US Murders - Two conflicting charts

[Rhea]

.. and for the bagillienth time... no one is arguing against enacting sensible gun control... I am arguing that "prohibition" is not sensible due to observed history around prohibition and the effects.
It's like claiming that all Dems only want pure socialism and no national boarders or control of any kind. It's a lie. There's a reasonable middle-ground.

Who is arguing for prohibition?

 

[Rhea]

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.

Nice Straw Man you’ve got there.
Got any actual quotes to make it come to life, or is it just masturbation?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.

Nice Straw Man you’ve got there.
Got any actual quotes to make it come to life, or is it just masturbation?

Wait... when did Funcouple join this thread?

 

[Gun Nut]

The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.

See, exactly that... you were the first to use the word "ban" in this thread.

All people are "suggesting" is that we have "sensible gun control"... OK... what is that, then? "ban" is the only solution offered by liberals... if not a complete ban, then a ban on some poorly understood component (that causes easy loopholes - like bump stocks)...

I agree that "sensible gun control" is logical and necessary... I have suggested what improvements can be made.... who else has (apart from ban ban ban)?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

.. and for the bagillienth time... no one is arguing against enacting sensible gun control... I am arguing that "prohibition" is not sensible due to observed history around prohibition and the effects.
It's like claiming that all Dems only want pure socialism and no national boarders or control of any kind. It's a lie. There's a reasonable middle-ground.

Who is arguing for prohibition?

Ya, it's kind of odd to complain about being misrepresented and then follow that up by misrepresenting the other side.

 

[Gun Nut]

.. and for the bagillienth time... no one is arguing against enacting sensible gun control... I am arguing that "prohibition" is not sensible due to observed history around prohibition and the effects.
It's like claiming that all Dems only want pure socialism and no national boarders or control of any kind. It's a lie. There's a reasonable middle-ground.

Who is arguing for prohibition?

No one suggested that in this specific conversation at this specific point in time, yet. The conversation was more like "gun nuts want there to be no rules, but we need rules".. .which is a strawman, since no one has ever said that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.

No one suggested that in this specific conversation at this specific point in time, yet. The conversation was more like "gun nuts want there to be no rules, but we need rules".. .which is a strawman, since no one has ever said that.

Speaking about stuffing of strawmen.

 

[Gun Nut]

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.

Nice Straw Man you’ve got there.
Got any actual quotes to make it come to life, or is it just masturbation?

I retract.. not THIS ONE 3 page thread.. yet. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Can you outline one suggestion for "sensible gun control" forwarded in this thread? something other than the strawmen being setup that liberals want some kind of law and conservatives want no laws?

 

[Gun Nut]

Aren't the opposing opinions being expressed in this thread exactly that? BAN BAN BAN? That is what they are calling "sensible" gun control... that's legal gun ownership elimination, not control.

No one suggested that in this specific conversation at this specific point in time, yet. The conversation was more like "gun nuts want there to be no rules, but we need rules".. .which is a strawman, since no one has ever said that.

Speaking about stuffing of strawmen.

When I was growing up, owning up to an unintentional mischaracterization was a virtue. On this board it is fresh meat for the animals to rip on.

Being mistaken about what was said where is not a strawman, as much as you may just like saying the word, heh.

Dishonesty... that is a bad thing (at least, where I grew up). You are taking a statement of mine, and then putting it next to my acknowledgment that I was wrong about what was said in this particular thead, and then claiming it is evidence of me contradicting myself... like a gotcha...
That's a pritty dick move, dude... I even used the words "I retract"... why was that omitted?

Bad argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Speaking about stuffing of strawmen.

When I was growing up, owning up to an unintentional mischaracterization was a virtue.

If you actually owned up to it, yeah.

 

[Gun Nut]

Speaking about stuffing of strawmen.

When I was growing up, owning up to an unintentional mischaracterization was a virtue.

If you actually owned up to it, yeah.

You missed this post:

I retract.. not THIS ONE 3 page thread.. yet. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Can you outline one suggestion for "sensible gun control" forwarded in this thread? something other than the strawmen being setup that liberals want some kind of law and conservatives want no laws?

or are being dishonest. I assume you just missed it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you actually owned up to it, yeah.

You missed this post:

I retract.. not THIS ONE 3 page thread.. yet. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Can you outline one suggestion for "sensible gun control" forwarded in this thread? something other than the strawmen being setup that liberals want some kind of law and conservatives want no laws?

or are being dishonest. I assume you just missed it.

You so you are upset about me calling you out on a strawman before​ you retract the statement?

 

[Gun Nut]

You missed this post:

or are being dishonest. I assume you just missed it.

You so you are upset about me calling you out on a strawman before​ you retract the statement?

They may have crossed... they have the same timestamp.

 

[bilby]

Prohibition will not solve the problem, but instead add to it, just like every other case of prohibition of a popularly desired thing throughout history. What do we call doing the same unsuccessful thing over and over again, expecting different results? Insanity.

I didn't suggest, mention, or imply prohibition.

Try again.

the only effective way to prevent it from becoming disastrous, and limit the damage, is to limit access to the tools that enable acts of rage to rapidly lead to a high body-count.

 

[bilby]

See, exactly that... you were the first to use the word "ban" in this thread.

All people are "suggesting" is that we have "sensible gun control"... OK... what is that, then? "ban" is the only solution offered by liberals... if not a complete ban, then a ban on some poorly understood component (that causes easy loopholes - like bump stocks)...

I agree that "sensible gun control" is logical and necessary... I have suggested what improvements can be made.... who else has (apart from ban ban ban)?

I have suggested that the USA could resolve this problem by enacting laws similar to those that were in place in the UK in the 1990s, when I was working for a gunsmith in that country.

If guns had been banned, then I certainly didn't notice it - we had shotguns, rifles, and even handguns coming into our shop for repairs on a regular basis, and all were lawfully and privately owned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if there were 100% correlation, that still would not be a reason to not enact sensible gun control legislation.

.. and for the bagillienth time... no one is arguing against enacting sensible gun control... I am arguing that "prohibition" is not sensible due to observed history around prohibition and the effects.
It's like claiming that all Dems only want pure socialism and no national boarders or control of any kind. It's a lie. There's a reasonable middle-ground.

The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.

I have proposed some sensible measures.

The thing is the left defines "sensible" gun control as getting rid of guns.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Speaking about stuffing of strawmen.

When I was growing up, owning up to an unintentional mischaracterization was a virtue.

If you actually owned up to it, yeah.

It is. You should try it some time.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.

I have proposed some sensible measures.

The thing is the left defines "sensible" gun control as getting rid of guns.

[Citation Needed]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.

I have proposed some sensible measures.

The thing is the left defines "sensible" gun control as getting rid of guns.

Yeah, you keep saying that. I think the best idea is to only allow law enforcement to sell guns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trouble is (see Loren's posts) there really is no "sensible gun control" ideas when liberals bring anything up because people say they are just cloak and dagger attempts to steal all the guns.

I have proposed some sensible measures.

The thing is the left defines "sensible" gun control as getting rid of guns.

Yeah, you keep saying that. I think the best idea is to only allow law enforcement to sell guns.

Look around. Look at how many on the left want all semi-auto guns banned. Never mind that the vast majority of guns are semi-auto!