22 dead, dozens wounded (and counting) in USA’s latest 2nd Amendment celebration

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Splatter.  The notion that I should be able to dictate, here, today,

No dumbass, I'm not interested in your thoughts on you being able to dictate. We both know you have ZERO influence.

What I'm looking for is your opinion on gun ownership. 

Now, try again.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Really, a swimming pool argument?  A car argument?

I thought it was about dead children?  Ahhh - i see, it's not the fact that children die that's your concern, as long as they die in a manner you consider to be less important.

Bit of an odd argument to make but ok. 

Quote

Okay, because you're not as dumb as that post suggests, I'll just say that I think lifeguards and seatbelts are a great idea and leave you to figure out the rest.

You feel that lifeguards would stop intentional drownings or that seatbelts would stop vehicular homicides or even drunk driving deaths? And are lifeguards required for children to swim in the states? Pretty sure lots of people have home pools without lifeguards.

  There's already lots of gun laws even in the states, nobody can just walk into a store slap money down and walk out with a gun legally in ANY state. We certainly don't let children buy them. So....

And it's perfectly legal to swim without a licensed lifeguard in the US - so are you suggesting that should be mandatory?

So your argument is specious at best. There is no comparison.

And at the end of the day if it were about 'concern for kids', why aren't you concerned about what kills them the most? You're wringing your hands over something that kills very few kids and blowing off something that kills far more as no big deal.

So why don't you quit with the bullshit and take this seriously.  Because i know you can.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No dumbass, I'm not interested in your thoughts on you being able to dictate. We both know you have ZERO influence.

What I'm looking for is your opinion on gun ownership. 

Now, try again.

Splatter.  That's exactly what you asked me to do, and, I assume, the reason why you cut off my quote where it suited you.

Why can't you actually argue a point?

Anyway, I said this in response to your previous post:

17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What the US currently has with regard to gun control is obviously completely useless, and a result of a nonsensical interpretation of the constitution.  Much stricter gun controls should be applied in the US.  That's going to take a lot of effort from your government and your courts. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I thought it was about dead children?  Ahhh - i see, it's not the fact that children die that's your concern, as long as they die in a manner you consider to be less important.

Bit of an odd argument to make but ok. 

You feel that lifeguards would stop intentional drownings or that seatbelts would stop vehicular homicides or even drunk driving deaths? And are lifeguards required for children to swim in the states? Pretty sure lots of people have home pools without lifeguards.

  There's already lots of gun laws even in the states, nobody can just walk into a store slap money down and walk out with a gun legally in ANY state. We certainly don't let children buy them. So....

And it's perfectly legal to swim without a licensed lifeguard in the US - so are you suggesting that should be mandatory?

So your argument is specious at best. There is no comparison.

And at the end of the day if it were about 'concern for kids', why aren't you concerned about what kills them the most? You're wringing your hands over something that kills very few kids and blowing off something that kills far more as no big deal.

So why don't you quit with the bullshit and take this seriously.  Because i know you can.

Vehicular homicide kills more kids than guns do?  Intentional drownings kill more kids than guns do?

If that's the case, (and I would need to see some cites to that effect) then I certainly agree that much stricter laws are needed regarding the use of cars and water as offensive weapons.

Edited October 27, 2023 by bcsapper

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Reading Comprehension. . . I said "ISN'T" and issue. You can't lump Mass shootings like this with traditional violent crime because their causes are much different. But they're causes not unique to US, the rampant use of guns are.

Guns are not 'unique' to the us in the slighests. 

How about Switzerland

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Machine guns in homes in large numbers, almost as many guns and gun owners as the states - no where near the murder rate.

There's lots of examples but your argument fails right there.

So - what about murder rates in general? Does having lots of guns make the us the highest murder rate? I mean - that's your argument isn't it, that guns make murder easier and thats' why it happens there?

Nope - us is way down the list.  Even russia is higher with it's strict gun control.  Tonnes of other countries with VERY strict controls ahead of the us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Mexico has VASTLY higher murders and VERY strict gun laws.

