Discussion in 'The War Room' started by sabretruth, Jan 6, 2019.
You had your answer in post #6 of this thread.
I hope your retort is better than you pretending that two of the most populous cities in both of those countries are somehow not a fair comparison. If that's your only retort it demonstrates very low resolution thinking on your part.
I expect either be proven right, or be pleasantly surprised.
Then why are gun crimes highest in places with the strictest regulation? And lowest with the least regulation?
London and NYC aren't countries. Are you seriously unaware of that?
Do you realize that people have freedom of movement in this country? This may shock you, but it's actually possible to shop outside of one's own city.
A thought experiment for you.
Why is it that the vast majority of guns that are sourced from areas outside of these major cities aren't involved in any violent crimes until they reach these cities?
Yes, heart disease is incurable. To significantly reduce America's gun problem, first there would need to be a buyback at above market value. Law enforcement that think they're above the law would have to be held accountable. It wouldn't be the first time the South didn't want to comply...
Seems like you're incapable of actually structuring a coherent argument. I'm completely against any form of gun control but your "let's talk about cancer" is such an obvious deflection from debating the merits of reducing the murder rate that it can't be ignored.
It's textbook shitty arguing. "Let's reduce the murder rate by reducing gun access." Is legitimate argument even if you don't agree with it. "I can't discuss the murder rate because people die of cancer and heart disease" is an irrelevant argument even if you don't support gun control.
So your completely fine with private sales, constitutional carry, and would like the see the NFA dismantled?
This has been my position for years. I don't think any restrictions should be out there. What I've said, hyperbolically, is that if someone wants to own an ICBM and can safely install it in their backyard, I'm cool with that.
What's confusing? Folks want to prevent deaths . . . but want to focus on a cause that isn't in the top 10. It's not my fault you're not getting it.
Dude don't pull that crap. I'm not deflecting jack. Take Feinstein's latest "Assault Rifle Ban" crap. She's willing waste hours and hours and government resources to address a problem that statistically speaking isn't significant.
We have systems in place TODAY to do that. Yet rather than look at them and their efficiencies and addressing any issues folks want to immediately go to the "we need more gun control" argument which is a complete joke.
I never said you, me or anyone can't discuss the murder rate . . .
You know, I'm kind of the pot calling the kettle black here, but you could probably move him off that kind of argument better by not leading with his "incapability of forming an coherent argument."
I've had my fair share of family die from heart attacks, but there have been many who have also had medical procedures to address heart disease and while they're not living forever they're receiving treatment and curing immediate issues.
So going straight for pulling guns off the street instead of improving current systems and enforcement of existing laws?
Oh this is cute . . .
Your plan is to force people to pay for property you want to force them to give up? You're one ruthless son of a bitch dude.
Last question on this subject for a moment:
Do you support or oppose red flag laws?
It seems like a pretty clear violation of due process. I was wonder what your take was on it.
Yes, you're deflecting. The OP is about the murder rate and it's relationship to gun control. Only an imbecile or someone attempting to redirect the conversation thinks that it requires a discussion on natural causes of death before a conversation of murder can be had.
You're not an imbecile, right?
Even now, you're attempting to at least address the murder rate by saying it's not statistically significant. That's a valid argument but the pivot just shows that you know the difference.
Again - notice that your argument doesn't involve cancer and heart disease being a prerequisite for disagreeing with gun control? Seems pretty easy.
Then stop deflecting to heart disease and cancer rates and discuss the murder rates. It's juvenile to think that such an obvious and pointless attempt to avoid the conversation somehow rises to defensible just because you don't like gun control.
Maybe if people who were against gun control put together more intelligent responses with actual persuasive possibilities instead of this bullshit "But what about cancer...", we might actually get somewhere.
And spare his feelings? Why?
I'm fine with them because the hearings are usually within 48 hours. That's a fast enough time period that I don't see it as due process violation.
Separate names with a comma.