America's Gun Violence

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

If the percent effected is small, why do we need guns to protect ourselves? 

I think that comes down to a personal choice depending on where your live and beliefs. Nothing more nothing less. 

Would you feel differently if one of yours was shot and killed or maimed ? Would that change your perspective?

I m positive my perspective would change but in which way I have no clue. 

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby. 

Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable.  You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable.  Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place.  Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking.  The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency.  If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens.  The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”.  Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.

how did I contradict myself?

all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?

I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that.  Feinstein’s is a perfect example. 

all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?

edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in. 

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks.  Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in.  It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it.  You die, your gun gets destroyed.

The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.  

yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?

yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur. 

same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning. 

americans don't seem to. 

It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years. 

that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero. 

it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring. 

the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off. 

0.00857142857143%  is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...

Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

I knew these stupid attacks were coming...

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.

Then what was your point with that %?

He was using statistics to show how small of a percentage of the population are effected.

I thought you were fiscally responsible? Imagine that every victim of gunshots, killed and injured, has 20 family and friends? I’m glad your concern is so narrowly focused. And people wonder why this debate doesn’t get anywhere? Fuck us.
 

I believe you are being a little dramatic with my simple statement.  

How so? You seem to think 22,500 gun deaths per year is of insignificant cost, solely focused on the cost of lives. Help me understand your statement as to the point you were making.
 

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

PJ_Soul

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

What number do people perceive it to be?

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

What number do people perceive it to be?

4
no statistical data or links to back that up.

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

Not at all.

I support airport security just as much as I support cleaning up the gun problem in your country. If you can make common sense improvements that decrease risk to the public... then giddy up.

Yes... it's a drag taking off your shoes and waiting in line to catch a plane, but the task is worth it.

Yes... (for some) it's a drag you can't shoot shit with an awesome gun, but the concession is worth it.

* And I rarely hear of survivors of these mass shootings speaking publically about the need to arm themselves better. Most speak to the glaring need for reform. So I respectfully disagree with your 'thirds' assertion.

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

Not at all.

I support airport security just as much as I support cleaning up the gun problem in your country. If you can make common sense improvements that decrease risk to the public... then giddy up.

Yes... it's a drag taking off your shoes and waiting in line to catch a plane, but the task is worth it.

Yes... (for some) it's a drag you can't shoot shit with an awesome gun, but the concession is worth it.

* And I rarely hear of survivors of these mass shootings speaking publically about the need to arm themselves better. Most speak to the glaring need for reform. So I respectfully disagree with your 'thirds' assertion.

I didn't realize you were talking about mass shootings, I thought you meant overall people injured.

So are you canadian's this vocal in your own country since you can legally purchase an ar-15 there and other "assault" weapons legally?

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

What number do people perceive it to be?

4
no statistical data or links to back that up.

Wouldn’t debating facts be more productive than perceptions or random made up bullshit? I mean, why throw something out there that has no relevance to the debate? Unless it’s to denigrate the debate and exhibit your lack of seriousness to debate the issue? More deflections and distractions.
 

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

What number do people perceive it to be?

4
no statistical data or links to back that up.

Wouldn’t debating facts be more productive than perceptions or random made up bullshit? I mean, why throw something out there that has no relevance to the debate? Unless it’s to denigrate the debate and exhibit your lack of seriousness to debate the issue? More deflections and distractions.
 

I actually enjoy making up bullshit when I debate; it keeps things interesting.  Deflections and distractions are two essential components when winning a debate.  Why not call a draw play if they are expecting a hail mary?

Go Beavers

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

DUI related deaths have dropped significantly due to legal changes and a shift in social norms. I’d like to see the same with guns. Very few claim that you should be allowed to drive drunk and only face consequences when you hurt someone in a crash. Can’t say the same in relation to guns. 

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

What number do people perceive it to be?

4
no statistical data or links to back that up.

Wouldn’t debating facts be more productive than perceptions or random made up bullshit? I mean, why throw something out there that has no relevance to the debate? Unless it’s to denigrate the debate and exhibit your lack of seriousness to debate the issue? More deflections and distractions.
 

I actually enjoy making up bullshit when I debate; it keeps things interesting.  Deflections and distractions are two essential components when winning a debate.  Why not call a draw play if they are expecting a hail mary?

And there you have it folks, the reason nothing changes. Who needs facts?
 

mcgruff10

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

DUI related deaths have dropped significantly due to legal changes and a shift in social norms. I’d like to see the same with guns. Very few claim that you should be allowed to drive drunk and only face consequences when you hurt someone in a crash. Can’t say the same in relation to guns. 

what do you mean can't say the same in relation to guns?  
I'm telling you, gun deaths go down if we start with: impose mental/criminal background checks for every purchase, registration, some sort of safety training before initial buy and you know what, i've come to the conclusion that you don't need high capacity mags any more.  I'm good with 15 as opposed to 30/40/50/100.  and of course no reason to have a bump stock.