Turns out other factors play much bigger roles.
 

Quote

 

You say stuff like this in polite company?

I'm stating that much of the developed world has it right in regards to gun control and much of the US has it wrong. You're free to disagree. 

 

What, that bigotry and !diocy born of false information is bad? Yeah - i have no problem with that. You do?

You coudl be stating that gays are all pedophuiles and that i'm free to disagree and my response would be the same - "yeah - but you're wrong. The facts prove it"

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Especially when you share a massive border with a country that has more guns in it than people. Would a wall work? 

Didn't you guys want to ban the wall too?

[Deluge]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Splatter.  That's exactly what you asked me to do, and, I assume, the reason why you cut off my quote where it suited you.

Why can't you actually argue a point?

Anyway, I said this in response to your previous post:

So you want much stricter laws. 

That's all I was looking for, Mrs. Splatter; why can't YOU just get straight to the point?

Now, do you have any idea on how strict you want the laws to be, or do you just get off on the phrase "much stricter laws." and that's as far as you've gotten? 

[Boges]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Guns are not 'unique' to the us in the slighests. 

How about Switzerland

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Machine guns in homes in large numbers, almost as many guns and gun owners as the states - no where near the murder rate.

There's lots of examples but your argument fails right there.

So - what about murder rates in general? Does having lots of guns make the us the highest murder rate? I mean - that's your argument isn't it, that guns make murder easier and thats' why it happens there?

Nope - us is way down the list.  Even russia is higher with it's strict gun control.  Tonnes of other countries with VERY strict controls ahead of the us.

I think I specified in my comments I was talking about developed nations. 

Here's a counter to your Switzerland argument; 

https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

Quote

 

The core difference is that in 2008 Switzerland cracked down on guns and gun owners in its characteristically Swiss way, meaning automatic weapons and silencers were then declared verboten. 

These days every healthy Swiss male 18 or older in the military is taught to use, clean, dismantle and store lethal weaponry – a fairly easy task in a nation where conscription is mandatory for young men, and also okay for women too if they insist. 

 

Which is what we're talking about. The type of gun, not the fact people own guns. 

Quote

You coudl be stating that gays are all pedophuiles and that i'm free to disagree and my response would be the same - "yeah - but you're wrong. The facts prove it"

You could, and I could call you a bigoted homophobe. I don't think you've avoid pretty caustic ad hominem comments in this thread. You're clearly passionate about this. I try to avoid such things because it lowers the decorum of the debate. 

Quote

Didn't you guys want to ban the wall too? 

Who's us guys? 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Boges

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Vehicular homicide kills more kids than guns do?  Intentional drownings kill more kids than guns do?

If that's the case, (and I would need to see some cites to that effect) then I certainly agree that much stricter laws are needed regarding the use of cars and water as offensive weapons.

Do you now   because you don't seem to be advocating for that anywhere.  Anyway here's some stats that are similar - same rough time frame and age groups.

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/children-gun-safety-accidental-shootings/

https://www.healthday.com/health-news/public-health/b-6-10-drownings-in-home-pools-hot-tubs-claim-lives-of-hundreds-of-kids-each-year-2657480997.htmla

 

711 car deaths to 161 kids fatal shooting themselves or other kids. 389 for pools (that they know of - not all drownings just pools and hot tubs).

But you know - i have this strange feeling we won't see you spending a lot of time advocating for that or saying "parents love their pools more than their kids".

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Boges said:

I think I specified in my comments I was talking about developed nations. 

Russia and switzerland are devleoped nations. So is mexico for that matter.  And that's just some of them.

Quote

 

Here's a counter to your Switzerland arguement; 

https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

 

my anti virus freaks out going to that site

But it doesn't matter. The fact is they have lots of guns and few shootings.  You can try to twist that but it's a simple truth. Russia has few guns but lots of murders

 

Quote

Which is what we're talking about. The type of gun, not the fact people own guns. 

If you knew ANYTHING about guns you'd know that is a dumb argument. Tell you what - you come join me at the range and i'll give you a nice semi auto and i'll use a pump action duck gun and we'll see who hits the target fastest.

