say "very likely" you can't call it fact. That's guessing.

 

[Slade3200]

[Q

Thats your opinion and you have every right to express it. I on the other hand am a gun owner but also see the benefits to some gun control... I don't think some psycho stalker who just got a retraining order against him should be able to walk into a store and buy a gun. Let him seek one out on the black market, maybe he will get one and use it... maybe he wont. I don't think people should be driving around with machine guns in their trucks and possess the ability to spray a crowd and kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds... Thats my two cents.

The same filthy ass government that can prevent a psycho stalker from having a gun is the same filthy ass government that prevent anybody from owning a handgun at home for self defense just like they tried to do in DC until the Heller case put an end to it.

The Miller case established that the Second Amendment applies to military weapons so Americans do have the right to drive around with machine guns in their truck. I own a full auto M-16 and I do drive around with it in my truck sometimes and have never committed a crime with it. In fact despite a few high profile shooting by idiots that used the guns for illegal purposes neither F-A or even semi auto weapons are hardly ever used in crimes. The FBI says that long guns are only used in about 5% of gun crimes and semi auto or F-A is a subset of that. Most of that 5% are shotguns.

I have asked you this question several times before but you run from it big time.

If you are worried about the infrequent mass shooting that occasionally kill dozens of people then why aren't you outraged at abortion on demand for the sake of convenience that kills about a million innocent children each year? You would get more bang for your buck if your outrage was directed towards infanticide.

You have never asked me that question. I don't consider abortion as murdering innocent children nor do anybody else that is Pro-Choice. I support healthcare and education to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortions however, it is a LITERAL part of a women's body and it is her choice to decide what to do with it. I do recognize the complexity to both arguments but that is a different discussion.

 

[Conservative65]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I asked the question AFTER you said if it saved just one life, it would be successful. I didn't bait a thing. I went on your response, then you were afraid to answer my question.

When you contradict yourself, you lose credibility. I provided the number of 11,208 for 2013 and asked you what you would find acceptable. You said if it save ONE life, it was a success. 11,208 minus 1 = 11,207. Now you say it isn't a success. It would be what you say I'm trying to do if you didn't know the 11,208 number BEFORE making you one less would be successful statement. You try to change what you said now. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You didn't say let's do better. You said one less is a success.

What it amounts to is you ran your mouth without thinking and when you know you were had, you run like a little bitch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle....

Yes.
The question is: Do you understand that correlation does not prove causation?

Yes.

So you understand that your citation the stronger gun laws in other countries does not support the point you tried to make.
Good.
I'll say again: Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Would you like to offer another theory on why gun violence is so prevalent in our country?

If you subtract every single gun-related crime in the US, our violent crime rates is still significantly exceed that of those western states. Thus, the problem is not our gun laws, and the solution is not theirs.

The fact is that they have way fewer guns per capita.

What does this prove?
What % of their guns are used in violent crime compared to the US?

Less violent as a general rule... What's that about?

Beats me - but, regardless of the availability of weapons, a naturally less violent society will have a lower rate of violent crime than a naturally more violent society.
And so, again: The problem is not our gun laws, and the solution is not theirs.

 

[Slade3200]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

You are correct about the other factors, which is why the VT and CA comparison is hard to digest... Those two states are completely different. The majority of the gun violence in CA comes from the over-crowded cities or areas that gang presence is high. VT does not have a comparable scenario, not because of gun laws, but because of its demographics.

If you are running a town where gang violence and crime are very high you are going to have different needs and approaches to tackle the problems than if you are the sheriff of Hicksville VT. If you were running the "high crime" city would you drop gun control regulations and allow any thug off the street to go buy a machine gun? Sure many of them can buy their guns illegally or will steal one, but really think about that scenario.... what would you do?

 

[Conservative65]

[Q

Thats your opinion and you have every right to express it. I on the other hand am a gun owner but also see the benefits to some gun control... I don't think some psycho stalker who just got a retraining order against him should be able to walk into a store and buy a gun. Let him seek one out on the black market, maybe he will get one and use it... maybe he wont. I don't think people should be driving around with machine guns in their trucks and possess the ability to spray a crowd and kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds... Thats my two cents.

The same filthy ass government that can prevent a psycho stalker from having a gun is the same filthy ass government that prevent anybody from owning a handgun at home for self defense just like they tried to do in DC until the Heller case put an end to it.

The Miller case established that the Second Amendment applies to military weapons so Americans do have the right to drive around with machine guns in their truck. I own a full auto M-16 and I do drive around with it in my truck sometimes and have never committed a crime with it. In fact despite a few high profile shooting by idiots that used the guns for illegal purposes neither F-A or even semi auto weapons are hardly ever used in crimes. The FBI says that long guns are only used in about 5% of gun crimes and semi auto or F-A is a subset of that. Most of that 5% are shotguns.

I have asked you this question several times before but you run from it big time.

