SabreFan1

School Shooting In Great Mills Maryland

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Never said that....

 

....but I did say this:

 

 
 

 

Define “better”. Define the “certain types of firearm and ammunition” and your missing the why and how that will solve anything.  As for the rest you do relize most of those are in place. 

 

They type of agreement that should be had:

 

GOAL: Reduce accidental firearm deaths

 

WHAT : I would put a law in place requiring people to get licenses before being able to purchase, just as Canada has with our PAL.

 

WHY: 489 people a year die from accidental firearm shootings each year in the states.  I think a large part of this is lack of firearm knowledge. 

 

HOW: These courses provide education on how to safely handle and store firearms, it likely won’t prevent the number of deaths completely but it should have an effect on this. 

 

Argument against, Cost to implement as well as with that few amount of deaths does something really need to be done.  Do we need educational licenses on how to properly use tide pods? 

 

Argument for, not just accidental deaths should be reduced but total injuries.  Education is never a bad thing and it would also increase jobs.  Requiring people to take a course does not infringe on anyone’s rights as everyone who passes is still eligible to purchase.  It would be low hanging fruit.  

 

But instead the type of argument that anti gun people yell about:

“Ban assault rifles”

“I don’t like those guns that look scary with those big clips”

“You don’t need that AR-15”

”more background checks”

 

Then when people respond with facts as to why those ideas are weak with no substance, they just repeat themselves and scream louder. I honestly feel like the reason the left gets nowhere in this debate is simply because they are complete idiots.  I’m super pro-gun and I think the USA should and would  compromise in some area’s but in order to convince people you need to engage in a healthy debate.  Shouting out emotional opinions with no real facts or support on how it’s going to solve anything, is one of the most pathetic attempts of debating and it will never get anywhere. 

 

I’ve asked this a number of times in multiple threads, I’ve asked this to friends and plenty of others and I am yet to see anyone provide a real solution for change.  People just love to yell based on emotions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Define “better”. Define the “certain types of firearm and ammunition” and your missing the why and how that will solve anything.  As for the rest you do relize most of those are in place. 

 

They type of agreement that should be had:

 

GOAL: Reduce accidental firearm deaths

 

WHAT : I would put a law in place requiring people to get licenses before being able to purchase, just as Canada has with our PAL.

 

WHY: 489 people a year die from accidental firearm shootings each year in the states.  I think a large part of this is lack of firearm knowledge. 

 

HOW: These courses provide education on how to safely handle and store firearms, it likely won’t prevent the number of deaths completely but it should have an effect on this. 

 

Argument against, Cost to implement as well as with that few amount of deaths does something really need to be done.  Do we need educational licenses on how to properly use tide pods? 

 

Argument for, not just accidental deaths should be reduced but total injuries.  Education is never a bad thing and it would also increase jobs.  Requiring people to take a course does not infringe on anyone’s rights as everyone who passes is still eligible to purchase.  It would be low hanging fruit.  

 

But instead the type of argument that anti gun people yell about:

“Ban assault rifles”

“I don’t like those guns that look scary with those big clips”

“You don’t need that AR-15”

”more background checks”

 

Then when people respond with facts as to why those ideas are weak with no substance, they just repeat themselves and scream louder. I honestly feel like the reason the left gets nowhere in this debate is simply because they are complete idiots.  I’m super pro-gun and I think the USA should and would  compromise in some area’s but in order to convince people you need to engage in a healthy debate.  Shouting out emotional opinions with no real facts or support on how it’s going to solve anything, is one of the most pathetic attempts of debating and it will never get anywhere. 

 

I’ve asked this a number of times in multiple threads, I’ve asked this to friends and plenty of others and I am yet to see anyone provide a real solution for change.  People just love to yell based on emotions. 

This is what you said:

Quote

The issue is no one actually wants to suggest realistic solutions to the problem. You just get clueless people screaming on both sides and it will never accomplish anything. 

I did exactly that. Stating that they aren't realistic, better, or whatever, doesn't refute the fact that I have made those suggestions and have never advocated an outright ban on guns. I was also specific on what I'd like implemented on background checks. (The part about people with a history of mental illness, or domestic abuse)

 

Getting into "how they are going to make things better" will just get us into another round of "that won't work, because they tried it in this state or that state", etc., etc.

 

The fact is that you were incorrect. I have made realistic suggestions time after time. Whether you agree that they are realistic, or would be effective if adopted doesn't change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

This is what you said:

I did exactly that. Stating that they aren't realistic, better, or whatever, doesn't refute the fact that I have made those suggestions and have never advocated an outright ban on guns. I was also specific on what I'd like implemented on background checks. (The part about people with a history of mental illness, or domestic abuse)

You and I have complete different definitions of what specific means. Your stated broad terms. When implementing a law people want know exactly what it means to them. What you provide goes right into the emotional shouting category. 