Hell i bet i beat you with most levers

And ever tried a 'mad minute' drill? This is common knowledge and was used by the brits for years - tell me all about how slow this is:

20 - 30 rounds on target in a minute WITH RELOADING at 300 yards was not uncommon and certainly not the record.

Shotguns are even faster.

 

Quote

You could, and I could call you a bigoted homophobe.

Sure - no law against lying. Kind of what people expect from the anti-gun crowd.

Or you could stick with the usual nonsense like we like guns more than children if you want a more classic lie

But it would be untrue in both cases.  And that was rather the point. which obviously went over your head.

 

So. We've learned that the gun doesn't really matter. Bad guys like the ar-15 because it makes people like you kek their pants.

We've learned that having guns present doesn't matter.

We've learned that gun laws make very little difference (you didn't even ask about the ones that might).

We've learned that mental health issues are the common factor in these things.

We done blaming the gun yet?

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Russia and switzerland are devleoped nations. So is mexico for that matter.  And that's just some of them.

 

Quote

my anti virus freaks out going to that site

Sure! A lot of the same sentiments in your BBC article. That in Switzerland they're taught to respect the weapon and not that's a God given right that they should have access to weapons. 

 

Posted just now

  17 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think I specified in my comments I was talking about developed nations. 

Russia and switzerland are devleoped nations. So is mexico for that matter.  And that's just some of them.

  Quote

 

Here's a counter to your Switzerland arguement; 

https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

 

my anti virus freaks out going to that site

But it doesn't matter. The fact is they have lots of guns and few shootings.  You can try to twist that but it's a simple truth. Russia has few guns but lots of murders

 

  Quote

Which is what we're talking about. The type of gun, not the fact people own guns. 

Quote

 

If you knew ANYTHING about guns you'd know that is a dumb argument. Tell you what - you come join me at the range and i'll give you a nice semi auto and i'll use a pump action duck gun and we'll see who hits the target fastest.

Hell i bet i beat you with most levers

And ever tried a 'mad minute' drill? This is common knowledge and was used by the brits for years - tell me all about how slow this is:

 

So because some people are really good at re-loading, that means that guns with high-capacity magazines are no more dangerous to real life humans than a WW2 era gun? I guess Military's around the world should be able to save a lot of money with this information. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Boges

[herbie]

Had a 303, a 12 gauge and a 22 when I had my hobby farm and did some hunting. The 22 was used most for varmints and target shooting. When I moved to town and realized I wasn't going to hunt anymore, gave them to the wife's cousin to hold until my son ever got responsible enough to ever get his firearm & hunting license. He would've stole them and sold them for drugs as a teen. The kid never did and I lost touch with her cousin.

I live in town, and if I ever even considered I needed a gun for 'protection' I'd up and move to a civilized country. Like Australia, New Zealand or the UK

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

 

 

LOL - yes, they are   Or did you mean to say "excluding any country that doesn't prove my point"

Quote

Sure! A lot of the same sentiments in your BBC article. That in Switzerland they're taught to respect the weapon and not that's a God given right that they should have access to weapons. 

 

Actually they do consider it to be a right. Try taking them away, see how that works out   And for it to even be relevant you'd have to prove that somehow thinking firearms ownership is a right makes people go crazy and shoot up bowling alleys.  Becasue either way - the presence of guns is the same but the violence is not.

 

Quote

So because some people are really good at re-loading, that means that guns with high-capacity magazines are no more dangerous to real life humans than a WW2 era gun? I guess Military's around the world should be able to save a lot of money with this information. 

So basically anybody can do that with pretty minimal training and in the case of pumps and levers basically no triaining - and that shoots your whole "SeMi AUtOs ArE 100 biLLiON TimEs MOre DaNGErOus" argument in it's ass.  I could have you shooting most bolt action rifles pretty much that fast in next to no time.  It requires at least as much training and practice to properly shoot a semi to prevent jams on reloads etc  etc.

