Lost in the scuffle.

[Bootz]

I know a few families that were invested in their children and still lost them to suicide.

However, my point isn't that your sons would commit suicide because they had access to guns, but that access to guns would make it exponentially easier if they were so inclined.

And if guns are physically not available - i.e. we actually remove them from existence - even the criminals won't have them, because there aren't any. And that is something that many people can't fathom. No, it wouldn't be perfect, some people would still manage to get their hands on some gun, but that's letting the absence of "perfect" get in the way of "a huge improvement".

if you believe that nations will stop going to war then nobody needs a gun. what would the next weapons be? do you think that we should disband our military and police force?

 

[Critter7r]

if you believe that nations will stop going to war then nobody needs a gun. what would the next weapons be? do you think that we should disband our military and police force?

Of course not. Both of those premises are silly. (and I didn't even mention going to war :shrug: ) When the US goes to war, the general population has nothing to do with it - I mea, how much have non-military citizens had to do with the wars the US has been engaging in the middle east for the past 25 years? Right, none. We aren't fighting the Taliban on our doorsteps or dodging their IEDs on the way to work.

And let me be clear - I am not advocating for the complete removal of guns from regular citizens, I'm merely giving voice to what I think would be the most effective method toward eliminating gun violence. A thought experiment, if you will. It seems to me that complete disarming would be the most effective method of curbing gun violence. Short of that, I feel that targeting ALL semi-automatic weapons (including handguns) and causing them to be removed from existence and banned from any further manufacture would be the next best option for reducing gun violence. We surely would see an uptick of shotgun and bolt-action rifle deaths, but the sheer reduction in the number of guns available would reduce the number of gun deaths.

 

[Lursa]

Of course not. Both of those premises are silly. (and I didn't even mention going to war :shrug: ) When the US goes to war, the general population has nothing to do with it - I mea, how much have non-military citizens had to do with the wars the US has been engaging in the middle east for the past 25 years? Right, none. We aren't fighting the Taliban on our doorsteps or dodging their IEDs on the way to work.

And let me be clear - I am not advocating for the complete removal of guns from regular citizens, I'm merely giving voice to what I think would be the most effective method toward eliminating gun violence. A thought experiment, if you will. It seems to me that complete disarming would be the most effective method of curbing gun violence. Short of that, I feel that targeting ALL semi-automatic weapons (including handguns) and causing them to be removed from existence and banned from any further manufacture would be the next best option for reducing gun violence. We surely would see an uptick of shotgun and bolt-action rifle deaths, but the sheer reduction in the number of guns available would reduce the number of gun deaths.

See: War on Drugs for the futility of that idea. All it would do is leave those firearms...the higher faster firepower...in the hands of those with criminal intent.

Thanks but I'll keep my 17+1 9mm semi-auto handgun.

 

[Critter7r]

See: War on Drugs for the futility of that idea. All it would do is leave those firearms...the higher faster firepower...in the hands of those with criminal intent.

Thanks but I'll keep my 17+1 9mm semi-auto handgun.

Drugs are a little different. Billy gets physically addicted to shooting up heroin, not shooting his AR. After a while, he'll realize he really doesn't need that gun after all, even though he may be a little sad.

 

[Lursa]

Drugs are a little different. Billy gets physically addicted to shooting up heroin, not shooting his AR. After a while, he'll realize he really doesn't need that gun after all, even though he may be a little sad.

I'd like to see sources for that very large load of bullcrap.

And you must not be a rural person?

Unless you also believe that laws keep motorcycles and 4 wheelers off of our hiking trails? :roll: And so then they just lose interest in those to.

 

[bluesmoke]

First of all, I asked you to quote me what makes you think “mass shootings are not an issue” to me, as you claimed. You did not. Your claim is refuted, and your accusation is false.

in general reports give the impression mass shootings are up, you wanted to argue that crime was down. that was my point.

No, I did not miss your reference to mass murders as violent crime, which you pointed out in your prior post. What makes you think I missed it? What’s your point? Remember, you’re the one that said “now that i have read your post “, meaning you admit to having, for the most part, missed an entire post when you first replied to it. Such hypocrisy. You’ve already made at least one false accusation of me. Please, back up this one.

