Gun Control

[isaiah40]

With tougher gun control laws we wouldn't have 18 year old single mothers shooting intruders.

[Woodruff]

With tougher gun control laws we wouldn't have 18 year old single mothers shooting intruders.

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

[Nobunaga]

BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) -
He was in the "wrong neighborhood" is just one reason a man gave as to why he was punched in the face. His wife and daughter were also hit.

... Shoulda' had a gun.


http://www.wafb.com/story/22240991/fami ... ighborhood

[BigBallinStalin]

BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) -
He was in the "wrong neighborhood" is just one reason a man gave as to why he was punched in the face. His wife and daughter were also hit.

... Shoulda' had a gun.


http://www.wafb.com/story/22240991/fami ... ighborhood

Shoulda' not been in Baton Rouge. That place is a shit hole.

[isaiah40]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns, so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

[Phatscotty]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns, so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

Remember Isaiah, you are trying to reason with a person who said that if he were a shooter hell bent on killing as many people as possible, he said that the option of a place with a sign saying "armed guard on premise" and the other choice of a place that said "gun free zone" he said that would have no impact on his decision on where he could get the highest body count, and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. And he doesn't look at evidence people present.

Just so you know, you are trying to reason with the most unreasonable person on the planet.

Good luck and have fun!

[rdsrds2120]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns, so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

Remember Isaiah, you are trying to reason with a person who said that if he were a shooter hell bent on killing as many people as possible, he said that the option of a place with a sign saying "armed guard on premise" and the other choice of a place that said "gun free zone" he said that would have no impact on his decision on where he could get the highest body count, and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. And he doesn't look at evidence people present.

Just so you know, you are trying to reason with the most unreasonable person on the planet.

Good luck and have fun!

To be fair, you tried to convince me in Live Chat that racism didn't exist in the 1920's. That was arguably worse!

BMO

[Woodruff]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns

No they don't, necessarily. Unless of course you're referring to those who are illegally owning guns, and I suppose they may go down a little bit. But there's no reason why tougher gun laws will mean that less people will own guns.

so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

The video is irrelevant to your statements, which don't hold any water.

[Woodruff]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns, so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

Remember Isaiah, you are trying to reason with a person who said that if he were a shooter hell bent on killing as many people as possible, he said that the option of a place with a sign saying "armed guard on premise" and the other choice of a place that said "gun free zone" he said that would have no impact on his decision on where he could get the highest body count, and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

Someone in that situation isn't likely to give a rat's ass what a sign says, Phatscotty.

And he doesn't look at evidence people present.

You must be the most ironic individual on the planet. Thoroughly lacking in self-awareness.

Just so you know, you are trying to reason with the most unreasonable person on the planet.

You must be the most ironic individual on the planet. Thoroughly lacking in self-awareness.

Is this an example of me trying to distract from the topic and attack your character, or is it the other way around, Phatscotty? I thought you never did that?

[Night Strike]

No they don't, necessarily. Unless of course you're referring to those who are illegally owning guns, and I suppose they may go down a little bit. But there's no reason why tougher gun laws will mean that less people will own guns.

Because the extra taxes and fees will price some people out of owning a gun or make it too much of a hassle to got through. Not to mention the shortage of affordable ammo due to the feds buying up exorbitant amounts.

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns, so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

Remember Isaiah, you are trying to reason with a person who said that if he were a shooter hell bent on killing as many people as possible, he said that the option of a place with a sign saying "armed guard on premise" and the other choice of a place that said "gun free zone" he said that would have no impact on his decision on where he could get the highest body count, and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

Someone in that situation isn't likely to give a rat's ass what a sign says, Phatscotty.

Precisely, which is why those signs that say "Gun Free Zone" only keeps out the guns that law-abiding citizens carry, not the murderers.

[Juan_Bottom]

I note that the article uses the term "illegally buying" and JB uses the term "legally purchase." I trust the ATF over JB, but I leave that up to youse.

Dude, nobody on these foras cares about the petty attacks. Their brains shut off the second they start reading such.

Also, I deliberately chose to say legally purchase, and will always do so. She was able to go and purchase all of these guns legally, again and again.

