Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Take regular, garden variety gun violence into account. If you simply focus on the mass shootings, you can get lulled into thinking that the only people who die as a result of gun violence are the victims in a mass shooting.As near as I can tell, we are supposed to know the "good guys'"with a gun, as opposed to the "bad guys" with a gun, by the fact that the good guys wear white hats.
According the nutters, we're supposed to just trust that they won't shoot anyone.
O' course, we've seen how well that has worked out for so many people. Too bad they can't weigh in on this question now but they're dead.
When? Exactly when was it we have seen this? In those rare occasions that a lunatic goes on a suicidal rampage?? In those rare events that actually constitute 0.8% of gun deaths?
And do you think whether or not a restaurant allows guns matters then?
It didn't Luby's. It didn't at the theater in Aurora Co. But then, you are twice as likely to be struck by lightning as you are to be shot in one of those kinds of mass shootings.
You talk about those who carry guns being cowards, and yet YOU want to restrict everyone's ability to carry based on extremely rare events that are not even a blip on the radar for gun violence.
"Hello Pot, my name is Kettle."
Do we need guns in church? Isn't Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace? Do we need to be packing to worship Him?Amazing. Being concerned for the safety of one's family means you should be "locked up".
What in the fuck is wrong with our values?
I think that they were referring to his unreasonable fear of anyone with a gun. Simply HAVING a gun does not make you some crazed lunatic.
This fear is brought on by the misconception that the mass shootings by strangers are common. They are quite rare. He should be more worried about being robbed in the parking lot (less likely for a place known to cater to armed people).
What about guns in bars? How well has the blending of alcohol, loaded guns and a hot sticky Friday night in August play out? Is carrying a gun into an atmosphere charged with bourbon and testosterone really a wise decision? If you are so frightened that you feel as if your only recourse is to carry a loaded weapon around, aren't you more susceptible to use it once you are liquored up and unhinged about what some other redneck said about your girlfriend?
Take regular, garden variety gun violence into account. If you simply focus on the mass shootings, you can get lulled into thinking that the only people who die as a result of gun violence are the victims in a mass shooting.According the nutters, we're supposed to just trust that they won't shoot anyone.
O' course, we've seen how well that has worked out for so many people. Too bad they can't weigh in on this question now but they're dead.
When? Exactly when was it we have seen this? In those rare occasions that a lunatic goes on a suicidal rampage?? In those rare events that actually constitute 0.8% of gun deaths?
And do you think whether or not a restaurant allows guns matters then?
It didn't Luby's. It didn't at the theater in Aurora Co. But then, you are twice as likely to be struck by lightning as you are to be shot in one of those kinds of mass shootings.
You talk about those who carry guns being cowards, and yet YOU want to restrict everyone's ability to carry based on extremely rare events that are not even a blip on the radar for gun violence.
"Hello Pot, my name is Kettle."
But, in reality, the majority of the remainder of that 99.2% are folks who encounter a gun nut willing and able to us his weapon to resolve everyday disputes.
You dumb shits.
The POINT is reeel damn simple.
There is no way to tell a "good guy" with a gun from a "bad guy" with a gun until he opens fire.
I don't want to be sitting in the restaurant when one of you assholes decides your pizza isn't done to your Gordon Ramsey specifications and opens fire on the kid who brought it to your table.
But, you/your wife wouldn't do that you say?
How the hell can I know that?
I don't give a large mouse's behind that you're so chicken shit you can't leave the house without your fake balls. You wanna carry? Fine. Do it out in the open so I can get my kids out of your way BEFORE you snap your damn fool widget.
Zat clear enough for you?
STILL no effective response.What's that? No effective response? I thought not.Ah good, the old "everybody knows" fallacy. Check that off the daily list.
Surprise surprise.
Ah... you're simply tryingh to avoid a point you know you cannot refute.A fallacy doesn't change as it ages. There is no effective response to having a fallacy called out. You either get rid of it, or you stand fallacious. Apparently your choice is option B.STILL no effective response.What's that? No effective response? I thought not.
