a little statistic for gun grabbers

We already could tell that you don't abide by the illegality of crystal meth.

 

Jesus Christ, you may be one of the most obtuse people I have meet on this forum. I don't want to be mean to you but I believe you have given me no choice. You can't comprehend even the most basic of concepts and when I try nicely to get you to see you double down. Did you not learn your lesson from the other thread?

 

It must be sad when someone you claim is on meth is going to make you look so foolish. Give me anything of substance and we will see if a "meth head" can out wit you. Agreed?

- - - Updated - - -

Post a link to me crying about a law that isn't out of context. Please, I am begging you. Be careful remember I got you in your lie last time and this time it will be even easier. Go ahead I'll wait.

 

Delusions of grandeur are a common symptom of meth use.

 

By the way I noticed I have asked you the same question 4 or 5 times which you have avoided 4 or 5 times now.

What I am telling you is that if that is the case then you personally, despite the laws, should be pro drugs, prostitution, polygamy, pro gay marriage, and so forth. Not from a legal perspective but from a personal perspective based off of your own argument. Are you not fallowing?

Why won't you answer?

 

I see you're in deflection and projection mode. And I await you teaching me a 'lesson'. Kids do say the darndest things. Please be gentle with me big boy

 

I'm specifically speaking about gay marriage but if you are talking about prostitution then you are confusing exploitation with drug addicts desire to get high by allowing themselves to be exploited to get drugs by pimps and the pimps are the drug dealers and by allowing them to prostitute themselves and purchase drugs legally you avoid most of the exploitation. Ron Paul is a stupid (*)(*)(*)(*). He is a liberal as far as I am concerned.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you ever apologize the the poster you blasted for doing the same thing you did in your own thread? Did you show any integrity?

 

I see you are unwilling to produce anything of worth. The next time you do will be the first and I will be here waiting.

 

I retracted what I said and told you that I was wrong. I then corrected myself right there in the open. When is the last time you apologized for your foul mouth?

 

This is one of the longest run-on sentence I've ever read. You are rambling like someone on speed would. If not meth, it has to be too much adderall.

 

I did not see that and if you did good on you. As for my mouth, like everything else, I don't care.

 

Actually I have a learning disorder and can hardly spell or read or use numbers correctly. I am very smart and have multiple BA's and started two different graduate degree programs but because of my disability I can't seem to use punctuation correctly or notice if things are spelled correctly. I see them as right but they never are. Sometimes it comes across as odd but it is just the way it is I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

It has been fun guys but I am tired and have to go to work soon so see you soon. It is always fun. Good night.

 

In what way did I "throw a fit"?
Seems like one of us is projecting, dodging and flame baiting all in one post... (hint: that'd be you)

If you're asking whether mass shootings are the only reason to have gun laws, the answer is obviously "no".

There is no single law that is 100% effective. Tell me again if that means we shouldn't have any laws...?

 

You were throwing a fit with your straw man response.

Okay. Thanks.

Link me to any post where I said there should be no gun laws.

 

Table 11. Death rates for 113 selected causes, Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile, drug-induced causes,alcohol-induced causes, and injury by firearms, by age: United States, 2009

Deaths per 100,000 population:

Accidents (unintentional injuries) 38.4
Salmonella infections 26
Nontransport accidents 25.7
Whooping cough 15
Drug-induced deaths 12.8
Intentional self-harm (suicide) 12.0
Motor Vehicle Accidents 11.8
Alcohol-induced deaths 8.0
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 6.1
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 3.7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

You are 7 times more likely to die of Salmonella from a bad piece of undercooked chicken than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 6.9 times more likely to die of an untentional accident like slip and fall than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 4 times more likely to die of Whooping Cough than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 3.5 times more likely to die of using drugs than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 3.2 times more likely to die of a Car Accident than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 2.2 times more likely to die of a drinking too much Alcohol than being killed by someone with a gun.

You are 1.6 times more likely to die of killing YOURSELF intentionally with a gun than being killed by someone else with a gun.

