Parkland, FL 2/14/18 School Shooting, 17 Killed (Another mass shooting!)

[ssvarc]

I am not against those ideas. When BO did something to try and stop individuals with problems to get a gun the right was against it. Then the president reverses it and clueless individuals like you say nothing or use a group you hate like the ACLU to make your argument. Look in the mirror and you will see the problem.

Yet, like as if there's a dybbuk, you don't purpose those, instead you start and end with trying to ban guns.

That's not what BO tried to do. He was trying to grab guns from people without any demonstrated danger and without any due process. There's a reason why such "right-wing NRA-style" groups like the ACLU opposed his gun grab.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, but sure let's just try again.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Yet, like as if there's a dybbuk, you don't purpose those, instead you start and end with trying to ban guns.

That's not what BO tried to do. He was trying to grab guns from people without any demonstrated danger and without any due process. There's a reason why such "right-wing NRA-style" groups like the ACLU opposed his gun grab.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, but sure let's just try again.

You need to put your Hannity mentality aside if you want an honest discussion. You refuse to address the gun side of the issue. This shows your lack of knowledge about guns or your head buried in the sand mentality.

[avromie7]

I am not against those ideas. When BO did something to try and stop individuals with problems to get a gun the right was against it. Then the president reverses it and clueless individuals like you say nothing or use a group you hate like the ACLU to make your argument. Look in the mirror and you will see the problem.

Can you answer this question?

Please answer this question before repeating this false narrative.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Please answer this question before repeating this false narrative.

Please stop posting since you know nothing about guns. I have better chance of being called an expert on the Torah than you being taken serious in this thread.

[ssvarc]

You need to put your Hannity mentality aside if you want an honest discussion. You refuse to address the gun side of the issue. This shows your lack of knowledge about guns or your head buried in the sand mentality.

You need to stop thumping your chest, and stop using the bodies of children to call for your policy changes.

We won't be bullied with name calling to implement harmful ideas.

[avromie7]

Please stop posting since you know nothing about guns. I have better chance of being called an expert on the Torah than you being taken serious in this thread.

I thought we were going to have an honest discussion.

The fact that you refuse to answer the simple question, and instead move to personal attacks speaks volumes.

[davidrotts63]

Please stop posting since you know nothing about guns. I have better chance of being called an expert on the Torah than you being taken serious in this thread.

Seems like you are the only one who knows, how many countless arguments have you disputed with this stupid claim? All while you can't answer one simple question.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Seems like you are the only one who knows, how many countless arguments have you disputed with this stupid claim? All while you can't answer one simple question.

What's the question?
How do want me to respond to some idiotic statement that guns saved more lives each year than murders committed. That's like me saying the Torah was written by the devil.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

All while you can't answer one simple question.

What's the question?

You want to give me a hint to what question you want answered?

[aygart]

1. Yes. (In the context of a killer perpetrating a mass casualty event of his choosing.) I've already brought the example of Virginia Tech - the deadliest school shooting, not committed by terrorists, in history. Handguns.

The vast majority of mass casualty shootings in the US (four deaths or more) are committed using handguns.

THat a shooting with handguns had more casualties than others with assault rifles shows little. (also not sure why you are limiting to school shootings for this-cherry picking?). That the majority oare with handguns also shows nothing. Each of those could potentially have been much worse had they used assault weapons. How can the ability to reload be equal to being able to shoot continuously? Each reload is an opportunity for someone to take him down like the football coach tried doing.

2. The basis for allowing a Constitutional right (yes, 2A meets that criteria) isn't if @aygart can figure out the purpose.

@aygart should only be allowed to exercise his 1A right to free speech on DDF to the tune of 300K words a year. If he can't make his point in that amount of words, what's the purpose?

With all due respect, the fact that the only reason you could cudgel up in your brain for wanting to possess an AR is to murder people, speaks volumes as to the level of the debate here. (Hint: Not high)

AR's are extremely common, there are millions in America; if all their owners wanted to murder people we would be awash in deaths.

The sheer insanity of your supposition is matched only by you holding on to it after being challenged.

Finally, I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to November, but if the ban in question is on aspects of various weapons, while having no effect on deaths (how well did CA's laws work in San Bernardino?), it might well be legal.

However, after Heller, a ban (or defacto ban like D.C. used to have) on any common class of firearm is illegal.

