Jimmy Kimmel Continues Prove He's a Fool

[Pumpkin Row]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

No, you're creating a strawman because you couldn't debate your way out a wet paper bag. Prisoners have no rights whatsoever, and should have access to nothing but bread and water, and in a lot of cases, should just be executed entirely.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

 

[BULLDOG]

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

Don't bother. The goofy little twat has nothing to offer but the same extreme RWNJ crap. No intelligent thought there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

No, you're creating a strawman because you couldn't debate your way out a wet paper bag. Prisoners have no rights whatsoever, and should have access to nothing but bread and water, and in a lot of cases, should just be executed entirely.

No, I'm not creating a strawman at all. You said you were against gun control. I then asked you a question and you said you were for gun control.

Prisoners DO have rights. You don't understand the theory of rights. Prisoners don't have their rights taken away, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

Don't bother. The goofy little twat has nothing to offer but the same extreme RWNJ crap. No intelligent thought there.

I've noticed. Shouting "strawman" when they get found out.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

No, you're creating a strawman because you couldn't debate your way out a wet paper bag. Prisoners have no rights whatsoever, and should have access to nothing but bread and water, and in a lot of cases, should just be executed entirely.

No, I'm not creating a strawman at all. You said you were against gun control. I then asked you a question and you said you were for gun control.

Prisoners DO have rights. You don't understand the theory of rights. Prisoners don't have their rights taken away, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

I never said I was for gun control. Prisoners have 'their rights infringed upon', that's not control on guns, that's control on prisoners. Your word salad won't win you anything.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

Don't bother. The goofy little twat has nothing to offer but the same extreme RWNJ crap. No intelligent thought there.

I've noticed. Shouting "strawman" when they get found out.

Nothing compared to the typical mental gymnastics leftists are known for, but mental gymnastics regardless.

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

Don't bother. The goofy little twat has nothing to offer but the same extreme RWNJ crap. No intelligent thought there.

I've noticed. Shouting "strawman" when they get found out.

Nothing compared to the typical mental gymnastics leftists are known for, but mental gymnastics regardless.

Thousands of videos to pick from, and you can't even find an entertaining one. What a goober.

 

[SSGT Bags]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

View attachment 153201

Johnny Carson - Wikipedia

Politics[edit]
Carson opposed the Vietnam War,[1] and capital punishment, favored racial equality, and was against criminalizing extramarital sex and pornography. He avoided explicitly mentioning his views on The Tonight Show, saying he "hates to be pinned down", as that would "hurt me as an entertainer, which is what I am."[4] As he explained in 1970, "In my living room I would argue for liberalization of abortion laws, divorce laws, and there are times when I would like to express a view on the air. I would love to have taken on Billy Graham. But I'm on TV five nights a week; I have nothing to gain by it and everything to lose."[43] He also seldom invited political figures onto the Tonight Show because he "didn't want it to become a political forum" and did not want the show used, by himself or others, to influence the opinions of the viewers.[1]

In his book, Carson's former lawyer Henry Bushkin stated, he "was by instinct and upbringing definitely Republican, but of an Eisenhower sort that we don't see much of anymore.... Overall, you'd have to say he was anti-big: anti-big government, anti-big money, anti-big bullies, anti-big blowhards." Carson served as MC for Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1981 at the request of Frank Sinatra.[44]

The last class act!

 

[SSGT Bags]

You are soooo correct, Fallon, Kimmel and Colbert are all left wing crackpots.
We need a late night TV talk show host who is mainstream so things would be fair.

I NEVER thought Fallon was funny.

He was funny on Win Ben Stein's money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

No, you're creating a strawman because you couldn't debate your way out a wet paper bag. Prisoners have no rights whatsoever, and should have access to nothing but bread and water, and in a lot of cases, should just be executed entirely.

No, I'm not creating a strawman at all. You said you were against gun control. I then asked you a question and you said you were for gun control.

Prisoners DO have rights. You don't understand the theory of rights. Prisoners don't have their rights taken away, they have them INFRINGED UPON.

I never said I was for gun control. Prisoners have 'their rights infringed upon', that's not control on guns, that's control on prisoners. Your word salad won't win you anything.

It's a simple fact, if you want to control guns, then you're for gun control. It's that simple. If you prevent prisoners from having guns, that's gun control.

You call it word salad, I call it being articulate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Not at all.

You said you don't believe in gun control, then you said you believe in gun control. It's getting a little confusing.

Are you or are you not a believer in gun control?

Don't bother. The goofy little twat has nothing to offer but the same extreme RWNJ crap. No intelligent thought there.

I've noticed. Shouting "strawman" when they get found out.

