Do guns make us more safe?

[TomTeacher19]

Look at the recidivism rate for hard core criminals, those that commit major crimes.

You think that somehow proves your idiotic beliefs that criminals always commit crimes? If anything, unless that number is 100% it completely destroys your extremely false and fucked up position.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I care about victims of any violence. In the US, guns are a big contributor.

So are hands, knives, bats, vehicles, alcohol, drugs, etc, etc.

There is an almost unlimited amount of things that 'contribute' to violence, and yet somehow guns are the only things that get blamed for the violence.

Someone gets attacked with a knife, no one blames the knife. Someone get beat with fists, no one blames the fists. Someone gets attacked with a bat, no one blames the bat. Someone gets drunk and violent, no one blames the alcohol. Someone runs people over with a vehicle, no one blames the vehicle.

It's only when a gun or guns are involved do people suddenly pretend now it's the fault of the tool/weapon.

You think that somehow proves your idiotic beliefs that criminals always commit crimes?

You must be joking. By it's very definition, a person can only be a criminal if they committed a crime. Otherwise, they aren't a criminal.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Because when it comes to murder it usually a a gun. To the point you can basically discount all the rest of those weapons out of hand and move on to realistic things. There are very, very few mass stabbings and even when they do occur there are fewer victims and fewer deaths.

 

[TrailerHitch]

So we're back to "laws don't work". WTF do you like the endless circle route, or are you starting to sealion now?

Yes, I have specifically the AR-15, wow one weapon out of how many?

Well since you can't wait, why bother answering.

Well I'll admit any weapon designed or based upon a military design has a large capacity magazine, but that is not a reason to allow the general public to have access to them. I'm sure Jacklyn Cazares would have wanted a ban on them.

https://www.rekfunerals.com/obituaries/jacklyn-cazares

Read her obit you fucking heartless asshole!!!

Yes I've already said you buried you head in the sand on that point. Doesn't help anyone who is shot, or shot at in a mass shooting though. But we all know you don't give a shit about the victims, cause you're a selfish little prick.

Did you forget my answer to this from a few days back? I'd not be surprised if you did, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be one of your better attributes.

Laws work for law abiding citizens not those determined to be criminals.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it is a semi-automatic look alike of the military M-16/

You won't define military grade because you can't. It's a Bull Shit definition just like Assault Rifle.

My .22lr rifle can have 10 round, 25 round, 50 round, or 100 round magazines. It is hardly a "military" weapon by any stretch of the word.

I don't know Miss Cazares story. Although I'm sure, since you mentioned her, that she died in a shooting, my guess would be a drive-by. Tragic and sad. I will in no way defend the shooter(s). They should receive the death penalty and yes, I could inject them, or pull the switch.

I just find bump stocks silly, I won't defend them, and you're right, I don't care enough to agitate for a change in the law about them.

I remember your answer. It was for your politicians to pass an essentially meaningless law that had nothing to do with the criminal activity they were trying to stop. Even worse it's only effect was to attempt to disarm those that acquired their guns legally.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Which still accomplished the goal rather well.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Because when it comes to murder it usually a a gun. To the point you can basically discount all the rest of those weapons out of hand and move on to realistic things. There are very, very few mass stabbings and even when they do occur there are fewer victims and fewer deaths.

None of which makes murder the fault of guns. Can guns make killing people easier? Absolutely. So does having a knife. Just because a particular tool or weapon makes certain actions and behavior easier doesn't mean we therefore assign blame to the tool/weapon rather than the individual.

Like I said, guns the only thing I've seen where people try to blame the existence and use of said thing when used for bad purposes, when that logic applies absolutely no where else.

 

[TrailerHitch]

It's your assertation than evil is always insane. The burden of proof is on you with your deep knowledge of matters of clinical sane behavior and evidence and definition of evil. You will have to do more than deflecting and swearing and whining and having a hissy fit. But go for it smart guy, were all waiting.

So I have to prove that your idiotic assertion that pure evil is sane is wrong while you can't prove it's right.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Just admit you don't care about inner city gun violence and I'll drop it.

I acknowledge your pathetic attempt to shift the discussion away from school shootings once again.

I acknowledge your inability to accept the proven fact that the vast majority of school shooters are people such as yourself (i.e. White Men With A Grudge And A Gun).

Your "inner city gun violence" mantra is cherry pickin' at its finest. The homicide RATE in lax gun law red states is something like 40% higher than in stricter gun law blue states.

But hai, you can "stand your ground" all you like.

 

[TrailerHitch]

I acknowledge your pathetic attempt to shift the discussion away from school shootings once again.

I acknowledge your inability to accept the proven fact that the vast majority of school shooters are people such as yourself (i.e. White Men With A Grudge And A Gun).

Your "inner city gun violence" mantra is cherry pickin' at its finest. The homicide RATE in lax gun law red states is something like 40% higher than in stricter gun law blue states.