I am not sure what in the world you are trying to say here, but the courts have held that assault weapons bans are constitution numerous times. As recently as November SCOTUS allowed a lower court ruling upholding one Maryland to stand.

Notice that while stating that the gun has a different purpose you did not mention at all what that purpose may be. All you wrote was that millions have it. That is totally irrelevant. They may own it for reasons other that its purpose. Maybe they own it because they like showing it off at a gun show. Maybe they own it because it makes them feel cool or powerful. Maybe for some other reason.

Until someone challenges with a logical argument I have not been challenged. Your argumentum ad lapidem doesn't count.

4. I'm speaking to you, someone who believes that the millions of AR owners are walking time bombs.

Never said that. Straw man. I have not even called for a ban. I wrote that the arguments made for a ban sound sensible to me and have not heard a valid argument against them. Feel free to make one if you can do it without arguing from incredulity.

I can't hear you for all the rustling.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I presume it is a false tu quoque trying to say that I am the one who made a straw man argument. I do not see one in what I wrote and if I did please point it out.

[ssvarc]

What's the question?
How do want me to respond to some idiotic statement that guns saved more lives each year than murders committed. That's like me saying the Torah was written by the devil.

Sure, because everyone knows that having a gun never saved anyone's life, or saved someone from being injured, or saved someone from being raped, or having their property taken.

Everyone knows that the police are always with you 24/7 and that there is absolutely no need to be able to defend yourself, they'll do it for you.

Everyone believes that 80+ olds (see the last link below) would just as easily be able to defend themselves without a gun against a young hoodlum.

Right?

What about:
http://www.kltv.com/story/37406038/bowie-county-sheriffs-office-private-citizen-shot-man-trying-to-break-into-home

https://patch.com/georgia/woodstock/waffle-house-customer-shoots-armed-robbers-photos-released

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/crime_police/article_05488ee0-088d-11e8-881d-2f2e163c4e43.html

http://www.wtae.com/article/one-dead-after-shooting-in-springdale-township/16565279

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/utah/articles/2018-02-04/pistol-packing-passer-by-aids-utah-policeman-being-assaulted

http://www.wbko.com/content/news/Concealed-Carry-holder-holds-robbery-suspect-until-deputies-arrive-472231523.html

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/crime/indian-river-county/2018/02/01/shooting-reported-southwest-indian-river-county/1088776001/

http://myfox8.com/2018/02/01/fort-bragg-soldier-allegedly-shoots-kills-wifes-attacker-at-north-carolina-home/

https://txktoday.com/crime/man-shot-attempting-break-house-liberty-eylau/

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/holyoke_man_arrested_for_assau.html

https://patch.com/florida/landolakes/new-port-richey-mother-says-son-strangled-her-so-she-shot-him

http://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/maryland/83-year-old-retired-md-teacher-shoots-intruder/513321441

(This is just from one week, and it's a drop in the bucket. It doesn't include cases where just displaying the weapon caused the criminal to walk away, but those are people saved as well. Etc.)

Come on. It's "ridiculous" to believe those news reports. You should only believe the ones where guns killed people.

All on their own.

Big, black, bad, scary looking guns.

Just killed people.

Common sense.

It's so ridiculous to believe that the proper use of a gun can save a person, that I'll just insult people who bring up that point.

That'll prove me right and them wrong.

Right?

[aygart]

If you need to purpose ideas, at least purpose idea that everyone could agree with, and that might actually help.

(Mental health, increasing armed security in schools, etc.)

One of the issues here is that some just keep saying mental heath as if repeating those words will actually do something. The attempt made by BO to do that was attacked like this. (note the appeal to authority)

That's not what BO tried to do. He was trying to grab guns from people without any demonstrated danger and without any due process. There's a reason why such "right-wing NRA-style" groups like the ACLU opposed his gun grab.

Yet we have not heard how it SHOULD be done. If you feel there is a way to use some sort of mental health guidelines to avoid some of these shootings please tell us instead of just repeating the words "mental health". Until you can give a real proposal that is nothing at all but a distraction.

[aygart]

Sure, because everyone knows that having a gun never saved anyone's life, or saved someone from being injured, or saved someone from being raped, or having their property taken.

Everyone knows that the police are always with you 24/7 and that there is absolutely no need to be able to defend yourself, they'll do it for you.

Everyone believes that 80+ olds (see the last link below) would just as easily be able to defend themselves without a gun against a young hoodlum.

Right?