Nothing compared to the typical mental gymnastics leftists are known for, but mental gymnastics regardless.

Yeah, you keep deflecting by trying to pretend I'm making a strawman.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

So, the guy who is doing the commenting says no laws would have prevented this.

Right, so... this happens in the UK? Yeah, when did it ever happen in the UK? Let's try.... NEVER. It never happened because this guy would have struggled to get all those guns, he'd have struggled to get one gun, let alone TEN.

And the commentators response is "don't have concerts between tall buildings", right.

So, guns don't kill people, but people between tall building get killed because they're between tall buildings. BAN TALL BUILDING PEOPLE.

Apparently you didn't listen to the video, he pointed out that no laws prevented it, and there were laws in place that made what he did illegal. Didn't stop him. Of course, the only people who believe making guns illegal would stop criminals, are those who believe criminals follow laws. Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago, either, it's a shining example of the leftist mentality of disarming law-abiding citizens.

I did listen to the video, I just happen not to see everything in right wing memes.

Yes, criminals don't always obey the law. However when a criminal goes and robs a bank, he doesn't go and break all laws at the same time. He doesn't stop off to rape someone just because he feels that it doesn't matter, he's broken one law, why not break ALL LAWS?

Many criminals don't rape people. Many criminals don't break a lot of the laws out there? Why?

Gun regulation doesn't work in Chicago or anywhere else because they can't regulate all the guns within the area of boundaries. Those boundaries are the USA. So a person can go from one place to another place with a gun and not get caught, because there's no physical barrier. That's the problem here. Gun control within the USA would be a different matter entirely.

Then how do you explain firearms that were not made or for sale within the United States borders being in the hands of criminals?

It's a little difficult getting a fully automatic firearm from the local gun shop.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Why are you opposed to people defending themselves? As a matter of fact, gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish.

Don't worry, the police will be there to outline your body in chalk 15 minutes later.

Still a goofy little twat repeating gun nut talking points, I see. One day you might be able to evaluate logic and reason for yourself. Until then, I guess you always have Alex Jones to depend on.

And as usual, rather than address the point and engage in actual debate, you'd rather hurl insults. Probably because you can't refute my point.

Then again, one can't really refute that the only people who follow laws are law-abiding citizens, and those who don't are criminals. So, naturally, the only people who would be disarmed are those willing to disarm, and criminals would continue conducting criminal activity. You know, like Chicago, one of the places with the strictest gun control in the Nation.

You make a goofy remark like
"gun regulation is 100% effective... at disarming the populace and allowing criminals to murder people as they wish."
and want me to bother refuting such stupid trash? You're an idiot. Can't get past that.

You're still dodging my point because you can't refute it. Of course, I'm not one bit surprised.

Gun regulation disarms individuals so criminals can murder people as they wish? You really think that is a sane statement? Are you the love child of furby, dale smith, and a tree stump?

So you're a criminal?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[francoHFW]

I haven't forgiven this guy since he slandered Let's Players and mistreated Markiplier on his show, and even before then, I never liked this guy. NOW I have an even better reason; He's continuing to use his show as a medium for leftist propaganda.

Of course, Mr. Dapperton has his number, and absolutely crushes his argument into oblivion, effortlessly.

I'm pretty sure he really doesn't care what RWNJs might think. Don't like him? nobody is forcing you to watch. Plenty of Alex Jones crap on the internet for you.

Their is the problem ..

No?

Free reign on the television shows to indoctrinate people in the liberal way..

Not so much in the conservative way..

Tim Allen on Last Man Standing Cancellation: 'Nothing More Dangerous Than a Likable Conservative'

Keep your hopes up. If trump gets his way, there will only be state approved teleivision available.

Wouldn't it be in the lefty benefit , ya know before right wing talk radio when the fairness doctrine was in place?


Why do you even try me?

.

Right-wing talk-radio is the biggest disgrace and worst thing to happen to the United States ever... Pure garbage hate propaganda, no debate at all...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Few ever even heard of the term "effective rate of fire" until very recently. The short cycle time has always been one of the main advertised advantages as seen by the manufacturer and purchasers alike. You're just looking for a way to make the gun look not as dangerous as it is. Liar.

How 'dangerous' a gun is doesn't matter one bit. I don't agree with the government regulating any guns at all. That said, you completely ignored the explanations I showed you just so you can reassert your false narrative. The gun is factually not capable of 700 rounds per minute, for the reasons I pointed out, which you can't refute.

Actually it matters quite a lot. Just because you don't agree with regulation of guns or not. Your sentence implies that you think criminals in prisons should have guns, that the insane should have guns. Hmm....