Your 'it's the gun" argument is a complete failure.

If semi autos were actually that lethal that's all militaries would use as a main battle rifle. Instead they don't - they use assault rifles which have select fire capability.  NO ARMY ANYWHERE EVER FIELDED THE AR AS A MAIN BATTLE RIFLE.

Why not? I mean if they kiill as fast as you pull the trgiger that would be more than enough right?

Kid .... pay attention, i'll say it slowly ....  it's ... not... the ... .gun.  Ar's are popular for these incidents in the states because they're the most scary gun there is according to the media.

[Perspektiv]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

But driving cars are also highly regulated.

Correct, but we both know that this won't stop that genius from reversing during rush hour, on a major 3 lane road, to pick up their friend they just saw.

It won't stop that person cutting across 4 lanes on the highway, nearly causing a 20 car pileup, just to make the exit, without a care for the carnage they almost caused.

No amount of regulatory intervention could stop the limits of human anger, and just overall, having a low IQ.

Guns absolutely should be regulated. It won't stop illegal weapons, nor will it stop the small percentage of lawful gun owners that use their weapons illegally.

3 hours ago, Boges said:

We see from the incident in Sault Ste Marie, that violence is possible by anyone, including a family man. 

Even a law abiding one. Its just far less likely.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Do you now   because you don't seem to be advocating for that anywhere.  Anyway here's some stats that are similar - same rough time frame and age groups.

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/children-gun-safety-accidental-shootings/

https://www.healthday.com/health-news/public-health/b-6-10-drownings-in-home-pools-hot-tubs-claim-lives-of-hundreds-of-kids-each-year-2657480997.htmla

 

711 car deaths to 161 kids fatal shooting themselves or other kids. 389 for pools (that they know of - not all drownings just pools and hot tubs).

But you know - i have this strange feeling we won't see you spending a lot of time advocating for that or saying "parents love their pools more than their kids".

 

Are we talking about accidental deaths or murders?

That said, according your first link:

In 2021, 711 child passengers ages 12 and younger were killed in motor vehicle crashes in the United States

and according to this Pew Research document,

In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, there were 1,732 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18. By 2021, that figure had increased to 2,590.

so there is some discrepancy there.  Granted, the Pew doc went up to age 18, but then, your link seems to only cover children who shoot themselves, or are shot by other children. 

That seems disingenuous, given the thread concerns a mass shooting and my posts to @Deluge concerning children referenced Sandy Hook and Parkland.

Certainly, improved gun control will also reduce the incidence of children shooting themselves or each other with their parents' guns.

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

So you want much stricter laws. 

That's all I was looking for, Mrs. Splatter; why can't YOU just get straight to the point?

Now, do you have any idea on how strict you want the laws to be, or do you just get off on the phrase "much stricter laws." and that's as far as you've gotten? 

I would have thought that was obvious.  Half the posters in this thread would advocate for much stricter laws.

As to your question, no, I don't.  As I said in an earlier post, the laws would have to come from your government and go via your courts.  I'm sure there would be a lot of debate on the subject.

That said, I'm happy with the laws we have in Canada, up to the recent changes, which I don't agree with. 

Is it your view that nothing needs to be done with regard to US gun laws at all?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Are we talking about accidental deaths or murders?

Hard to say - both were brought up, not sure it really matters.  Dead is dead.

That said, according your first link:

Quote

 

In 2021, 711 child passengers ages 12 and younger were killed in motor vehicle crashes in the United States

and according to this Pew Research document,

In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, there were 1,732 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18. By 2021, that figure had increased to 2,590.

 

So... i gave you figures to the age of 12.  And then YOU decided to go find figures to the age of 18. And pretended that that's the same thing.  So what you're saying is you could find no information to dispute what i said so you're making up some crap using figures that aren't remotely the same to try to avoid the fact you were wrong.  So much for 'caring about children'.

 

Quote

so there is some discrepancy there.  Granted, the Pew doc went up to age 18, but then, your link seems to only cover children who shoot themselves, or are shot by other children.

