Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[The T]

Your children (family) will be taken way from you for their own safety from YOUR GUNS.

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

Yes indeed, and it begs the question: How can a group of people shouting 'it's for the children' be so quick to snuff out the lives of children they claim to defend?

 

[daveman]

Your children (family) will be taken way from you for their own safety from YOUR GUNS.

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

Yes indeed, and it begs the question: How can a group of people shouting 'it's for the children' be so quick to snuff out the lives of children they claim to defend?

Because, of course, they don't actually give a damn about children.

All they want is total government control of individual lives. They fear and hate liberty.

 

[The T]

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

Yes indeed, and it begs the question: How can a group of people shouting 'it's for the children' be so quick to snuff out the lives of children they claim to defend?

Because, of course, they don't actually give a damn about children.

All they want is total government control of individual lives. They fear and hate liberty.

Especially their own. Thus they take the coward's way out and seek to impose it upon others.

 

[daveman]

Yes indeed, and it begs the question: How can a group of people shouting 'it's for the children' be so quick to snuff out the lives of children they claim to defend?

Because, of course, they don't actually give a damn about children.

All they want is total government control of individual lives. They fear and hate liberty.

Especially their own. Thus they take the coward's way out and seek to impose it upon others.

Indeed. And progressives are most definitely cowards.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The silence from those who want more gun control is deafening.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you took just 4 cities out of the calculations

Remove L.A. Detroit Chicago and NY you would see that we would end up near the bottom of the list in gun crimes not near the top as we are now.

So we really don't have a gun violence problem. We have a gang violence problem.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Gun clinging spreads like a cancer to Switzerland

This video makes me want to vomit, as I was unaware of the situation in Switzerland .............. this is really bad.
As this will explain why I was severely beaten in Switzerland, when I told them to send some young girls to my room.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Don't have to convince you. Just the majority of the voters.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because, of course, they don't actually give a damn about children.

All they want is total government control of individual lives. They fear and hate liberty.

Especially their own. Thus they take the coward's way out and seek to impose it upon others.

Indeed. And progressives are most definitely cowards.

LOL. Your NRA people, LaPierre and Nugent both avoided service in the armed forces of the US. In fact, Nugent litteraly shit his pants to avoid service. This is his own statements on that;

snopes.com: Ted Nugent Dodged the Draft?

 

[Edgetho]

Reason #6,863 why I'll never live in New Yawk. And have no respect for New Yawkers.



Instapundit » Blog Archive » THIS IS WHY YOU NEED A GUN: Subway Stabbing Victim Can?t Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him. A man?

JULY 29, 2013

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED A GUN: Subway Stabbing Victim Can’t Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him.

A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman’s car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.

Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor’s car and failed to come to his aid in time.

The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no “special duty” to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman’s car because they believed Gelman had a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Don't have to convince you. Just the majority of the voters.

Translation:
You know you cannot present a sound argument for more gun control, and so will happily resort to arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, in the hopes that those who know no better will buy it.

Thank you for supporting the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[candycorn]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Don't have to convince you. Just the majority of the voters.

Actually just a plurality of voters.

M14 Hooter is helping the cause. Few would identify with him outside of hickville.

 

[candycorn]

If you took just 4 cities out of the calculations

Remove L.A. Detroit Chicago and NY you would see that we would end up near the bottom of the list in gun crimes not near the top as we are now.

So we really don't have a gun violence problem. We have a gang violence problem.

Link?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Don't have to convince you. Just the majority of the voters.

Actually just a plurality of voters.

M14 Hooter is helping the cause. Few would identify with him outside of hickville.

Thank you for supporting the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[birddog]

Especially their own. Thus they take the coward's way out and seek to impose it upon others.

Indeed. And progressives are most definitely cowards.

LOL. Your NRA people, LaPierre and Nugent both avoided service in the armed forces of the US. In fact, Nugent litteraly shit his pants to avoid service. This is his own statements on that;

snopes.com: Ted Nugent Dodged the Draft?

Both conservatives and liberals had those who avoided the draft. Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Even though we may have been scared 'shitless," some of us went when called in the sixties.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nary a peep from those who wish to enact more gun control.
Astounding.

 

[The T]

Especially their own. Thus they take the coward's way out and seek to impose it upon others.

Indeed. And progressives are most definitely cowards.

LOL. Your NRA people, LaPierre and Nugent both avoided service in the armed forces of the US. In fact, Nugent litteraly shit his pants to avoid service. This is his own statements on that;

snopes.com: Ted Nugent Dodged the Draft?

And the DRAFT has to do with the 2nd Amendment HOW?

Stupid fuck. Go away...resign from these boards. You add ZERO value.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing but continued silence from the anti-gun loons.

 

[auditor0007]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Here is a very simple argument. Take all the guns away, and you have no more gun deaths. That is a valid argument, but it is not a rational one based on our history and Constitution. The reason gun control laws do not work is because people can still get guns. On the flip side though, just thinking that having more people carrying guns is a great idea lacks any critical thinking. We have cops who are killing unarmed people because they cannot control their trigger happy fingers and use their badge as a reason to get away with shooting people, yet we think untrained people carrying guns will react better? While allowing more people to carry guns, you will have plenty of responsible gun owners who have good control over their emotions carrying guns, but you will also have a good number of hot headed idiots who end up using their gun on someone just because they lost control of their emotions.

Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, and that world will remain imperfect no matter which side you fall on, and that goes for most debates, not just gun control.

 

[daveman]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Here is a very simple argument. Take all the guns away, and you have no more gun deaths. That is a valid argument, but it is not a rational one based on our history and Constitution. The reason gun control laws do not work is because people can still get guns. On the flip side though, just thinking that having more people carrying guns is a great idea lacks any critical thinking. We have cops who are killing unarmed people because they cannot control their trigger happy fingers and use their badge as a reason to get away with shooting people, yet we think untrained people carrying guns will react better? While allowing more people to carry guns, you will have plenty of responsible gun owners who have good control over their emotions carrying guns, but you will also have a good number of hot headed idiots who end up using their gun on someone just because they lost control of their emotions.

Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, and that world will remain imperfect no matter which side you fall on, and that goes for most debates, not just gun control.

Are people killed by a murderer's gun somehow more dead than people killed by a murderer's knife?