The Gun Violence Argument Handled Very well

[Black Dog]

I see no LIE in that post. What exactly do you think is the LIE?

Why can't you simply state it and then explain why it is a LIE?

So the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is you can't read.

 

[Black Dog]

I'll feel free to point out that a video that opens with silly propaganda is discredited right out of the shoot.

Now it's just silly? It is a fact and 100% true. You have yet to prove a simple statement is "BS" "Propaganda" and now silly. So I know you can't prove the first two. It will be interesting to see you try to wiggle out of this one.

For the last time: you can not credible refute the video. All you've argued is "nuh -uhhh..." So if you cannot produce real credible material, then we're done here. Your merry-go-round is getting boring.

The only thing boring here is the lies and dishonesty you wish to perpetuate.

We already now this was a lie...

Ya'know, lying implies willful intent to deceive, and that is just not present in anything I post. So, that makes what you're saying incompetent.

As your boy Haymarket can tell you.

Now here is the video that destroys and debunks the piece of propaganda you call "The Gun Violence Argument Handled Very well" but turns out is nothing but manipulated numbers and lies...



You still loose.

 

[jet57]

Now it's just silly? It is a fact and 100% true. You have yet to prove a simple statement is "BS" "Propaganda" and now silly. So I know you can't prove the first two. It will be interesting to see you try to wiggle out of this one.



The only thing boring here is the lies and dishonesty you wish to perpetuate.

We already now this was a lie...



As your boy Haymarket can tell you.

Now here is the video that destroys and debunks the piece of propaganda you call "The Gun Violence Argument Handled Very well" but turns out is nothing but manipulated numbers and lies...



You still loose.

So you have nothing then.

:2wave:

 

[Black Dog]

So you have nothing then.

:2wave:

:lamo

Oh you kill me. So you are running away again. This is the 4th time in as many weeks. You are really not very good at this.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

More avoidance of fact.

well, here's a fact for ya, as guns "proliferated" the overall rates of gun crimes has plummeted.

 

[Crimefree]

You can't credibly refute the information in the video and you know it. So you :failpail:

If you cannot find fault with my reasoning which by the way refutes your claims showing they are junk science based on stated manipulated statistics. Not the first time I have shown you that they are either so patently you are WRONG.

Apparently its that word reasoning that has you stumped.

Now be so kind as to supply the reasoning you think I failed. You do see that your statement is an unevidenced unreasoned piece of crap that up to now has no basis of fact.

I do wish you would learn how to respond correctly and not be reminded every time you do and then never supply the reasoning as requested.

You going to

FAIL AGAIN

:failpail::failpail:​

 

[Crimefree]

:lamo

You showed a video that opens up with "there is no universal agreement on the definition of a mass shooting"! That is the weakest, most asinine uneducated piece of BS that I've heard in a long time. And YOU say that refutes the Vox video!?

Argument by false extension, :failpail: You have offered no evidence credible or not your statement is true. Of course you could provide a citation but I know you are impotent to do that. You are going to have to show the opening sentence was claimed as evidence on its own that refutes your claims.

Are you beginning to see what is wrong with your posts and failure to respond correctly.

How stupid do you think people are?

I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe you should tell us.

 

[OpportunityCost]

:lamo

You showed a video that opens up with "there is no universal agreement on the definition of a mass shooting"! That is the weakest, most asinine uneducated piece of BS that I've heard in a long time. And YOU say that refutes the Vox video!?

:lamo

How stupid do you think people are?

If you post a video about mass shooting without knowing the FBI (who is in charge of crime statistics in the US) does not have a definition for a mass shooting due to the crossover in gang and drug trafficking violence, you may want to walk back this statement. Its factual based upon the FBI lack of definition for mass shootings. Maybe that's why you have a problem with it.

Did you have another problem with the video rebuttal you wanted to address?

 

[jet57]

If you post a video about mass shooting without knowing the FBI (who is in charge of crime statistics in the US) does not have a definition for a mass shooting due to the crossover in gang and drug trafficking violence, you may want to walk back this statement. Its factual based upon the FBI lack of definition for mass shootings. Maybe that's why you have a problem with it.

Did you have another problem with the video rebuttal you wanted to address?

YOU have no rebuttal: "there is no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is" is not a credible rebuttal. It's a cop out and diversion from the fact that you guys can't deal with the reality of gun violence in this country so you dance around it.

 

[Black Dog]

YOU have no rebuttal: "there is no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is" is not a credible rebuttal. It's a cop out and diversion from the fact that you guys can't deal with the reality of gun violence in this country so you dance around it.

#1 It is a fact.
#2 It's just the beginning of the video.
#3 We understand why you don't want to watch it.

It's OK to have no argument and being unwilling to watch the Vox rebuttal because you know it's correct. That is of course unless you want to call a video directly countering your video point for point a "straw man" or say the beginning line which is 100% accurate "propaganda" of "BS."

I understand why you lost... Again.

 

[OpportunityCost]

YOU have no rebuttal: "there is no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is" is not a credible rebuttal. It's a cop out and diversion from the fact that you guys can't deal with the reality of gun violence in this country so you dance around it.

Its a verifiable fact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/what-makes-a-mass-shooting-in-america/\
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office...ctive-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013
Mass shootings in the U.S. this year? 353 ? or 4, depending on your definition | Dallas Morning News
https://newrepublic.com/article/123027/heres-why-no-one-can-agree-number-mass-shootings

If government really was interested in stopping these they would have acted much sooner. Its easier to use speech platitudes and go after guns because, hey, gun ownership isn't really their (democrats) voting constituency.