So let's recap, liberals want to legalize drugs that they are 3.5 time more likely to die from and take away guns that they are 3.5 times LESS likely to die from. Ya'all just don't make any sense at all.

Motor Vehicle Deaths per 100,000: 10.5



The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

 

Registration is the law, straw purchases are against the law. It is the authorities job to enforce the law, and with the thousands of straw purchases each year, the arrest and conviction of these lawless acts amounts to single digits for prosecution.

So what I am hearing you say, let's put more laws out there that the government won't or can't enforce. Sounds like a cluster (*)(*)(*)(*) to me

 

Obviously the person is the problem. They become more of a problem when they are able to hold a gun. Duh.
BTW, if you're going to site statistics, feel free to provide sources.

If your gun was registered and a crime is committed with it, it would be fairly easy for police to identify you as a suspect (either as the actual criminal or the person who provided the criminal with a gun). Duh.

Ok: "psychologist's fallacy"

IF you see someone coming who is "looking to do you harm". I don't believe most criminals give you advanced notice to get ready. Duh.

 

An analogy is not necessarily a straw man.
A straw man oversimplifies and is attacked in place of the original position. That wasn't the case with the analogy I provided.

You're welcome.

So you do believe there should be gun laws. I presume you'd like those laws to be effective and enforceable?

 

I am a gun owner. I know we need some gun laws. But all gun laws must be logical, make an actual difference, and be enforceable.

1. All gun purchases must have a background check. We simply cannot have possible felons or mentally ill people buying firearms.

2. 96% of all gun murders are committed with handguns, so that means handguns should get more laws than rifles/shotguns. Ownership of a handgun should require a permit. The FBI should have a slug test on file to match bullets to handgun barrels. Every bullet used in a crime will be cross-referenced with that database so we can hopefully connect the crime to the shooter.

3. Since only 4% of murders are committed with rifles/shotguns, there is no need for any laws dealing with these firearms, other than a background check. Magazine quantity limits, cosmetic feature regulations, should all be done away with. They solve nothing and save no one.

4. Since the illegal sale of handguns by gunrunners is a huge problem, a great solution to stop gunrunners, is to dry up their business. That means limiting purchasing of handguns to one per month, per person. Nationwide.

 

really? provide a source.

This I agree with. My point is this: If police can identify the gun that was used by a criminal (it was found near the scene, found during an arrest or raid, etc) how do they identify the person who accted as an accomplice by selling the gun to that criminal?

We've made an act illegal, then made it impossible to identify who commits that act, and then whined that the police are ineffective at enforcing the law. Talk about a cluster (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You put up a straw man. It was obvious.

Enforcing gun laws and adding more of the same are two different things.

 

Then a person becomes a problem when he grabs a knife. That would be a paranoid's fallacy.

Don't dodge. You can have a registered gun and still commit a crime. Registration prevents nothing. I thought you gun grabbers were about prevention.

So murder is a 'fallacy'? Self defense is a fallacy? It looks like your whole argument here is for gun grabbing. Just say so. Because in your Pollyanna world, no reason is a good reason to own a weapon. Right gun grabber?

Like it or not gun grabber, you stands a far better chance of defending yourself with a gun than with your rhetoric. And if you think otherwise, the fallacy is you.

 

Yeah, it's such a "losing issue" that every Western nation which has implemented strict gun controls has seen dramatic decreases in gun-related crimes. I call that a win; what do you call a reduction in gun-related crimes, and what makes America so unique that gun controls wouldn't work? Because...?

 

As the op points out most gun violence in America comes from criminals killing other criminals.

What is so bad about gang bangers culling the herd of other gang bangers before they have a chance to reproduce?

 

Excellent, so there is yet some hope for America to join the 21st century.

- - - Updated - - -

I know what the OP pointed out. How about addressing what I wrote? If gun bans have such a dramatic and positive effect everywhere else then why not in America? Because...?