There's no discrepancy in the slightest. And your pew figures also count suicides and gang violence. If we expand it another 6 years to 24 years old guess what - the number will get larger again. It can't get smaller.  Its absolutely ridiculous you would even put it forward as an argument.

Quote

That seems disingenuous, given the thread concerns a mass shooting and my posts to @Deluge concerning children referenced Sandy Hook and Parkland.

You add 6 years to the figures i give, include suicides and pretend I"M  being disingenuous?

And sandy hook doesn't happen every year.  Sorry, but that kind of death just doesn't show up in the stats very often.  That simply doesn't show up in most years.

 

Quote

Certainly, improved gun control will also reduce the incidence of children shooting themselves or each other with their parents' guns.

Nothing certain about that in the slightest

But - we'll never know. People like you who make crap up and insist that all gun owners are scum and that their word on what will "Certainly" fix things without facts make gun owners so defensive they won't even discuss the matter knowing full well that if they agree to one rule change you'll just be back the next day demanding the next one until there's no gun ownership.

You can't have rational conversations about it with someone who doesn't care about other ways that children die but insists that gun owners love their guns more than their children.  Someone THAT far gone into lunacy simply isn't able to have a sensible discussion and can't be trusted.

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would have thought that was obvious.  Half the posters in this thread would advocate for much stricter laws.

 

They don't want strcter laws. They want gun bans. Stricter laws are just a step on the way to that

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Hard to say - both were brought up, not sure it really matters.  Dead is dead.

That said, according your first link:

So... i gave you figures to the age of 12.  And then YOU decided to go find figures to the age of 18. And pretended that that's the same thing.  So what you're saying is you could find no information to dispute what i said so you're making up some crap using figures that aren't remotely the same to try to avoid the fact you were wrong.  So much for 'caring about children'.

 

There's no discrepancy in the slightest. And your pew figures also count suicides and gang violence. If we expand it another 6 years to 24 years old guess what - the number will get larger again. It can't get smaller.  Its absolutely ridiculous you would even put it forward as an argument.

You add 6 years to the figures i give, include suicides and pretend I"M  being disingenuous?

And sandy hook doesn't happen every year.  Sorry, but that kind of death just doesn't show up in the stats very often.  That simply doesn't show up in most years.

 

Nothing certain about that in the slightest

But - we'll never know. People like you who make crap up and insist that all gun owners are scum and that their word on what will "Certainly" fix things without facts make gun owners so defensive they won't even discuss the matter knowing full well that if they agree to one rule change you'll just be back the next day demanding the next one until there's no gun ownership.

You can't have rational conversations about it with someone who doesn't care about other ways that children die but insists that gun owners love their guns more than their children.  Someone THAT far gone into lunacy simply isn't able to have a sensible discussion and can't be trusted.

You just based your whole argument on the fact that the document I cited went up to age 18, even though I mentioned that fact myself in my response.

You seem to be arguing that no measures should be taken to prevent the mass murder of children by guns, because children die in car accidents and sometimes accidentally drown.

Then you went on a mindless rant for the last couple of paragraphs, which, given we're on about post three in our conversation, is no surprise at all.

[Deluge]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would have thought that was obvious.  Half the posters in this thread would advocate for much stricter laws.

As to your question, no, I don't.  As I said in an earlier post, the laws would have to come from your government and go via your courts.  I'm sure there would be a lot of debate on the subject.

That said, I'm happy with the laws we have in Canada, up to the recent changes, which I don't agree with. 

Is it your view that nothing needs to be done with regard to US gun laws at all?

If we could find a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands without making it difficult for the rest of us, I'd be all ears. 

[Aristides]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Not nesessary. As a law abiding citizen and 2nd Amendment supporter, I want access to any gun I want. If psychopaths and criminals are getting their hands on guns, then it's up to the state to do a better job of rooting them out before they unload on the public. 

It's not guns' fault, it's the murderer's fault. 

THAT is the correct stance. 

