- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 122,485
- Reaction score
- 19,848
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So you got nothing.
There is not a single country on earth with lax gun laws and low gun deaths.
It cant be done
So you got nothing.
I find those stats highly doubtful seeing how most 2nd amendment opponents such as yourself don't even know what an assault weapon actually is. You can't properly define one and when asked about you whine about semantics. So I highly doubt that the people taking those surveys don't even know the difference between a firearm defined as an assault weapon and one that isn't. If the survey asked should semiautomatic handguns and rifles be banned the results would drastically be a overwhelming no.
Name one. If there were dozens, naming one shouldn't be a problem.
Vermont has lax gun laws and low homicide deaths.There is not a single country on earth with lax gun laws and low gun deaths.
It cant be done
See you proved that you are ignorant as **** when it comes to firearms. And you expect that the people taking the survey to know anything?Quibbling over your draconian definitions does not advance your position.
Vermont has lax gun laws and low homicide deaths.
Gun deaths overall don't mean dick because most gun deaths in this country are suicides which are irrelevant.
"Could have". Whatboutisms? That's all you have? Seriously?Gun registration. A shooter could have decided that it was too much hassle and never bought a gun.
"Could have". Whatboutisms? That's all you have? Seriously?
You said "dozens of laws could have...". Not a single one would have. You're dealing in whataboutisms, whether you know it or not. It seems as though you are the one who doesn't know what whataboutisms means.Thst is not what whataboutism means. Lol
We are discussing probabilities. That seatbelts is no guarantee that your life will be saved in a crash....but buckle up . Lol
You said "dozens of laws could have...". Not a single one would have. You're dealing in whataboutisms, whether you know it or not. It seems as though you are the one who doesn't know what whataboutisms means.
I'm not the one trying to claim that, you are, and you're failing miserably.You can prove that? You can prove that the shooter may have decided not to buy a gun based on recent gun laws? Really? You are psychic?
No sir....you can not
I'm not the one trying to claim that, you are, and you're failing miserably.
Correct, a gun control law cannot prevent a mass shooting. See Chicago, DC, etc...The exact opposite of what you said is true. You are claiming that a gun control law CAN NOT prevent a mass shooting.
I can easily also claim a seatbelt CAN NOT prevent a auto death.
Buckle up. Lol
Such a ludicrous question, but so typical of the NRA adherents and the We-Are-So-Powerless-to-do-Anything-about-Mass-Shootings crowd.
Here's a "Red Flag" event in today's Wall Street Journal ---
Vermont Police Thwart Potential School Shooting - WSJ
...Mr. Sawyer’s father said his son had spent the past year and a half in a residential treatment facility in Maine for depression and anxiety, and he had recently stopped taking his medication for depression and ADHD.
The following day, law enforcement in New York’s Duchess County were contacted by a juvenile female about phone messages from an individual who had been plotting to shoot at the Fair Haven school, according to the affidavit. The text messages were time stamped beginning Feb. 11, and continued through the evening of Feb. 14, according to an affidavit.
In interviews with Fair Haven law enforcement, Mr. Hall said, Mr. Sawyer said he had been planning to “shoot up” Fair Haven Union High School for several years and provided details of which parts of the school he would target.
Police recovered the shotgun and ammunition, as well as Mr. Sawyer’s journal, titled “The Journal of an Active Shooter.” They also found books on the Columbine school shooting and a gas mask, Mr. Hall said.
The exact opposite of what you said is true. You are claiming that a gun control law CAN NOT prevent a mass shooting.
I can easily also claim a seatbelt CAN NOT prevent a auto death.
Buckle up. Lol
Suicides are irrelevant to the families of the dead? That is sick.
States with the highest suicide rate all have lax gun laws.
It is sick... that's what so frustrating about you.
You don't care that people die from suicide.. as long as its not with a firearm.
Japan has some of the toughest gun laws.. and a high rate of suicide.
Its not about guns.
This coming from the guy who keeps telling us that we need to ban "weapons of war," but who then dodges every question aimed at getting him to explain why.
Yes, that's a perfect example of why we don't need red flag laws, since he was stopped without resort to one.
Sure.. and while Redakston would be correct..
You would be wrong.
Correct, a gun control law cannot prevent a mass shooting. See Chicago, DC, etc...
Because seatbelts CAN prevent auto death...happens all the time.A seatbelt can not prevent an auto death.
Why do you use them? Real question
Because seatbelts CAN prevent auto death...happens all the time.
But they cannot prevent deliberate actions such as vehicular manslaughter.Yay.....we have a winner.
Same with gun control
But they cannot prevent deliberate actions such as vehicular manslaughter.
And I can explain how seatbelts save lives.
How does banning rifles with pistol grips, flash suppressors, or bayonet lugs prevent mass shootings????
Banning certain weapons is not a form of gun control?Well I am against gun bans so I will not defend that position