Opinions are not forbidden in GD, btw, as long as they aren’t asserted as fact.
If no one could express an opinion in GD, there could never be any discussion of politics or religion.
My PDF of facts is on my laptop which is currently not available to me, but when I get to it I’ll remember to look up the quotes of Schumer, Clinton (Bill) and Kennedy that call for further restriction to the point of creating de facto bans.
Kennedy is the one who supports banning .30-30 ammuntion because it is “armor piercing”, by the way.
IOW, there is no proposed legislation for an all out ban.
Now I know you’re full of it, DC. Not only didn’t you have time to read those cites, some of them are too recent for you to have seen before.
You are a cynic, for sure. You make an opinion based on your own fears and inadequacies, refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t fit into your own little hallucinogenic world and use anger, slurs, denial and a 'tuff-guy" attitude to show everyone how right you are.
Frankly, that’s the type of behavior that is compensating for inadequacy. You are probably just those things you keep bringing up about the honest posters here (since you have just proven your dishonesty), you are probably bad in the sack, with a small, whithered penis and have to pull the covers over your head when a thunderstorm comes around. Ugly whores probably kick you out of bed.
You say “Guns are for Cowards” cause you are scared shitless of guns. You’d probably love to have one yourself, but you’re too chicken.
You have shown yourself for what you are. You are a coward, full of hot air, a liar a foul-mouthed slanderer, a rule-changer (in mid-debate) and you are not worth my time or the time of the other people here who have tried to make honest attempts to debate.
Folks, if you want to continue to play with this creep for reasons of your own, go ahead. I got better things to do than associate with slime.
DC, I write you off. You are worthless.
Thanks, catsix. No rush.
But it’s hard to accuse DtheC of dismissing every anti-gun legislator when we’ve only been discussing one.
(I just keep hoping, and hoping, and hoping . . . that some day we could actually manage to have a firearms discussion here that consisted of more light than heat.)
. . . and while I was busy hoping, I missed ol’ Snakey’s screed. Bleah.
Very nice, Snake. You try to play “junior mod” with me one second and then flame in GD the next.
When did I say I was afraid of guns, btw? I was in the military, I’ve trained with firearms. I also occasionally shoot at targets on my in-laws’ farm. It’s not the guns that scare me, it’s their owners.
enipla,
Haven’t been in med school for about 19 years. Been in practice for the last 16. So this goes back a ways. I guess I type young. 
And yes, some breathing space would’ve helped that rant’s readability. Sorry. It was a quick type waiting for my wife and 18 yo to be ready for a night out at a fancy restaurant in commeration of his forthcoming college career. Thank you for reading it anyway.
Now, catsix, didn’t you chide me for the true life story I told in that “Public Health” thread? About the teen-ager in my practice blown away by the nutjob father of a freind this last week. (He apparently tried to force them all to play Russian Roulette and killed the kid when he wouldn’t play.) I think that you characterized it as an appeal to emotion rather than to rational analysis. Well, you know about the goose and the gander don’t you? Your anecdote is such an appeal. Except that I know what happened to this kid. And by your own assessment, you don’t know that your weapon did any more good than a good yell would have done. Neither case really informs the debate. They are anecdotes, nothing more. One nutjob doesn’t a public health problem make and a reasonable gun control plan wouldn’t likely have stopped him. A dumbass knocking down your door doesn’t make for a live saved and all those gun owner reported perceptions of effective defensive gun use doesn’t change the fact that fairly few law-abiding citizens are killed by random home invaders, whether they own guns or not.
The debate can get silly very fast - I’ll counter with the studies that show that gun ownership is correlated with more deaths within the household, you’ll (appropriately) counter with the fact that those studies do not account for the fact that some people own guns because they live under circumstances that justify them - selection bias. And so on and on. I really don’t want to go there. Let us leave it at this reasonable statement: there are perhaps a few lives overall saved by home gun ownership being used defensively, and there are a few lives lost by the ready availabilty of a weapon in a house at times of disputes and by accidents - both numbers are small and they probably closely offset each other. From the POV of society they should both be ignored. There are much bigger fish to fry.
