Care to place a monetary bet that they won't be illegal? I'll let you determine the time line.
Come on, parrot. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's bet.
What does gun violence really COST
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Care to place a monetary bet that they won't be illegal? I'll let you determine the time line.
Come on, parrot. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's bet.
Terrorists aren't worried about anything. If someone is willing to die for what they believe in, your laws aren't going to deter anything.
So my question stands. Why bother with little assault rifles that get you into a hand-to-hand combat with a police and S.W.A.T. force? Get a real machine gun that can slice a car in half, and grenade launching guns. Pipe bombs in your basement? Really?
How about, learn to fly a helicopter, load it with a machine gun, and fly into a football stadium full of people.
Saying the same thing over and over again (especially after proven false) works as poorly in gun control threads as it does in climate threads, parrot-boy.
Rrraww! Australia. RRrrawww!
And simply saying that facts are wrong doesn't work here either. Not going to post the chart again though. Denial is irrational. You are irrational. You should not own a gun.
Banning hand guns and assault weapons would certainly deter, if not totally prevent, many killers. Right wingers or Muslims.
More simple logic that gun nuts just can't grasp.
Oh wait, I see where you're going with this. Are you saying that making machine guns very hard to get that therefore terrorists don't get them? Preposterous!!!
Because obtaining a machine gun is next to impossible, much more costly and if you want to kill someone, there are much easier ways. Why don't terrorists get tanks? Or Stealth planes? Is it about them being afraid or access to the desired weapon? Isn't it much easier to just get a rifle since there are millions and millions of those already out there?
Duh?
Last edited:
Your chart has been refuted (gwb showed how gun violence didn't decline), and you've never answered the questions posed to you about the comparison of the US and Australia (that wjk and I both posed to you). I'm not sure where you learned to debate (my guess is you got some tips off the back of a Lucky Charms box) but when someone asks you to support your data or assertion with some hard information, and you go silent, that means your point is weak and unsubstantiated. Posting a pretty graphic, repeatedly, doesn't solve that.
As for owning a gun, you'll never be able to take mine away, thank God.
I do, however, find it funny that you own a gun, though. If they're so bad, why not get rid of yours?
Last edited:
It would only work if you got all the weapons off the street. And you can't figure out how to do that.
There aren't hundreds of millions of machine guns on the street. The reason the ban was effective is because it was put into place before machine guns were in circulation en masse.
The reason you can ban guns in an airport and it works is because the airport is a clean zone. The United States hasn't been cleaned of weapons, so it doesn't work, no matter what laws you put into place. If, in your world of fairies and unicorn farts you could magically get everyone out of the country, magically confiscate all weapons, and then let them back in, your ban would work. Short of that, you are, indeed, preposterous.