• 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!

The four safest states are very gun friendly

No I'm not going to do anything of the sort until you can prove my links are wrong?
How am I supposed to check them if you don't provide them? Your pic citing the UNODC is the first one in your post, I need to go read the study it's citing in order to know if it's right or wrong. You presented it as evidence so it's on you to provide a link directly to that data.
 
No I'm not going to do anything of the sort until you can prove my links are wrong?
And i can tell ya that no one here will ever accept anything Wiki or The Guardian has to say. Anyone can edit Wiki, and the Guardian has, shall we say, a less than credible history when it comes to reporting facts.
 
How am I supposed to check them if you don't provide them? Your pic citing the UNODC is the first one in your post, I need to go read the study it's citing in order to know if it's right or wrong. You presented it as evidence so it's on you to provide a link directly to that data.

You like the idea of killing. There is nothing I can post that could possibly assuage that ..... and I could keep posting links ad infinitum all of which still wouldnt make the slightest difference

You won't be denied your opportunity to shoot a baddie .... full stop :roll:
 
You like the idea of killing. There is nothing I can post that could possibly assuage that ..... and I could keep posting links ad infinitum all of which still wouldnt make the slightest difference

You won't be denied your opportunity to shoot a baddie .... full stop :roll:

You can keep writing this, but it doesn't make it true.
 
You like the idea of killing. There is nothing I can post that could possibly assuage that ..... and I could keep posting links ad infinitum all of which still wouldnt make the slightest difference

You won't be denied your opportunity to shoot a baddie .... full stop :roll:

when your silly arguments get thrashed, you start lying about the motivations of others.

That is why it is just as accurate to say YOU LOVE VIOLENT CRIMINALS and you DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HURT when they victimize American Citizens as it is for you to pretend those who don't buy into your hatred of gun rights, must love killing.
 
You can keep writing this, but it doesn't make it true.

Of course it is. You like the idea of killing easily via firearm and that is your obsession sadly. You just cant wait for the opportunity :(
 
Of course it is. You like the idea of killing easily via firearm and that is your obsession sadly. You just cant wait for the opportunity :(

Not true, but keep flogging the theory.
 
Not true, but keep flogging the theory.

He has no rational argument. He's mad we have freedoms that his country doesn't trust the citizens to have. SO he makes up our motivations. SO I do the same thing with him. Since he is upset that American citizens have the freedom to defend themselves from violent criminals, it must be because he abhors the idea of violent criminals being harmed when they attack American citizens.
 
No I'm not going to do anything of the sort until you can prove my links are wrong?

You provided 5 sources.
You refuse to link to the first, so that's discarded.
Your second used a biased source*, so that's discarded.
Your third is an opinion piece, not a credible data collection entity, so that's discarded.
Your fouth is a discredited tabloid publisher, so that's discarded.
Your fifth is a site literally anyone can edit; Wiki itself even tells you not to use them as a source because they can't verify everything. So that's discarded.

*Your second source, the BBC, cited info collected from Mass Shooting Tracker, who admit they support gun control. They bend data to suit their narrative. For example, in their most recent incident, they record 4 people shot even though 3 of those people were merely grazed and didn't even need medical attention. MST, the BBC, and yourself, tried to peraid those 3 people who didn't even need a bandaid as if they were shot center-mass and nearly died.

That's called a lie. You lie.

You have no argument.
 
Last edited:
You provided 5 sources.
You refuse to link to the first, so that's discarded.
Your second use a biased source, so that's discarded.
Your third is an opinion piece, not a credible data collection entity, so that's discarded.
Your fouth is a discredited tabloid publisher, so that's discarded.
Your fifth is a site literally anyone can edit; Wiki itself even tells you not to use them as a source because they can't verify everything. So that's discarded.

You have no argument.

A simple .... No I can't would have sufficed :wink:

You are clearly a dangerous gun nut. Thankfully I live nowhere near you
 
A simple .... No I can't would have sufficed :wink:

You are clearly a dangerous gun nut. Thankfully I live nowhere near you
You find a personal distaste for firearms and the concept of self-defense, hunting, or both, and wish to project that distaste into a uniform compulsory standard for all so that you can "change the world" in a way that is suitable to your personal tastes.
 
A simple .... No I can't would have sufficed :wink:

You are clearly a dangerous gun nut. Thankfully I live nowhere near you

this shows the "thinking" of the gun banners. they really hate anyone who doesn't buy into their fear of an armed citizenry.

and if you really believed this about those who don't buy your BS, I doubt you'd constantly make such claims publicly.
 
You provided 5 sources.
You refuse to link to the first, so that's discarded.
Your second used a biased source*, so that's discarded.
Your third is an opinion piece, not a credible data collection entity, so that's discarded.
Your fouth is a discredited tabloid publisher, so that's discarded.
Your fifth is a site literally anyone can edit; Wiki itself even tells you not to use them as a source because they can't verify everything. So that's discarded.

