Gun ownership poll

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is pretty easy to identify a security guard or a police officer with a cursory background check, as most employers do. Are we going to claim we cannot identify people without a criminal record and a valid security guard permit? This is a simple thing. I don't really think a security guard will do much, but it is very easy to identify qualified individuals for the job.

"Law abiding, trained, concerned personnel" encompasses more than law enforcement. I have seen proposals to use armed citizen volunteers. How do you expect to determine if your average 60 something retired accountant is qualified or not since it is pretty much impossible to determine who is not qualified?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

"Law abiding, trained, concerned personnel" encompasses more than law enforcement. I have seen proposals to use armed citizen volunteers. How do you expect to determine if your average 60 something retired accountant is qualified or not since it is pretty much impossible to determine who is not qualified?

How is it impossible? How do you think police and security are hired for everything else? I don’t see how this would be impossible or incredibly difficult. If they can run a background check anytime I buy a gun or get a new job, they can do it for this too. It’s not “impossible” to figure out if a person has any criminal history, or is not trained in security work. This is done every single day, many times. Whether the person is a volunteer, a member of the police force, or a paid employee, I fail to see how this is difficult. If it is difficult, I fail to see how thousands and thousands of other venues across the United States manage to secure trained, law abiding security. This makes no sense.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994 when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Nice non-response. You have advocated leaving kids in schools defenseless.

How do you know who is going to go on a killing spree before it happens? If we locked up people who wrote about butchering other people, killing family members with guns, knives, or chainsaws, Stephen King would've been incarcerated these past 50 years.

So guns for everyone no matter what? That’s sad and a joke.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Stop making logical arguments. This seems neither the time nor the place.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So guns for everyone no matter what? That’s sad and a joke.

For a moment, a few posts ago, I thought you were being reasoned.

Then you come up with this silly strawman. Of course that isn't what I said or meant and now I have become bored with trying to converse with you.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It’s not hard to do. I’ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I’ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I’ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won’t read what I’ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest ‘got ya’ yet.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It’s not hard to do. I’ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I’ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I’ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won’t read what I’ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest ‘got ya’ yet.

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

For a moment, a few posts ago, I thought you were being reasoned.

Then you come up with this silly strawman. Of course that isn't what I said or meant and now I have become bored with trying to converse with you.

So how do we stop the situation where a kid can buy a legal rifle and shoot you a school a few days later? Genuinely interested. A good guy with a gun isn’t doing it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?

I disagree. Shootings were dropping before the bill, dropped during the bill, and continued down after its sunset and it expired. The statistics are cherry picked and the appeal to popularity is, of course, fallacious. It is, though, quite a stretch, ignoring the rest of your clown show attempt at the dumbest gotcha of this thread, to consider the statement to be Reagan’s, who was losing his mind at this time. It has three signatures, none of whom actually wrote it, and of the 3 Reagan was the only one losing his mind. It’s not really his statement, though Reagan rarely found gun control he didn’t love.

It’s a safe bet that I’ll disagree with most Reagan measures. I do not hold other political views you seem to be operating under the assumption that I do, which you would know if you read the thread. Recurring theme here.

Your appeal to authority is to a man losing his mind. Classic. The jokes about how it takes the braindead to support these measures write themselves.

Going to answer my questions from the last post or just keep firing blanks and ignore each of your misfires?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I disagree. Shootings were dropping before the bill, dropped during the bill, and continued down after its sunset and it expired. The statistics are cherry picked and the appeal to popularity is, of course, fallacious. It is, though, quite a stretch, ignoring the rest of your clown show attempt at the dumbest gotcha of this thread, to consider the statement to be Reagan’s, who was losing his mind at this time. It has three signatures, none of whom actually wrote it, and of the 3 Reagan was the only one losing his mind. It’s not really his statement, though Reagan rarely found gun control he didn’t love.

It’s a safe bet that I’ll disagree with most Reagan measures. I do not hold other political views you seem to be operating under the assumption that I do, which you would know if you read the thread. Recurring theme here.

Your appeal to authority is to a man losing his mind. Classic. The jokes about how it takes the braindead to support these measures write themselves.

Going to answer my questions from the last post or just keep firing blanks and ignore each of your misfires?

What do you want me say about Reagan's mental state? According to his son, he had Alzheimer's during his first term. Regardless of when he had it, I think the letter he helped pen regarding reducing assault weapons was spot on.