Actually, I do think that the insane should have guns. I think everyone should have guns.

People put in prison should no longer have guns, because they should no longer have any rights. they give them up when they infringe on the rights of others. When they get out of prison, they can have their rights back.

Oh good, you believe in gun control.

No, I believe people in prison have no rights. What you're building is a straw man so you can pretend I agree with you.

Some people don't even receive their full rights even after being released from prison because they are on probation.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Dale Smith]

No, the problem is that all guns can never be regulated. There are people who build guns themselves, and there are people who don't operate through legal channels, such as the black market. The best way to keep Americans safe is for all of them to be armed. People are far less likely to commit crimes if their potential victims are armed. Physical boundaries, much like gun laws, would only disarm people who follow the law.

It's true. But the issue is that in the UK there isn't much of a problem, is there? Gun deaths in the UK? 23 in 2013. Out of a population of 65 million people. The equivalent in the US would be about 2,000 murders.

Which is better, 23 murders or 2,000 murders?

Oh look, you cited no sources for that claim, I'm so surprised. Besides that, Dapperton already debunked the number of gun murders in the US in the video.

You want sources huh?

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Click Death and Injury, click Gun Homicides. You'll see:

"2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84"

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Do the same:

"2014: 10,945"

List of countries and dependencies by population - Wikipedia

Click on United Kingdom and you will see 65,648,100
Click on USA and you will see 325,902,000

Open your calculator and divide the US's population by the UK's population. You will find 4.964378253140609

Take 10,945 and divide it by 4.964378253140609 and you will get 2,204.707103669201

That means the US murder rate would be 2,204 if it were in the UK. The UK murder rate was 23 for the year before.

As for Dapperton, I'm not arguing with Dapperton.

Yet the most recent piece of gun legislation was passed in the 1990s, meaning gun control has nothing to do with their murder rate. Beyond that, the US states with the highest murder rates are those with the strictest gun control, like California, for example.

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia
Murder in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Not only that, the latest mass murder in the UK was with an illegal firearm. A fat lot of good their Gun Control is doing. Just like everything the most recent mass shooter did in America was ALSO illegal. Gun control is worthless.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The UK introduced gun control in the 1990s to deal with the Dunblaine Massacre at a primary school. The actual law didn't have much impact at all because most people didn't have guns in the first place. It probably helped to reduce gun crime in the future.

What you're looking for is "gun control implemented on this date, gun murders dropped radically after this date" to prove that gun control works. Which ignores almost all of the reality of what that gun control was, and what the gun control was before this.

You also seem to have an attitude that if gun murders go up or down without there having been a piece of legislation to make it so, that gun control doesn't work.

The problem is there are various things that can lead to higher or lower fluctuations of gun murders. A gun law implemented doesn't mean that there will be a specific number of murders in a year. That's ridiculous.

For example in the UK there was a problem with gun violence in the early 2000s, and they didn't need more gun control to try and deal with the problem. The gun laws in place helped the police to deal with the problem, hence why gun murders went down.

A law doesn't do anything. You can make all the laws you like, if no one is A) enforcing them and B) being proactive in dealing with crime in the first place, then there's no point.

You say that the places with the highest murder rates are the places with the strictest gun control. That's complete bullshit. The fact that you haven't actually backed up your claim is telling, because I bet you have no idea what the statistics actually are. You just made it up hoping that I'm a stupid idiot who'll accept your bullshit.

List of U.S. states by homicide rate - Wikipedia

Here are the statistics.

Number one is Louisiana with a murder rate of 10.3

Louisiana is not a liberal state, it has the highest prison population IN THE WORLD. It has lax gun laws, it has a murder rate double most of the USA including, ironically, California which you claimed has the highest murder. (Probably because you're looking at number of murders rather than murder rate which is really amateur)

How Many Gun Owners Live in Your Home State?

Here are the state rankings for murders, and their ranking for the percentage of owners of guns.

1. Louisiana - 13th
2. Mississippi - 6th
3. Missouri - 21st
4. South Carolina - 18th
5. Maryland - 42nd

Now, the top four also have a high percentage of gun owners. Maryland is different, but then I'm going to bet that a lot of guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but get them because it's easy to get illegal guns.

Gun control is worthless.

Well, tell that to the 2,977 British people who don't die EVERY YEAR because of gun control.

Frigweirdo, that was Dunblane, dumb ass.......and it was as a Operation Gladio event to disarm the British citizens and now they have been overwhelmed with military age radical muslims and they have no means to protect themselves. Same thing in Australia and Port Arthur and that psy-op shooting with a patsy with a 73 IQ score.