What about:
http://www.kltv.com/story/37406038/bowie-county-sheriffs-office-private-citizen-shot-man-trying-to-break-into-home

https://patch.com/georgia/woodstock/waffle-house-customer-shoots-armed-robbers-photos-released

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/crime_police/article_05488ee0-088d-11e8-881d-2f2e163c4e43.html

http://www.wtae.com/article/one-dead-after-shooting-in-springdale-township/16565279

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/utah/articles/2018-02-04/pistol-packing-passer-by-aids-utah-policeman-being-assaulted

http://www.wbko.com/content/news/Concealed-Carry-holder-holds-robbery-suspect-until-deputies-arrive-472231523.html

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/crime/indian-river-county/2018/02/01/shooting-reported-southwest-indian-river-county/1088776001/

http://myfox8.com/2018/02/01/fort-bragg-soldier-allegedly-shoots-kills-wifes-attacker-at-north-carolina-home/

https://txktoday.com/crime/man-shot-attempting-break-house-liberty-eylau/

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/holyoke_man_arrested_for_assau.html

https://patch.com/florida/landolakes/new-port-richey-mother-says-son-strangled-her-so-she-shot-him

http://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/maryland/83-year-old-retired-md-teacher-shoots-intruder/513321441

(This is just from one week, and it's a drop in the bucket. It doesn't include cases where just displaying the weapon caused the criminal to walk away, but those are people saved as well. Etc.)

Come on. It's "ridiculous" to believe those news reports. You should only believe the ones where guns killed people.

All on their own.

Big, black, bad, scary looking guns.

Just killed people.

Common sense.

It's so ridiculous to believe that the proper use of a gun can save a person, that I'll just insult people who bring up that point.

That'll prove me right and them wrong.

Right?

Straw man. He has only been arguing against assault rifles. How many lives have those saved. It is a bit ridiculous to be claiming that the one who may own more guns than anyone else on this forum is saying what you are claiming.

It is also a false absolute argument. He also never claimed that they have not saved any lives. He only disputed the claim they they saved more than were murdered.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Sure, because everyone knows that having a gun never saved anyone's life, or saved someone from being injured, or saved someone from being raped, or having their property taken.

Take a deep breath and breath. Look at what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. No one ever said guns do not save lives. For the record it saved my mothers life and mine during a home invasion.

Now back to your claim that guns have saved more lives than murders committed. It you want to revise that statement please do. Otherwise you are going to have to provide 30k+ more links to prove your point just for last year alone.

[davidrotts63]

Straw man. He has only been arguing against assault rifles. How many lives have those saved. It is a bit ridiculous to be claiming that the one who may own more guns than anyone else on this forum is saying what you are claiming.

It is also a false absolute argument. He also never claimed that they have not saved any lives. He only disputed the claim they they saved more than were murdered.

Can we get a WIKI of everyone's opinions?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Can we get a WIKI of everyone's opinions?

You want to give me a hint to what question you want answered?

...or were you just jumping on the bandwagon?

[aygart]

For the record it saved my mothers life and mine during a home invasion.

WOW!

[davidrotts63]

...or were you just jumping on the bandwagon?

I was asking you to answer someone else's question, so wasn't going to ask it my way

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I was asking you to answer someone else's question, so wasn't going to ask it my way

There have been hundreds of questions asked and answered. I am sure I missed some and ignored ones I thought were stupid. If you are going to accuse me of something at least have the common curtesy to point to what you are accusing me of.

[ssvarc]

Take a deep breath and breath. Look at what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. No one ever said guns do not save lives. For the record it saved my mothers life and mine during a home invasion.

Now back to your claim that guns have saved more lives than murders committed. It you want to revise that statement please do. Otherwise you are going to have to provide 30k+ more links to prove your point just for last year alone.

I made a very specific claim, purposefully.

...many more innocent citizens lives are saved by guns every year then are murdered by them...

This claim was in response to those claiming that banning certain types of guns, or all guns, is common sense and therefore a good thing to try. They brought no proof beyond "common sense".

If you agree, and witnessed - as you claim, that guns can save lives, why do I need to prove my claim beyond "common sense"?

I don't. I've shown that common sense allows the claim that guns save lives. Therefore restricting them will harm innocent civilians.

First prove that your proposal to restrict the amount or types of guns won't harm innocent civilians, then I'll prove my point.

If common sense is the standard for your preferred policy choices, I won't accept a double standard for my policy choices.