• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Carrier Kills an Unarmed Man

Why on earth are you incapable of answering the question....:doh

Oh, you mean I'm supposed to say something like "Why yes, an unarmed man can be just as deadly as a gun!"...

Well, that didn't happen here did it.

So, how come you convulse when it comes to the fact that you can't admit that stupid man with a gun killed an unarmed pillar of the local society?

Why do you have to parse everything so it comes out in favor of the stupid idiot's right to carry a gun that killed someone who didn't deserve it.

Why doesn't that matter to you Bret? Why do think it's a good idea for idiots to be walking our streets carrying guns?

Why do you think it's important to try and entrap someone, who's only reporting the facts into what []you want[/i] to be the truth?

Why - do you play silly little word games with stuff like this?

That idiot Gasser, got into an argument about traffic and pulled a gun and killed someone.

Doesn't THAT matter Bret? Or is "da rhat ta carry" above all else?
 
If they're all wrong then you can demonstrate why they are wrong. Simply stating it does nothing other than show that you have no argument against them.

Look, you haven't made a cogent argument that proves my analysis wrong since you dropped into this thread.

"An idiot with gun shot and killed an unarmed man over an argument". THAT'S FACT.

My solution? "show cause in court in order to carry".
 
Last edited:
Look, you haven't made a cogent argument that proves my analysis wrong since you dropped into this thread.

"An idiot with gun shot and killed an unarmed man over an argument". THAT'S FACT.

An angry man with a gun shot and killed a man who later turned out to be unarmed, but of a size to be able to do damage with just bodily weapons.

My solution? "show cause in court in order to carry".

Yeah, that tight CCW control works so well in LA. Almost no CCW holders and a homicide rate in 2015 of 6.6 - that's 35% higher than the US has a whole. No judges were murdered, and they hold 20% of the CCW licenses issued in LA County. How many of the 649 homicide victims had a CCW?

Los Angeles Murder Rate Is Low Compared to the Dark Days | L.A. Weekly

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2015

Gosh, sounds like a good idea.
 
If they're all wrong then you can demonstrate why they are wrong. Simply stating it does nothing other than show that you have no argument against them.

he does have a bad habit of making statements, and then saying that you have to prove him wrong
 
Oh, you mean I'm supposed to say something like "Why yes, an unarmed man can be just as deadly as a gun!"...

Well, that didn't happen here did it.

So, how come you convulse when it comes to the fact that you can't admit that stupid man with a gun killed an unarmed pillar of the local society?

Why do you have to parse everything so it comes out in favor of the stupid idiot's right to carry a gun that killed someone who didn't deserve it.

Why doesn't that matter to you Bret? Why do think it's a good idea for idiots to be walking our streets carrying guns?

Why do you think it's important to try and entrap someone, who's only reporting the facts into what []you want[/i] to be the truth?

Why - do you play silly little word games with stuff like this?

That idiot Gasser, got into an argument about traffic and pulled a gun and killed someone.

Doesn't THAT matter Bret? Or is "da rhat ta carry" above all else?

I never disagreed or said otherwise. Cripes you are ate up. No one here said they thought idiots should have guns. When asked, how hard would it have been to say something along the lines of, "While an unarmed man can be a dangerous threat, it was not the case in this instance." Problem is you make seemingly stupid comments and then seem to be incapable of clarifying or supporting your position. If you can find a way to prevent limiting idiots from owning firearms without assuming everyone is an idiot then I applaud you.
 
Oh, you mean I'm supposed to say something like "Why yes, an unarmed man can be just as deadly as a gun!"...

Well, that didn't happen here did it.

So, how come you convulse when it comes to the fact that you can't admit that stupid man with a gun killed an unarmed pillar of the local society?

Why do you have to parse everything so it comes out in favor of the stupid idiot's right to carry a gun that killed someone who didn't deserve it.

Why doesn't that matter to you Bret? Why do think it's a good idea for idiots to be walking our streets carrying guns?

