Don't tell us it's Guns

What measures do they propose for preventing shootings from starting as opposed to taking down the shooter once they've started?

 

What I find ludicrous are those refusing to even suffer minor inconvenience in the effort to reduce gun deaths I.e. no background checks

 

would you sacrifice your life to accomplish your goals-or merely those of others. Are you a Lord Farquaad?

 

I am not talking about the emotionally driven supporters-I am talking about people like Biden, Schumer, Bloomberg and Soros. The left is all about sacrificing individuals for the "greater good"

 

what I find ludicrous is those whose real goal is imposing ever increasing inconveniences to harass gun ownership while LYING that such inconveniences will deter criminals

 

Do you? You “liked” two out of three of these statements!

I encourage you to point out where you and other anti gun type folks here on PF advocate for anything besides gun control laws to solve these problems! Go…

 

I asked for a quote, not your personal opinion.

You said: "the hard core gun banners admit that gun bans will disarm the law abiding and not hard core criminals."

So, do you have a quote from a "hard core gun banner" admitting their approach would disarm only law abiding citizens and not criminals?

 

I reject your unlearned opinion

 

That you think shootings can be prevented is astounding.

 

you are on this board s much as I am and I know you have seen them. I will ask you

if guns are banned and possession is made illegal, who is more likely to keep their guns

 

your posts are as original as they are honest

 

I have never seen such admission from "hard core gun banner" (whatever that even means), which is why I asked you to provide a quote.

I suppose lot of people would. I don't think bans is a good idea anyway. Are you saying you would turn yours over? But that is besides the point. Do you have a quote or not?

 

do you think it is an effective debating tactic to demand others constantly supply quotes that we both know you have seen? or demanding citations (such as blacks commit more than half the murders or that most mass shootings involve handguns) over and over and over?

 

Yes. When people make claims which made up, asking for a quote is an effective way to expose their fakeness, because they can't provide quotes for comments no one has made.

I have never asked for such citations. If I need stats, I can look them up myself.

 

I’m not the one being dishonest. Carry on.

 

you know as well as I do that Golem and others have conceded that the gun bans they want will disarm honest people long before criminals are disarmed-there is no effective way to search for such a post

 

so you deny that people like Bloomberg and Soros don't see deaths as an acceptable price to advance their disarmament schemes?

 

If you really want to reduce violence, gun or otherwise, how about we do away with things that glorify violence, like movies and video games that expose young impressionable minds? How many of the Hollywood group are anti-gun, yet use them in the movies that make them lots o' bucks? Talk about hypocrites.

I've asked this before. What percentage of legal gun owners, have committed murder with those guns?

I support initial background checks. I support firearm education for all ages. I DO NOT support removing a legal object from the hands of people who are capable of handling them.

My point for listing the comparisons, was to show the absurdity of 'banning' something that in it's majority is safe, to eliminate the few that are dangerous.

 

No, I don't know that. Its ok, your inability to provide the quote already validated my suspicion.

So, if a ban was put in place, you would turn your guns in immediately? Lot of gun owners say they would not. They post things like this (see below). You know that, right? But then again, a ban is different from confiscation, is it not? A ban is designed to curb future purchases. Even Clinton ban did not call for anyone to turn in the rifles they already owned.

 

here-read the last page of this thread
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nse-gun-control.610937/page-5#post-1074258167

so if guns are banned from future sale, and crime continues, or your party needs to pander-what is the next step? Feinstein and others whined that the Clinton gun ban was impotent because currently owned guns were able to remain in the possession of citizens. Lots of your fellow travelers either support a gun confiscation scheme or have already made the choices needed to accept one

 

Seems like a moot point since I do not have a party. I habe my personal opinion, which I have shared many times: I do not support bans which target certain types of guns or mags. I have no clue why you routinely pretend I support something I do not support?

Why should care what Feinstein thinks?

Sure, your fellow travelers support it too (whatever your comment even means).

Done. Its mostly you telling others what they supposedly think, which is pretty much all you ever do, and end up misrepresenting everyone else. Its a weird hobby, but it is what it is.

 

I wouldn't sacrifice others.

 

So my point is proven.

 

If your point is that it's impossible to stop all shootings then I am glad I could help you make your point.

 

I guess this applies to you too. You guys don't want to prevent shootings from happening, all you want to do is kill people after they have already shot and injured/killed someone.