Posted by cccp1014 on 2/19/2018 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 5:50:00 PM (view original):
I'm not asking about assault weapons. I'm asking about hand guns. The VA Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 hand guns. Should hand guns be banned? If you don't have a logical argument, that's fine. I won't make fun of you, but Just be honest.

Yes, but hand guns are actually supposed to be 'useful' or whatever but assault rifles are only really used to kill or whatever, right? I am not knowledgeable about this.

What are you knowledgeable about?

Sports. Foreign Policy. Racial issues. Education.

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:23:00 PM (view original):
If we take domestic violence out of the equation, IMO this is a totally separate issue, since 2009, 15 of 71 incidents were in gun free zones. Obviously I pulled the 95% out of my butt, but that is still a significant %.

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show

A 2016 study by Harvard and Northeastern University put the total number of privately-owned firearms in the U.S. at 265 million, with more than half of that - 133 million - being concentrated in the hands of just 3% of Americans, called "super owners,"who have an average of 17 guns each.

I couldn't find any #s on the % of area in the country that is gun free, but this is as good a way as estimating as I could find. Basically, if we assume that this means that 3% of the country is not gun free (AND THAT IS A MAJOR ASSUMPTION), then that is saying that 20% of gun deaths happen in 3% of the country. I mean, we can at least assume that less than 20% of the country is in a gun-free zone, correct?

Again, Australia passed gun control in 1996, and did not have a mass shooting for 20 years. That's significant, right? Japan, Norway, and the UK are all like this. FOR INSTANCE:

GunPolicy.org estimates that in 2010 there were 3.78 guns per 100 people in the UK, while the US, meanwhile, is estimated to have 101 guns per 100 people.

The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year in England and Wales, which have a population of 56 million. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides.

That is significant, right? Am I missing something?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html

20% seems mighty high for "gun free" zones. When people speak of gun free zones, they are mainly talking about schools and government buildings. As far as owning multiple guns, that is very common down here. I own 7 myself.

What you oftentimes miss is that you cant compare us to the other countries. We have a constitution that is built on freedom and liberty unlike each of the countries that you mentioned. With freedom and liberty comes a risks. I understand those risks and am not willing to give up my freedoms just to be marginally safer from nut jobs.

You have a 0.00003% chance of being shot to death if you extract the roughly 1,000 people that will be shot to death in Chicago.

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 9:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:08:00 PM (view original):
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

Okay, let's use their data which supports your argument about mass shootings in "gun free" zones. It proves my point. Weapons are not the issue. The decline in morality is the issue.

Yeah, but if we have bad people, why do we let them have firearms? You are making my arguments for me.

Nope. You're missing the argument as normal. We need to do more as a society to promote stable, 2 parent households. It has gotten to the point that if you speak negatively of single motherhood, you are ridiculed. It has gotten to the point where people believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable even though they are not. This "tolerance" has led to moral decay in our society. The boys don't have fathers at home to teach them how to be responsible, productive citizens. I know that Cruz grew up with 2 parents having been adopted (we don't know the stability of the home), but that is not the norm for most whack jobs.

54% of mass killings are murders of spouses or partners and there families. These people can do the same damage in that setting with many different weapons.

Arguing gun control is counterproductive. It takes the focus away from the more relevant issues in these tragedies

MY TOP 10 PAUL MCCARTNEY ALBUMS RANKED
each album is 5 stars out of 5.

1. BAND ON THE RUN
2. RED ROSE SPEEDWAY
3. RAM
4. VENUS AND MARS
5. BACK TO THE EGG
6. WINGS AT THE SPEED OF SOUND
7. LONDON TOWN
8. TUG OF WAR
9. MCCARTNEY
10. CHAOS AND CREATION IN THE BACKYARD

check out the solo ebony and ivory bonus track...way better then the duet. tug of war
title track of london town..a rainy foggy sequel to penny lane
#6 - way underrated......very colorful.
red rose speedway.....my magical mystery tour from paul
mccartney and ram - probably the first 2 indie albums.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 9:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:08:00 PM (view original):
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

Okay, let's use their data which supports your argument about mass shootings in "gun free" zones. It proves my point. Weapons are not the issue. The decline in morality is the issue.