I said now that i have read your post as a joke, i made a flippant response and then read your post

Of course, it’s not OK with me, Bootz. Is it OK with you that little girls are abducted, raped and killed?

where the hell did that come from

I was addressing that your two links on this thread did not constitute “full of links”, not all the 7 threads you refer to. If that’s the claim you’re making, then provide the evidence. You made the claim. I delineated the evidence that this link was not “full of links”.

On the third point, I do the same. Also, I use what others post to interest me enough to do the research I do and learn from, and inform others. That’s why I don’t mind, to some extent, trolls when their post, as ludicrous as may be, provides that kind of opportunity. I understand many do not have the time “to research all subjects thoroughly.” It especially shows when they make a false accusation based on a lack of that research.

it is your choice if you want to interpret a narrow focus post on a global basis very few statements apply universally

On your fourth point, GFY (Good For You). I agree. In the case of this thread, I just think had you begun with links to more “whys” and solutions than you did, and formulated more discussion of same in your OP, that would have better jump-started your topic more forward in the right direction.

my thread was much more broad than those that focus solely on gun control

Fifth, yup. And the cause of violence will more likely succeed with a gun than a popsicle stick. In prison, though, a sharpened popsicle stick can make a deadly weapon.

or a rental truck

I don’t do videos. Printing I can read at my own pace, skim, reread wherever I wish, copy-paste to wherever, and keep as a record.

[/QUOTE]



I’ve asked you twice to quote what I posted makes you think “mass shootings are not an issue” to me and all you can say is that I “wanted to argue that crime was down”, which you cannot quote me on anything I posted that implied such, either. Your claims about my position that mass shootings are not an issue and that I wanted to argue that crime was down are totally false. Yet, you persist in claiming what you do without any basis in fact. You reinforce your beliefs with false information and persist in that belief though invalidated by fact.

That you say you said “Now that I’ve read your post” as a joke then follow that with “i made a flippant response and then read your post” is as confusing as you’ve been all along. The point is not worth pursuing.

You asked if I thought mass shootings on the rise were OK with me: “So mass shootings have been on the rise, is that OKay with you.” Where the hell did it come from that you would call my believing that OK into question? I could as well question you in the same manner as you questioned me.

It’s not my interpretation that is the matter. It’s you making a claim that you cannot prove. I can show that you’ve done so multiple times in this one thread more than you can show that this one thread is full of your links. You made the claim of “full of links” on a global scale and you can’t prove it. The burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed for lack of evidence. You lack evidence, so your claim is dismissed.

I think the focus only on gun control is broadening to include such subjects as you’ve brought up as being inextricably linked.

Yup, a rental truck also. Probably more-so than a sharpened popsicle stick. A bit less used for violent purposes than guns, though.

 

[Critter7r]

I'd like to see sources for that very large load of bullcrap.

What are you calling a load of BS? That heroin is addictive? Or that shooting an AR isn't? :rofl:

And you must not be a rural person?

I live in the sticks. 20 miles outside the suburbs of Detroit.

Unless you also believe that laws keep motorcycles and 4 wheelers off of our hiking trails? :roll: And so then they just lose interest in those to.

So if it were against the law to manufacture or own 4 wheelers, do you think that the problem would still be as bad as it is?

 

[Lursa]

What are you calling a load of BS? That heroin is addictive? Or that shooting an AR isn't? :rofl:



I live in the sticks. 20 miles outside the suburbs of Detroit.



So if it were against the law to manufacture or own 4 wheelers, do you think that the problem would still be as bad as it is?

I asked if they would lose interest. And no they wouldnt. As for the BS, please source this as requested:

Drugs are a little different. Billy gets physically addicted to shooting up heroin, not shooting his AR. After a while, he'll realize he really doesn't need that gun after all, even though he may be a little sad.

I've been 'addicted' to horses my entire life. When I didnt have them, when I did. Never in 57 years lost interest in the least. People are passionate about many things...has nothing to do with physical addiction. (Maybe chemical but then hey, no reason it doesnt apply to AR's as well as anything else.)