Surprise surprise.
Whatever.
Psst....Take regular, garden variety gun violence into account. If you simply focus on the mass shootings, you can get lulled into thinking that the only people who die as a result of gun violence are the victims in a mass shooting.According the nutters, we're supposed to just trust that they won't shoot anyone.
O' course, we've seen how well that has worked out for so many people. Too bad they can't weigh in on this question now but they're dead.
When? Exactly when was it we have seen this? In those rare occasions that a lunatic goes on a suicidal rampage?? In those rare events that actually constitute 0.8% of gun deaths?
And do you think whether or not a restaurant allows guns matters then?
It didn't Luby's. It didn't at the theater in Aurora Co. But then, you are twice as likely to be struck by lightning as you are to be shot in one of those kinds of mass shootings.
You talk about those who carry guns being cowards, and yet YOU want to restrict everyone's ability to carry based on extremely rare events that are not even a blip on the radar for gun violence.
"Hello Pot, my name is Kettle."
But, in reality, the majority of the remainder of that 99.2% are folks who encounter a gun nut willing and able to us his weapon to resolve everyday disputes.
As near as I can tell, we are supposed to know the "good guys'"with a gun, as opposed to the "bad guys" with a gun, by the fact that the good guys wear white hats.
According the nutters, we're supposed to just trust that they won't shoot anyone.
O' course, we've seen how well that has worked out for so many people. Too bad they can't weigh in on this question now but they're dead.
My wife had her Beretta with her at Pizza Hut a couple weeks ago...no big deal. (Like most pizzarias, PH serves alcohol!)
Guns and booze. What could possibly go wrong?
Seriously, I learned that gun safety does not include booze but the nutters don't know or abide by the same rules that used to be carved in stone. I'd bet they even take their children to places where there is booze and guns.
Ah... you're simply tryingh to avoid a point you know you cannot refute.A fallacy doesn't change as it ages. There is no effective response to having a fallacy called out. You either get rid of it, or you stand fallacious. Apparently your choice is option B.STILL no effective response.
Surprise surprise.
Whatever.
I said:
Her assumption with regard to people carrying a gun is no more or less rational than a rape victim assuming that every man she sees will rape her
Where's the fallacy?
Where's your meaningful response?
It's right here, Cap'm Wrongway. "Everybody knows" fallacy. Still yet more evidence that you can only argue from ignorance, emotion, dishonesty or jest flat-out editing out the inconvenient bits so you don't have to deal with them. Oh wait, that's dishonesty, already covered.most people would agree that any such rape victim is in dire need of therapy.
Ah... you're simply tryingh to avoid a point you know you cannot refute.A fallacy doesn't change as it ages. There is no effective response to having a fallacy called out. You either get rid of it, or you stand fallacious. Apparently your choice is option B.
Whatever.
I said:
Her assumption with regard to people carrying a gun is no more or less rational than a rape victim assuming that every man she sees will rape her
Where's the fallacy?
Where's your meaningful response?
Not only do you edit other posters' points off so you don't have to address them; now you're doing it with your own.
Here's what you said after the point you quoted, which you seem to have forgot --- surely just an oversight (/sarc):
most people would agree that any such rape victim is in dire need of therapy.
"Everybody knows" fallacy. Still yet more evidence that you can only argue from ignorance, emotion, dishonesty or jest flat-out editing out the inconvenient bits so you don't have to deal with them. Oh wait, that's dishonesty, already covered.
As near as I can tell, we are supposed to know the "good guys'"with a gun, as opposed to the "bad guys" with a gun, by the fact that the good guys wear white hats.
According the nutters, we're supposed to just trust that they won't shoot anyone.
O' course, we've seen how well that has worked out for so many people. Too bad they can't weigh in on this question now but they're dead.
Guns and booze. What could possibly go wrong?