Yeah, but if we have bad people, why do we let them have firearms? You are making my arguments for me.

Nope. You're missing the argument as normal. We need to do more as a society to promote stable, 2 parent households. It has gotten to the point that if you speak negatively of single motherhood, you are ridiculed. It has gotten to the point where people believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable even though they are not. This "tolerance" has led to moral decay in our society. The boys don't have fathers at home to teach them how to be responsible, productive citizens. I know that Cruz grew up with 2 parents having been adopted (we don't know the stability of the home), but that is not the norm for most whack jobs.

54% of mass killings are murders of spouses or partners and there families. These people can do the same damage in that setting with many different weapons.

Arguing gun control is counterproductive. It takes the focus away from the more relevant issues in these tragedies

But I agree with most of what you are saying. All I am arguing for is to not allow people like Cruz, who had a mental illness, had talked about shooting up the school on twitter, had misused guns in the past, and had recently been expelled to not be able to legally purchase a gun, especially a semi-automatic one. Yes, we need to deal with all of those problems, and I have some disagreements with your arguments (sometimes divorce is a good thing, and gay marriage does not mean an unstable household, so that's pretty homophobic of you, and sometimes fathers can be a negative influence on their kids) but the fact that Cruz was in counseling before he lost his adoptive family, and then dropped out of counseling which is when things started to go downhill is relevant. But for the moment, can we all just agree that we need to put in reasonable gun control reforms like mental health checks, background checks, regular checkups, no guns to felons, and training for gun ownership to not make it easy for those unstable people to, oh, I don't know, shoot up a school?

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:23:00 PM (view original):
If we take domestic violence out of the equation, IMO this is a totally separate issue, since 2009, 15 of 71 incidents were in gun free zones. Obviously I pulled the 95% out of my butt, but that is still a significant %.

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show

A 2016 study by Harvard and Northeastern University put the total number of privately-owned firearms in the U.S. at 265 million, with more than half of that - 133 million - being concentrated in the hands of just 3% of Americans, called "super owners,"who have an average of 17 guns each.

I couldn't find any #s on the % of area in the country that is gun free, but this is as good a way as estimating as I could find. Basically, if we assume that this means that 3% of the country is not gun free (AND THAT IS A MAJOR ASSUMPTION), then that is saying that 20% of gun deaths happen in 3% of the country. I mean, we can at least assume that less than 20% of the country is in a gun-free zone, correct?

Again, Australia passed gun control in 1996, and did not have a mass shooting for 20 years. That's significant, right? Japan, Norway, and the UK are all like this. FOR INSTANCE:

GunPolicy.org estimates that in 2010 there were 3.78 guns per 100 people in the UK, while the US, meanwhile, is estimated to have 101 guns per 100 people.

The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year in England and Wales, which have a population of 56 million. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides.

That is significant, right? Am I missing something?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html

20% seems mighty high for "gun free" zones. When people speak of gun free zones, they are mainly talking about schools and government buildings. As far as owning multiple guns, that is very common down here. I own 7 myself.

What you oftentimes miss is that you cant compare us to the other countries. We have a constitution that is built on freedom and liberty unlike each of the countries that you mentioned. With freedom and liberty comes a risks. I understand those risks and am not willing to give up my freedoms just to be marginally safer from nut jobs.

You have a 0.00003% chance of being shot to death if you extract the roughly 1,000 people that will be shot to death in Chicago.

Yeah but there would be a high concentration of people there, and yeah, that's my point.

You are exposing the hypocrisy in your argument. The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING WAS MADE IN AUSTRALIA! The gun control was not actually very popular at the time. Politicians lost their jobs. But ask most of them now, and you will find that they are glad that it got past BECAUSE THEY FEEL SAFER. Think about the argument you are making. About 500 people get shot in mass shootings in the USA each year. So your argument is '**** THOSE GUYS, I want my ******* guns so I can feel safer!' But as I have shown, gun control WORKS! You are safer if you live in Britain, Japan, Australia, etc, at least from mass shootings. And I am not arguing for mass gun control, just simple, common sense reforms, as I listed out earlier. So the fact that you argue against protecting these innocent people just so people like Cruz can legally buy a gun is insane to me.

please tell trump to stop shootin off his mouth.