Unless you believe in thought crimes.
Had she been arrested before giving any of these guns to thugs, it would not have been a crime at all. Thought crimes aren't real, they're just another tool for the man to nail people they don't have anything solid on.

[Phatscotty]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns, so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

Remember Isaiah, you are trying to reason with a person who said that if he were a shooter hell bent on killing as many people as possible, he said that the option of a place with a sign saying "armed guard on premise" and the other choice of a place that said "gun free zone" he said that would have no impact on his decision on where he could get the highest body count, and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. And he doesn't look at evidence people present.

Just so you know, you are trying to reason with the most unreasonable person on the planet.

Good luck and have fun!

To be fair, you tried to convince me in Live Chat that racism didn't exist in the 1920's. That was arguably worse!

BMO

that's an absolute lie. I said the 20's, in New York, were "liberating" unquote. Minority owned businesses were booming. More progress was being made than before.

I just lost a lot of respect for you.

[Juan_Bottom]

Wasn't the 1920s when the Harlem Ghetto was created?

[2dimes]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns

No they don't, necessarily. Unless of course you're referring to those who are illegally owning guns, and I suppose they may go down a little bit. But there's no reason why tougher gun laws will mean that less people will own guns.

so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

The video is irrelevant to your statements, which don't hold any water.

Wait, did you have some mixed drinks? Go to my thread if they were good ones.

If I'm making, shipping, selling or buying illegal guns what difference do laws make? None, because gun laws only affect legally manufactured and obtained weapons.

The video is a young lady with easy to obtain legal weapons protecting herself and baby from some goon with a knife that also would not be affected by tougher gun laws. Kicking in her door and entering her house then being shot.

[thegreekdog]

I note that the article uses the term "illegally buying" and JB uses the term "legally purchase." I trust the ATF over JB, but I leave that up to youse.

Dude, nobody on these foras cares about the petty attacks. Their brains shut off the second they start reading such.

Also, I deliberately chose to say legally purchase, and will always do so. She was able to go and purchase all of these guns legally, again and again.

Unless you believe in thought crimes.
Had she been arrested before giving any of these guns to thugs, it would not have been a crime at all. Thought crimes aren't real, they're just another tool for the man to nail people they don't have anything solid on.

I honestly don't have any clue what you are talking about. The action she is engaging in are illegal. Do you want it to be more illegal?

It's not a petty attack; you are either deliberately mischaracterizing the legality of what this woman is doing (and what lots and lots of people do, especially here in Philadelphia) or you don't know what you're talking about. Either way, people should disregard what you've said.

[Woodruff]

No they don't, necessarily. Unless of course you're referring to those who are illegally owning guns, and I suppose they may go down a little bit. But there's no reason why tougher gun laws will mean that less people will own guns.

Because the extra taxes and fees will price some people out of owning a gun or make it too much of a hassle to got through. Not to mention the shortage of affordable ammo due to the feds buying up exorbitant amounts.

Tougher gun laws don't necessarily require extra taxes or fees. And if you consider a background check requirement to be too much of a hassle to go through, then I suppose I don't have much respect for your desire to own a gun.

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns, so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

Remember Isaiah, you are trying to reason with a person who said that if he were a shooter hell bent on killing as many people as possible, he said that the option of a place with a sign saying "armed guard on premise" and the other choice of a place that said "gun free zone" he said that would have no impact on his decision on where he could get the highest body count, and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

Someone in that situation isn't likely to give a rat's ass what a sign says, Phatscotty.

Precisely, which is why those signs that say "Gun Free Zone" only keeps out the guns that law-abiding citizens carry, not the murderers.

It's amazing to me how individuals who want to restrict how other people act can have so little understanding of human psychology.

[Woodruff]

Not only is that an illogical statement, it doesn't even make basic sense unless you believe that "tougher gun control laws" means that nobody can own guns. Have a tad bit of rationality with your hysteria.

Or were you suggesting that single mother purchased her gun illegally?

Tougher gun laws will mean less people will own guns

No they don't, necessarily. Unless of course you're referring to those who are illegally owning guns, and I suppose they may go down a little bit. But there's no reason why tougher gun laws will mean that less people will own guns.

so this 18 year old widow and mom would not have had a chance to defend her baby. Did you even watch the video woodruff??