A previous argument for gun control I presented in this thread was about Australia having vastly reduced gun violence with gun reform. But you "refuted" that argument with your own "research" saying that reforms have not reduced gun violence. Basically, you will just believe what you want, regardless of fact. Statistical analysis shows Australia's gun reforms have been effective, regardless of what you have concluded.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

What do you want me say about Reagan's mental state? According to his son, he had Alzheimer's during his first term. Regardless of when he had it, I think the letter he helped pen was spot on.

A previous argument for gun control I present was about Australia having vastly reduced gun violence with gun reform. But you "refuted" that argument by citing bogus statistics saying that reforms have not reduced gun violence. Basically, you will just believe what you want, regardless of fact. Statistical analysis shows Australia's gun reforms have been effective, regardless of what you have concluded.

I mean it would probably add to the comedy to get a justification for an appeal to authority to a person losing their mind, made by a person who thinks I ignore facts (which seem to mean left wing op eds to you). Of course you can’t do that, because it’s absurdly stupid. If you don’t have time to actually partake in a thread, then don’t. Trying to end run it by not reading anything tends to back one into comically bad corners.

Yes, I understand you are upset that there have been just as many mass shootings after the Australian ban as in an equal number of years before the ban. I am aware you like op-ed’s and not the actual dataset. I even told you back then that I would expect some bans in other nations not steeped in guns would have resulted in reductions. You chose to pick one to debate whose dataset shows literally 0 change.

Still waiting for an actual argument from a participant in this thread that passes the Aristotelian. We have a guy who is here out of a personal vendetta and flipped a 180 on his views to troll, this gentleman who openly professes he won’t read the thread and appeals to the mentally addled, and someone whose argument is that hiring a security guard is effective impossible. There must be an anti gunner who can put forth a logical argument. The current batch are making a better argument against gun control than the people actually against gun control.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I mean it would probably add to the comedy to get a justification for an appeal to authority to a person losing their mind, made by a person who thinks I ignore facts (which seem to mean left wing op eds to you). Of course you can’t do that, because it’s absurdly stupid. If you don’t have time to actually partake in a thread, then don’t. Trying to end run it by not reading anything tends to back one into comically bad corners.

Yes, I understand you are upset that there have been just as many mass shootings after the Australian ban as in an equal number of years before the ban. I am aware you like op-ed’s and not the actual dataset. I even told you back then that I would expect some bans in other nations not steeped in guns would have resulted in reductions. You chose to pick one to debate whose dataset shows literally 0 change.

Still waiting for an actual argument from a participant in this thread that passes the Aristotelian. We have a guy who is here out of a personal vendetta and flipped a 180 on his views to troll, this gentleman who openly professes he won’t read the thread and appeals to the mentally addled, and someone whose argument is that hiring a security guard is effective impossible. There must be an anti gunner who can put forth a logical argument. The current batch are making a better argument against gun control than the people actually against gun control.

You are 100% wrong about Australia, and the fact that you believe your own BS is disturbing. Good luck

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You are 100% wrong about Australia, and the fact that you believe your own BS is disturbing. Good luck

There were 14 before, 14 after. Facts. Good luck.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So how do we stop the situation where a kid can buy a legal rifle and shoot you a school a few days later? Genuinely interested. A good guy with a gun isn’t doing it.

By kid I am guessing you are a older guy like me and mean someone under 30 as actual kids can not buy guns. Sadly there is no way without screwing over good honest gun owners IMHO. As long as the "kid" has none of the many problems that already block purchasing a gun.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

How is it impossible? How do you think police and security are hired for everything else? I don’t see how this would be impossible or incredibly difficult. If they can run a background check anytime I buy a gun or get a new job, they can do it for this too. It’s not “impossible” to figure out if a person has any criminal history, or is not trained in security work. This is done every single day, many times. Whether the person is a volunteer, a member of the police force, or a paid employee, I fail to see how this is difficult. If it is difficult, I fail to see how thousands and thousands of other venues across the United States manage to secure trained, law abiding security. This makes no sense.

It only fails to make sense when you accept individual arguments on a stand-alone basis and don't need for them to hang together as a coherent whole.

There are two propositions here:

1. It is nearly impossible to identify individuals that represent risks.
2. It is trivially easy to identify individuals that don't represent risks.