 

[Bootz]

I’ve asked you twice to quote what I posted makes you think “mass shootings are not an issue” to me and all you can say is that I “wanted to argue that crime was down”, which you cannot quote me on anything I posted that implied such, either. Your claims about my position that mass shootings are not an issue and that I wanted to argue that crime was down are totally false. Yet, you persist in claiming what you do without any basis in fact. You reinforce your beliefs with false information and persist in that belief though invalidated by fact.

That you say you said “Now that I’ve read your post” as a joke then follow that with “i made a flippant response and then read your post” is as confusing as you’ve been all along. The point is not worth pursuing.

You asked if I thought mass shootings on the rise were OK with me: “So mass shootings have been on the rise, is that OKay with you.” Where the hell did it come from that you would call my believing that OK into question? I could as well question you in the same manner as you questioned me.

It’s not my interpretation that is the matter. It’s you making a claim that you cannot prove. I can show that you’ve done so multiple times in this one thread more than you can show that this one thread is full of your links. You made the claim of “full of links” on a global scale and you can’t prove it. The burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed for lack of evidence. You lack evidence, so your claim is dismissed.

I think the focus only on gun control is broadening to include such subjects as you’ve brought up as being inextricably linked.

Yup, a rental truck also. Probably more-so than a sharpened popsicle stick. A bit less used for violent purposes than guns, though.[/QUOTE]


your words to follow.

A two-year rise in anything is hardly a cause for concern. For instance, further to the data you gave to which you apparently limited your research, or selection, violent crime in the first half of 2017 is down .8%. Not much. Murder actually went up. But, it does not lend itself to any trend of a rise in violent crime, as you imply two years does:

 

[Critter7r]

See: War on Drugs for the futility of that idea. All it would do is leave those firearms...the higher faster firepower...in the hands of those with criminal intent.

Thanks but I'll keep my 17+1 9mm semi-auto handgun.

I asked if they would lose interest. And no they wouldnt. As for the BS, please source this as requested:

I've been 'addicted' to horses my entire life. When I didnt have them, when I did. Never in 57 years lost interest in the least. People are passionate about many things...has nothing to do with physical addiction. (Maybe chemical but then hey, no reason it doesnt apply to AR's as well as anything else.)

I don't know who you are responding to with this (bolded). You didn't ask any questions in the post I quoted earlier. (top)


Also of note : "interest" and "addiction" are two very different animals. But you're right, being passionate about something has nothing to do with actual addiction.

 

[Lursa]

I don't know who you are responding to with this (bolded). You didn't ask any questions in the post I quoted earlier. (top)


Also of note : "interest" and "addiction" are two very different animals. But you're right, being passionate about something has nothing to do with actual addiction.

Your claim was that men would lose interest in assault rifles if they werent available. I asked for proof of that, stating that lack of availability (being illegal) failed in the War on Drugs. You then later implied 'addiction' was different than losing interest. I explained clearly how they were not particulary different and continued to call BS on your unsupported claim.

 

[Critter7r]

Your claim was that men would lose interest in assault rifles if they werent available. I asked for proof of that, stating that lack of availability (being illegal) failed in the War on Drugs. You then later implied 'addiction' was different than losing interest. I explained clearly how they were not particulary different and continued to call BS on your unsupported claim.

I didn't claim that "men would lose interest" in ARs, I said that Billy would "realize he really doesn't need that gun after all, even though he may be a little sad." I'm not sure how you expect me to "prove" that Billy will or won't "need" an AR, though.

And I'm not implying that "addiction" is different than "interest", the dictionary does that for me.

 

[Lursa]

I didn't claim that "men would lose interest" in ARs, I said that Billy would "realize he really doesn't need that gun after all, even though he may be a little sad." I'm not sure how you expect me to "prove" that Billy will or won't "need" an AR, though.

And I'm not implying that "addiction" is different than "interest", the dictionary does that for me.

I was speaking to the results....where you assumed "Billy" would give up on ARs and I asked you to support the claim and you didnt.