Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Bottom line: More guns in the hands of more people will result in fewer shootings...is an absurdity.

Quote:

Bottom line: More guns in the hands of more people will result in fewer shootings...is an absurdity.

More nukes have certainly given the donkeys pause for thought.

spendius wrote:

Quote:

Bottom line: More guns in the hands of more people will result in fewer shootings...is an absurdity.

More nukes have certainly given the donkeys pause for thought.

So you elephants think citizens should be armed with nukes?

Apparently some of the people on the "we all should have guns" side of this argument are unable to see that several of the recent mass killings have occurred on military installations...places filled with guns and people who know how to use them.

Their arguments that more guns would make us all safer simply do not stand up to logic.

And one of the people shot at the Naval Base was an armed security guard.
So, having "a good guy with a gun" didn't help to stop the "bad guy".

In fact, the shooter just took the security guard's gun,
so he gained an additional weapon after shooting him.

You never answered my question about whether you agree with issuing gun permits to blind people.

RexRed wrote:

That "study" comes from the "Center for American Progress" (presumably a liberal group).
Thay shud not be trusted, qua the truth.
The inner-most essence of liberalism is distortion based upon deception.





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Apparently some of the people on the "we all should have guns" side of this argument are unable to see that several of the recent mass killings have occurred on military installations...places filled with guns and people who know how to use them.

Their arguments that more guns would make us all safer simply do not stand up to logic.

Your expressed premise is false, Frank, because the anti-liberty President, Bill Clinton,
used his authority as commander-in-chief to impose the philosophy of gun control
upon the Armed Forces on their respective bases.

Therefore, the Moslem lunatic major was able to massacre military personnel,
un-opposed. His partner was Bill Clinton (who was out of office, by then).
His partner 's contribution to the massacre was disarming the victims before-hand.





David

David's basic argument is irrefutable under natural law unless all guns are removed except those required for officially sanctioned duties and where there is a line of responsibility to political office.

The more guns there are in private hands the more sense it makes to have one. With 300 million guns in circulation it is an obvious fact that the deaths and injuries and economic costs are deemed acceptable. Hand-wringing about them is an affectation on the part of those who don't call for abolition.

One school shooting here and we spewed them out by common consent. And they were already highly restricted.

RexRed wrote:

That "study" comes from the "Center for American Progress" (presumably a liberal group).
Thay shud not be trusted, qua the truth.
The inner-most essence of liberalism is distortion based upon deception.





David

This translates into:
I do not like the study because it shows my take on this issue
to be incorrect...so I am going to call it nonsense.

spendius wrote:

David's basic argument is irrefutable under natural law unless all guns are removed except those required for officially sanctioned duties and where there is a line of responsibility to political office.

The more guns there are in private hands the more sense it makes to have one. With 300 million guns in circulation it is an obvious fact that the deaths and injuries and economic costs are deemed acceptable. Hand-wringing about them is an affectation on the part of those who don't call for abolition.

One school shooting here and we spewed them out by common consent. And they were already highly restricted.

That could be, Spendius...but the topic being discussed with David is not "the sense it makes to own a gun these days."





The topic was the assertion: If there are more guns...there will be fewer shootings.

Sorry you feel that way, but I have no reason to lie about such things.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:

That "study" comes from the "Center for American Progress" (presumably a liberal group).
Thay shud not be trusted, qua the truth.
The inner-most essence of liberalism is distortion based upon deception.





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

This translates into:
I do not like the study because it shows my take on this issue
to be incorrect...so I am going to call it nonsense.

Not at all, Frank; that is a non-sequitur.
Your logic does not serve u and it does not
support your conclusion. I merely pointed out
that the data source was un-trustworthy.

My skepticism does not prove, nor justfy your quest against Constitutional freedom.

Frank Apisa wrote:

spendius wrote:

David's basic argument is irrefutable under natural law unless all guns are removed except those required for officially sanctioned duties and where there is a line of responsibility to political office.

The more guns there are in private hands the more sense it makes to have one. With 300 million guns in circulation it is an obvious fact that the deaths and injuries and economic costs are deemed acceptable. Hand-wringing about them is an affectation on the part of those who don't call for abolition.

One school shooting here and we spewed them out by common consent. And they were already highly restricted.

That could be, Spendius...but the topic being discussed with David is not "the sense it makes to own a gun these days."





The topic was the assertion: If there are more guns...there will be fewer shootings.

That is FALSE, Frank.
The topic is:
"Guns And The Laws That Govern Them"





David