Black Dog

I'll post my gun control plan when you share your people control plan, loser.

You mean they fact checked the guy who lied constantly and fact checked the person who didn't as much? wow. Huge if true.

NGL, if you told me I was watching a new reality show called "Elder Abuse" instead of the debate I might have believed you.

I'm not sure he would have hurt anyone with a knife from up in the tower and it wouldn't have been pretty hard to get a truck up there. Seriously if it's just as easy to kill a large number of people with any of the other methods you list, why are they so much less common than guns? It's because guns are the perfect combination of cheap, easy to use and highly effective compared to everything else. In the hands of psychopaths with violent tendencies they are. Without the means, these people are just disturbed individuals. And of course I'll point out again that you have absolutely no solutions for reducing mass killings, gun crime, or suicides; none at all. Forcing would-be killers to resort to far less lethal means would quite obviously reduce the amount of deaths, you utter m0r0n. The Sandy hook shooter killed 27 people in five minutes; what do you think the death toll would have been if he was trying to commit a mass-choking attack? Lol you've never once bothered to even ask me you f*cking loser.

It always cracks me up that you people acknowledge there are violent and disturbed people out there and also think they should be able to have basically unfettered access to firearms.

He didn't kill 17 people and wound 31 more with his tumor.

*laughs in Charles Whitman*

Literally a fake quote, you stunned Boomer c*nts will believe anything.

Do you think the only way to limit people's access to guns is by banning them outright? Yeah because it makes more sense to deal with the root of the problem instead of pouring billions of dollars into "solutions" with no data to back them up. I know that's a lot for your tiny husk of a mind to grasp. No I just think you're a fat loser posing as a tough guy. The only reason I use that terminology is because that's what the chickenshit cops at Uvalde described the weapon the shooter was using, dummy. If I called in an assault rifle you'd be crying about that too. Oh that explains a lot actually, I've heard exposure to depleted uranium can cause neurological issues. 200 or so good guys with guns. That's your solution. How'd that work out. It's literally whataboutism you m0ron. But it's interesting you claim to be a vet and seem completely ignorant of the toll that firearm suicides have taken on your fellow vets. Assuming you're not bullshitting or were a desk jockey like JD Vance, you probably know someone who blew their head off. I'm sure they'd be glad to hear you want to make sure those suicide numbers stay nice and high. The VA: You: I honestly can't believe how stupid you are that you don't comprehend the relative nature of these risks. I care if people kill themselves. Just not you.

Keep seething b!tchboy!

You claimed I wanted to ban guns and your proof was a quote that doesn't mention banning guns. LOL, you dumbshit. Yeah just what I figured you useless fat f*ck. "This kid" being the kid from Georgia whose dad gave him an AR15 and is now facing murder charges? Hopefully the dad gets nailed for this and that dissuades other dumbass gunfu*ckers from giving their kids battle rifles. They were good guys with a gun, why didn't they stop this from happening? Fact is you want little kids to die inside schools because you think their lives are less important than every lunatic having unfettered access to guns. You probably fantasize about school shootings you sick f*ck. See you're doing the same whataboutism bullshit your fellow retarded ammosexual is trying because you don't actually have an argument here, can't refute the evidence that access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk, and don't actually care how many people paint their walls with their brains.

You know I cooked you, you wouldn't be going Full Boomer otherwise. Arguing against gun control by invoking different and unrelated public health issues and not actually dealing with the arguments against guns is textbook whataboutery. Cope.

Thats not what whataboutism is, mor0n. Definition 1: Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about....?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation. And here's a different fallacy, that of the strawman. No one is fine with drunk driving so, your argument, if we can even call it that, is invalid. Definition 2: Whataboutism, the rhetorical practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation, by asking a different but related question, or by raising a different issue altogether. Whataboutism often serves to reduce the perceived plausibility or seriousness of the original accusation or question by suggesting that the person advancing it is hypocritical or that the responder’s misbehavior is not unique or unprecedented.

Yes, and? Post physique, tough guy. You aren't doing shit, but that aside, it's wild that you're so in love with guns that you can't even conceptualize how preventing a disturbed teenager from being able to buy a battle rifle might prevent them from shooting up a school. Oh look you're lying, what a surprise. What I actually said was this when I was talking about how much you love seeing kids get shot: "You don't give a shit how many kids have to die because you love guns and think every wannabe Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should have unfettered access to firearms. You'd rather have more firefights in school hallways than simply preventing these psychos from getting their hands on weapons to begin with." No, you're thinking of all the "good guys with the guns" who sat around with their thumbs up their asses again. American men are almost 4 times more likely to die by suicide than women despite women attempting suicide nearly twice as much and I bet even an absolute shit-for-brains like you will be able to puzzle out why that is, ideally through first hand experience.

You made a spelling mistake in telling me you were leaving in the spelling mistakes, stupid. You literally started it, stupid. If someone got drunk off two beers and went and killed someone, the bar could be sued, do you not comprehend that? Not sure why your continuing to blather about this, the issue is gun shops are protected by law from liability in ways bars are not. Whataboutism is not an argument.