 

[TurtleDude]

YOU have no rebuttal: "there is no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is" is not a credible rebuttal. It's a cop out and diversion from the fact that you guys can't deal with the reality of gun violence in this country so you dance around it.

when someone claims that the ONLY PURPOSE for a 10 round or higher capacity magazine is to WAGE WARFARE, how can anyone take ANYTHING that poster says on gun issues seriously? that's akin to saying the world is flat. \

and gun violence is going down even though guns are being bought up at unprecedented numbers

deal with that reality and get back to me


what you fail to understand is that when the active shooter is stopped before he kills a certain number of people, gun banners won't count the episode as a Mass shooting

 

[jet57]

Its a verifiable fact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/what-makes-a-mass-shooting-in-america/\
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office...ctive-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013
Mass shootings in the U.S. this year? 353 ? or 4, depending on your definition | Dallas Morning News
https://newrepublic.com/article/123027/heres-why-no-one-can-agree-number-mass-shootings

If government really was interested in stopping these they would have acted much sooner. Its easier to use speech platitudes and go after guns because, hey, gun ownership isn't really their (democrats) voting constituency.

It's not verifiable fact. Here's what material say on the subject:

Washington Post - broken link.


From your article on the FBI:

This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings, but rather a study of a specific type of shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face.

And my son teaches on “active shooter”, so he too knows what a mass shooting is.


Dallas Morning News

So how many “mass shootings” have there been in the U.S. this year? That depends on the definition. One widely seen version says there had been 353 as of Saturday, the 339th day of the year. By another respected definition, there had been four.

They’re yacking about the number of people killed in a single incident. Again, that’s weak and only shows how stupid the right-wing is.


New Republic

The confusion stems from varying governmental categorizations. There are mass murders and mass killings, active shooters and serial killers, mass shootings and mass public shootings. For instance, Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowd-sourced website that many news outlets use, defines a mass shooting as one with “four or more people shot in one event.” In other words, they include incidents in which four people are wounded, but no one is killed. Accordingly, the database considers the Umpqua shooting the 295th mass shooting of the year.

Semantics. Nothing more. Your nonsense is how many make a mass shooting, and that is just as silly and stupid a defense as there's no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is. Man I've heard of BS but your argument is at the top of the heap.

You guys can't get past the reality so you have to deny and avoid by splitting hairs. That's real weak dude. The Vox video gets it exactly right.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It's not verifiable fact. Here's what material say on the subject:

Washington Post - broken link.


From your article on the FBI:


And my son teaches on “active shooter”, so he too knows what a mass shooting is.


Dallas Morning News


They’re yacking about the number of people killed in a single incident. Again, that’s weak and only shows how stupid the right-wing is.


New Republic



Semantics. Nothing more. Your nonsense is how many make a mass shooting, and that is just as silly and stupid a defense as there's no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is. Man I've heard of BS but your argument is at the top of the heap.

You guys can't get past the reality so you have to deny and avoid by splitting hairs. That's real weak dude. The Vox video gets it exactly right.

US law enforcement has no definition for a mass shooting. Let me know if you have something that argues they do. You haven't produced it, I actually looked for it and found the opposite---they have no definition for it due to gang and drug trafficking shootings.

 

[Crimefree]

YOU have no rebuttal: "there is no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is" is not a credible rebuttal. It's a cop out and diversion from the fact that you guys can't deal with the reality of gun violence in this country so you dance around it.

Where do gun control advocates get the idea that any opinion they have is valid rebuttal when requested to show the VALIDITY of their claims. Do they believe they are a source of credible information?

STRAWMAN argument and absolutely irrelevant. You have a rebuttal of your claims to address. Your first objection has been dealt with and shown to be false. You have the rest of the clip to deal with now or accept your claims are FALSE.

As for dealing with violence you are totally mistaken. It is gun control that diverts billion of public money into chasing guns which have no causal relationship with crime. Nothing can benefit crime more than taking the focus off criminals and placing it on people who have committed no crime

Gun control does exactly that. Gun control supporters are working to advance crime and criminal safety. There is no doubt of that.

 

[Crimefree]

It's not verifiable fact. Here's what material say on the subject:

Washington Post - broken link.

One link does not refute the claim when several were given. Nor does it prevent you from finding the article. I like helping people who desperately need it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/what-makes-a-mass-shooting-in-america/
what-makes-a-mass-shooting-in-america

From your article on the FBI:

How does that refute the claim a universal definition does not exist?

And my son teaches on “active shooter”, so he too knows what a mass shooting is.

Not a credible source.

Dallas Morning News

They’re yacking about the number of people killed in a single incident. Again, that’s weak and only shows how stupid the right-wing is.

New Republic

Shows there is no universal definition. See that hole in your foot? You put it there.

Semantics. Nothing more. Your nonsense is how many make a mass shooting, and that is just as silly and stupid a defense as there's no universal agreement on what a mass shooting is. Man I've heard of BS but your argument is at the top of the heap.

An admission your claim is nonsense. I never thought I would see it. Thank you for being so honest. That number is quite important when an organisation uses it to propagandise it's statements and increase fear and hatred.

You guys can't get past the reality so you have to deny and avoid by splitting hairs. That's real weak dude. The Vox video gets it exactly right.

The only hairs being split here are you avoiding the fact the reason for existence of these mass murder Mecca's is gun control who have thoughtful provided their friends and accomplices safe shooting galleries to murder our children in.