London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Yeah, but it's not the guns that are defective. It's the intention of the user that's defective. What are you going to do about that?

Almost 50 times as many people die from tobacco use as from firearm homicides. And it's an insidious thing; addictive as hell. What do you say we regulate it in a way that forces the tobacco companies to make it so a cigarette contains only three puffs. Can you imagine how many lives will be saved? You need to start an online campaign to get something going.

And I see that you just can't let go of the potato. Your self induced amnesia has once again caused you to forget all about handguns, shotguns, and rifles. See there's a lot of alternatives at hand before one is forced to turn to the potato.

 

You must be so out of touch with yourself that you don't recollect using the word "fuck" five times in one of your posts to me.

 

ALL READY COVERED

Why the fuck are you gun people so dishonest

This has been gone over like what seems like a million times in this form and elsewhere, if you haven’t read the criticisms of this stance WHY NOT?

If you claim you haven’t then I can’t believe it - it would have to mean you never ever read the criticisms of your views, so how are we meant to have a rational debate?

If you have read the criticism of this view why not address that rather than repeat something you know has already been covered?

 

LOL so you can only have one view on one thing ant any one time, are you that mentally limited?

I have many views on many things, on gun control yes but also on welfare reform, the present state of economics, Syria, Myanmar, Brexit and what the ending of The Infinity War meant.

And I also have a viewpoint on smoking and how to try and lessen the harm from it and get people from doing it. There have even been discussion about it on these very forums.

If you have a view on tackling smoking then please start a thread.

Again this seems to be linked to very simplistic thinking I’ve highlighted before that seems only to see the world in either or, people can either be for gun control or they can tackle smoking for such people it seems impossible to do both, because they would find it hard to do both. I'm sorry to have to tell you but actually most people can do both and more.

 

What are you on about? What have I let go?

Can you address the criticism of your view or what?

 

LOL - I’m British we use fuck in every sentence, shit man you should hear the queen, its all 'fuck this' and 'fuck that' with her, and come on man you can be fucking frustrating the way you keep repeating stuff that’s already been covered and shown wanting.

 

I find the notion of Balbus going to the theater to watch Infinity War amusing for some reason.

 

Hi Mcfuddy

I've seen all the films in the story arch, favorites are Whiter Solider and Civil War, i also have a 13 year old child.

I've been a comic and sci-fi buff all my life, my life does not as some think just revolve around politics.

 

Yeah of course it doesn't. I didn't mean to imply it did, my apologies. Too bad you don't frequent some of the other forums here, we could have some fascinating discussions.

 

McFuddy

Oh I must have given the wrong impression I wasn’t upset there is nothing to apologise for - LOL the truth is that my wife thinks I’m a bit of a sci fi bore.

 

It's a bad idea because it's an outrageous civil rights violation.

We have addressed the criticisms. We've proven that the criticisms are baseless and that our position is completely correct.

The reason why we repeat our factual arguments is because gun control advocates keep making untrue claims that we need to rebut.

 

This doesn't address the silliness of you comparing guns to defective automobiles. With defective automobiles, the intent of the user is not the issue. With guns, the intent of the user is the issue. Is that fuckin' simple enough for ya? Do you understand the difference now?

 

You believe that more can be done than background checks and banning 30-round magazines. But I'm afraid that you're going to be disappointed. However, it is good to know that you don't wish to go on record as supporting the confiscation of all guns that hold more than 5 rounds. That's encouraging.

 

For fuck sake, listen carefully this time. I never mentioned what you have let go. I mentioned what you haven't let go. I'm referring to the potato thing that you continue waving around like a kid with a new toy. Let it go. It makes you look desperate.

 

Yeah, I'll repeat stuff if no one answers. For example, someone once said that they wanted to ban all semiautomatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor. So I asked how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle they were aware of? They never answered even though I asked them more than once. I also asked if folding stocks makes it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere to do a mass shooting, and how many mass shootings they were aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting. I also asked them how a flash suppressor helps a mass shooter since there's no one they would need to be hiding their intentions from at that point. I repeated those questions to the poster, and the reason I repeated them was because they didn't answer.

So now I have to ask you whether or not you want the same things banned. Don't fucking frustrate me. Are those the kind of proposals you're into?

 

Grand launchers of course would be illegal on a gun. A folding stock and flash suppressor is very useful for special forces in the military and other uses like that. You can use it in other ways. But it's basically what the Ar-15 a "just in case" part of the Second Amendment. That does not seem unreasonable to me. At some point suppressors have already been banned because of military use but in many places are not now. It does not help a mass shooter as much as a traditional solider who is going to shoot at you and hide behind new cover and shoot at you again.

If you believe in that you believe the citizen's right to attack the American goverment with guns is needed. So why are you not interested in using the current laws of a free America to the best it can be? That means getting weapons as close to military as you can because you can. And what is the trouble if you don't give us a reason to use them? It's a self regulating system. We will never actuly need the guns because they know we already have them so they have to let us keep them. But you never know. That was how it was around gun owners I've known. Nice people but you use different guns for different tasks. Gun owners who are not as pro civil war have seemed more willing to these kind of restrictions.

 

LOL, so I buy a safe or a trigger-lock for my gun. What's to stop me from not using it? Maybe surprise inspections would take care of that problem, eh?

 

So the answer is no, there have been no grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle that you are aware of. And another no to the question of whether a flash suppressor would help a mass shooter.

The rest of your post is a feeble attempt to psychoanalyze people who have AR-15s. These people scare you. Perhaps it's because you harbor falsehoods concerning them. For instance, you're on record as saying that members of the NRA have said that if you don't let them have their guns to kill with, they'll kill you. I've paraphrased your remark, but I absolutely captured the spirit of your comment. I've asked you a number of times to disclose the source of that comment, but to no avail. Will you disclose it now?

 

Not really. And more importantly, can you provide any justification for banning them?

Can you provide any justification for banning them as well?

Violating civil rights for no reason is hardly improving anything.

I guess we just don't like people violating our civil rights for no reason.

People can oppose pointless civil rights violations without being in favor of civil war.

 

ALL READY COVERED
Why the fuck are you gun people so dishonest
This has been gone over like what seems like a million times in this form and elsewhere, if you haven’t read the criticisms of this stance WHY NOT?
If you claim you haven’t then I can’t believe it - it would have to mean you never ever read the criticisms of your views, so how are we meant to have a rational debate?
If you have read the criticism of this view why not address that rather than repeat something you know has already been covered?

What the fuck are you on about now?

Where did defective cars come from all of sudden?

*

OK I’ll try my best with this although I do wish you’d explain you think a bit more clearly.

First you speak of intent, but in many case someone’s final actions are not the intention, someone can act to threaten without the intent to do harm, but the act of threatening can bring about a situation where harm takes place.

Also the weapon is important to possible outcomes the more effective the weapon the greater the possibility of injury and death. Some armed with a potato for example is likely to do a lot less damage if used than someone using a gun.