How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Uncensored2008]

Not arguing here but it would not shock anyone if Trump should start talking about the dangers of gun ownership with half the nation filled with radical leftists. He is disillusioned enough to try it.

What a stupid post.

Oh, and I see you're still posting lies in your sig. Pathetic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have heard/read rumblings of the possibility of a civil war here. I for one will never believe that solely on the fact that corporate America will never permit it.

When the party orders you to take to the streets, you will take to the streets. drones do what the party orders, without question, without thinking. This board proves that every single day.

 

[CLAX1911]

When the party orders you to take to the streets, you will take to the streets. drones do what the party orders, without question, without thinking. This board proves that every single day.

Typically billionaires are the ones giving the orders in a bizarre twist of irony

 

[Uncensored2008]

Typically billionaires are the ones giving the orders in a bizarre twist of irony

Tim Cook, Sergei Brin, George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg - these are some of the Oligarchs who own and operate the democrat party for their own benefit.

 

[CLAX1911]

Tim Cook, Sergei Brin, George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg - these are some of the Oligarchs who own and operate the democrat party for their own benefit.

I was thinking singham with last pointless protest.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Well you're talking about suspending my rights and so it's absolutely about me.

Whatever "right" you're talking about... your rights end where other people's rights begin. And the right of people... especially children to LIVE outweigh any right you think you might have (and probably don't)

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Why should that make a difference.!!

Please start by researching what makes a country underdeveloped. Explaining to you high school level socio-economic concepts is not the purpose of this thread.

Just understand that a country where drug cartels, and not law enforcement, dominate immense areas of the country... A LOT of gun deaths are to be expected.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Whatever "right" you're talking about... your rights end where other people's rights begin. And the right of people... especially children to LIVE outweigh any right you think you might have (and probably don't)

Murder is already illegal.

Your Straw Man Fallacy fails.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Murder is already illegal.

You don't say!!

If that's the best we can expect from you to contribute to this thread, maybe you'll feel more at home in the "Kid's Forum"

 

[RF667799]

Whatever "right" you're talking about... your rights end where other people's rights begin. And the right of people... especially children to LIVE outweigh any right you think you might have (and probably don't)

What a nonsensical strawman.

 

[RF667799]

Please start by researching what makes a country underdeveloped. Explaining to you high school level socio-economic concepts is not the purpose of this thread.

Just understand that a country where drug cartels, and not law enforcement, dominate immense areas of the country... A LOT of gun deaths are to be expected.

Oh. So you're from East St Louis.

 

[CLAX1911]

Whatever "right" you're talking about...

All of them.

your rights end where other people's rights begin.

Nobody has the right for me not to own guns

And the right of people... especially children to LIVE outweigh any right you think you might have (and probably don't)

Me owning guns doesn't equal children not living.

 

[RF667799]

All of them.

Nobody has the right for me not to own guns

Me owning guns doesn't equal children not living.

It's a strawman. The only ones arguing that the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to murder anyone- let alone children- are the rabid anti-rights people.

 

[jaeger19]

Please start by researching what makes a country underdeveloped. Explaining to you high school level socio-economic concepts is not the purpose of this thread.

Just understand that a country where drug cartels, and not law enforcement, dominate immense areas of the country... A LOT of gun deaths are to be expected.

But why? You brought it up that’s it’s an undeveloped country!!!
Why do you do you continually forget YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS the minute you are asked to defend them???lol.

Why can’t you be honest just for once? You should try it sometime.

Now. Explain why being undeveloped nation matters . Because according to the data on gun ownership. Mexico’ s gun ownership is
12.9 firearms per 100 people.
Meanwhile America is 120 firearms per 100 people.
So law enforcement and gun laws in Mexico has done EXACTLY what you say should happen here. It has drastically reduced the number of firearms available for criminals .

You need to then explain why Mexico is so much more dangerous than the USA .

