• 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!

Gun in Home Kills Loved ones and Owner

You don't like being called that - well learn what a lie is.

You were actually just wrong, quoting data from a debunked source without doing any confirmation of the study you found during a brief internet search. The data was music to your ears perhaps but still wrong.

The study I quoted explained how and why.

You just don't want to admit you were wrong. Or to use your own terminology, posting a lie.

you posted a study that denies the one I posted was right. But that isn't the issue. You post claims about gun deaths that are constantly wrong. You also don't have the expertise to claim one study is more valid than the other. On top of that, my point is that you gun banners are lying when you claim that preventing the deaths of innocents is what motivates your anti gun jihad. Because gun deaths that could be eliminated or decreased by gun bans are far less than other sorts of things that cause premature deaths.
 
you posted a study that denies the one I posted was right....

Yes it totally debunked your posted study and explained how and why it was false.

Nevertheless you continue with you "what-about-ism" as if it's relevent.

I expect you to talk about cars and swimming pools next.



Stay on topic, we're talking about gun, if you wish to start a new thread on medical malpractice, you can repeat your discredited study, go ahead and be my guest.
 
Yes it totally debunked your posted study and explained how and why it was false.

Nevertheless you continue with you "what-about-ism" as if it's relevent.

I expect you to talk about cars and swimming pools next.



Stay on topic, we're talking about gun, if you wish to start a new thread on medical malpractice, you can repeat your discredited study, go ahead and be my guest.

you have yet to explain why you fixate on gun deaths. that suggests that your reticence is because you have erected a facade to hide your real reasons
 
you have yet to explain why you fixate on gun deaths. that suggests that your reticence is because you have erected a facade to hide your real reasons

Because this is a gun control board ?

Oh and I mention gun related injuries quite a lot.
 
Because this is a gun control board ?

Oh and I mention gun related injuries quite a lot.

if saving lives was your real goal, you'd pick a cause of death that kills more and isn't as controversial.
 
if saving lives was your real goal, you'd pick a cause of death that kills more and isn't as controversial.

"what-about-ism" again.

You mean a cause you dislike ?


I suspect death by medical malpractice is pretty damn controversial Btw.
 
"what-about-ism" again.

You mean a cause you dislike ?


I suspect death by medical malpractice is pretty damn controversial Btw.

you post hundreds of rants against guns. but you admit your dreams won't come true as long as there is a second amendment. So if saving lives was your real goal, you'd pick a cause of death that you can impact without getting rid of an amendment in the Bill of Rights.
 
you post hundreds of rants against guns.

No, but you post hundreds of rants/excuses supporting gun ownership

...you admit your dreams won't come true as long as there is a second amendment....

So what ?


...so if saving lives was your real goal, you'd pick a cause of death that you can impact without getting rid of an amendment in the Bill of Rights.


I think proposals to cut down road traffic casualties are received favorably


Not so gun related deaths - they're met with a "from my cold dead fingers" position. It's position well worth opposing in any civilized country.
 
No, but you post hundreds of rants/excuses supporting gun ownership



So what ?





I think proposals to cut down road traffic casualties are received favorably


Not so gun related deaths - they're met with a "from my cold dead fingers" position. It's position well worth opposing in any civilized country.

you're tilting at windmills.
 
you're tilting at windmills.

OK Mr Windmill


"Hear me now
Oh thou bleak and unbearable world,
Thou art base and debauched as can be;
And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled
Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
I am I, Don Quixote,
The Lord of La Mancha, þ
My destiny calls and I go,
And the wild winds of fortune
Will carry me onward,
Oh whithersoever they blow.
Whithersoever they blow,
Onward to glory I go"
 
That is a lie. Nothing in what you quoted said or implied that.

Your quotation:

And you should be jailed your entire life to prevent you from mistreating anyone....


Which is straight from the Trump quotation manual. Anyone criticizing him is wrong, if they're a government official they're guilty of "treason" and to quote the orange head "you know they dealt with people like that a little differently in the past"


Yet you support the means by which it gains power.

You mean large flag waving, rallies full of nationalism and rabble rousing patriotism? Let me think who has Nuremberg style rallies like that...."send them home, send them home...."
Ring any bells ?
Brown shirt, red hat





It is not. Most NATO countries have gun control laws.
Is Ireland a "fascist" country ?
 
Back
Top Bottom