• 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!

10 yr old shot two weeks after 2 yr old

Rich2018 said:
More like who.

The sellers of illegal ammunition.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are confused. Your statement referenced firearms.

Here, I'll post it again for you:
Most people wouldn't know where to buy an illegal firearm from

I'm asking what "from" refers to in that statement.
 
RF667799 said:
Maybe you are confused. Your statement referenced firearms.

Here, I'll post it again for you:
Most people wouldn't know where to buy an illegal firearm from

I'm asking what "from" refers to in that statement.
Click to expand...


It refers to the source of illegal arms.

eg:

Q: Where do you buy your carrots from ?
A: From my local Publix store.
 
Rich2018 said:
It refers to the source of illegal arms.

eg:

Q: Where do you buy your carrots from ?
A: From my local Publix store.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it! You're in the habit of ending your sentences with an unnecessary preposition and no punctuation.

See I wouldn't have thought that after seeing you very recently berate another poster for his grammar and usage.
 
RF667799 said:
Oh I get it! You're in the habit of ending your sentences with an unnecessary preposition and no punctuation.

See I wouldn't have thought that after seeing you very recently berate another poster for his grammar and usage.
Click to expand...


The post was grammatically correct - though I frequently refrain from using the period so as to make my posts seem less harsh


The statesman Winston Churchill is reputed to have made a comment about the finer points of grammar. In the past many books offering grammatical advice told readers that they must never end a sentence with a preposition. Reacting to criticism of a draft of an important speech, that included a correction to his text...an irate Churchill is reputed to have responded with the following reply:

"This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
 
Rich2018 said:
The post was grammatically correct - though I frequently refrain from using the period so as to make my posts seem less harsh


The statesman Winston Churchill is reputed to have made a comment about the finer points of grammar. In the past many books offering grammatical advice told readers that they must never end a sentence with a preposition. Reacting to criticism of a draft of an important speech, that included a correction to his text...an irate Churchill is reputed to have responded with the following reply:

"This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
Click to expand...

Clever..but "put up" is a common phrasing with its own meaning. Your ending preposition being both unnecessary and unpunctuated was clumsy at best and a grammatical fail in any case. The preposition in your sentence referred to what noun?

You don't have to answer. I just thought it was amusing that you just finished ranting at and berating another poster for his supposed grammatical failings. Continuing to try to excuse your own is amusing as well.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, I expressed a perception, YOU expressed a claimed "fact"
Click to expand...
Please, quote me declaring it as a fact. Because I'm pretty sure every time I said it was my experience.
 
Rich2018 said:
What ? Are you insane ?

Being shot by that gun(s) is not a violation of human rights ?
Click to expand...
You still spectacularly fail to comprehend that owning a gun is not the same thing as shooting someone.

No it's not. And every active shooter owned (or had access to an owned gun) owned a gun before shooting people with it

Are you proposing an "honor system" where a prospective gun buyer swear to never shoot anyone with it ?
Click to expand...
You mean like we (implicitly) do with literally every other piece of merchandise?

It's incredible that gun owners think they're such a bunch of angels.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see any evidence that simply owning a gun is an evil act.
 
Rich2018 said:
Absolutely it is relevant
Click to expand...
Except it isn't.

Never-the-less your fun time has to end because there are other who can and will kill.
Click to expand...
What else have you expressed the desire to ban entirely due to a small minority of people's misuse?

Alcohol-related fatalities are nearly triple that of firearms every year. Are you fervently advocating requiring background checks prior to purchase? Mandatory interlocks in vehicles? Banning high-proof "assault liquor"? Are you in favor of banning it entirely?

Tobacco-related fatalities appear to run up to 400,000 annually. Are you in advocating banning it?

If you are not in favor of all (or any) of these measures, I would have to wonder why. If you're about saving lives, you should be at least as vociferous about banning booze and smokes as you are about banning guns. Maybe you are. I haven't seen it, but I haven't been looking. What would it be about guns, which kill less than ten percent as many as tobacco does every year, that makes them more ban-worthy than cigarettes?