Mexico and its law enforcement have done not only your firearm proposals in YOUR op but gone beyond it. And it’s worked according to you. Firearms are very hard to get in Mexico legally.
Yet it’s way more dangerous than the us. Explain.
Be honest for once in your debate life.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

But why? You brought it up that’s it’s an undeveloped country!!!

Yep!

I make the assumption that people have a minimum educational level of High School. And that if they forgot, they will look it up.

There is not actually anything more to say. The fact ITSELF that you compare the U.S. to Mexico makes my case. Regardless of whether you know what socio-economic indicators make an underdeveloped nation underdeveloped.

Now. Explain why being undeveloped nation matters

Because one of the things that makes a nation "underdeveloped" is that law enforcement is lacking to the EXTREME. Laws apply to big cities, but not to smaller communities in areas operated by drug cartels.

I already said this no less than four times! Not sure what it is you're not understanding.

You do know that drug cartels are typically at war with each other, they shoot anybody for any reason: they refuse to work for them, or they are PERCEIVED (even if they aren't) as working for a competitor... or even for the police. As well as addicts who don't pay

I'm not sure why I'm explaining something THIS obvious to you. So make sure you READ it!

But the important thing is that Mexico WAS your "best argument". Now you know you didn't HAVE an argument!

. Because according to the data on gun ownership. Mexico’ s gun ownership is
12.9 firearms per 100 people.
Meanwhile America is 120 firearms per 100 people.

Oh God! I can't believe the things I'm wasting my time explaining to you!

Gun violence is not measured by how many guns there ARE. It's how many people are SHOT!

Unbelievable!

So law enforcement and gun laws in Mexico has done EXACTLY what you say should happen here.

Amazing example of elitism

Law enforcement has NOTHING to do with it. This is a UNDERDEVELOPED country. The average salary is not much over $1000 per month! People can choose to use what little money they got from working 10 to 12 hours a day either feeding their family, or buying a firearm!

This is all a waste of time so long as you REFUSE to research what an underdeveloped nation IS!

 

[jaeger19]

Yep!

I make the assumption that people have a minimum educational level of High School. And that if they forgot, they will look it up.

There is not actually anything more to say. The fact ITSELF that you compare the U.S. to Mexico makes my case. Regardless of whether you know what socio-economic indicators make an underdeveloped nation underdeveloped.

Hmm. You would think you could have simply supported your argument,
How about we try again.

Because one of the things that makes a nation "underdeveloped" is that law enforcement is lacking to the EXTREME. Laws apply to big cities, but not to smaller communities in areas operated by drug cartels.

Yet the law on gun control is certainly enforced as only a tiny percentage of the population has firearms.

I already said this no less than four times! Not sure what it is you're not understanding.

You do know that drug cartels are typically at war with each other, they shoot anybody for any reason: they refuse to work for them, or they are PERCEIVED (even if they aren't) as working for a competitor... or even for the police. As well as addicts who don't pay

Well but according to you. They aren’t able to shoot each other because the gun control that keeps the population from having firearms makes it too hard for criminals to get guns.

I'm not sure why I'm explaining something THIS obvious to you. So make sure you READ it!

But the important thing is that Mexico WAS your "best argument". Now you know you didn't HAVE an argument!

Actually , it’s an extremely valid argument. And you can’t refute it either .
If as you claim reducing the access to firearms to the population will make it hard for criminals to get guns. Well then Mexico should be very peaceful with little crime.
As pointed out very few Mexican citizens have firearms .

Oh God! I can't believe the things I'm wasting my time explaining to you!

Gun violence is not measured by how many guns there ARE. It's how many people are SHOT!

Wait. I thought your argument that gun violence depends on how many firearms are available? Haven’t you argued repeatedly that by making firearms harder for citizens to get it will reduce crime?
Now you are saying that it’s NOT how many firearms that are available!!
Hmmm. You do realize you just crapped all over your argument right?? lol.

Unbelievable!


Amazing example of elitism

Law enforcement has NOTHING to do with it. This is a UNDERDEVELOPED country. The average salary is not much over $1000 per month! People can choose to use what little money they got from working 10 to 12 hours a day either feeding their family, or buying a firearm!