The video is irrelevant to your statements, which don't hold any water.

Wait, did you have some mixed drinks? Go to my thread if they were good ones.

I don't drink alcohol, but thanks.

If I'm making, shipping, selling or buying illegal guns what difference do laws make? None, because gun laws only affect legally manufactured and obtained weapons.

Sure, I agree with that completely. But it's irrelevant to the point I made.

The video is a young lady with easy to obtain legal weapons protecting herself and baby from some goon with a knife that also would not be affected by tougher gun laws. Kicking in her door and entering her house then being shot.

Which is precisely what I said. Thanks for the backup!

[ooge]

I wonder if anyone's view point would be swayed if every day in this thread was posted the days death count by guns and the explanation of each death. or if the media did it as well what the long term affect would be.

[Night Strike]

I wonder if anyone's view point would be swayed if every day in this thread was posted the days death count by guns and the explanation of each death. or if the media did it as well what the long term affect would be.

Just as long as they share every detail as well about the people who defend themselves with guns, whether they discharge the weapon or not.

[Evil Semp]

I wonder if anyone's view point would be swayed if every day in this thread was posted the days death count by guns and the explanation of each death. or if the media did it as well what the long term affect would be.

Just as long as they share every detail as well about the people who defend themselves with guns, whether they discharge the weapon or not.

Here is a start.

http://wap.nytimes.com/blogs/nocera/201 ... rom=nocera


NS if you want to post details of those who defend themselves then you should provide it.

And just for the record I am not in favor of taking guns away from citizens. I just think there should background checks and cooling off periods before someone walks out with a gun.

[Night Strike]

And just for the record I am not in favor of taking guns away from citizens. I just think there should background checks and cooling off periods before someone walks out with a gun.

But that implies that everyone is out to kill someone with the gun they're buying. Why should all citizens be assumed to be killers just because they want a gun? What if people actually need the gun quickly?

[Evil Semp]

And just for the record I am not in favor of taking guns away from citizens. I just think there should background checks and cooling off periods before someone walks out with a gun.

But that implies that everyone is out to kill someone with the gun they're buying.

And where did I say that? You and PS have an ability to stretch things.

Why should all citizens be assumed to be killers just because they want a gun?

Why do you assume that a background check is because of assumed killers? What about convicted felons who aren't allowed to own guns or even handle them?

What if people actually need the gun quickly?

If you need a gun that quickly the police might be a better option. I would think that part of a cooling off period would prevent someone who had an argument from running out and buying a gun and confronting the person they had an argument with. Possibly preventing a murder.

[Night Strike]

No, you assumed everyone needs a cool down period to buying a gun, which is where the implication that everyone wants to kill comes from, not the background check.

Or, the cooling down time will prevent a woman who has a stalker from protecting herself when he finally decides to do more than stalk the next night, which means it could cause a murder rather than prevent one. We can't have a police officer at our side 24/7 to protect us.

[ooge]

I wonder if anyone's view point would be swayed if every day in this thread was posted the days death count by guns and the explanation of each death. or if the media did it as well what the long term affect would be.

Just as long as they share every detail as well about the people who defend themselves with guns, whether they discharge the weapon or not.

I can except that.

[Evil Semp]

No, you assumed everyone needs a cool down period to buying a gun, which is where the implication that everyone wants to kill comes from, not the background check.

No I did not assume everyone needs a cooling down period. Run out, buy a gun, go confront the person you had a fight with and try to intimidate them.

Or, the cooling down time will prevent a woman who has a stalker from protecting herself when he finally decides to do more than stalk the next night, which means it could cause a murder rather than prevent one. We can't have a police officer at our side 24/7 to protect us.

If my daughter had a stalker I would have her stay with me or I would stay at her place. The most important thing is to get out of that situation at that time. Stay at a friends house. Friends are amazing in troubled times. And call the cops.

Now I will do one of your tricks here. The stalking victim goes out, buys a gun and accidentally shoots herself when she loads the gun after getting home. Now we have a accidental shooting that could result in the stalking victims death.