If you are worried about the infrequent mass shooting that occasionally kill dozens of people then why aren't you outraged at abortion on demand for the sake of convenience that kills about a million innocent children each year? You would get more bang for your buck if your outrage was directed towards infanticide.

You have never asked me that question. I don't consider abortion as murdering innocent children nor do anybody else that is Pro-Choice. I support healthcare and education to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortions however, it is a LITERAL part of a women's body and it is her choice to decide what to do with it. I do recognize the complexity to both arguments but that is a different discussion.

That's why you can ease your mind about being a murderer or supporting the murder of innocent unborn children.

Until the child is out of the womb, according to what you seem to be saying, it's a LITERAL part of the woman's body. Does that mean you support partial birth abortion? It meets what you say about a woman being able to decide for literal reasons.

 

[Conservative65]

What you said is part of my argument. We have lots of laws in place that don't work yet the Liberal mindset is having more of the same will suddenly cause those breaking them to stop because it crossed a numerical threshold.

Crossed a numerical threshold? What are you talking about?

You said laws don't affect anyone not caring about the consequences of following them. Liberals seem to think passing a larger number of laws will mean people will start caring that don't care now.

That's your numerical threshold? Interesting theory but I've never heard anybody state that we need x number of laws to be safe and we only have x-15.

It's not my theory that we need more. My statement was that many Liberals think passing more laws saying what laws we already have on the books say will convince criminals that they shouldn't commit crimes.

I've asked many of the gun control freaks a question. I'll see if you can answer it. I had a gun stolen from my LOCKED vehicle, while sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY, by someone UNINVITED to enter the vehicle or be on the property. The big Liberal push is background checks. What type of background check is that criminal going to go through in order to have the gun he/she stole?

My point is that the laws that gun control freaks want to pass won't affect a criminal that steals the gun they get. Passing more that they will ignore won't suddenly cause them to stop being criminals because a numerical threshold has been passed.

The effectiveness of the law depends upon the percentage of guns that have been stolen in the manner you describe versus the number of guns that would have been kept out of the hands of unstable individuals who had to obtain them in a conventional way.

Tell me how you determine that effectiveness. Gun nuts say such laws will be effective but can't provide an answer to the situation you just described.

 

[Conservative65]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

 

[Slade3200]

You are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Do you know what those risky individuals will likely do if they are set on getting a gun? Since you don't, I'll explain it to you. They steal them or buy them on a black market where you admit no background checks occur. What that means is the risky ones will still get guns and the only ones that will be subjected to more laws are those for which you should have no concern. It's what I've trying to get you to understand. The end result is that those you don't want to have guns will still get them and nothing will change except more laws applying to the people for which they don't need to apply.

Interesting how you call speculation a fact. When you say "very likely" you can't call it fact. That's guessing.

Saying that something is more likely because of circumstances can absolutely be called a fact... Like, you are more likely to die in a car accident if you are not wearing your seatbelt.

Again you fail to understand the point on the BG Checks... Yes, some criminals have other resources and if determined enough they will get a gun... Others wont, they will use a knife, or will not act out on the impulse to go shoot somebody.

Your argument is like saying that a burglar who wants to get into a house can get always get into a house if they really want to. They can break a window or pick a door lock, so what is the point of locking the door?

 

[Slade3200]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I asked the question AFTER you said if it saved just one life, it would be successful. I didn't bait a thing. I went on your response, then you were afraid to answer my question.

When you contradict yourself, you lose credibility. I provided the number of 11,208 for 2013 and asked you what you would find acceptable. You said if it save ONE life, it was a success. 11,208 minus 1 = 11,207. Now you say it isn't a success. It would be what you say I'm trying to do if you didn't know the 11,208 number BEFORE making you one less would be successful statement. You try to change what you said now. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You didn't say let's do better. You said one less is a success.

What it amounts to is you ran your mouth without thinking and when you know you were had, you run like a little bitch.

Can you read? I said it was a success if you saved a life, and don't pretend like the whole line of questioning wasn't a bait so you could give that same answer... Your little games don't get either of us anywhere, lets just be straight forward from now on shall we?

 

[Slade3200]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

You truly are a dumbshit if you really think your little games are winning an argument. You exude traits of an insecure short guy or a guy with a very small penis... perhaps both.

 

[Conservative65]

If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?

I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Do you know what those risky individuals will likely do if they are set on getting a gun? Since you don't, I'll explain it to you. They steal them or buy them on a black market where you admit no background checks occur. What that means is the risky ones will still get guns and the only ones that will be subjected to more laws are those for which you should have no concern. It's what I've trying to get you to understand. The end result is that those you don't want to have guns will still get them and nothing will change except more laws applying to the people for which they don't need to apply.

Interesting how you call speculation a fact. When you say "very likely" you can't call it fact. That's guessing.

Saying that something is more likely because of circumstances can absolutely be called a fact... Like, you are more likely to die in a car accident if you are not wearing your seatbelt.