Why do you think it's important to try and entrap someone, who's only reporting the facts into what []you want[/i] to be the truth?

Why - do you play silly little word games with stuff like this?

That idiot Gasser, got into an argument about traffic and pulled a gun and killed someone.

Doesn't THAT matter Bret? Or is "da rhat ta carry" above all else?

more psychobabble that has no solutions, just angry rants about guns.

Its always fun watching a few rage against gun ownership but never having any rational solutions to solve the problems they PRETEND to care about.
 
Look, you haven't made a cogent argument that proves my analysis wrong since you dropped into this thread.

"An idiot with gun shot and killed an unarmed man over an argument". THAT'S FACT.

My solution? "show cause in court in order to carry".

Next up: show cause in court to own a gun.

Show cause in court to use free speech.

Further. Public at large has demonstrated they are more than capable of handling being armed.

904336ec4778a4b831409143ad0de981.png


Ps

You have yet to inform me as to why McKnight was out of HIS vehicle and at the window of the CCWer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Look, you haven't made a cogent argument that proves my analysis wrong since you dropped into this thread.

"An idiot with gun shot and killed an unarmed man over an argument". THAT'S FACT.

My solution? "show cause in court in order to carry".

And my argument surrounded the part in bold. You have an unconstitutional argument that places a Right as a privilege at best. Your argument is based on emotionalism. Your argument is in the end idiotic. The only reason that you won't address what I said other than to try and dismiss it is because my argument shows all of this and you know that you can't argue against it.
 
And my argument surrounded the part in bold. You have an unconstitutional argument that places a Right as a privilege at best. Your argument is based on emotionalism. Your argument is in the end idiotic. The only reason that you won't address what I said other than to try and dismiss it is because my argument shows all of this and you know that you can't argue against it.

Jet wants all Americans to be subject to the laws he lives under. Since California rarely grants Carry licenses rather than has (well until Trump judges shoves it up their noses like they should) SHALL ISSUE, he wants the rest of America to suffer the same nanny state idiocy
 
Look, you haven't made a cogent argument that proves my analysis wrong since you dropped into this thread.

"An idiot with gun shot and killed an unarmed man over an argument". THAT'S FACT.

My solution? "show cause in court in order to carry".

The last I looked that silly claim was in tatters like lace curtain so full of holes you have not defended.

You have not defined an idiot.
You have not shown how to detect an idiot who is going to go postal.
You have not shown civil servants have this ability or equipment.

If we have such equipment why not line up everybody for an annual scan. What is your obsession with firearm owners?
 
And my argument surrounded the part in bold. You have an unconstitutional argument that places a Right as a privilege at best. Your argument is based on emotionalism. Your argument is in the end idiotic. The only reason that you won't address what I said other than to try and dismiss it is because my argument shows all of this and you know that you can't argue against it.

Your argument ignores the reality of the Mcknight case. Your argument ignores the reality of Roof case etc etc.

And
Your argument is in the end idiotic.
is emotionalizing: it's anger.

Showing cause is a great way to thin out the gun toting public that can help prevent things like the Mcknight shooting. It's about reining in the "shoot first" mentality that causes events like these. There is nothing at all wrong with my argument, and the facts of the Mcknight shooting speak for themselves. So, I have been addressing your argument all along, you're just angry that you can't credibly refute my position. So I would suggest that you perhaps, take some time to actually review what I'm saying about Gasser and those like him. You'll find that we agree.
 
Next up: show cause in court to own a gun.

Show cause in court to use free speech.

Further. Public at large has demonstrated they are more than capable of handling being armed.

904336ec4778a4b831409143ad0de981.png


Ps

You have yet to inform me as to why McKnight was out of HIS vehicle and at the window of the CCWer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ridiculous.
 
Your argument ignores the reality of the Mcknight case. Your argument ignores the reality of Roof case etc etc.

Two anecdotes. :shrug: For every anecdote that you can show of some idiot killing someone with a gun I can show 2 where someone saved themselves with a gun. Not that it will matter to you.