*Your second source, the BBC, cited info collected from Mass Shooting Tracker, who admit they support gun control. They bend data to suit their narrative. For example, in their most recent incident, they record 4 people shot even though 3 of those people were merely grazed and didn't even need medical attention. MST, the BBC, and yourself, tried to peraid those 3 people who didn't even need a bandaid as if they were shot center-mass and nearly died.

The MST:

May 6, 2013:

A pair of township boys are accused of shooting four others with a pellet gun, police said.

Nobody was seriously hurt by the 11- and 12-year-old boys who shot the pellet gun at them on April 25 in the Twinbrook Village apartment complex, Detective Lt. Kevin Faller said in a statement.

Want another one? February 20, 2014:

St. Petersburg, Florida –Three people have been arrested and charged after police say they shot multiple people with a pellet gun in St. Petersburg.

[…]

At least12 people reported being struck by pellets.

People reported being hit in their legs, hands and back, but police say none of the injuries were serious.
 
The MST:

May 6, 2013:

A pair of township boys are accused of shooting four others with a pellet gun, police said.

Nobody was seriously hurt by the 11- and 12-year-old boys who shot the pellet gun at them on April 25 in the Twinbrook Village apartment complex, Detective Lt. Kevin Faller said in a statement.

Want another one? February 20, 2014:

St. Petersburg, Florida –Three people have been arrested and charged after police say they shot multiple people with a pellet gun in St. Petersburg.

[…]

At least12 people reported being struck by pellets.

People reported being hit in their legs, hands and back, but police say none of the injuries were serious.
Pellet guns are not firearms. Including pelet gun incidents in their reporting is a perfect example of bending the data to suit their agenda. Thank you for proving MST is pure bull****.
 
Seriously tho your source is including pellet guns. Pellet guns are toys. Literally, toys. Like Legos (ever step on one?) You may as well include Nerf shootings while you're at it.

Even in the UK you can buy fully automatic pellet guns AND silencers AND unlimited ammunition. Because they're toys, not weapons.

You're a ****ing joke mate. A real wanker.
 
Pellet guns are not firearms. Including pelet gun incidents in their reporting is a perfect example of bending the data to suit their agenda. Thank you for proving MST is pure bull****.

another example-I cited the source months ago-some will remember it. an abandoned school building had a window broken by some sort of bullet. This incident was counted as a school shooting. Another case-someone drove into the parking lot of a school-after hours-and committed suicide in a vehicle-this too was recorded as a school shooting
 
Seriously tho your source is including pellet guns. Pellet guns are toys. Literally, toys. Like Legos (ever step on one?) You may as well include Nerf shootings while you're at it.

Even in the UK you can buy fully automatic pellet guns AND silencers AND unlimited ammunition. Because they're toys, not weapons.

You're a ****ing joke mate. A real wanker.

yes and no-I am an airgun fan and in England, airguns above a certain energy level need a gun permit to own. some airguns are powerful enough to kill boars and deer with. those are often PCPs with large caliber bullets. my son has a Swedish FX PCP in 22 caliber that shoots at over 1200 FPS. He has killed a decent sized coyote with it-head shot at 40 meters, and dozens of crows at ranges up to 90M. Not a toy-it cost over 1800 with the scope
 
yes and no-I am an airgun fan and in England, airguns above a certain energy level need a gun permit to own. some airguns are powerful enough to kill boars and deer with. those are often PCPs with large caliber bullets. my son has a Swedish FX PCP in 22 caliber that shoots at over 1200 FPS. He has killed a decent sized coyote with it-head shot at 40 meters, and dozens of crows at ranges up to 90M. Not a toy-it cost over 1800 with the scope
Fair point. So, where's Flogger to confirm that air-gun incidents reported by MST only involved these high-powered air guns, and not simply toy-grade guns Americans find at any Wal-Mart?
 
Fir point. So, where's Flogger to confirm that air-gun incidents reported by MST only involved these high-powered air guns, and not simply toy-grade guns Americans find at any Wal-Mart?

So how many air gun fatalities vs real firearm are we talking about here ? You are ducking and dodging frankly

Graph-1.jpg
GunViolence-620x445.jpg
_65311537_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.jpg
 
So how many air gun fatalities vs real firearm are we talking about here?
In America, air-guns are toys and I'm sure there is plenty of toy-related injuries nation wide. Ever step on a Lego? Also, our gun control laws do not regulate air-guns. Our gun control laws only regulate firearms.

So when you post a cute little pic trying to argue that oh so many people are victims of firearms mass-shootings, and it's discovered that your source is including non-injury toy shootings, it's all over for you here. You're done. No one will ever take you seriously on this forum ever again.
 
In America, air-guns are toys. Also, our gun control laws do not regulate air-guns. Our gun control laws only regulate firearms.

So when you post a cute little pic trying to argue that oh so many people are victims of firearms mass-shootings, and it's discovered that your source is including non-injury toy shootings, it's all over for you here. You're done. No one will ever take you seriously on this forum ever again.

My question still stands so why not just answer it ?
 
My question still stands so why not just answer it ?

3/4 of a million Brit's deliberately approved by the UK government to have the means to kill easier than the rest of you. What do you think the criteria is for who the government approves and disapproves?
 
Back
Top Bottom