Again you fail to understand the point on the BG Checks... Yes, some criminals have other resources and if determined enough they will get a gun... Others wont, they will use a knife, or will not act out on the impulse to go shoot somebody.

Your argument is like saying that a burglar who wants to get into a house can get always get into a house if they really want to. They can break a window or pick a door lock, so what is the point of locking the door?

A fact, by definition, is something that is indisputable. It can only be a fact if nothing else could be. By saying more likely, it leaves other possibilities.

2+2 = 4 is a fact. 2 + 2 can't equal anything but four.

You can't prove that about background checks. You speculate, again. That's like saying that if someone couldn't get a gun to kill him/herself they wouldn't commit suicide. You have no way of knowing and saying otherwise is speculation.

If a burglar wants into a house, they will get in. Locks don't keep burglars out.

 

[Conservative65]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I asked the question AFTER you said if it saved just one life, it would be successful. I didn't bait a thing. I went on your response, then you were afraid to answer my question.

When you contradict yourself, you lose credibility. I provided the number of 11,208 for 2013 and asked you what you would find acceptable. You said if it save ONE life, it was a success. 11,208 minus 1 = 11,207. Now you say it isn't a success. It would be what you say I'm trying to do if you didn't know the 11,208 number BEFORE making you one less would be successful statement. You try to change what you said now. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You didn't say let's do better. You said one less is a success.

What it amounts to is you ran your mouth without thinking and when you know you were had, you run like a little bitch.

Can you read? I said it was a success if you saved a life, and don't pretend like the whole line of questioning wasn't a bait so you could give that same answer... Your little games don't get either of us anywhere, lets just be straight forward from now on shall we?

Explain how something can be a success if only one life is saved yet 11,207 are still killed.

I was straightforward and provided you with all the information you needed. You gave an answer and now aren't man enough to stand behind it. Coward.

 

[Conservative65]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

You truly are a dumbshit if you really think your little games are winning an argument. You exude traits of an insecure short guy or a guy with a very small penis... perhaps both.

I'm not winning. I've won especially when you said saving one life was a success then said one life wouldn't make it successful.

The you must have a short penis excuse. Ask your wife.

 

[Slade3200]

All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individual

While all that's going on they are the ones that will steal them from someone else. You have yet to explain how those methods of obtaining one will ever have a background check.

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Dude, please read this slowly, i've answered it 3 times now... BG checks will not prevent criminals from stealing guns or buying if they have black market resources. It prevents risky individuals from being able to freely walk into a store and buy a gun... I don't know what the big deal is... Law abiding citizens that don't pose a risk put in their names and pass the check and get their guns. Why do you bitch about it so much?

Fact: Without bg checks restricting the free purchase of weapons and a carry restriction at Trumps rally in Vegas, Trump with very likely be dead right now. This is one example where the regulations saved a life.

Do you know what those risky individuals will likely do if they are set on getting a gun? Since you don't, I'll explain it to you. They steal them or buy them on a black market where you admit no background checks occur. What that means is the risky ones will still get guns and the only ones that will be subjected to more laws are those for which you should have no concern. It's what I've trying to get you to understand. The end result is that those you don't want to have guns will still get them and nothing will change except more laws applying to the people for which they don't need to apply.

Interesting how you call speculation a fact. When you say "very likely" you can't call it fact. That's guessing.

Saying that something is more likely because of circumstances can absolutely be called a fact... Like, you are more likely to die in a car accident if you are not wearing your seatbelt.

Again you fail to understand the point on the BG Checks... Yes, some criminals have other resources and if determined enough they will get a gun... Others wont, they will use a knife, or will not act out on the impulse to go shoot somebody.

Your argument is like saying that a burglar who wants to get into a house can get always get into a house if they really want to. They can break a window or pick a door lock, so what is the point of locking the door?

A fact, by definition, is something that is indisputable. It can only be a fact if nothing else could be. By saying more likely, it leaves other possibilities.

2+2 = 4 is a fact. 2 + 2 can't equal anything but four.

You can't prove that about background checks. You speculate, again. That's like saying that if someone couldn't get a gun to kill him/herself they wouldn't commit suicide. You have no way of knowing and saying otherwise is speculation.

If a burglar wants into a house, they will get in. Locks don't keep burglars out.

Facts effect probabilities and don't always need exact answers to be true. Your suicide example is none-sensical so I won't respond.

So do you not lock your doors?

 

[Flash]

That's why you can ease your mind about being a murderer or supporting the murder of innocent unborn children.

Until the child is out of the womb, according to what you seem to be saying, it's a LITERAL part of the woman's body. Does that mean you support partial birth abortion? It meets what you say about a woman being able to decide for literal reasons.

These Libtards are despicable. They do like the Nazis by dehumanizing their infanticide victims.

If they really wanted to save children's lives they would forget about taking Constitutional rights away from Americans and stop supporting the murder of a million children a year on demand for the sake of convenience.