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 11:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 9:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:08:00 PM (view original):
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

Okay, let's use their data which supports your argument about mass shootings in "gun free" zones. It proves my point. Weapons are not the issue. The decline in morality is the issue.

Yeah, but if we have bad people, why do we let them have firearms? You are making my arguments for me.

Nope. You're missing the argument as normal. We need to do more as a society to promote stable, 2 parent households. It has gotten to the point that if you speak negatively of single motherhood, you are ridiculed. It has gotten to the point where people believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable even though they are not. This "tolerance" has led to moral decay in our society. The boys don't have fathers at home to teach them how to be responsible, productive citizens. I know that Cruz grew up with 2 parents having been adopted (we don't know the stability of the home), but that is not the norm for most whack jobs.

54% of mass killings are murders of spouses or partners and there families. These people can do the same damage in that setting with many different weapons.

Arguing gun control is counterproductive. It takes the focus away from the more relevant issues in these tragedies

But I agree with most of what you are saying. All I am arguing for is to not allow people like Cruz, who had a mental illness, had talked about shooting up the school on twitter, had misused guns in the past, and had recently been expelled to not be able to legally purchase a gun, especially a semi-automatic one. Yes, we need to deal with all of those problems, and I have some disagreements with your arguments (sometimes divorce is a good thing, and gay marriage does not mean an unstable household, so that's pretty homophobic of you, and sometimes fathers can be a negative influence on their kids) but the fact that Cruz was in counseling before he lost his adoptive family, and then dropped out of counseling which is when things started to go downhill is relevant. But for the moment, can we all just agree that we need to put in reasonable gun control reforms like mental health checks, background checks, regular checkups, no guns to felons, and training for gun ownership to not make it easy for those unstable people to, oh, I don't know, shoot up a school?

Stop writing books. I'm tired.

You proved my point that if you disagree, you're ridiculed. Believing that a father and mother should be in the home is not homophobic. By the way, in my religion homosexuality is a sin, so. I don't judge homosexuals as do plenty that God would not approve of, but I'm not going blind to the fact that in the Christian/Jewish doctrine it is a sin.

Saying that, I have a cousin who is a lesbian. Her and her wife have a child. The child is loved and well cared for and will more than likely be very successful in life. But, there is a lot that he will not learn as to what it means to be a man and the responsibilities that we have.

As far as divorce, in very few cases is it good for the kids. Normally, it creates self-esteem issues and many other problems. My dad is bipolar and my parents fought crazy when I was growing up. He wasn't physical with my mom, but there was plenty of verbal abuse. It was still better for me and my brothers that they stayed together. Now, there are instances where the woman needs to get out of an abusive relationship. Luckily, my mom is a very mentally strong. She was able to handle more than most woman.

Most definitely there are fathers who are poor examples. That means that kids need fathers even more. A large % of fathers who are poor examples grew up without an actively involved father. It creates a pattern that needs to be broken,

The idea of mental health checks is tough. I'm not sure there is an objective way to gauge this. Hell, some people would say that I'm nuts, but I'm not going to go shoot up a school.

I'm okay with expanded background checks.

I'm not sure what you mean by regular checkups.

Felons are already not allowed to own guns.

I like the idea of gun safety training to make ownership safer as a whole, but it wont do anything to prevent mass shootings.

Posted by dino27 on 2/19/2018 11:41:00 PM (view original):
please tell trump to stop shootin off his mouth.

Haha. Keep dreaming. That ain't happening.

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 11:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:23:00 PM (view original):
If we take domestic violence out of the equation, IMO this is a totally separate issue, since 2009, 15 of 71 incidents were in gun free zones. Obviously I pulled the 95% out of my butt, but that is still a significant %.

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show

A 2016 study by Harvard and Northeastern University put the total number of privately-owned firearms in the U.S. at 265 million, with more than half of that - 133 million - being concentrated in the hands of just 3% of Americans, called "super owners,"who have an average of 17 guns each.