Moving the goal posts ?
Certainly I do, when listening to gun owners say you can kill with a pointed stick, would I want to ban them and kitchen knives too...
Click to expand...
Actually, that would more accurately be described as a "slippery slope." However, an argument can be both a slippery slope and valid at the same time; in this case, it would depend on what, exactly, you are advocating banning. Questioning the expansion of the ban is perfectly valid if, for example, you suggest a ban on AR-style rifles and someone were to point out that roughly five times more people annually are killed with knives than with rifles (of any type, not just the AR style).

Excuse 2.2
Click to expand...
I'm not at all sure you realize it, so I'll just point it out for you: that was not, in any way, a retort.

No, the problem is you will never be convinced even if you own kids are slaughtered in a school shooting
Click to expand...
I hope it would take more than an extreme emotional event for me to change my views on the rights of everyone else.

Nope, not if you're passing on ownership
Click to expand...
Well, you said "sale." But you're not big on words actually meaning something, I know.

Law enforcement would be able to trace a firearm if there was a national registry of every gun.
Hence their job would be easier
Click to expand...
As it would be if they could just barge into your house and look for evidence of a crime whenever they want. We don't let them do that, either.

No they're not.

They're excuses and nothing more. Each and every excuse to own a gun can be ans has been thoroughly debunked.
Click to expand...
Except they haven't, at all. In fact, they cannot be. As long as even a single data point exists showing a defensive gun use, it is irrefutable that a gun can be used for that purpose. Such a data point exists. Many, actually.
 
RF667799 said:
Clever..but "put up" is a common phrasing with its own meaning. Your ending preposition being both unnecessary and unpunctuated was clumsy at best and a grammatical fail in any case. The preposition in your sentence referred to what noun?

You don't have to answer. I just thought it was amusing that you just finished ranting at and berating another poster for his supposed grammatical failings. Continuing to try to excuse your own is amusing as well.
Click to expand...

I find your posts even more amusing.

And thank you for your compliment even though you have some non-traditional notions of how grammar works.

(and I think I used a pro-noun)
 
Grizzly Adams said:
...I'm pretty sure every time I said it was my experience....
Click to expand...

So your "experience" is something other than factual - maybe "hallucinatory" ?


...you still spectacularly fail to comprehend that owning a gun is not the same thing as shooting someone....
Click to expand...

You fail to understand that owning a gun gives someone the power to do just that. Perhaps your failure could be described as "spectacular" to someone with such a vivid imagination as you ?


...you mean like we (implicitly) do with literally every other piece of merchandise?
Click to expand...

What, you mean such as a sofa ?


...I have yet to see any evidence that simply owning a gun is an evil act....
Click to expand...

No it the (sadly) not uncommon use of them that is


...except it isn't...
Click to expand...

Is


...what else have you expressed the desire to ban entirely due to a small minority of people's misuse?
Click to expand...

Perhaps an imported Chinese toy which caused ONE little girl to choke. ONE.


...alcohol-related fatalities are nearly triple that of firearms every year...
Click to expand...

And what happened the last time the government tried to ban alcohol, prohibition wasn't very successful was it ?
Just come and take our beer & whiskey and see what happens...typical response from the leftist fascists of the Green New Deal Nanny State


...if you're about saving lives, you should be at least as vociferous about banning booze and smokes as you are about banning guns...
Click to expand...

Alcohol and nicotine are the two most dangerous drugs out there
But they can be banned for several practical reasons

Also they tend to only affect the user - so if you can think of a way of making firearms only work on the user, I'm all ears (though suicides would logically reduce if guns were banned).


...I'm not at all sure you realize it, so I'll just point it out for you: that was not, in any way, a retort...
Click to expand...

