Moms Demand Action Has No Business Existing

[CLAX1911]

Your post was incomprehensible.

So you're dodging it's okay I know that's a concession thank you

You should explain what you think firearm regulations exist in Switzerland.

What's not relevant to the point I was arguing you said the presence of firearms causes death and injury you need to show why there is no death injury to the same extent in Switzerland for your student to have any validity.

You're running away from your dumb statement to try and create a red herring with this regulation nonsense.

Explain what is so magical about Switzerland that the presence of guns doesn't cause death and injury. If your argument is that there are regulations then you need to apologize for saying the presence of firearms causes death and injury because you're wrong again Switzerland proved you wrong.

 

[RF667799]

Your post was incomprehensible.

You should explain what you think firearm regulations exist in Switzerland.

Really? Haven't you used nearly every fallacy and dishonest argumentative technique in the book, multiple times by now?

 

[CLAX1911]

Really? Haven't you used nearly every fallacy and dishonest argumentative technique in the book, multiple times by now?

At least dodging his statement now. He said the presence of firearms in US cause injury and death not the lack of regulation.

Switzerland disproves him there's no argument here I've won. It's just because I know something he didn't consider.

 

[Deuce]

The organization Moms Demand Action which is an anti 2A anti gun rights organization should not exist. A mom is a female parent so with a name such as Moms Demand Action it implies that it is an organization run by women and as I said before, women have no business being against gun rights and being anti 2A and those that are should have no voice in that particular matter. So Moms Demand Action has no business even being in existence.

This is how conservatives think freedom works.

 

[CLAX1911]

This is how conservatives think freedom works.

Well I don't think the organization shouldn't exist. They shouldn't be taken seriously cuz they're anti-liberty and anti-constitution normally that signifies that organizations are listed as separatists or hate groups but that's only if they're right wing I suppose.

Anybody who talks about gun control and wants to bear in guns is saying that this can be used against you but you can't use it to defend yourself.

Almost always it's authoritarianism.

Any organization effectively trying to generate authoritarianism to be treated the same way the family research council is treated. But there seems to be a political bias.

 

[Spock]

So you're dodging it's okay I know that's a concession thank you

What's not relevant to the point I was arguing you said the presence of firearms causes death and injury you need to show why there is no death injury to the same extent in Switzerland for your student to have any validity.

You're running away from your dumb statement to try and create a red herring with this regulation nonsense.

Explain what is so magical about Switzerland that the presence of guns doesn't cause death and injury. If your argument is that there are regulations then you need to apologize for saying the presence of firearms causes death and injury because you're wrong again Switzerland proved you wrong.

You brought up Switzerland. You apparently do not understand the firearm regulations.
Poor form to offer a defense you do not understand and does not apply.

 

[Spock]

Really? Haven't you used nearly every fallacy and dishonest argumentative technique in the book, multiple times by now?

You can explain them to @CLAX1911 as he does not understand what he has posted about.

 

[RF667799]

You can explain them to @CLAX1911 as he does not understand what he has posted about.

You and he were discussing your usual "prevalence". You got into a bind and tried to switch the discussion to "regulations" as if that had been what you were talking about all the time.

Not very slick and not very intellectually honest.

 

[CLAX1911]

You can explain them to @CLAX1911 as he does not understand what he has posted about.

So now you're reduced to gaslighting it's amazing how desperate you need to be.

 

[CLAX1911]

You brought up Switzerland.

Because it completely destroys your idea that the presence of guns causes injury and death if it did there would be people dying and being injured in Switzerland.

You were wrong when you said the presence of firearms causes this I proved it.

You're trying to distract from the ridiculous thing you said by pretending you were talking about something else.

You apparently do not understand the firearm regulations.

It's not relevant you said the presents of them causes death and injury.

If they are present in Switzerland regardless of how well regulated they are you're wrong.

You didn't bring up regulation until after your argument was broken.

Poor form to offer a defense you do not understand and does not apply.

The difference you're trying to reference is irrelevant.

Are they present in Switzerland yes or no yes so the presence of them doesn't cause death and injury.

You weren't talking about regulating them until your argument failed.

It's okay you're wondering do it again and I'll remind you about Switzerland and you can narcissistically carry on about something you might even talking about as if that has anything to do with it.

This is cat mouse and you're an injured mouse.

 

[CLAX1911]

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

Remember when you said this you weren't talking about regulation you were talking about the presence of firearms and I pointed out how wrong that statement was because of Switzerland.