So your argument is that the gun control has made sure that responsible law abiding poor Mexican citizens can’t purchase firearms.
But the criminals in Mexico can still obtain them.
Explain how that is an argument supporting your gun control measures.

This is all a waste of time so long as you REFUSE to research what an underdeveloped nation IS!

Oh no. You’ve done a nice job of killing your own OP
Thank you very much . I’ll be here all week.
Lmao.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

How about we try again.

That depends. Do you NOW understand why you can't compare an underdeveloped nation to the most developed nation in the WORLD?

It would be a waste of time to "try again" if you don't.

Well but according to you. They aren’t able to shoot each other because the gun control that keeps the population from having firearms makes it too hard for criminals to get guns.

Doesn't sound like anything I have said. Who is "they"? The drug lords? No! There is no gun control where drug lords operate.

But that's irrelevant to my point.

If you're still trying to compare us to an underdeveloped nation, this is a waste of time. Because it would mean you're not paying attention. There is NO gun control for drug lords in underdeveloped nations. Drug lords ARE the law!

If as you claim reducing the access to firearms to the population will make it hard for criminals to get guns. Well then Mexico ...

It would do that IN THE UNITED STATES. Because we are developed nation. Mexico is an underdeveloped nation. Who knows what effects it will have there... if ANY. My proposals would not work in an underdeveloped nation. ONLY in a developed nations.

You're not reading!

If you have a point to make, start by READING the part of my previous post where I took the time to explain to you the difference between a developed and an underdeveloped nation, as it is explained to every person who attends High School. Maybe you called in sick that day... but you have the explanation. Read it!

Wait. I thought your argument that gun violence depends on how many firearms are available?

Nope! My argument is that gun violence in the US is aggravated by the fact that it's so easy to obtain firearms. Especially assault weapons.

READ!!!!

OBVIOUSLY this is different in other countries. Because the chances of a gun being taken out of circulation after it has been used in a crime is higher when you have actual law enforcement. But it's quickly replaced. Whereas in underdeveloped nations, the same gun is used over and over.... so it makes much less of a difference how many there are.

Your insistence on comparing us to an underdeveloped nation is a losing argument for you!

 

[RF667799]

That depends. Do you NOW understand why you can't compare an underdeveloped nation to the most developed nation in the WORLD?

It would be a waste of time to "try again" if you don't.



Doesn't sound like anything I have said. Who is "they"? The drug lords? No! There is no gun control where drug lords operate.

But that's irrelevant to my point.

If you're still trying to compare us to an underdeveloped nation, this is a waste of time. Because it would mean you're not paying attention. There is NO gun control for drug lords in underdeveloped nations. Drug lords ARE the law!



It would do that IN THE UNITED STATES. Because we are developed nation. Mexico is an underdeveloped nation. Who knows what effects it will have there... if ANY. My proposals would not work in an underdeveloped nation. ONLY in a developed nations.

You're not reading!

If you have a point to make, start by READING the part of my previous post where I took the time to explain to you the difference between a developed and an underdeveloped nation, as it is explained to every person who attends High School. Maybe you called in sick that day... but you have the explanation. Read it!

By "developed nation", do you mean a police state?

 

[CLAX1911]

By "developed nation", do you mean a police state?

That's the only thing that can be a developed nation in these people's minds.

 

[jaeger19]

That depends. Do you NOW understand why you can't compare an underdeveloped nation to the most developed nation in the WORLD?

It would be a waste of time to "try again" if you don't.

Actually I would like you to explain why I can’t compare them?
Because they are different?
So what? If I want to see the effectiveness of a blood pressure medication I compare the effect of the medication on people who have all the prerequisites for high blood pressure .
To the blood pressure of people who are in the normal range.
Mexico would thus be an excellent way to study the effect of gun control. It has all the other prerequisites for violence, ( poverty, decreased access to education , disparities in economic prosperity etc)
If gun control was extremely effective at reducing violence, then it should work well in Mexico .
Just like an effective blood pressure medication lowers the blood pressure of people who smoke, eat fatty foods, are obese etc.

