How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[RF667799]

The type of weapons I'm focusing on are assault weapons. Of course some of these would apply to other types of weapons (like red-flag laws). But the focus is on assault weapons. What splitting hairs means is that the ONLY argument you could come up with was... splitting hairs. And that only illustrates the strength of my proposals.

No, lying about the scope of your own OP doesn't strengthen your position.

 

[CLAX1911]

The type of weapons I'm focusing on are assault weapons.

That's not a type of weapon.

Of course some of these would apply to other types of weapons (like red-flag laws). But the focus is on assault weapons.

You have to know what you're talking about in order to focus on it so what are you talking about?

What splitting hairs means is that the ONLY argument you could come up with was... splitting hairs. And that only illustrates the strength of my proposals.

It's not splitting hairs for you to define your terms what you should have done in the first post.

 

[rahl]

Mexico is an UNDERDEVELOPED nation.

No it isn’t.

If you're going to compare us to Mexico, why not compare us to Haiti?

I won’t let you cherry pick. Sorry.

What nonsense!!

Reality sucks for gun banner arguments. It’s why you have to lie (as you’ve been repeatedly caught doing here) and cherry pick.

Anyway.... this thread is about my proposals.

All of which have been refuted.

How to reduce the occurrence of mass shootings using assault weapons.

Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of shootings. And they can’t be banned.

If you have anything to say about that, say it!

I have.

If you want to discuss anything else, open your OWN thread!

No. I enjoy shitting all over your position in this thread.

Not interested in helping you derail this one just because you don't like my arguments...

your “arguments” have all been refuted. You have been caught lying numerous times, and it’s enjoyable watching you.

but you don't know why....

What don’t I know?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Where do you get this idea that we have the right to kill people?

From the fact that I talk about "where" killing people with assault weapons doesn't happen as frequently, and you praise it as a "right".

Just be aware of what you respond to.

Why would anybody debunk a proposal ...

Because if they don't, that means the proposal is solid.

 

[CLAX1911]

From the fact that I talk about "where" killing people with assault weapons doesn't happen as frequently, and you praise it as a "right".

An assault weapon in that context is whatever used to assault somebody it could be a tire iron.

Just be aware of what you respond to.

An ignorant person repeating words that they heard from the TV and don't really know what they mean. That's what I'm responding to.

Because if they don't, that means the proposal is solid.

So it's rejected.

 

[rahl]

I don't have arguments. I only have proposals. And if there is any argument to COUNTER my proposals , we have yet to see them.

I love a good old fashioned self own

If you have anything to say about that, say it! If you want to discuss anything else, open your OWN thread! Not interested in helping you derail this one just because you don't like my arguments... but you don't know why....

 

[Feynman Lives!]

That's not a type of weapon.

"Type", "class", "group".... I don't give a crap what you call it. I'll use any of them. And if your excuse for not finding anything in the OP that you are able to rebut is semantics.... you're on your own, fella...

 

[CLAX1911]

"Type", "class", "group".... I don't give a crap what you call it.

It's not a type it's not a class and it's not a group. It is an arrangement of accessories that really has a very little to do with the weapon itself.

I'll use any of them.

Proving not just ignorance but obstinate to knowledge. The term for that is bigotry.

And if your excuse for not finding anything in the OP that you are able to rebut is semantics.... you're on your own, fella...

Your proposal was rejected for 250 years straight. What's the purpose of rebutting it other than to stroke your ego?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

It's not a type it's not a class and it's not a group. It is an arrangement of accessories that really has a very little to do with the weapon itself.

Let's ban the "accessories"!

Like I said, I couldn't care less what you call them!

Your proposal was rejected for 250 years straight.

Wow! You're older than I thought....

 

[RF667799]

We're back to, "I want to ban something but I can't really explain or define the thing I want to ban."

 

[CLAX1911]

Let's ban the "accessories"!

Why? Do you think of someone shot you in the face with an AR-15 30 times that you'd be less dead if it didn't have a muzzle break on it?

Like I said, I couldn't care less what you call them!

Call what? What is them define it?

Wow! You're older than I thought....

Well it was rejected when they wrote the second amendment and then subsequent court cases so for the ones that ku Klux Klan one congratulations on winning those I'm sure you're proud. They were shortly there after overturned.

And today I think people are more adamant about rejecting it than they were then so what's to debunk what's the purpose?

 

[jaeger19]

Look around you! See who the people that agree with you are? The people who believe that not restricting the sale of assault weapons, not limit the capacity of magazines, not requiring background and proficiency testing before you buy a gun, .... etc (see my proposals), are THE SAME who believe that putting a rapist and convicted felon in the White House was a good idea.

I do. I Look around and I see many people who own guns and disagree with you because of your authoritarian and frankly unworkable and poorly thought out plans. Who ALSO didn’t vote for trump and who oppose his authoritarian policies and lack of due process

If I had a good argument to rebut that the former are GOOD ideas, I wouldn't mind repeating it over and over....

wtf are you talking about?
You’ve been shown that your ideas are not thought out and ignorant.

But all YOU can do is scream "you argument has been rebutted".... without saying WHAT argument or HOW it was rebutted!

Sure we have.
For example . You demonstrated no understanding of how your ban on high caocity magazines would work
Cripes you said they were going to “ rust” lmao.

 

[RF667799]

14. Require manufacturers to alter design of guns sold to public to make them as difficult to be modified as possible.

Vague language. Proposal rejected on that basis.

 

[CLAX1911]

14. Require manufacturers to alter design of guns sold to public to make them as difficult to be modified as possible.

Why not and view them with special leprechaun magic to make them only shoot bad guys I mean that's just as feasible.

