We’re saying that *before *the fact, though. You’re the only who thinks the truthfulness of your anecdote matters. There’s 3 issues here.
Do some people use guns to protect themselves? The answer is undoubtedly yes.
Does having a gun provide a net safety benefit to an individual? The answer, as best we can tell, is no.
Is Kable a liar?
#3 is the only issue on the table regarding to your whole story, and resolving it won’t affect 1 or 2.
Glad to see you finally self identifying as a gungrabber.
Sure it does, but that probably depends on the individual.
Of course not.
See so what’s it matter. You all just might as well take my word for it.
As I said last page, I did just take your word for it, until you started asking for money to produce a police report. And then I thought, well, he’s already admitted to being a troll, maybe he’s a liar as well. Who knows!? Gambit backfire!
Maybe he needs money - lots of chambers to feed.
Maybe that’s it - he’s a former Nigerian finance minister.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I think he’s a pro-gunner in the sense that he doesn’t want to ban guns, he just wants to apply the death penalty if your gun is used in a capital offense.
Is there some dispositive fact that you think demands a certain policy position? Because I’m pretty sure that the facts have been presented dozens of times.
Just based on your responses to specific questions, you are more pro-gun than I am in many ways, so I wonder if you realize the position being taken by the anti-gun side of the debate.
The anti-gun side of this debate isn’t for “sensible regulation” of guns or banning “particularly dangerous” guns. They think of these things as stepping stones towards the virtual criminalization of guns in private hands. Many of the guys that are hi-fiving each other over ganging up on Kable support the assault weapons ban. Either because they are stupid enough to think it would have made some sort of meaningful difference or because they think its a good start towards the ultimate goal of banning virtually everything.
When has Kable ever said that the right doesn’t have any limits?
Do you have a cite for your answer to question 2?
And Kable keeps bringing up his experience because people keep disregarding your answer to question 1
You’re familiar with the studies, you don’t accept them for whatever reason.
Kable keeps bringing up his experience because he’s a troll and he has nothing else to offer.
You really are so psychopathic that you don’t get it, aren’t you? Here: To you, people who want responsible gun control laws are “they”. You are not one. The rest of us have known this ever since you started mantra’ing “AWB … AWB …”, but finally you’re stopping the pretense that you want responsible gun control laws. Or maybe you still are unable to understand what you’re saying or even what you mean to say, which is probably the way to bet.
How does it feel to have Kable so completely on your side? What’s the difference between you and him?
Do you?
Three minutes to Wapner. :rolleyes: Get help.
Not for whatever reason. For two specific reasons: 1) he doesn’t like the conclusions, and 2) he doesn’t understand them but other people have told him the studies are biased and wrong.
I’ll be generous and give him,
And to a lesser extent,
But that might be a little bit too close to your ideas.
steronz, I’m often not clear when you are saying what someone else erroneously believes or making an assertion of fact yourself. I’m thinking of the gang violence issue that I don’t recall ever seeing you address.
I think he believes #4, but it’s a dubious belief.
It’s adorable that you try to use big words.
He asked me twice to define “infringed”.
Feel free to connect the dots.
I figured you noticed. So why didn’t you answer?
So in other words, you’re illiterate as well as usless. Congratulations on being exactly as useless as ElvisLives. Care to point out any anti-gun position I’ve taken?
Things that don’t count as “anti-gun” unless you’re Nugent crazy:
I suspect that you’ll think that list is an adequate summary of my so-called “anti-gun” position, though, because you strike me as a useless parlor-Rambo Ted Nugent type.
At this point, since you also seem to fail to understand that someone might not check the dope every day, I’m filing you in the “probable liar” category with regard to your police report, too.
And for the record, since I have no doubt you’ll ask, I don’t bet with chumps on the internet. I didn’t get to the point in my life where I could afford to bet $500 by arbitrarily throwing $500 down an unverifiable rabbit hole every time some blowhard asked me to.
Two, at present. Planning on at least one more once I find a house in my new city I like enough to buy and enough time to go shoot tactical pistol more than once a year.
There is one study that says that you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the house. This study is so full of holes that I would really like to see Hentor defend it after he dismisses just about every survey ever done on defensive gun use as being unreliable.
God, you’re an idiot. I’ve never seen someone so stupid think they are so smart.
Well, aside from this gun issue, I don’t think I agree with Kable on most other issues. On the gun issue, I favor licensing and registration and he does not.
And maybe it comes down to self selection. The people who have guns in the home are the ones that are expecting trouble.
So studies that say that guns in the home make you less safe was conducted across a small geographic area and doesn’t account for the so many variables that I’m surprised that someone that demands such purity in data for defensive gun use studies seems to think the study you are talking about has much weight at all. Wait, no I’m not.
As is #3. But at least with #4 there are many studies that all seem to say the same thing. Lots and lots of defensive gun use.
So no answer? I’m disappointed, you didn’t seem like one of the tools that resort to insults in debate but I guess I was wrong.
Did you bother defining it to see where he went with it or do you just assume that he was going to shout “AH HA!! so what part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand!!!”
EVERYTHING is subject to interpretation. The ten commandments are subject to interpretation otherwise “thou shalt not kill” would leave no room for carrying a gun in self defense.
I don’t know, maybe Cable IS way out there and thinks that all guns laws are unconstitutional regardless of WHAT the supreme court says but he has acknowledged limits to the second amendment.
Like I said. The gun rights side of the debate has won for the time being and perhaps in 6 or 10 or 20 years, another opportunity will arise for the level headed anti-gun folks to show us how rational and moderate they can be. But my guess is that they will try for the AWB or something like it again.
It was a rhetorical question.
Ah, that’s my favorite part of these “debates”, when you guys both participate on one side AND declare the winner.
Hilarious.
No it wasn’t. I gave you a big hint that it wasn’t when I asked you a second time.
You think the gun-grabber side won? All they accomplished was uniting the Republicans, pushed independents away, put millions and millions of extra guns on the street, made the AR15 the most popular rifle in America, and vindicated the NRA. None of that had to happen but you gun-grabbers are just so stupid you couldn’t help yourself.