Doesn't sound like anything I have said. Who is "they"? The drug lords? No! There is no gun control where drug lords operate.

Sure there is. There are only two legal gun stores . That’s gun control.

But that's irrelevant to my point.

It’s extremely relevant.

If you're still trying to compare us to an underdeveloped nation, this is a waste of time. Because it would mean you're not paying attention. There is NO gun control for drug lords in underdeveloped nations. Drug lords ARE the law!

If that were true it would stand to reason that there would be gun stores all over Mexico including the cities . Mexican citizens would be free to legally buy firearms without fear of imprisonment.

It would do that IN THE UNITED STATES. Because we are developed nation. Mexico is an underdeveloped nation. Who knows what effects it will have there... if ANY. My proposals would not work in an underdeveloped nation. ONLY in a developed nations.

Interesting. You realize that’s like saying a blood pressure medicine only works in people who don’t smoke, aren’t obese, regularly exercise etc lmao.

You're not reading!

If you have a point to make, start by READING the part of my previous post where I took the time to explain to it!

No you didn’t explain it.

Nope! My argument is that gun violence in the US is aggravated by the fact that it's so easy to obtain firearms. Especially assault weapons.

Well except you stated that it wasn’t the availability of firearms that mattered.
But now all of a sudden it does? Explain your flip flop.

READ!!!!

OBVIOUSLY this is different in other countries. Because the chances of a gun being taken out of circulation after it has been used in a crime is higher

But you are arguing about taking firearms out of circulation BEFORE they can “ fall into the hands of criminals”.
Not after.
Thats your op. None of your op has to do with getting rid of firearms “ AFTER” they are obtained by criminals.

But it's quickly replaced. Whereas in underdeveloped nations, the same gun is used over and over.... so it makes much less of a difference how many there are.

The same in the us. Criminals use firearms over and over as well in the us.

Your insistence on comparing us to an underdeveloped nation is a losing argument for you!

Actually see above. It’s an awesome argument for me.
You don’t know the efficacy of a blood pressure medicine by only comparing to people with good genetics , who work out, eat right , don’t smoke etc.

You see the effectiveness of blood pressure medicine by seeing how it works on people who are sedentary, obese etc.

The same is true of gun control.
If gun control was highly effective, it would work in countries like Mexico and Mexico would be more peaceful than the us.

But it’s not. And that’s because , even though you don’t want to admit the truth and you would rather lie., things like poverty , racial inequity , education and healthcare have far and away larger effects on violence.

Which is why countries like Canada, Germany, the uk , which have just slightly better access to healthcare, education , social safety nets , than the us, have less violence.

 

[braindrain]

Firearms are just a tool. Overwhelmingly used by people to murder or harm themselves because that's its purpose. So the question we are faced with is whether this so called right is beneficial to our society. Clearly it's not. Which makes sense. The men who created the constitution never expected to be subject to its most "free" parts, and they were also men of their time. I.e. pretty ignorant. They couldn't see arms moving past the current tech of the time. Racists are usually pretty stupid.

No matter how many times you repeat that lie it’s not going to get any more true.

The percentage of guns that ever harm anyone is minuscule


With the ignorant as hell garbage you post you probably shouldn’t be talking about other peoples ignorance.

 

[braindrain]

Most guys who use guns defensively believe every male is stronger, that’s why they feel they need to own a gun. And again: your desire to not own one isn’t the problem. You have the same access as someone who wants to shoot up a school.

Poor Brad Dad. Has no actually argument so just makes up lies. And doesn’t realize obvious his little bit is.

 

[The Brad Dad]

The percentage of guns that ever harm anyone is minuscule

lol

 

[braindrain]

lol

Not real good at math are you.

But no worries. Watching you embrace yourself is good entertainment.

 

[rahl]

lol

Do you consider 0.0004% a large number?