Seriously, I learned that gun safety does not include booze but the nutters don't know or abide by the same rules that used to be carved in stone. I'd bet they even take their children to places where there is booze and guns.
Explain in detail how the beer Pizza Hut sells had any effect whatsoever on my wife's gun safety. Be specific. (And note: neither of us drink!)
I laugh at your petulant attempt to avoid addressing the point.Ah... you're simply tryingh to avoid a point you know you cannot refute.A fallacy doesn't change as it ages. There is no effective response to having a fallacy called out. You either get rid of it, or you stand fallacious. Apparently your choice is option B.
Whatever.
I said:
Her assumption with regard to people carrying a gun is no more or less rational than a rape victim assuming that every man she sees will rape her
Where's the fallacy?
Where's your meaningful response?
Not only do you edit other posters' points off so you don't have to address them; now you're doing it with your own.
Here's what you said (same post) after the point you quoted, which you seem to have forgot --- surely just an oversight (/sarc) -- and this is before you bolded up the irrelevant part to try to deflect the inconvenient bit away:
It's right here, Cap'm Wrongway. "Everybody knows" fallacy. Still yet more evidence that you can only argue from ignorance, emotion, dishonesty or jest flat-out editing out the inconvenient bits so you don't have to deal with them. Oh wait, that's dishonesty, already covered.most people would agree that any such rape victim is in dire need of therapy.
LOL.....I love these threads. They always fizzle out ONLY when the gun grabbers have had enough of looking like fucking dopes!! Even mental cases get when they are being publically humiliated and dang if WINTER BORN didn't........ in his own unique way ...........have people laughing their asses off with the short, succinct posts clearly labeling the gun grabbing k00ks.......as k00ks.
Winter......like I said.....when I finally make it down to Talledega one spring or fall for the NASCAR gig, Im looking you up and we sit down on that boat and have a fine cigar and kick back and make fun of these meatheads.
LOL.....I love these threads. They always fizzle out ONLY when the gun grabbers have had enough of looking like fucking dopes!!
I laugh at your petulant attempt to avoid addressing the point.Ah... you're simply tryingh to avoid a point you know you cannot refute.
I said:
Her assumption with regard to people carrying a gun is no more or less rational than a rape victim assuming that every man she sees will rape her
Where's the fallacy?
Where's your meaningful response?
Not only do you edit other posters' points off so you don't have to address them; now you're doing it with your own.
Here's what you said (same post) after the point you quoted, which you seem to have forgot --- surely just an oversight (/sarc) -- and this is before you bolded up the irrelevant part to try to deflect the inconvenient bit away:
It's right here, Cap'm Wrongway. "Everybody knows" fallacy. Still yet more evidence that you can only argue from ignorance, emotion, dishonesty or jest flat-out editing out the inconvenient bits so you don't have to deal with them. Oh wait, that's dishonesty, already covered.most people would agree that any such rape victim is in dire need of therapy.
Again:
I said:
Her assumption with regard to people carrying a gun is no more or less rational than a rape victim assuming that every man she sees will rape her
Where's your meaningful response?
Oh, the irony.I laugh at your petulant attempt to avoid addressing the point.Not only do you edit other posters' points off so you don't have to address them; now you're doing it with your own.
Here's what you said (same post) after the point you quoted, which you seem to have forgot --- surely just an oversight (/sarc) -- and this is before you bolded up the irrelevant part to try to deflect the inconvenient bit away:
It's right here, Cap'm Wrongway. "Everybody knows" fallacy. Still yet more evidence that you can only argue from ignorance, emotion, dishonesty or jest flat-out editing out the inconvenient bits so you don't have to deal with them. Oh wait, that's dishonesty, already covered.
Again:
I said:
Her assumption with regard to people carrying a gun is no more or less rational than a rape victim assuming that every man she sees will rape her
Where's your meaningful response?
You just whizzed past it, Whizzo.
Denialists...
You avoidance the point is duly noted."Meaningful response" implies something "meaningful" to respond TO.
on one's own words doesn't make that cut. 