Surely you can see the contradiction here.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Thoughtful responses do not have to agree with me by any stretch. A serious response addressing points is what is thoughtful. Yours qualifies in my view. I think the idea is if you have weapons, don’t secure them, and a child in your home gains access to it and goes on a shooting spree then you face consequences. Not if someone breaks into a safe.

If a child gains access and uses a steak knife, baseball bat, automobile, tire iron, frying pan, drill, saws all or a 2x4 etc…. and commits multiple homicides, is the homeowner is on the hook for leaving them unlocked?

What if a child takes a 5 gallon can of gasoline from an open garage and burns down an apartment building killing everyone inside……? Homeowner is on the hook for that too? What if the same child stole his grandmothers magnifying glass to use as the ignition source? Grandma is in trouble too?

Firearms are not a problem. They are a symptom of problems not being identified and used as leverage to try and disarm the country.

Firearms are a protection against tyranny.

[Leon]

+1.
Gun laws generally keep guns away from law abiding folks. Anyone in America that wants a gun can get one, if they so desire. Guns don't kill, people do.

Originally Posted by nwobhm

If a child gains access and uses a steak knife, baseball bat, automobile, tire iron, frying pan, drill, saws all or a 2x4 etc…. and commits multiple homicides, is the homeowner is on the hook for leaving them unlocked?

What if a child takes a 5 gallon can of gasoline from an open garage and burns down an apartment building killing everyone inside……? Homeowner is on the hook for that too? What if the same child stole his grandmothers magnifying glass to use as the ignition source? Grandma is in trouble too?

Firearms are not a problem. They are a symptom of problems not being identified and used as leverage to try and disarm the country.

Firearms are a protection against tyranny.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by bnorth

We seem to have a lot of those threads. PWCC, PSA, eBay trying to protect buyers, the list could go on and on. They do make for fun reading though.

I am with ya on that one, Ben...especially these days. Differing opinions are now taken by some as a personal insult.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

It only fails to make sense when you accept individual arguments on a stand-alone basis and don't need for them to hang together as a coherent whole.

There are two propositions here:

1. It is nearly impossible to identify individuals that represent risks.
2. It is trivially easy to identify individuals that don't represent risks.

Surely you can see the contradiction here.

It fails to make sense because it is so easily proven false.

Every major venue in the United States manages to find qualified security. Most universities have entire police departments that mainly exist to fine people for traffic and harass students for minor victimless crime. It is not difficult to put a security guard or officer in an elementary school - there are already tons of them on our colleges. Why is every other venue able to do this, except for K-12 schools?

It is not very difficult to find security or police personnel who are very unlikely too shoot up a school. Has this ever even happened? What risk do you think these security professionals bring to a K-12 school? What do you think a policeman in a K-12 school is going to do?

I am not really big on this idea, and not even really a supporter, but this is not a rational argument. It is provably false as every other large gathering space is able to do this perfectly fine, every single day, in all 50 states.

[irv]

A gunman killed 3 people at an Indiana mall before he was shot dead by an armed bystander
"But I'm going to tell you, the real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop this shooter almost as soon as he began," Ison said
A 22-year-old from nearby Bartholomew County who was legally carrying a firearm at the mall shot and killed the gunman, Ison said at a news conference.

Pretty good composure for a 22 yr old, imo. My hat's off to him!
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/11119...t-indiana-mall

[Frank A]

It seems like nobody wants to hear this shit, but we need the draft back. An 18 year old still does not have a finished brain. The military helps it function properly in the long run. The service makes men out of boys. But God forbid we can't do that to the young men of today. They are babies and brought up spoiled and useless. God help this country, it's going down the drain.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

A gunman killed 3 people at an Indiana mall before he was shot dead by an armed bystander
"But I'm going to tell you, the real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop this shooter almost as soon as he began," Ison said
A 22-year-old from nearby Bartholomew County who was legally carrying a firearm at the mall shot and killed the gunman, Ison said at a news conference.

Pretty good composure for a 22 yr old, imo. My hat's off to him!
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/11119...t-indiana-mall

Right after Indiana went Constitutional. Good for this man, concealed pistol vs. a rifle and he won quickly, saving many lives. Saving lives is what we care about, right? Kind of seems like a good thing this gentleman had a gun too.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Frank A

It seems like nobody wants to hear this shit, but we need the draft back. An 18 year old still does not have a finished brain. The military helps it function properly in the long run. The service makes men out of boys. But God forbid we can't do that to the young men of today. They are babies and brought up spoiled and useless. God help this country, it's going down the drain.