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

What number do people perceive it to be?

4
no statistical data or links to back that up.

Wouldn’t debating facts be more productive than perceptions or random made up bullshit? I mean, why throw something out there that has no relevance to the debate? Unless it’s to denigrate the debate and exhibit your lack of seriousness to debate the issue? More deflections and distractions.
 

I actually enjoy making up bullshit when I debate; it keeps things interesting.  Deflections and distractions are two essential components when winning a debate.  Why not call a draw play if they are expecting a hail mary?

This is the only play you’ve called in this debate:

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6i7VKQwDS2s
 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

Not at all.

I support airport security just as much as I support cleaning up the gun problem in your country. If you can make common sense improvements that decrease risk to the public... then giddy up.

Yes... it's a drag taking off your shoes and waiting in line to catch a plane, but the task is worth it.

Yes... (for some) it's a drag you can't shoot shit with an awesome gun, but the concession is worth it.

* And I rarely hear of survivors of these mass shootings speaking publically about the need to arm themselves better. Most speak to the glaring need for reform. So I respectfully disagree with your 'thirds' assertion.

I didn't realize you were talking about mass shootings, I thought you meant overall people injured.

So are you canadian's this vocal in your own country since you can legally purchase an ar-15 there and other "assault" weapons legally?

I honestly didn't even know it was a possibility. I've never seen them in any outdoor shop selling guns. I know of nobody who owns one.

If this revelation is accurate... I'm strongly opposed to the idea of ownership. And somewhat in disbelief.

* With the aforementioned stated... we haven't experienced the epidemic of mass shootings you guys have. If you guys wish to maintain the idea of assault weapons, it might be wise to study our model of distribution and tracking to see if there are any items you might be able to emulate for a safer future.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?

People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.

The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.    

so statistics are pointless when they go against your view?  I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s.  That is all.  No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.  

And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about.  I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more.  But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.  

What number do people perceive it to be?

4
no statistical data or links to back that up.

Wouldn’t debating facts be more productive than perceptions or random made up bullshit? I mean, why throw something out there that has no relevance to the debate? Unless it’s to denigrate the debate and exhibit your lack of seriousness to debate the issue? More deflections and distractions.
 

I actually enjoy making up bullshit when I debate; it keeps things interesting.  Deflections and distractions are two essential components when winning a debate.  Why not call a draw play if they are expecting a hail mary?

This is the only play you’ve called in this debate:

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6i7VKQwDS2s
 

Lol

I knew what it was before I even clicked on the link.

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

Um, I think you missed my point here.

Yeah, if you're considering victim statistics, gun owners are way more dangerous than terrorists in America. I don't know if it's new or not, but it's a hard fact.

Obviously I have no links or data to prove that people against gun reform are gung ho about fighting terrorism, but I am comfortable saying that it's a very safe assumption that I've made after lots of observation and the attitudes expressed by politicians who express that sentiment and all the voters who vote for them.

Hey man, you're the one who opened the door to what I'm saying. You're the one who quoted a statistic about death and claimed it meant something to your perspective. I'm not sure why you're now trying to say that this tactic doesn't work, because, in case you missed it, that is the exact point I was trying to make when you did it.

Go Beavers

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

DUI related deaths have dropped significantly due to legal changes and a shift in social norms. I’d like to see the same with guns. Very few claim that you should be allowed to drive drunk and only face consequences when you hurt someone in a crash. Can’t say the same in relation to guns. 

what do you mean can't say the same in relation to guns?  
I'm telling you, gun deaths go down if we start with: impose mental/criminal background checks for every purchase, registration, some sort of safety training before initial buy and you know what, i've come to the conclusion that you don't need high capacity mags any more.  I'm good with 15 as opposed to 30/40/50/100.  and of course no reason to have a bump stock.

I mean we haven’t seen the legal and societal shift with guns like we have with DUI. And we also don’t view the potential lethality with guns like we do drumk drivers. 

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

Um, I think you missed my point here.

Yeah, if you're considering victim statistics, gun owners are way more dangerous than terrorists in America. I don't know if it's new or not, but it's a hard fact.

Obviously I have no links or data to prove that people against gun reform are gung ho about fighting terrorism, but I am comfortable saying that it's a very safe assumption that I've made after lots of observation and the attitudes expressed by politicians who express that sentiment and all the voters who vote for them.

Hey man, you're the one who opened the door to what I'm saying. You're the one who quoted a statistic about death and claimed it meant something to your perspective. I'm not sure why you're now trying to say that this tactic doesn't work, because, in case you missed it, that is the exact point I was trying to make when you did it.

Aaah "in America"...that makes more sense.  You didn't have those two words in your original post. And of course more people have been killed by firearms than terrorists.  However I don't like your use of the word "dangerous" but whatever.