I couldn't find any #s on the % of area in the country that is gun free, but this is as good a way as estimating as I could find. Basically, if we assume that this means that 3% of the country is not gun free (AND THAT IS A MAJOR ASSUMPTION), then that is saying that 20% of gun deaths happen in 3% of the country. I mean, we can at least assume that less than 20% of the country is in a gun-free zone, correct?

Again, Australia passed gun control in 1996, and did not have a mass shooting for 20 years. That's significant, right? Japan, Norway, and the UK are all like this. FOR INSTANCE:

GunPolicy.org estimates that in 2010 there were 3.78 guns per 100 people in the UK, while the US, meanwhile, is estimated to have 101 guns per 100 people.

The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year in England and Wales, which have a population of 56 million. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides.

That is significant, right? Am I missing something?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html

20% seems mighty high for "gun free" zones. When people speak of gun free zones, they are mainly talking about schools and government buildings. As far as owning multiple guns, that is very common down here. I own 7 myself.

What you oftentimes miss is that you cant compare us to the other countries. We have a constitution that is built on freedom and liberty unlike each of the countries that you mentioned. With freedom and liberty comes a risks. I understand those risks and am not willing to give up my freedoms just to be marginally safer from nut jobs.

You have a 0.00003% chance of being shot to death if you extract the roughly 1,000 people that will be shot to death in Chicago.

Yeah but there would be a high concentration of people there, and yeah, that's my point.

You are exposing the hypocrisy in your argument. The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING WAS MADE IN AUSTRALIA! The gun control was not actually very popular at the time. Politicians lost their jobs. But ask most of them now, and you will find that they are glad that it got past BECAUSE THEY FEEL SAFER. Think about the argument you are making. About 500 people get shot in mass shootings in the USA each year. So your argument is '**** THOSE GUYS, I want my ******* guns so I can feel safer!' But as I have shown, gun control WORKS! You are safer if you live in Britain, Japan, Australia, etc, at least from mass shootings. And I am not arguing for mass gun control, just simple, common sense reforms, as I listed out earlier. So the fact that you argue against protecting these innocent people just so people like Cruz can legally buy a gun is insane to me.

Once again, you cant compare us to Australia. Our constitution is different. Now, if you don't like our constitution that's a totally different argument.

Also, stop being stupid. Your little snide remarks are getting irritating. Learn to debate without emotion. You will become much better at it.

I never argued for people like Cruz to have a gun. He was reported to the FBI and they did nothing. We, as citizens of this great country, have the right to own guns. The venison that I grilled last night was delicious. Also, when I am away on a coaching trip, my wife has her gun right next to the bed as added protection. She is more proficient with one than I am. That's what most gun owners use guns for. Those two reasons. I am going to guess that you have never even shot a gun. Its really hard for you to argue guns if you don't know anything about them.

seinfeld used to kill on stage...does that count.....he never used a gun.
just kidding...these long copies and diatribes make me loopy.

Seinfeld was the freakin man.

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 9:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/19/2018 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 5:50:00 PM (view original):
I'm not asking about assault weapons. I'm asking about hand guns. The VA Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 hand guns. Should hand guns be banned? If you don't have a logical argument, that's fine. I won't make fun of you, but Just be honest.

Yes, but hand guns are actually supposed to be 'useful' or whatever but assault rifles are only really used to kill or whatever, right? I am not knowledgeable about this.

What are you knowledgeable about?

Sports. Foreign Policy. Racial issues. Education.

Sports - NFW! NO

Foreign Policy - Should we discuss how I educated you about the Muslim countries? If you are knowledgeable then I am an expert.

Racial Issues - No. You had no idea about the plight of the Jews and you had no idea who really implemented segregation. You are dumb.

Education - LMAO. NFW. NO! NO ! NO!


Try again.

50 years ago more people owned guns % wise than now and there were fewer shootings. The moral fiber of society has definitely declined.

Tangplay is a perfect example of that. He has limited facts and knowledge base and from them he forms delusional opinions and preaches about them. It is sad.

I give him the benefit of doubt. I think we were all a know-it-all when we were his age. As with most young people, he buys into the lefts utopia and feels that it's better to not offend than to have absolutes as to what is right or wrong. He claims to be a Christian, but then he only abides by the parts of the religion that fit his political agenda.