But hai, you can "stand your ground" all you like.

Nice job trying to paint me into your cutesy little box. I have no grudge and no desire to shoot up anyone or anything. More hysterics from the left.

 

[Sean Renaud]

None of which makes murder the fault of guns. Can guns make killing people easier? Absolutely. So does having a knife. Just because a particular tool or weapon makes certain actions and behavior easier doesn't mean we therefore assign blame to the tool/weapon rather than the individual.

Like I said, guns the only thing I've seen where people try to blame the existence and use of said thing when used for bad purposes, when that logic applies absolutely no where else.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention for literally the last several decades and nukes.

That said no single other tool causes remotely similar damage in that way.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nice job trying to paint me into your cutesy little box. I have no grudge and no desire to shoot up anyone or anything. More hysterics from the left.

You flat out said you would shoot me for passing you on the street.

 

[TomTeacher19]

You must be joking. By it's very definition, a person can only be a criminal if they committed a crime. Otherwise, they aren't a criminal.

I don't blame you for obviously not reading Hitch's garbage, but it's his position that if you are a criminal you always commit crimes every opportunity you have for the rest of your life.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Clearly you haven't been paying attention for literally the last several decades and nukes.

That said no single other tool causes remotely similar damage in that way.

The level of destruction or damage that any weapon or tool can cause is not the fault of said tool. The fact someone could go into a crowd and slice and dice a ton of people with a sword doesn't make it somehow the fault of the sword.

 

[TomTeacher19]

So I have to prove that your idiotic assertion that pure evil is sane is wrong while you can't prove it's right.

Yes, this is how adult discussions/debates work. When you bring up an assertion that is against reality and truth and how things are, then you have to prove it - you don't just get to try to twist into something else false and make other people prove that.

Let's review how we got here. That may help.

I said how I want to get rid of guns because I don't want to see more kids dying in school shootings.
You, not having any problem in general with kids being shot, said the problem was mental health, not the guns.
Then it was pointed out not all school shooters have been found to be insane.
So you're retort was that all school shooters have to be insane.
Thus, it is on you to back that statement up.
Right or wrong, your statement is the one that is at odds with the current situation and evidence and examples. So no, I don't have to prove that. It's already there.

Let me give you a more Lit example that may help.
If I said Scarlet Johansen is sucking my dick right now it would seem like a pretty outlandish statement. She's not married to me and we've never met and it feels unlikely that someone in that position would feel the need to document it to strangers on line at the time. Thus, it would be on me to prove that.
If instead I said "well you can't prove that she's not sucking my cock" then I would sound like an idiot and I would rightly be laughed at.

You are the idiot and rightly being laughed at about this - less you come up with something to back your statement up.

 

[TomTeacher19]

The level of destruction or damage that any weapon or tool can cause is not the fault of said tool. The fact someone could go into a crowd and slice and dice a ton of people with a sword doesn't make it somehow the fault of the sword.

It is when it doesn't have any other purpose but to hurt and kill others.

Sure you can kill with a knife, but it has many other positive purposes so we don't ban it. Same with a car. Same with a pool. Same with lots of things.

But not with the gun. That's all it does.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It is when it doesn't have any other purpose but to hurt and kill others.

Sure you can kill with a knife, but it has many other positive purposes so we don't ban it. Same with a car. Same with a pool. Same with lots of things.

But not with the gun. That's all it does.

False. Hunting, sports and recreational shooting are three other uses right off the top of my head. If guns existed solely to kill people, then (for example) in the United States everyone would be dead within a day, since there is likely as many or more guns than there are people.

But that still doesn't refute my point that the use of a gun to injure or kill others is not the fault of the gun.

 

[TomTeacher19]

False. Hunting, sports and recreational shooting are three other uses right off the top of my head. If guns existed solely to kill people, then (for example) in the United States everyone would be dead within a day, since there is likely as many or more guns than there are people.

But that still doesn't refute my point that the use of a gun to injure or kill others is not the fault of the gun.

Yeah and they make really nice paperweights and if you have long hair you can run it through the trigger and use it as a scrunchie. Seriously you just tried to argue guns aren't for hurting and killing others and then your first other use was Hunting? No, guns are just for hurting and killing and the reason everyone isn't dead is because criminals don't always commit crimes, but other than some bizarre desire to not hurt the gun's feelings there is no reason to deny that those are the only purposes for guns and that does very much change how they should be treated and delt with.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Seriously you just tried to argue guns aren't for hurting and killing others and then your first other use was Hunting?

If you don't see the difference between hunting and killing people, you got issues.

No, guns are just for hurting and killing and the reason everyone isn't dead is because criminals don't always commit crimes, but other than some bizarre desire to not hurt the gun's feelings there is no reason to deny that those are the only purposes for guns and that does very much change how they should be treated and delt with.