I would love to hear how, specifically, my generation would be in a better mental and healthier place on the whole if all of us had been forced to go shoot at a bunch of Iraqi's and Afghani's that never did anything to us.

I wonder what spicy take will come next.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

If a child gains access and uses a steak knife, baseball bat, automobile, tire iron, frying pan, drill, saws all or a 2x4 etc…. and commits multiple homicides,

I'd say that's one hell of a rampage.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'd say that's one hell of a rampage.

But a kid with a can of gasoline and a match could kill more than even the worst mass shooting, in the right building.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

Right after Indiana went Constitutional. Good for this man, concealed pistol vs. a rifle and he won quickly, saving many lives. Saving lives is what we care about, right? Kind of seems like a good thing this gentleman had a gun too.

One would think so but it seems some are more concerned about teachers/school board members carrying instead.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

One would think so but it seems some are more concerned about teachers/school board members carrying instead.

Oh. It looks like they are indeed more concerned about the hero carrying his gun than the shooter breaking the mall rule asking people not to carry. I am shocked. It's almost like they get upset whenever a citizen stops a massacre.... hmm.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh. It looks like they are indeed more concerned about the hero carrying his gun than the shooter breaking the mall rule asking people not to carry. I am shocked. It's almost like they get upset whenever a citizen stops a massacre.... hmm.

The guy should go to jail for breaking the rules. Who cares that he saved many many lives.

Blue font is sarcasm for those that don't know.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The guy should go to jail for breaking the rules. Who cares that he saved many many lives.

Blue font is sarcasm for those that don't know.

What was the bad guy using to do bad things in the first place? A knife?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

What was the bad guy using to do bad things in the first place? A knife?

What would that matter?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

What would that matter?

We know why

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh. It looks like they are indeed more concerned about the hero carrying his gun than the shooter breaking the mall rule asking people not to carry. I am shocked. It's almost like they get upset whenever a citizen stops a massacre.... hmm.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Whenever there is a good news story like this one about guns, the left and their funded propaganda sites immediately put a spin on it or deflect in some form or another to keep the narrative and their agenda going.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Whenever there is a good news story like this one about guns, the left and their funded propaganda sites immediately put a spin on it or deflect in some form or another to keep the narrative and their agenda going.

It is rarely if ever propaganda. News show bad things because that is what brings in viewers. Viewers bring in advertisers that pay the bills. Nobody wants to watch someone help out another person. If that is what they showed they would quickly be off the air with no viewers. The trick is finding the news channel that shows the bad things you agree with and why we all have our favorite "bad" news channel.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It is rarely if ever propaganda. News show bad things because that is what brings in viewers. Viewers bring in advertisers that pay the bills.

+1. Follow the $. It's the same reason social media algorithms promote "controversial" content. It's what makes people most engaged. And as long as the cash is flowing in, promoting violence, hate and misinformation is not a big deal to them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Whenever there is a good news story like this one about guns, the left and their funded propaganda sites immediately put a spin on it or deflect in some form or another to keep the narrative and their agenda going.

'It's worth it if it saves just one life', that's the motto they use, right?

Looks like the hero didn't have a concealed carry permit and was carrying under the brand new constitutional carry law in Indiana. Reportedly he had a 9mm Glock and fired 10 rounds (nowhere seems to say which model, presumably a 26, 43X or 48), at 40-50 yards. His girlfriend is a nursing student and applied tourniquets to at least one victim before LE arrived. He was cuffed and released once they saw the security tape, and immediately lawyered up. That is some very good shooting. Good for him for doing it all right and saving a lot of people.

Comments and social media seem more annoyed he ignored a sign that does not have enforcement of law than that the gunman did the same thing and murdered some innocent people. The cardinal sin among all is, almost always, not pushing the narrative. If it was about saving lives, all sides would be equally happy this gentleman took immediate action and saved lives.

[irv]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It is rarely if ever propaganda. News show bad things because that is what brings in viewers. Viewers bring in advertisers that pay the bills. Nobody wants to watch someone help out another person. If that is what they showed they would quickly be off the air with no viewers. The trick is finding the news channel that shows the bad things you agree with and why we all have our favorite "bad" news channel.