Then you immediately move the goal post to say oh oh but the regulated we could not matter they're still present.

So you were wrong and I effectively proved you well Switzerland proved you wrong but I just let you know something you should have already know.

You weren't talking about regulating firearms you were talking about banning them you're doing so very very dishonestly and it's very easy for me to point it out and show everyone watching so you are the best thing for the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms that I could have ever asked for thank you for your service

 

[Spock]

You and he were discussing your usual "prevalence". You got into a bind and tried to switch the discussion to "regulations" as if that had been what you were talking about all the time.

Not very slick and not very intellectually honest.

Nope. The issue was the favorable conditions in Switzerland.. that have not be explained.

 

[Spock]

So now you're reduced to gaslighting it's amazing how desperate you need to be.

Nope. Wrong again.

Remember when you said this you weren't talking about regulation you were talking about the presence of firearms and I pointed out how wrong that statement was because of Switzerland.

Then you immediately move the goal post to say oh oh but the regulated we could not matter they're still present.

So you were wrong and I effectively proved you well Switzerland proved you wrong but I just let you know something you should have already know.

You weren't talking about regulating firearms you were talking about banning them you're doing so very very dishonestly and it's very easy for me to point it out and show everyone watching so you are the best thing for the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms that I could have ever asked for thank you for your service

You have still to explain the firearm situation in Switzerland.... waiting.

Because it completely destroys your idea that the presence of guns causes injury and death if it did there would be people dying and being injured in Switzerland.

How? You have not demonstrated anything about Switzerland because you apparently do not understand the comparison you tried to make.

You were wrong when you said the presence of firearms causes this I proved it.

No proof whatsoever. Your opinion cannot be trusted.

You're trying to distract from the ridiculous thing you said by pretending you were talking about something else.

It's not relevant you said the presents of them causes death and injury.

If they are present in Switzerland regardless of how well regulated they are you're wrong.

You didn't bring up regulation until after your argument was broken.

Regulations in Switzerland? You compare two situations without recognizing that the national regulations are entirely different. Prevalence will be affected by regulation.

The difference you're trying to reference is irrelevant.

Are they present in Switzerland yes or no yes so the presence of them doesn't cause death and injury.

You weren't talking about regulating them until your argument failed.

It's okay you're wondering do it again and I'll remind you about Switzerland and you can narcissistically carry on about something you might even talking about as if that has anything to do with it.

You are determined to run from the comparison you initiated because you realize that Switzerland is really not comparable to the USA.

This is cat mouse and you're an injured mouse.

Back in Peewee's Playhouse?

 

[RF667799]

Nope. The issue was the favorable conditions in Switzerland.. that have not be explained.

What favorable conditions? Do you mean to just change the terms of the argument over and over for purposes of obfuscation? I believe you do.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope. The issue was the favorable conditions in Switzerland.. that have not be explained.

No it was this

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

You were talking about the presence of firearms even if they're regulated in Switzerland they are still present.

I didn't prove you wrong Switzerland proved you wrong you were wrong from the start.

The way to respond to this in a rational manner instead of just dodging the comment you made is that you know what I guess you're right the presence of firearms does not cause surgery because they're present in Switzerland and then you go on to make the case that they should be more regulated that would make you seem rational are you trying not to do you want to appear as irrational as possible do you think I forgot that you made this post do you think that if you demand that you are talking about regulation instead of presence enough that I'll just change and not remember

 

[RF667799]

Nope. Wrong again.

You have still to explain the firearm situation in Switzerland.... waiting.

How? You have not demonstrated anything about Switzerland because you apparently do not understand the comparison you tried to make.

No proof whatsoever. Your opinion cannot be trusted.

Regulations in Switzerland? You compare two situations without recognizing that the national regulations are entirely different. Prevalence will be affected by regulation.

You are determined to run from the comparison you initiated because you realize that Switzerland is really not comparable to the USA.

Back in Peewee's Playhouse?

Firearm prevalence varies even within the confines of a state, where regulations apply statewide.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope. Wrong again.

Yes you were wrong again when you said this.

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

You have still to explain the firearm situation in Switzerland.... waiting.

They are present.

How? You have not demonstrated anything about Switzerland because you apparently do not understand the comparison you tried to make.

Again in Switzerland they are present why are they not causing injury you said the presence of them causes injury.

No proof whatsoever. Your opinion cannot be trusted.