As to your fears about the agenda to ban them all. Look at it this way. Feinstein may want to be a banner. But she can’t be one. *Because most legislators aren’t banners even though they support some degree of control. *A majority vote for some gun control but wouldn’t vote for a ban even if introduced and even Feinstein knows that. So should you. They wouldn’t vote for it yesterday. They wouldn’t vote for it today. And they won’t vote for it tomorrow. It aint something that is gonna happen in this country.
So can we get past your exaggerated fears and past the public’s exaggerated and irrational fear of scary looking weapons and nutjobs going postal in a neighborhood near you, and have both side roll up their sleeves to actually reduce deaths associated with gun violence?
I know the public health side. You all know the guns. You’d think we could together come up with some rational approaches that reduced the deaths without severely limiting the rights and privleges of legitimate gunowners.
Well said DSeid!
Snakespirit, what say you take that shit to the Pit, hmmm? Remember:
I posted this and DC said
This guy doesn’t play fair. He lies. He has consistantly tried to intimidate other posters with slurs. He misrepresents himself, his positions, and backpedals when things don’t go his way.
Anyone else have anything to say to me, any questions, debates, I’m here.
I posted this (H.R. 2038/S. 1431)
This is the Senators work THIS YEAR on a gun ban.
Not total, but pretty close.
Ok, then, if you really want to discuss the issue further, perhaps you could answer me a couple questions.
Firstly, do you agree that there has been no legislation proposed in the US to ban all firearms?
Secondly, do you acknowlege that most of your provided cites are somewhat . . . biased to a particular side in this debate?
Thanks
Yeah, when I posted some cites and DC came back within two minutes and dismissed them all I realized he was lying, fighting unfair and just puffing up his ego. You are right. I lowered myself to his level to make a point. Sorry bout that.
It won’t happen again.
Fact is that the kid isn’t debating; he’s just bullying his personal opinions along the thread. I’ll give him this though, he’s shrewd, he knows how to put people down, he knows the words to use to incite fear and anger in most p[eople, and he uses this as his stock in trade, I wonder if it comes from lots of practice.
Please note, this is not a flame, this is not pit material. Everything I said in this post is verifyable, all you gotta do is go back and look at his posts. He does almost nothing but make attacks on other posters.
He does not debate.
-
If you mean “introduced as legislation” no, of course not. Did I say there was?
-
Of couse they are biased! This is a debate: you present your evidence and I’ll present mine. What did you expect? I responded as asked.
Now, don’t you acknowledge that although the results supported my assertions, they came from a variety of sources, which are NOT biased sources.
Can you cite statistics as to the fraction of all breakins involve a lot of noise and are done when the lights are on and someone is obviously at home? Or are you just shooting the shit?
No it isn’t. It’s just an expansion on the assault weapons ban. It’s doesn’t go anywhere near a total ban.
My point still stands. There has been no legislative attempt at a total ban on firearms. That is simply not a credible possibility. It’s not a rational thing to worry about.
And enough with the goddamn flaming, btw. Take it to the pit. Name calling is not a substitute for a debate.
BTW, it’s STILL flaming, even when you keep saying “I’m not flaming” at the end of the post.
Are you nuts?
Police don’t even keep statistics on all breakins, and you want a doper to come up with percentages of how many are done lights on?
And then you taunt him, accusing his he’s BSing if he can’t come up with them???
Talk about shooting the shit!
Get real.
I expect some support when the statement is made in response to a question as to whether or not the baddie usually has the drop on you. The defense that was given for having a gun loaded and ready for action seemed to be that it was useful in those apparently numerous cases where a breakin was accompanied by a lot of noise so that you would be alerted, armed and ready. That was opposed to those numerous cases where the breakin was stealthy and the intruder would have the upper hand.
And as to this:
It clearly implies that if there is suspicion the door isn’t answered even if the lights are on and the car is in the driveway. Or maybe if it is answered the stranger is kept covered by a loaded gun at all times.
This is the silliest argument I’ve heard for quite some time.
Is the xenophobia a new development or is it long standing?
SnakeSpirit
[Moderator Hat ON]
Snakespirit, this is out of line, AND this is your fourth warning in GD in a fairly short period of time. You’d better cool it, pronto.
[Moderator Hat OFF]