 

 

20 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Getting into "how they are going to make things better" will just get us into another round of "that won't work, because they tried it in this state or that state", etc., etc.

 

The how is what backs your opinion up. It’s how people will take you serious. Opinions based on emition hold zero ground. You need actual supporting evidence. Something you never provide. I might as well state bo should be the selke trophy winner because I think he’s good. How many people would take that statement serious. Zero will. If I provide evidence as to why. Then maybe people might. 

 

 

20 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

The fact is that you were incorrect. I have made realistic suggestions time after time. Whether you agree that they are realistic, or would be effective if adopted doesn't change that fact.

How was I incorrect?. You stated exactly what I called pathetic. Broad statements with no reasoning as to why or how they will improve anything.  The reason why you don’t is because you don’t know what your talking about. 

 

Like I said. I think the US should adapt some things but I will provide evidence as the why and how

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You and I have complete different definitions of what specific means. Your stated broad terms. When implementing a law people want know exactly what it means to them. What you provide goes right into the emotional shouting category. 

 

 

 

The how is what backs your opinion up. It’s how people will take you serious. Opinions based on emition hold zero ground. You need actual supporting evidence. Something you never provide. I might as well state bo should be the selke trophy winner because I think he’s good. How many people would take that statement serious. Zero will. If I provide evidence as to why. Then maybe people might. 

 

 

How was I incorrect?. You stated exactly what I called pathetic. Broad statements with no reasoning as to why or how they will improve anything.  The reason why you don’t is because you don’t know what your talking about. 

 

Like I said. I think the US should adapt some things but I will provide evidence as the why and how

So what? You said no-one ever makes realistic suggestions. That was incorrect, as I showed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

So what? You said no-one ever makes realistic suggestions. That was incorrect, as I showed.

You didn’t. A broad statement isn’t a realistic solution. A realistic solution requires why and how. All you stated was an emotional opinion. You can’t implement an emotional opinion. You need specifics.   The reason you leave those out is because you don’t have the background or understanding to do so 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

So what? You said no-one ever makes realistic suggestions. That was incorrect, as I showed.

Well, apparently even if a realistic suggestion is made it will only be dismissed as an emotional opinion if he doesn't like the sound of it.

 

You're arguing with someone unwilling to entertain even the slightest notion of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

Well, apparently even if a realistic suggestion is made it will only be dismissed as an emotional opinion if he doesn't like the sound of it.

 

You're arguing with someone unwilling to entertain even the slightest notion of change.

Yes, we've devolved into a situation where his opinion is that none of my suggestions is realistic, even though they clearly are. It's really a case of him being shown to being completely incorrect, but refusing to admit it, so he disputes the validity of my suggestions.

 

I expect nothing less from the die hard gun huggers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

Well, apparently even if a realistic suggestion is made it will only be dismissed as an emotional opinion if he doesn't like the sound of it.

 

You're arguing with someone unwilling to entertain even the slightest notion of change.

See here's the thing, I think US has room for change. But if your going to try and ask for change you better have reasoning as to how and why it's going to solve the problem.  Without the how and why, it's just pointless noise.  

 

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yes, we've devolved into a situation where his opinion is that none of my suggestions is realistic, even though they clearly are. It's really a case of him being shown to being completely incorrect, but refusing to admit it, so he disputes the validity of my suggestions.

 

I expect nothing less from the die hard gun huggers.

You haven't suggested a realistic solution, you stated broad statements. You're like a 5 year old trying to give an adult financial advice.  "it's simple just make more money"  sorry that's not a realistic solution.

 

You said better background checks. What the #$% does that even mean.  Do you even know what's in place today? haha from what you're suggesting NO you don't, but you think "better" is the solution.

 

You said restrict certain guns and ammo?  Which ones and what do you expect to accomplish from that?  AR-15?  Why because it's popular among americans?   AR-15 accounts for less than 200 USA deaths a year, but if you really think restricting that one gun will save those 200 lives. go ahead restrict it. Ignore the fact that there's about 20 identical firearms out there that easily replace it.

 

Minimum age is already 18,  what do you want to make it 35?

 

So again, you keep talking about pipe dreams while strutting around in your superman cape feeling so good about yourself but nothing you suggested is a realistic solution.  There's not substance to it, it's why the term common sense gun laws is about the most hysterical term yet..   Try again, or don't doesn't matter to me, i can tell you're not really interested in putting much thought into a solution, it's far easier to just shout and cover your ears.

Until you can answer the 4 questions, there's no debate.

 

What's the specific goal you're trying to accomplish?

What law would you implement?

Why does this need to be solves?

How will this law solve the issue?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.