And
is emotionalizing: it's anger.

Showing cause is a great way to thin out the gun toting public that can help prevent things like the Mcknight shooting. It's about reining in the "shoot first" mentality that causes events like these. There is nothing at all wrong with my argument, and the facts of the Mcknight shooting speak for themselves. So, I have been addressing your argument all along, you're just angry that you can't credibly refute my position. So I would suggest that you perhaps, take some time to actually review what I'm saying about Gasser and those like him. You'll find that we agree.

What is there to refute about those cases? That those idiots where just that? Idiots? No, what I refuted and you've yet to actually address is your claim that people should have to go get a court to approve their Right to own/carry a gun based on a subjective adjective. This was shown in multiple ways. One of which shows that blaming objects is idiotic. Another which shows that you wouldn't apply the same "logic" to other Rights but will for the Right to self defense with a gun. Sorry bub, you've yet to refute anything that I've said. Oh, you've CLAIMED that you have, but all that you've really done is claim that what I said was false. You've yet to prove that it is false in any way shape or form. Which is why you fail so heavily all the time in matters related to guns.
 
Your argument ignores the reality of the Mcknight case. Your argument ignores the reality of Roof case etc etc.

And
is emotionalizing: it's anger.

Showing cause is a great way to thin out the gun toting public that can help prevent things like the Mcknight shooting. It's about reining in the "shoot first" mentality that causes events like these. There is nothing at all wrong with my argument, and the facts of the Mcknight shooting speak for themselves. So, I have been addressing your argument all along, you're just angry that you can't credibly refute my position. So I would suggest that you perhaps, take some time to actually review what I'm saying about Gasser and those like him. You'll find that we agree.

I have no idea what you think any case proves but all of them have nothing to do with our rights. They are a matter of law and if somebody has broken a legitimate law then the courts will deal with it. WTF has this got to do with the right to firearms? If people commit murder charge them. What they used to commit the crime is irrelevant. You seem to be on a witch hunt.

Anger is an emotion.
 
Ridiculous.

You lost me and everyone else by once again dismissing well thought out responses to your posted tripe. Is that deliberately designed to make people angry because it is working and known as baiting and trolling You have also conceded the point. Do not try and defend it again. You may think you are being smart but in reality it's the exact opposite.
 
Your argument ignores the reality of the Mcknight case. Your argument ignores the reality of Roof case etc etc.

And
is emotionalizing: it's anger.

Showing cause is a great way to thin out the gun toting public that can help prevent things like the Mcknight shooting. It's about reining in the "shoot first" mentality that causes events like these. There is nothing at all wrong with my argument, and the facts of the Mcknight shooting speak for themselves. So, I have been addressing your argument all along, you're just angry that you can't credibly refute my position. So I would suggest that you perhaps, take some time to actually review what I'm saying about Gasser and those like him. You'll find that we agree.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/272783-another-carrier-kills-unarmed-man-post1066652978.html#post1066652978

Well then just go ahead and answer the questions if you are so sure.
 
My argument remains just as strong today as when I made it: An idiot with a gun shot Mcknight, thus idiots should not have guns on them in public.

Not a'one of you has discredited that argument.

no one suggests idiots should have guns assuming that the definition of idiot is defined as someone who is objectively harmful (vs not voting for Hillary or other definitions I have seen from the BM)

but what is lacking is any sensible proposals from people like you what would disarm "idiots" without harming people who should be able to carry firearms

we know your solution is an arbitrary decision of some Democrat politician or bureaucrat but that doesn't cut it in a free society

so tell us Jet, what laws are going to disarm "idiots" and not good people. disarming everyone to disarm "idiots" isn't going to work
 
no one suggests idiots should have guns assuming that the definition of idiot is defined as someone who is objectively harmful (vs not voting for Hillary or other definitions I have seen from the BM)

but what is lacking is any sensible proposals from people like you what would disarm "idiots" without harming people who should be able to carry firearms

we know your solution is an arbitrary decision of some Democrat politician or bureaucrat but that doesn't cut it in a free society

so tell us Jet, what laws are going to disarm "idiots" and not good people. disarming everyone to disarm "idiots" isn't going to work

Evidently if you can convince a judge that you have cause to carry concealed you aren't an idiot. Not exactly sure how the two are linked in reality.
 