It's the 2nd Amendment that gives psychopaths and criminals easy access to guns but carry on crazy. I'm just glad the 2nd Amendment is your curse and not ours.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

If we could find a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands without making it difficult for the rest of us, I'd be all ears. 

Well that's something to build on.

How much difficulty would you be willing to put up with?  I have no idea what state you are in, or how easy/difficult it is to get a weapon in that state, but does it involve background checks, waiting periods, a licence to purchase a firearm, spousal agreement if appropriate, and perhaps a reference or two? 

And then, the firearm itself.  Would you be willing to accept special requirements for military style weapons and other semi automatic weapons such as are described in this link for fully automatic weapons?  I personally think no-one should have access to a machine gun for personal use, and the requirements of that document should apply to handguns too, but I realise that might be asking too much at the moment.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

You just based your whole argument on the fact that the document I cited went up to age 18, even though I mentioned that fact myself in my response.

YOU mentioning your argument is stupid irrelevant and inappropriate does NOT preclude me from noting it as well.

Quote

You seem to be arguing that no measures should be taken to prevent the mass murder of children by guns, because children die in car accidents and sometimes accidentally drown.

You would have to be deliberately being dishonest to come to that conclusion.

My argument is very clearly that it's hard to give any credit to your false claims of caring about children when you only become concerned about their deaths when it involves guns but have no problem otherwise.

Quote

Then you went on a mindless rant for the last couple of paragraphs, which, given we're on about post three in our conversation, is no surprise at all.

So in short you know i'm right and can't refute it.

So instead of addressing it you try to dismiss it as a 'rant'.

Dishonest - avoids the facts - hypocrisy - runs when confronted with the truth - attempts to blame others for his lack of argument.

Yep - that's a pretty standard bcsapper reply.

 

Back to playing with your lego kid.  The adults are talking.

 

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

100%.

However, the divisiveness and rhetoric isn't the same. Your political climate is dangerously toxic. It isn't the same. The gun culture, which is part of the US fabric, isn't the same.

The attacks on what used to be masculinity, aren't the same. ⁵

Guns are only a small portion of the problem. 

Its over simplifying the actual issue. Many countries with many guns per capita don't even remotely come close to the murder rates you see in the US. Why is this? American guns are more murderous? Or just maybe, part of the issue may be cultural? 

Why is the average gun owner in Canada far less likely per capita, to commit mass murder?

Better gun laws? Different relationships with Guns? Maybe all of the above? But how would this explain the same or similar pattern in countries where far more guns are available?

Do you honestly believe guns on their own, will create this issue?

Okay. 

Do you think someone happily married would mow down people with a car, or shoot something up?

I had a guy try to side swipe the the other day because he tried to bully me into moving faster with nowhere to go on a highway. I had a car gap ahead of me, so he pulled on the shoulder next to me to have his tantrum, after I flashed him a middle finger.

Do you think I stay relatively calm, if I don't have a wife to consider? 

He clearly, was single and rage filled. Called me every name in the book as he repeatedly steered his car towards mine demanding me to lower my window, and my smile truly sent him over the edge as his trying to scare me didn't affect me.

My mentality is if you hit me, I have hundreds of witnesses, and man to man with no car protecting you, I like my chances with a background in combat sports.

Single and lonely, I would have followed him at high speed, got out, and likely stabbed him to death, or beat him unconscious, and then urinated on his face. 

I don't understand how you feel a gun will prevent one's ability to kill many people.

The only thing keeping me in check, is that I have a lot of dependents who love and need me and vice versa.

I as a result, will take the high road, because its in my and their best interests. It will take a lot more provocation.

I however, can understand the anger, because I was bullied as a youth. So it is relatively easy to me to understand an anger that makes your thoughts so dark, that people would think you were a monster for thinking them, but those same people were inciting and encouraging the bully to keep shoving you down stairs or throwing items at you while the crowd laughs and prevents you from leaving.

I have a deep understanding of that anger.

Difference with me, is back against the wall, I fight like a caged pittbull then and there and bring the conflict to a brutal end. 

But again, to think guns can fix the issue when its deeply rooted, is silly at best.