You can't accept when you've been proven wrong.

Regulations in Switzerland?

Regulations are not relevant to presence

You compare two situations without recognizing that the national regulations are entirely different.

Again you didn't mention regulations when you said this

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

You were talking about presence. I said needle what you should do here is admit that you were wrong and say okay presents doesn't cause injury or death obviously because you've been proven wrong.

Prevalence will be affected by regulation.

So make that argument and admit you were wrong when you said this

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

You didn't say prevalence you said presence.

You are determined to run from the comparison you initiated because you realize that Switzerland is really not comparable to the USA.

No I'm not running from it at all I hammering you with it because it proves you wrong.

If you want to talk about regulating firearms we can talk about that but you've got to admit that the presence of them doesn't cause injury.

You have to do that to have any ability to be rational because Switzerland 100% proves you wrong

Back in Peewee's Playhouse?

Insulting me doesn't make you right. There's just no way in fact it kind of makes me even more right.

You said this.

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

Why did it cause death in America but not in Switzerland is Switzerland to magical place or is America are the people magic or just the guns?

 

[CLAX1911]

Firearm prevalence varies even within the confines of a state, where regulations apply statewide.

I was debating this point.

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

It was proven wrong by the presence of firearms in Switzerland.

At one point so there's something else happening besides the presents can't focus on that something else without first acknowledging that he was wrong.

When you catch them with this type of stuff you have to hammer them where they can't even distract their words keep flying up in their face and getting in the way of every single destruction.

He wasn't talking about regulation he was talking about the presence of firearms up until the point where he was proven wrong.

 

[Spock]

No it was this


You were talking about the presence of firearms even if they're regulated in Switzerland they are still present.

I didn't prove you wrong Switzerland proved you wrong you were wrong from the start.

The way to respond to this in a rational manner instead of just dodging the comment you made is that you know what I guess you're right the presence of firearms does not cause surgery because they're present in Switzerland and then you go on to make the case that they should be more regulated that would make you seem rational are you trying not to do you want to appear as irrational as possible do you think I forgot that you made this post do you think that if you demand that you are talking about regulation instead of presence enough that I'll just change and not remember

You have not demonstrated that Switzerland has the same conditions as the USA as regards availability, regulations, storage or enforcement or all the other factors that make the prevalence in the USA so injurious.

 

[Spock]

I was debating this point.



It was proven wrong by the presence of firearms in Switzerland.

At one point so there's something else happening besides the presents can't focus on that something else without first acknowledging that he was wrong.

When you catch them with this type of stuff you have to hammer them where they can't even distract their words keep flying up in their face and getting in the way of every single destruction.

He wasn't talking about regulation he was talking about the presence of firearms up until the point where he was proven wrong.

You have not proven anything except your failure to understand data, statistics and the concept of substantiating your opinionated claims.

 

[CLAX1911]

You have not demonstrated that Switzerland has the same conditions as the USA as regards availability, regulations, storage or enforcement or all the other factors that make the prevalence in the USA so injurious.

We haven't gotten to that point yet.
You said this.

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

You either have to admit you were wrong when you said it was the presents that caused this or you have to show that guns in Switzerland are magic.

You weren't talking about regulation you were talking about presence open till Switzerland was brought up and you were proven absolutely wrong.

Manipulation the sooner you accept that you were wrong or discover the leprechauns or whatever that makes guns in America so bad this conversation will not move forward.

I don't think you're clever enough to pick through regulations and decide which ones have the biggest effect you can't even admit when you're wrong.

It's all about ego. You don't care about laws you don't care about saving lives you care about being right despite the fact that you were proven wrong.

 

[Spock]

Firearm prevalence varies even within the confines of a state, where regulations apply statewide.

What do you know about prevalence?

 

[CLAX1911]

You have not proven anything

Take care everyone absolutely 100% correct I didn't prove anything Switzerland proved it. I just reminded you.

except your failure to understand data, statistics and the concept of substantiating your opinionated claims.

There was no data or statistics there was a claim that presence of an object magically killed an injured people only in America but not in Switzerland.

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

 

[CLAX1911]

What do you know about prevalence?

In Switzerland they are present so it's the same prevalence.

You said that their presence causes death and injury but only in America magically for some reason.

The presence of firearms in America has produced firearm death and injury that is excessive and disproportionate to similar countries.

 

[RF667799]

What do you know about prevalence?

I know it isn't geographically uniform.