You don't get to dictate to everyone else what use guns are for. Countless people use guns for sports and recreational shooting (including myself), and will never hurt or kill others with them.

If you don't like guns, then don't have them. Pretty simple.

 

[TomTeacher19]

If you don't see the difference between hunting and killing people, you got issues.

You don't get to dictate to everyone else what use guns are for. Countless people use guns for sports and recreational shooting (including myself), and will never hurt or kill others with them.

If you don't like guns, then don't have them. Pretty simple.

You were the one trying to argue than hunting was different than killing.

Sports and recreational shooting don't need private ownership. It doesn't change that gun still only has the same purpose, but if you did that at least you could pretend you actually did care about not hurting or killing others.

I don't like that guns kill people. Get rid of the guns , no more gun deaths. That is pretty simple.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The level of destruction or damage that any weapon or tool can cause is not the fault of said tool. The fact someone could go into a crowd and slice and dice a ton of people with a sword doesn't make it somehow the fault of the sword.

What does that have to do with literally anything though?

 

[TastySuckToy]

You were the one trying to argue than hunting was different than killing.

Maybe I need to spell it out really carefully with you: there is a big difference between hurting and killing people with guns, and hunting game animals.

Sports and recreational shooting don't need private ownership. It doesn't change that gun still only has the same purpose, but if you did that at least you could pretend you actually did care about not hurting or killing others.

I don't like that guns kill people. Get rid of the guns , no more gun deaths. That is pretty simple.

And how do you propose to get rid of guns? Because I don't see unarmed people having the capacity to disarm people who are armed.

 

[TomTeacher19]

Maybe I need to spell it out really carefully with you: there is a big difference between hurting and killing people with guns, and hunting game animals.

And how do you propose to get rid of guns? Because I don't see unarmed people having the capacity to disarm people who are armed.

There really isn't.

Ah, the short sightedness of the gun lover. Pretending that gun owners are all safe and reasonable people while making threats against anyone who suggests disarming them.

Here are a few thoughts. No one said guns would not be part of jobs that need them, like police or military. The world is also full of leverage pressure points that don't have anything to do with gun threats. You might think nothing is more important to you than your guns, but that's probably not really true. If private gun ownership was against the law, then there are all kinds of consequences to that. Garnish your wages, lose your job, lose your children, lose your driver's license, banned from stores, banned from schools, banned from sporting events, etc.. I'm not saying any of these for sure, but they all could be possible. And of course you could just hide your guns and pretend you don't have them, but that would kind of hurt all the patting yourself on the back for being law abiding citizens. Actually the irony of your threat is pretty ridiculous. Guns aren't dangerous to others but if you try to come take them we'll shoot you with them to prove how we should keep them because they aren't dangerous to others.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Maybe I need to spell it out really carefully with you: there is a big difference between hurting and killing people with guns, and hunting game animals.

And how do you propose to get rid of guns? Because I don't see unarmed people having the capacity to disarm people who are armed.

Gun enthusiasts always assume the opposition needs to come and physically take their guns away. We don’t need to do that. We just need to make gun ownership really expensive and dangerous.

 

[phrodeau]

And how do you propose to get rid of guns? Because I don't see unarmed people having the capacity to disarm people who are armed.

Really? Are you the kind of sociopath who would shoot an unarmed person?

 

[TastySuckToy]

There really isn't.

Ah, the short sightedness of the gun lover. Pretending that gun owners are all safe and reasonable people while making threats against anyone who suggests disarming them.

You think it's unreasonable for people to fight to keep their property?

And you're clearly missing the point. The only people who can forcibly take guns from people are those who also have guns, and more of them.

Here are a few thoughts. No one said guns would not be part of jobs that need them, like police or military.

You said no more guns, now you're back tracking. So what you really mean is only guns for certain people. Now we're getting closer to the real anti-gun position.

The world is also full of leverage pressure points that don't have anything to do with gun threats. You might think nothing is more important to you than your guns, but that's probably not really true. If private gun ownership was against the law, then there are all kinds of consequences to that. Garnish your wages, lose your job, lose your children, lose your driver's license, banned from stores, banned from schools, banned from sporting events, etc.. I'm not saying any of these for sure, but they all could be possible.

None of which is possible without entities operating in society that have the power to enforce their rules and systems upon unwilling others. And guess what the favored tool is for such entities? Hint: you mentioned two examples of this already that you suggested should be allowed to have, get this...guns.

And of course you could just hide your guns and pretend you don't have them, but that would kind of hurt all the patting yourself on the back for being law abiding citizens. Actually the irony of your threat is pretty ridiculous. Guns aren't dangerous to others but if you try to come take them we'll shoot you with them to prove how we should keep them because they aren't dangerous to others.

Nobody denies guns are dangerous. Scissors are dangerous in the wrong hands.