I'd say no, but that's not why our homicide rate is where it's at. That's just you mouth-breathing your hatred of guns in principle.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
And fwiw, gun ownership has increased as gun violence has decreased (however, I don't think that correlation should strongly influence the merit of certain gun control policies)
Also wrong. Gun OWNERSHIP rates are down. Gun SALES are up (or at least were throughout the Obama years). That means that fewer people own guns, but people who already own guns are buying many more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.1f6f65b7f9fd
Does any private citizen really need to own an arsenal?
But the mouth-breathers aren't really interested in saving lives. The political activists who exploit victims and innocents to advance their agenda rarely do.BearsWiin said:
I've owned nine for over 25 years now, and if I didn't have kids draining my resources I'd probably have more. Some people collect paperweights and chess sets; some collect firearms. But I have no problem with having to jump through serious hoops in order to do so.
I've said it before: Canada has relatively loose regulation of long guns and much more stringent regulation of handguns. Their per capita firearm homicide rate is 1/7th of what it is in the US. Theirs is the model that we should be looking at.
And this is what make's the Right's unwillingness to compromise understandable.sycasey said:
I don't think it's bad, that's the thing.
GBear4Life said:
Stop pretending you care about ad hominems or incivility
GBear4Life said:I'd say no, but that's not why our homicide rate is where it's at. That's just you mouth-breathing your hatred of guns in principle.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
And fwiw, gun ownership has increased as gun violence has decreased (however, I don't think that correlation should strongly influence the merit of certain gun control policies)
Also wrong. Gun OWNERSHIP rates are down. Gun SALES are up (or at least were throughout the Obama years). That means that fewer people own guns, but people who already own guns are buying many more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.1f6f65b7f9fd
Does any private citizen really need to own an arsenal?
GBear4Life said:And this is what make's the Right's unwillingness to compromise understandable.sycasey said:
I don't think it's bad, that's the thing.
GBear4Life said:
a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.
Give that Duck a medal!B.A. Bearacus said:
Former Oregon Duck Keanon Lowe subdues armed student who was possibly about to blow some people away, I'm guessing. And that concludes our almost daily school-related reminder of the cost of Republicans in power.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/05/officers-spot-person-with-gun-near-parkrose-high-school-police-on-scene.html
That is not an argument.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.
It's definitely not the only thing.
Yes, I responded in kind to your nonsense statement.GBear4Life said:That is not an argument.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.
It's definitely not the only thing.
Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.sycasey said:Yes, I responded in kind to your nonsense statement.GBear4Life said:That is not an argument.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.
It's definitely not the only thing.
GBear4Life said:Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.sycasey said:Yes, I responded in kind to your nonsense statement.GBear4Life said:That is not an argument.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.
It's definitely not the only thing.
Yet you won't refute it.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.
Just calling something a "fact" doesn't make it one. Again: nonsense.
GBear4Life said:Yet you won't refute it.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:
Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.
Just calling something a "fact" doesn't make it one. Again: nonsense.
The only "nonsense" in this thread is your unfounded confidence in and support for a gun-ban.
Nobody is arguing with you. Somebody is pointing out your poor arguments and you're propensity for dodging them which you keep obfuscating through pedantry. Who cares whether you're willing to compromise? You support a gun ban, a laughable, explicitly unconstitutional position.sycasey said:
And yet I was willing to compromise on gun control (the same plan you said you supported) and you are still arguing with me. Is this a pathological thing?
GBear4Life said:
Nobody is arguing with you. Somebody is pointing out your poor arguments and you're propensity for dodging them which you keep obfuscating through pedantry.
GBear4Life said:
Who cares whether you're willing to compromise? You support a gun ban, a laughable, explicitly unconstitutional position.
The pederast supports legalizing kiddie porn, but is willing to compromise and support legalizing teen porn.
Yeah, you do get it. You've also following your schtick of pedantry. You know it was an analogy -- "a comparison between two things, usually for the purpose of explanation or clarification" -- to expose your misdirection regarding "well I compromised!" as being wholly irrelevant, not an attempt to equate positions on guns with kiddie porn.sycasey said:
Wait, now you're equating our already agreed-upon compromise (as proposed by Unit2) with "teen porn?" I don't get it.
Probably true for some sub-set of the pro-gun lobby, but so are you. You're wondering why some number of people won't budge with folks who have disdain for the 2nd amendment.Quote:
Clearly the pro-gun side is not negotiating in good faith and cannot be reasoned with. This is why I support taking away all of their guns.
That's true. So we can add a second reason to the pile.GBear4Life said:
Furthermore, you supporting a gun ban is NOT because some number on the pro-gun side is not "negotiating in good faith" lol. You have stated "we've lost the privilege/right to guns"
Dismisses points by accusations of buzzwords.Quote:
if you actually understood logic you would be able to make out his argument. But please come back and talk to us about "tropes" and your other preferred buzzwords.
Quote:
Gun nuts and RWNJs like you
Unit2Sucks said:
For all of GB4L's weak attempts to criticize other people's logic, he once again proves he is unable to understand even the most simple of arguments. Sycasey has never said banning guns was compatible with the 2nd amendment, just that he is in favor of banning guns. Sycasey is clearly in favor of the most restrictive gun control that can be accomplished. If the 2nd amendment could be repealed, I'm going to assume he would be in favor of it. Sycasey's position is perfectly logical and if you actually understood logic you would be able to make out his argument.