Kamala Harris Says She Has a Glock, but Many Glocks Are Barred in California by a Law She Supported

[M14 Shooter]

Are you saying that Criminals can't get assault weapons if a LAW is passed?

Only an idiot would make that claim.
So.... maybe.

 

[Seymour Flops]

She does not have a Glock. Or if she does, it was very recently purchased so that she could say “I have a Glock.” They picked Glock because “Smith & Wesson” might be too much of a tongue twister for her.

 

[Vrenn]

Let's see who is lying here.

Impossible:
-The 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons'

Mass shooting all but disappeared. At least the body count went down tramatically. And it specifically went after the AR-15 and AK-47 with very restrictive rules.

-Anyone who wanted to legally bay an 'assault weapon' could do so

You are lying here. The weapons they were targeting was the high body count weapons related to Military Full Auto weapons. Now, how about you countering with what you think and assault rifle is so we can have a meaningful discussion.

-There were more 'assault weapons' in private hands at the end of the ban than the beginning
Thus
The 1994 AWB could not have reduced shootings of any kind, mass or otherwise.

Actually, statistically, it did. You are just repeating what your talking heads want you to repeat. Thin, stupid, think instead of thinking stupid. Even in the Colombine shooting in 1999, most of the killing was by high capacity 9mm weapons. The established the record body count which would not be reached until 2007. Then the body count went haywired after that.

Lie to us some more.

It's been estimated that the body count was lessened by at least 70% during the assault weapons ban. Now, liar, deal with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

She does not have a Glock. Or if she does, it was very recently purchased so that she could say “I have a Glock.” They picked Glock because “Smith & Wesson” might be too much of a tongue twister for her.

Time to FOIA the paperwork.

 

[Vrenn]

Only an idiot would make that claim.
So.... maybe.

Most of the mass school shootings have been done by people under the age of 20. The most used weapon has been an AR derivative. The highest body counts belongs to the AR shooters. These were kids that mostly use Daddy's or Mommy's weapons and ammo since they were too young to purchase them. So, no, no banning or regulating the AR would have stopped these shootings. But if the parents (adults) had been held accountable for how their kids used their weapons then that would have had a stark change. Instead, after the investigation, the weapon is returned to the Parent. How stupid is that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of the mass school shootings have been done by people under the age of 20.

So?

The most used weapon has been an AR derivative.

A lie.

The highest body counts belongs to the AR shooters.

So?

These were kids that mostly use Daddy's or Mommy's weapons and ammo since they were too young to purchase them.

So?

So, no, no banning or regulating the AR would have stopped these shootings.

But you want to ban them anyway.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's see who is lying here.

It s--obviously-- not me, so...

Mass shooting all but disappeared. At least the body count went down tramatically. And it specifically went after the AR-15 and AK-47 with very restrictive rules.

Post hoc fallacy.
Correlation does not prove causation.

You are lying here.

Nope.
Existing 'assault weapons' were legal to sell and posses.
New, legally modified 'assault weapons' were legal to manufacture, sell and possess.
Thus:
Anyone who wanted to legally bay an 'assault weapon' could do so.
So...
If you wanted to commit a mass shooting' with an 'assault weapon, 1994-2004, the law would not prevent you from doing so.

Actually, statistically, it did.

As there was no reduction in access to 'assault weapons', this is impossible.

It's been estimated that the body count was lessened by at least 70% during the assault weapons ban.

Post hoc fallacy
Correlation does not prove causation; as there was no reduction in access to 'assault weapons', the 'ban' cannot be responsible for any reduction in shootings.

 

[Vrenn]

Are you saying that Criminals can't get assault weapons if a LAW is passed?

That is dishonest. You need to stop this 3rd grade way of discussing.

 

[Vrenn]

So?

A lie.

So?

So?

But you want to ban them anyway.

The only lie here is yours. And your "So" tells me that you have more love of your AR-15 than of our next generation of targets.

 

[San Souci]

That is dishonest. You need to stop this 3rd grade way of discussing.

How is that? Criminals can get all the Guns they want.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Harris doesn't know a glock from a clock.

Kamala does not have a glock and she does not have a vageene either, its all dried up.

 

[Vrenn]

How is that? Criminals can get all the Guns they want.

It's not normal criminals shooting up our theaters, concerts and schools.

 

[Vrenn]

Kamala does not have a glock and she does not have a vageene either, its all dried up.

And you know this how? Give us the way that you know this.

 

[San Souci]

It's not normal criminals shooting up our theaters, concerts and schools.

Define what a "Normal Criminal" is.

 

[Vrenn]

Define what a "Normal Criminal" is.

As soon as you define criminal. You generalized the term. Now break it down.

As for normal criminal, normal criminals think they will never get caught and do it anyway. There is no remorse involved. The Mass Shooters know they won't survive it so they either surrender quickly, shoot themselves or do suicide by cop. There is nothing normal about a mass school shooter.

 

[Seymour Flops]

As soon as you define criminal. You generalized the term. Now break it down.

As for normal criminal, normal criminals think they will never get caught and do it anyway. There is no remorse involved. The Mass Shooters know they won't survive it so they either surrender quickly, shoot themselves or do suicide by cop. There is nothing normal about a mass school shooter.

What about drive-bys by gangs targeting youths? Are those normal criminals or abnormal criminals?

 

[San Souci]

As soon as you define criminal. You generalized the term. Now break it down.

As for normal criminal, normal criminals think they will never get caught and do it anyway. There is no remorse involved. The Mass Shooters know they won't survive it so they either surrender quickly, shoot themselves or do suicide by cop. There is nothing normal about a mass school shooter.

But there is something normal about a thief? Or a Gangster?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only lie here is yours.

You are fully aware of the fact your statement is false as you know you cannot demonstrate anything I said to be untrue

And your "So" tells me that you have more love of your AR-15 than of our next generation of targets.

All I see there is your inability to stand and deliver.

 

[Vrenn]

What about drive-bys by gangs targeting youths? Are those normal criminals or abnormal criminals?

They are normal criminals and should be treated as such. But you are just trying to justify the rampant use of the AR which is the #1 killing rifle for mass murder. Kids with Handguns will NEVER equal the killing power of an AR. Do we need the ARs or can we get along with the other more traditional weapons. From the sound of things, you place more importance on you owning an AR (or 5 or 6) than the lives of our school children. Shame on you .]]

 

[Vrenn]

But there is something normal about a thief? Or a Gangster?

Normally, a thief will kill to escape. Usually one maybe two. A Gangster needs to kill to maintain his business. Today, Gangsters rarely kill. But a mass murderer at a school doesn't have a reason except for the CultAR and the highest body count.

Again , you are placing owning a AR over the lives of children.