If you don't think the likes of CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and Rolling Stone Magazine, to name a few, are not propaganda based then I can't help you.
[B]prop·a·gan·da
Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-c...addows-viewers

[G1911]

Fox is propaganda. MSNBC is propaganda. CNN is propaganda. They all clearly distort facts to push particular narratives desirable to their political faction. It’s absolutely propaganda, by the dictionary.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

If you don't think the likes of CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and Rolling Stone Magazine, to name a few, are not propaganda based then I can't help you.
[B]prop·a·gan·da
Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-c...addows-viewers

We all look at things differently. Almost every one in every circumstance is spewing propaganda by that definition including EVERY post in this thread.

For me "used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view" is propaganda.

Yes ALL news outlets exaggerate to get more viewers or sell more copies of their publication including your favorite.

Dale there is no way in any "off topic" thread could you help me. In any other section I would be more than happy to help you or have you help me.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

'It's worth it if it saves just one life', that's the motto they use, right?

Looks like the hero didn't have a concealed carry permit and was carrying under the brand new constitutional carry law in Indiana. Reportedly he had a 9mm Glock and fired 10 rounds (nowhere seems to say which model, presumably a 26, 43X or 48), at 40-50 yards. His girlfriend is a nursing student and applied tourniquets to at least one victim before LE arrived. He was cuffed and released once they saw the security tape, and immediately lawyered up. That is some very good shooting. Good for him for doing it all right and saving a lot of people.

Comments and social media seem more annoyed he ignored a sign that does not have enforcement of law than that the gunman did the same thing and murdered some innocent people. The cardinal sin among all is, almost always, not pushing the narrative. If it was about saving lives, all sides would be equally happy this gentleman took immediate action and saved lives.

https://notthebee.com/article/new-in...JkzQ&fs=e&s=cl

Exactly on the second bold. It will never cease to amaze me how some people think otherwise. SJW's who lack critical thinking skills are everywhere today it seems.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by irv

SJW's who lack critical thinking skills are everywhere today it seems.

Single Jewish Women? Strange Juvenile Wallabies?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Single Jewish Women? Strange Juvenile Wallabies?

I believe he means "Social Justice Warrior".

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by BobC

I believe he means "Social Justice Warrior".

Ah, thanks Bob. Now to figure out what that has to do with the discussion...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Ah, thanks Bob. Now to figure out what that has to do with the discussion...

LOL

That I can't help you with.

[Carter08]

Saying that a person with a gun stopped a person with a gun from killing more people than he otherwise would have isn’t a ringing endorsement on guns to some people. Either way, an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument. It’s a bit like saying global warming isn’t happening because it’s snowing today. That’s probably for another thread where there will be deniers.

But yeah, thankfully this gent was there with his gun in this case.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Saying that a person with a gun stopped a person with a gun from killing more people than he otherwise would have isn’t a ringing endorsement on guns to some people. Either way, an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument. It’s a bit like saying global warming isn’t happening because it’s snowing today. That’s probably for another thread where there will be deniers.

But yeah, thankfully this gent was there with his gun in this case.

Not much different than thinking that stricter and more gun laws are going to keep bad people from getting guns.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Not much different than thinking that stricter and more gun laws are going to keep bad people from getting guns.

Trust me, that is no guarantee in the slightest. It’s an ideal and hopefully an achievable one. It may not be. My view - unsupported by clinical data - is that right now it seems too easy to quickly acquire weapons able to kill several people. Background checks aren’t completed, etc. Perhaps the needle should move back slightly.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Trust me, that is no guarantee in the slightest. It’s an ideal and hopefully an achievable one. It may not be. My view - unsupported by clinical data - is that right now it seems too easy to quickly acquire weapons able to kill several people. Background checks aren’t completed, etc. Perhaps the needle should move back slightly.

The problem is not a single one of the suggestions for more gun laws will do even the smallest thing to stop criminals from getting guns. What they would do is punish law abiding citizens.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The problem is not a single one of the suggestions for more gun laws will do even the smallest thing to stop criminals from getting guns. What they would do is punish law abiding citizens.

How is that possible? Some of the more recent shootings were folks that purchased weapons a day or two before their mass shooting. So restrictions may have done not just the smallest thing but the greatest thing in those situations.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

How is that possible? Some of the more recent shootings were folks that purchased weapons a day or two before their mass shooting. So restrictions may have done not just the smallest thing but the greatest thing in those situations.

an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument.

Wouldn't a mass shooting since they are very rare be an isolated incident? How about a gun legally purched just before a crime? Isn't that another rare isolated incident? They seem to be isolated incidents you are using to promote more gun laws.