Evidently if you can convince a judge that you have cause to carry concealed you aren't an idiot. Not exactly sure how the two are linked in reality.

I know people who aren't idiots who were decorated veterans who have completely clean records but couldn't get CCW permits in the land of fruits and nuts because some anti gun bureaucrat said that since the applicant had "yet to be attacked" he didn't have a legitimate belief he might be

the bureaucrat of course had a permit because he believed being a moron with a gown meant someone might attack him.
 
My argument remains just as strong today as when I made it: An idiot with a gun shot Mcknight, thus idiots should not have guns on them in public.

Not a'one of you has discredited that argument.

Is that how you gun control types rationalise all the posts showing your claims to be rubbish?

That is what you decided after a process of rationalisation of all the posts that you have avoided responding to. Post that leave your claim in unimplementable tatters of absolutely idiotic ideology.

You have not defined idiot despite being asked to a number of times
You have not shown how to detect an idiot who is going to go postal
You have not show civil servants or anyone can do this task with any degree of accuracy.
You have not shown how many you will falsely deprive by being wrong.

Nor have you explained how this proposal can work. It is way beyond reason to surmise denial of a legal firearm can or will prevent such an event or even hinder it.

That alone leaves you with absolutely nothing but the desires of ideology and fear as your reason.

You have nothing and your argument is totally discredited. for the umteenth time now.
 
My argument remains just as strong today as when I made it: An idiot with a gun shot Mcknight, thus idiots should not have guns on them in public.

Not a'one of you has discredited that argument.

Another claim by unevidence assertion. You do that a lot.

The questions to tough for you or is it that you do not want the idiocy of your claim exposed? Avoiding does not negate the fact your claim has been shredded.
 
Is that how you gun control types rationalise all the posts showing your claims to be rubbish?

That is what you decided after a process of rationalisation of all the posts that you have avoided responding to. Post that leave your claim in unimplementable tatters of absolutely idiotic ideology.

You have not defined idiot despite being asked to a number of times
You have not shown how to detect an idiot who is going to go postal
You have not show civil servants or anyone can do this task with any degree of accuracy.
You have not shown how many you will falsely deprive by being wrong.

Nor have you explained how this proposal can work. It is way beyond reason to surmise denial of a legal firearm can or will prevent such an event or even hinder it.

That alone leaves you with absolutely nothing but the desires of ideology and fear as your reason.

You have nothing and your argument is totally discredited. for the umteenth time now.

Another claim by unevidence assertion. You do that a lot.

The questions to tough for you or is it that you do not want the idiocy of your claim exposed? Avoiding does not negate the fact your claim has been shredded.


You can't prove it wrong.
 
You can't prove it wrong.

what we all can prove is you have yet-in all the posts you have made on this board as to firearms issues-prove that anything you have ever suggested has any chance of making the public safer. Rather, all we see from you is someone who wants the rest of the USA to be subject to the same stupid, punitive idiocy that the moonbat left imposes on gun owners in california
 
You can't prove it wrong.

I just did.

Well I am gobsmaked. That has to be the most idiotic statement I have seen in my life.

Sorry dear Jet those claims stand unless you can refute them and that is the way it works.

How many times have I told you denial by unevidenced assertion is a waste of keystrokes but shows you have nothing.

So all you have to do to show your carefully thought out claims have validity is to prove that by answering my reasons your scheme cannot work. Believe me it cannot work as you claim. A number of people have kindly explained that to you more than a few times and your arrogance of responding with idiotic denial assertion that have no evidence is very annoying.

Before we go any further just how many of these idiot events take place each year? How many?
 
Back
Top Bottom