Vague language. Proposal rejected on that basis.

No no you're supposed to debunk it for some reason even though it's rejected and nobody cares about it you're supposed to go through and explain why you can't manufacture things that way.

 

[jaeger19]

Mexico is an UNDERDEVELOPED nation. If you're going to compare us to Mexico, why not compare us to Haiti?

Perfect for comparison

What nonsense!!

Not at all. If you want to see the effectiveness of a drug on blood pressure. You don’t compare to groups who have good blood pressure.
You compare the drugs effectiveness on people who have high blood pressure because of smoking , alcohol use, obesity.
And see if the medicine can reduce the blood pressure to “ normals” who you compare too.

Mexico is a great way to test whether gun control works. They have lots of issues that would make them unsafe and violent. ( like the obese smokers with high blood pressure)
And they have implanted strong gun control that has severely reduced the percentage of the population that has guns.

Yet their violence rate is still very high which shows you gun control doesn’t work.

Anyway.... this thread is about my proposals. How to reduce the occurrence of mass shootings using assault weapons. If you have anything to say about that, say it! If you want to discuss anything else, open your OWN thread! Not interested in helping you derail this one just because you don't like my arguments... but you don't know why....

 

[RF667799]

Why not and view them with special leprechaun magic to make them only shoot bad guys I mean that's just as feasible.

No no you're supposed to debunk it for some reason even though it's rejected and nobody cares about it you're supposed to go through and explain why you can't manufacture things that way.

It's up to him to tell me the specifics of how one would go about manufacturing something that way.

I'm hoping he tells that lie about "if it saves any lives" again.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's up to him to tell me the specifics of how one would go about manufacturing something that way.

Well the only way it would be magical spells if someone can engineer it someone can modify it.

This is why you debunking his claim is pointless.

I'm hoping he tells that lie about "if it saves any lives" again.

Well they are predictable aren't they.

 

[P_T]

I guess its like boil in the bag funerals. Maybe England believes they need them.
I don't have a problem with unloaded firearms. But one can only count on one that is loaded in a tactical sense.
An unloaded firearm is sort a like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Tactical Shotguns with 18" Barrels can be very compact.
Mossberg 20 gauge - no choke here. Thinking a couple 3 hundred rounds an a decent 20' range pattern. Sure, keep repair parts handy for it.

 

[Spock]

Severely restricting two classes of firearm would go far to reducing firearm violence:
1. handguns of all types
2. high capacity, high muzzle energy semi-automatic rifles

 

[RF667799]

Severely restricting two classes of firearm would go far to reducing firearm violence:
1. handguns of all types
2. high capacity, high muzzle energy semi-automatic rifles

What logic propels you to include the class used in an insignificant number of homicides within your unsupported assertion?

 

[Spock]

What logic propels you to include the class used in an insignificant number of homicides within your unsupported assertion?

Largest category of homicide is accomplished with handguns.
Assault weapons are the tool of choice for rampage murder.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Why?

Because people DIE! Especially heartbreaking when they're children who die in their classroom. They die easily because some kid can hops on their bike to the neighborhood gun store and come out with assault weapons and ammunition fit for an army. This WILL happen again no matter what we do. But if we start NOW we can make it more difficult.... and probably save some lives.

And, as your (and everybody else's) LACK of arguments shows, there is NO reason why we shouldn't. And there is NO reason why it wouldn't work.

If your believe that people dying is no concern of yours, then ... that's your answer....

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I do. I Look around and I see many people who own guns...

You look around you and you see people who own guns but don't see how some of those "guns" (addressed in the OP) can be used (because they HAVE been used) to kill people... children in their classroom.

and disagree with you because of your authoritarian...

I am VERY authoritarian in respect to saving lives when there is NO reason not to save them. And your lack of response to my proposals indicates that 1- they would work and 2-there is NO rational reason why we shouldn't do it.. I'm as "authoritarian" as whoever came up with speed limits, airline safety requirements, and laws that prohibit things like stealing, shooting people and rape... So calling me "authoritarian" will not work... You can't get around the fact that arguments that reference my proposals are REQUIRED!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Perfect for comparison

Of course you would think that! Because you are unable to compare us with DEVELOPED nations. Nations that can police citizens at our level. You have to compare us with a nation in which large portions of the territory are controlled, not by the government, but by drug lords.

But that's all you CAN do to rebut my arguments, right? So.... stick with that! It makes us BOTH happy that you do...

 

[CLAX1911]

Because people DIE!

So focus on the reason why they die and not the means. We're mostly talking about suicides that's a mental health issue.

Especially heartbreaking when they're children who die in their classroom.

So why does the school just let people waltz in there and blow them away?

They die easily because some kid can hops on their bike to the neighborhood gun store and come out with assault weapons and ammunition fit for an army.

No they can't.

This WILL happen again no matter what we do.

No you will make sure it happens again and again because you want these children to die so that the only solution can be gun control and you'll make sure no other measure works.

But if we start NOW we can make it more difficult.... and probably save some lives.

So fortify schools

And, as your (and everybody else's) LACK of arguments shows, there is NO reason why we shouldn't. And there is NO reason why it wouldn't work.

There's no reason we shouldn't become an authoritarian dictatorship? I disagree way more people are going to die governments kill hundreds of millions of people you're worried about a couple hundred

If your believe that people dying is no concern of yours, then ... that's your answer....

I can't do anything about it people like you stop me. What I would do to stop school shootings and this would stop them regardless of where they happen have people in the school armed.

You make sure that can't happen you want as many kids to die so that the only solution can be gun control it's not the only solution it's actually the world's dumbest solution. I posit it won't do anything at all. There are already 5 to 600 million guns here.