Did I say that you dumbf*ck? This is why it's impossible to have a rational discussion with ammosexuals, the slightest suggestion of sensible gun laws and they start crying and shitting themselves that you want to take their guns away. By ensuring that people who want to kill them can easily acquire the means to do so? No, you're the guy who wants a mentally ill 18 year old to be free to buy a battle rifle and use it to kill a bunch of toddlers. That's all you: own it. You're the one arguing that we need more good guys with guns, well there were more than 200 of them at Uvalde, why didn't they stop the killer sooner? Kinda f*cks up your theory doesn't it. No you John Wick wannabe losers always act like you have to have extensive first hand knowledge of guns to have an opinion and it's simply not true. Are you retarded? Seriously, what are you even arguing against because you don't seem to know yourself. I'm tryna figure out how me wanting to reduce suicides by gun (a method disproportionately used by men) makes me sexist, but i don't expect you have a coherent explanation because you're pretty stupid. You might actually be dumber than the literal Nazi here lol.

Pro tip: if you're going to try and drag someone for spelling mistakes, maybe don't put your own in. It is funny that you can't defend the gun lobby on its merits but have to play stupid whataboutism games. Oh oh look at all those spelling mistakes. And I'm not wrong here, a gun store that sells someone a gun who isn't prohibited from owning one can't be sued if that person kills someone. A bar that sells a guy two beers and he kills someone could be.

Which ones, specifically then? Anecdotes are not data and the data shows no conclusive evidence that SROs reduce crime among students or prevent mass shootings. There's lots of reasons for that: you can't measure something that doesn't happen and school shootings are comparatively rare. There's also the question of cost/benefit. Again, you dumbshit, I would rather people not have the means to walk into a school to try and kill a bunch of people at all. Not sure why you're too stupid to grasp the concept. You mean like they did in Uvalde where they all cowered because they were afraid of being outgunned by a teenager with a battle rifle he purchased legally? Ah yes the common cry of the gunf*cker. And again, there's cultural explanations for that, just as there are cultural explanations for Americans blowing their brains out. lol oh this should be good, do tell. Riiight so everyone is exactly the same and the only explanations for any variance between different groups is genetics. Not education, socio-economic status or anything like that. God, Nazis are dumb.

The NRA, like you and otehr gunf*ckers, want guns to be widely available and easily accessible to anyone and everyone, which is tantamount to the same thing. An 18 year old American can't legally buy booze, but can buy an AR15 or a shotgun in most U.S. states. Giving kids alcohol is pretty widely frowned upon, but gun nuts like NRA and the father of the Georgia school shooter encourage kids to use guns. If you're drunk, you can be charged with impaired driving even if you were not driving a vehicle, but you can carry a firearm while drunk. so yeah I'd be happy to see guns treated more like booze. Dealers are shielded from liability by the PLCAA, dummy. There's some limited circumstances where you can sue them, but a gun shop that sells a gun to a guy who goes out and kills someone is not liable in the way a bar that sells someone booze before they go out to ill someone with their car can be. Because that involves ignoring countless other different factors you Nazi dumbf*ck.

LOL no genetics is not the most obvious explanation you stupid Nazi. You really are 15 years old, huh?

If you're trying to prove genetics make Black people as a whole more violent, using a extremely rare genetic disorder doesn't do the trick. try something else from your retarded Nazi playbook.

The NRA. You can sue a bar that overserves someone and lets them drive drunk, can't do the same to a gun dealer or manufacturer. More people die by firearms than in all motor vehicle collisions even though 90% of people own cars vs the 32% who own guns.

Brunner's syndrome is extremely rare so IDK how you figure it's at fault here.

Yet there's no massively organized lobby defending anyone's right to drive drunk and fighting any attempts to limit drinking and driving the way there is for guns. This is funny coming from you, a guy who literally ignores half of all gun deaths. That's not a thing, Nazi.

It literally doesn't and I've explained why, but I'm feeling charitable so I'll explain it again: a dataset that includes ALL mass shootings and makes no distinction between law enforcement in general and those located in schools is not evidence that armed guards in schools prevent or stop mass shootings. Anecdotes aren't data. I can entertain the idea that SROs can reduce some forms of violence in schools (though not at zero cost) but we're specifically talking about mass shootings here. Confiscating a gun doesn't necessarily prevent a shooting if the person with the gun had no intention if using it to shoot anyone, where as most mass school shootings are premeditated and planned. And like I said: you don't give a shit how many kids have to die because you love guns and think every wannabe Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should have unfettered access to firearms. You'd rather have more firefights in school hallways than simply preventing these psychos from getting their hands on weapons to begin with. Guns don't cause suicide they just make it much easier to accomplish which is why it's the method of choice for the majority of suicides in the U.S. If the method is irrelevant why are suicide rates higher in states where guns are prevalent? There's a lot of factors that go into choosing a method, like lethality, accessibility and ease of use. Jumping off a bridge might be just as lethal as shooting yourself, but if you have to walk five miles to the bridge to jump, you have time to reconsider, unlike if you just reach into your closet for a shotgun. You also can't back out of blowing your brains out once you've started or be rescued like you can a hanging or drug overdose.