Excuse 2.2

And yes knife crime needs to be addressed too - how would you suggest /


...I hope it would take more than an extreme emotional event for me to change my views on the rights of everyone else....
Click to expand...

I did say "never"


...you said "sale."...
Click to expand...

Then excuse me and add "gift"


...it would be if they could just barge into your house and look for evidence of a crime whenever they want. We don't let them do that, either...
Click to expand...

The Patriot Act does

But yes unless law enforcement cite the Patriot Act they need a warrant to search but not necessarily to arrest you


...they cannot be. As long as even a single data point exists showing a defensive gun use...
Click to expand...

Yes they are

And yes to you can stoop to dredge up an anecdote of how some old woman saved her life or honer with a gun.

Makes you wonder how people survive in the "fascist" state that ban guns.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
You still spectacularly fail to comprehend that owning a gun is not the same thing as shooting someone.


You mean like we (implicitly) do with literally every other piece of merchandise?


I have yet to see any evidence that simply owning a gun is an evil act.
Click to expand...

here is why they thing that way. Gun banners have to pretend-in order to gain some public acceptance-that they push for bans to make society safer. But they tend to see honest gun owners as more a problem than armed criminals because, in reality, what really bothers the gun banners is the political leanings and voting patterns of honest gun owners. So they have to attack gun ownership and the right to own guns, because they cannot attack crime or violence because legal gun owners aren't causing much of that
 
Rich2018 said:
What ? Are you insane ?

Being shot by that gun(s) is not a violation of human rights ?




No it's not. And every active shooter owned (or had access to an owned gun) owned a gun before shooting people with it

Are you proposing an "honor system" where a prospective gun buyer swear to never shoot anyone with it ?
Good luck with that.

"OK Mr Paddock, here's your gun..."




It's incredible that gun owners think they're such a bunch of angels.
Click to expand...

Those who possess a penis are not rapists in waiting just as those who possess a gun are not mass shooters or criminals in waiting. Will your next silly argument be that selling gasoline in "to go" containers causes arson? How about motor vehicles capable of exceeding the posted speed limit cause speeding?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Those who possess a penis are not rapists in waiting just as those who possess a gun are not mass shooters or criminals in waiting....
Click to expand...

No they're not

And those possessing cars aren't necessarily speeders


So why ban everyone from having a gun and not just the people who're going to be mass shooters at some time in the future ?

Answers on a postcard please.
 
Rich2018 said:
No they're not

And those possessing cars aren't necessarily speeders


So why ban everyone from having a gun and not just the people who're going to be mass shooters at some time in the future ?

Answers on a postcard please.
Click to expand...

Pretending that you can tell the difference is the only problem with your otherwise nearly perfect plan. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Pretending that you can tell the difference is the only problem with your otherwise nearly perfect plan. ;)
Click to expand...

since crime control is not really the goal, his plan does what he wants-disarms honest people
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet it sure to inconvenience at least some would be criminals as well. ;)
Click to expand...

when you cut through the crap, you get two kinds of avid gun banners (I am not talking about the soccer moms who answer polls favoring gun restrictions or even some who march in those silly parades-I am talking about those who spend hour after hour complaining about our gun rights)

1) those who admit that gun laws will harass and harm honest gun ownership at far greater levels than those laws will inconvenience criminals but they don't care since they see no value in armed citizens and

2) those who lie but really do seek to disarm the general population for political-or worse-Machiavellian reasons.
 
TurtleDude said:
fascist cravings.
Click to expand...

It is amazing that some self professed "Liberals" are for severely limiting self-defense capabilities. Just let granny dial 911 - they will be happy to tag and bag her.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is amazing that some self professed "Liberals" are for severely limiting self-defense capabilities. Just let granny dial 911 - they will be happy to tag and bag her.
Click to expand...

the leftist mindset has always held that individuals are expendable if their deaths promote the "greater good". It is the quintessential underlying philosophy of a collectivist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom