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

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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.

No, you tried to use the number of kids who either killed themselves or each other as relevant to a discussion on gun control as a way of dealing with the mass murder of children at mass shootings.  It's on record.  You can dodge and duck as much as you like, but it's right there, a few posts back.

 

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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.

Go on then, answer the question:  Must we must accept the deaths of children killed in mass shootings at schools as inevitable because children will die accidental deaths in car accidents and swimming pools?  Or can we differentiate between the two situations, and accept that much more stringent gun control is required to prevent the former?

 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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.

Same as post four.  Why didn't you just copy and paste it?

[Legato]

Endgame

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67247726

[Aristides]

51 minutes ago, Legato said:

Endgame

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67247726

Nope, just an intermission before the next one.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, you tried to use the number of kids who either killed themselves or each other as relevant to a discussion on gun control as a way of dealing with the mass murder of children at mass shootings.  It's on record.  You can dodge and duck as much as you like, but it's right there, a few posts back.

 

Don't give me that bullshit. 

You didn't like the truth so you said "Oh look - if we change the numbers the numbers are different .. Mmmmmmmm wow that must mean something.

Pathetic.  And typical. You're losing the point so tip the table rather than deal with it.

Quote

Go on then, answer the question:  Must we must accept the deaths of children killed in mass shootings at schools as inevitable

No more than we accept deaths in pools inevitable or deaths in car accidents inevitable.

but as long as one side of the debate is filled with people like you - dishonest, refuses to address the facts. makes up whatever they feel helps promote their echo chamber and is utterly filled with hatred for all gun owners (except themselves apperently given how many wind up using guns in self defense or hiring bodyguards who carry them),  then i  guarantee it's inevitable that nothing is going to change.

Quote

Same as post four.  Why didn't you just copy and paste it?

Funny thing - when you keep doing the same things the answer is the same.  Only a leftie does the same thing and expects a different outcome.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Guns aren't the only way to kill people, but they're clearly the most common and most convenient.

But the vast majority of lawful gun owners, are responsible with their guns. This is statistically demonstrable.

I love traveling. Aircraft hijacking is possible, but banning flying because its happened, would be ridiculous. You put stronger regulations, to help reduce the odds of it happening again. Better screening. Background checks. Revoking your gun liscense for certain violations.

Not punishing the majority. 

Banning all guns because an insanely small percentage of people use them to kill others, isn't reason to ban guns. It's reason to look at what may be causing these men to behave this way.

It's not toxic masculinity. 

Toxic masculinity is a catch phrase for men who embrace masculinity. Femininity is celebrated. Many women are insanely toxic. So why the war on men? 

Masculinity is not the issue. Again, that's like blaming explosives or Islam for hijackings.

Its lazy. It refuses to scratch beneath the surface.

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting to me was the inability of media to report on the number of dead, as evidenced by the subject line.

I suspect that cuts in journalism are making news reporting difficult.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

But the vast majority of lawful gun owners, are responsible with their guns. This is statistically demonstrable.

I love traveling. Aircraft hijacking is possible, but banning flying because its happened, would be ridiculous. You put stronger regulations, to help reduce the odds of it happening again. Better screening. Background checks. Revoking your gun liscense for certain violations.

Not punishing the majority. 

Banning all guns because an insanely small percentage of people use them to kill others, isn't reason to ban guns. It's reason to look at what may be causing these men to behave this way.

It's not toxic masculinity. 

Toxic masculinity is a catch phrase for men who embrace masculinity. Femininity is celebrated. Many women are insanely toxic. So why the war on men? 

Masculinity is not the issue. Again, that's like blaming explosives or Islam for hijackings.

Its lazy. It refuses to scratch beneath the surface.

I don't think many want to ban guns but US gun control laws are practically non existent.

 

Quote

Law enforcement officials also said he has a history of mental illness and was committed to a psychiatric facility for two weeks this summer, after which he was released.

He also threatened to shoot up his base. But he's got his rights, can't take away his guns. Dumber than dog crap. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Don't give me that bullshit. 

You tried to use the number of kids who either killed themselves or each other as relevant to a discussion on gun control as a way of dealing with the mass murder of children at mass shootings.  It's on record.  You can dodge and duck as much as you like, but it's right there, a few posts back.

 

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No more than we accept deaths in pools inevitable or deaths in car accidents inevitable.

But deaths from traffic accidents and pools are inevitable.  Accidental death is inevitable, regardless of what we do to prevent it.  We can only control it as much as possible.  We do everything we can with regard to traffic accidents to prevent them and prevent deaths and injuries from them, instigating safety measures like seatbelts, airbags, laminated glass, snow tires, licences, age restrictions, speed limits, zebra crossings, school zones, bike lanes, etc., but still people die.  And cars aren't designed to kill.

I think that guns in the US ought to be controlled far, far more restrictively than they are now.  Far more than cars.

Deaths from guns would still be inevitable, just as they are from cars (and pools, defenestration, encounters with wildlife, accidental mushroom poisoning and failed parachutes) but they would be much reduced.

Certainly far fewer children would die.  It seems to me that such a result would be worth the effort.

Anyone who doesn't think it would be worth the effort, well, I guess they just don't think it would be worth the effort.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Interesting to me was the inability of media to report on the number of dead, as evidenced by the subject line.

I suspect that cuts in journalism are making news reporting difficult.

Probably more of a case of the relaxed standards for integrity and truth. 

It's been proven time and again that the majority of people are quite comfortable with disinformation in the news. They're more outraged by the truth.  

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

But the vast majority of lawful gun owners, are responsible with their guns. This is statistically demonstrable.

I love traveling. Aircraft hijacking is possible, but banning flying because its happened, would be ridiculous. You put stronger regulations, to help reduce the odds of it happening again. Better screening. Background checks. Revoking your gun liscense for certain violations.

Not punishing the majority. 

Banning all guns because an insanely small percentage of people use them to kill others, isn't reason to ban guns. It's reason to look at what may be causing these men to behave this way.

It's not toxic masculinity. 

Toxic masculinity is a catch phrase for men who embrace masculinity. Femininity is celebrated. Many women are insanely toxic. So why the war on men? 

Masculinity is not the issue. Again, that's like blaming explosives or Islam for hijackings.

Its lazy. It refuses to scratch beneath the surface.

Can you please explain why I’m allowed to own a rifle but I’m not allowed to own a nuclear bomb?

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Probably more of a case of the relaxed standards for integrity and truth. 

It's been proven time and again that the majority of people are quite comfortable with disinformation in the news. They're more outraged by the truth.  

Media will report what authorities and hospitals tell them. It's not unusual for victim counts to change as more is learned. I guess your "truthers" must go in there and physically count the bodies themselves. Ya think?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Can you please explain why I’m allowed to own a rifle but I’m not allowed to own a nuclear bomb?

I don't understand the issue with lawfully owning a rifle. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Media will report what authorities and hospitals tell them. It's not unusual for victim counts to change as more is learned. I guess your "truthers" must go in there and physically count the bodies themselves. Ya think?

Media will continue to lie because people like you continue to encourage it. 

When you say "truthers" are you referring to people who lied about the BSL4 lab? Oh wait, the liars were CBC, CNN et al.

Are you referring to people who lied about Russian collusion a million times? Oh wait, the liars were CBC, CNN et al.

Sandman? Gentle giant? Gentle Giant 2.0? Ukrainian collusion? The laptop? Smollett? Rayshard? The "Pandemic of the Unvaccinated"? The successful Afghanistan withdrawal? Joe Biden's perfect mental health? Fetterman's perfect mental health? The credibility of Dr Ford's claim? The credibility of E J Caroll's claim? The sea of swastikas and confederate flags at the Freedom Convoy? The reprehensible behaviour of Ottawa protesters? The "Mostly peaceful BLM protests"? The 'Summer of Love'?

You like to keep making vague references about the things these "truthers" are getting wrong but you can never get specific. Why is that? Why can I rattle off a laundry list of times when you were completely stooged, and you can only make unsubstantiated allegations against 'truthers'?

[Aristides]

How did they lie? How many reporters do your truthers have on the ground?

[BeaverFever]

On 10/25/2023 at 11:35 PM, CdnFox said:

Oh look.  You're all happy and excited about another shooting. You get to lie and virtue signal so it's really great for you that people are dead.

Were you in those Palestine celebrations for the dead jews too? Sounds right up your alley.

I haven’t lied but when you falsely acc me of being happy or celebrating you sure are lying. 

[BeaverFever]

On 10/26/2023 at 1:09 PM, eyeball said:

Yos can see this apparent required period of political silence that follows these shooting's mirrored in the situation in the Middle East. These things don't happen in a vacuum but the longer you keep quiet about that the more time there is to put the issues back on hold.  It's a real pattern.

It’s not like conservatives bite their tongue either. When Hamas attacked, the first dead Israeli hadn’t even hit the ground before Righties were screaming that it’s all Biden’s fault.  What they’re really doing here is just their brand of cancel-culture shut-uppery, trying to silence ideas that they don’t want spoken. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I haven’t lied but when you falsely acc me of being happy or celebrating you sure are lying. 

Well for sure - but that's never happened yet.

I mean look at you - you're THRILLED!!! You're first action is to rush and make your political statement - all a-tingle that you get to virtue signal about evil republicans and guns!!!!

You sure as crap didn't express remorse for the people.

So - nothing false in my statement.  Sorry that pointing out the truth bothers you so much tho

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s not like conservatives bite their tongue either. When Hamas attacked, the first dead Israeli hadn’t even hit the ground before Righties were screaming that it’s all Biden’s fault.  What they’re really doing here is just their brand of cancel-culture shut-uppery, trying to silence ideas that they don’t want spoken. 

Ahhhh whataboutism - one of the left's favorite defenses.

So you're back to blaming others for your own horrible behavior.   "I celebrated the death of dozens of people because it suited my political position but it's the republican's fault because israel'. "   Gotcha.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I haven’t lied but when you falsely acc me of being happy or celebrating you sure are lying. 

He has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a liar.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

He has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a liar.

Just the liars.  You know - the kind who say that you need 500 miles of river to make a single dam and we're out of rivers in bc.  that kind of person.

Only the liars complain about it strangely.

[Aristides]

See.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

See.

Exactly. Like i said - only the liars complain  

[Aristides]

You really think we can build enough dams to double our generating capacity? Do you? Where will you put them oh wise one?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Probably more of a case of the relaxed standards for integrity and truth. 

I still remember a CNN story about an SUV that plowed through a parade. 

The issue? The driver was black. Black people are victims, but his track record showcased him as a sociopath. Precicely the type who would drive through a parade to kill people.

So they focused more on the vehicle  and omitted to mention anything about the suspect. 

They rightfully so, were heavily trolled about it.

Makes it hard to believe the news, when you get stories like this.

[robosmith]

On 10/26/2023 at 4:58 PM, CdnFox said:

They really can't. as we saw in 911, as we saw in france, etc. Fire and explosion is the fastest way.

Guns are just the best way to get prime time news coverage.  Kill someone with a shovel and you're lucky to make page 43.

You can buy an AR in about an hour, but it took MANY DAYS of planning to implement 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Federal bombing.

There is no comparison; the AR is much quicker than building your own bomb or hijacking an airliner. Esp if you're acting ALONE. 

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You really think we can build enough dams to double our generating capacity? Do you? Where will you put them oh wise one?

Already proven several times over in great detail.  See - this is why everyone thinks you're a liar.  You KNOW the answer,  yet you pretend not to. You can't tell the truth to save your life,