Just maybe there are a lot of pieces of s*** in society that could push people to wanting to murder them.

Honestly, I'm very confused that in one post you dismiss the very real issues with toxic masculinity, and then I'm this post write a case study about it. 

The problem isn't caused by acknowledging toxic masculinity, by by the toxicity itself. 

Guns aren't the only way to kill people, but they're clearly the most common and most convenient. It's a tool for killing. And the availability of tools (or anything, really) does make a difference in his often they are itself. That's an unbelievable fact, and why the notion of controlled distribution of anything exists.  I'll grant that even if we eliminated guns entirely it wouldn't eliminate murder entirely, or even mass murder, but it absolutely would reduce those deaths significantly by making the execution of such activity dramatically more difficult. 

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Honestly, I'm very confused that in one post you dismiss the very real issues with toxic masculinity, and then I'm this post write a case study about it. 

The problem isn't caused by acknowledging toxic masculinity, by by the toxicity itself. 

Guns aren't the only way to kill people, but they're clearly the most common and most convenient. It's a tool for killing. And the availability of tools (or anything, really) does make a difference in his often they are itself. That's an unbelievable fact, and why the notion of controlled distribution of anything exists.  I'll grant that even if we eliminated guns entirely it wouldn't eliminate murder entirely, or even mass murder, but it absolutely would reduce those deaths significantly by making the execution of such activity dramatically more difficult. 

There is no such thing as toxic masculinity it's just a phrase that the weak minded used to justify their bigotry and misandrist  Sexist attitudes. Its use helps us identify the lowbrow cult worshippers of the left

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

YOU mentioning your argument is stupid irrelevant and inappropriate does NOT preclude me from noting it as well.

It wasn't stupid irrelevant and inappropriate.  It was, however,  designed to show those things applied to you claiming that children shooting themselves or each other was wholly germane to the discussion of children killed in mass shootings when it so obviously was only a part of it.  I mentioned it so you couldn't use it to deflect, but you did anyway.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You would have to be deliberately being dishonest to come to that conclusion.

My argument is very clearly that it's hard to give any credit to your false claims of caring about children when you only become concerned about their deaths when it involves guns but have no problem otherwise.

It's an obvious conclusion based on your posts, and the links you tried to use to back them up.  Perhaps I should put it another way, as you seem to be one who believes dead is dead, and all else is irrelevant.  Are we to assume that you think that, because children will die accidental deaths in car accidents and swimming pools, we must accept the deaths of those killed in mass shootings at schools as just as inevitable?

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So in short you know i'm right and can't refute it.

So instead of addressing it you try to dismiss it as a 'rant'.

Dishonest - avoids the facts - hypocrisy - runs when confronted with the truth - attempts to blame others for his lack of argument.

Yep - that's a pretty standard bcsapper reply.

 

Back to playing with your lego kid.  The adults are talking.

Hahahaha, post four, I think.  Right on time!

[CdnFox]

Just now, bcsapper said:

It wasn't stupid irrelevant and inappropriate. 

Well of course it was.  It's what's expected of you - you couldn't address the points as presented so you attempt to obfuscate them with completely irrelevant data.

Its your way of tipping over the table if you're not winning the game.

 

Quote

 Perhaps I should put it another way, as you seem to be one who believes dead is dead, and all else is irrelevant.  Are we to assume that you think that, because children will die accidental deaths in car accidents and swimming pools, we must accept the deaths of those killed in mass shootings at schools as just as inevitable?

Ahhh yes - your inevitable projection   Of course

That was YOUR position.  I pointed out that is how YOU thought and called you out on it.

And of course a couple posts later when you reazlie you have no retort you try to pretend that it's how others think

You are the one who doesn't care about the cause of children's deaths, unless it helps your argument against guns.

Like i said:

Dishonest - avoids the facts - hypocrisy - runs when confronted with the truth - attempts to blame others for his lack of argument.

Yep - that's a pretty standard bcsapper reply.   

Do you lefties get together and practice this crap? You all sound exactly the same.