Now is not the time to talk about gun control (6 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Wow, now you are thinking.
    I should have known I needed to state the freaking obvious.
    I'll do better next time.
    So why, if guns are so freaking obvious, don’t we do something about access to guns first and see what happens?

    Why do we have to do this song and dance of trying to find any other reason rather than fixing the freaking obvious one?
     
    I really don't care what you reject or accept.
    I wonder what would have happened if the doctor who figured out how to use pig valves in humans had simply said "There is no evidence that it is possible so it must not be possible". That is all you're doing. You are denying even the possibility because you see no evidence for it.
    But there absolutely was evidence it would work.

    You think they were just like “what if we tried a pig heart LOL?!” and then just started cutting a dude’s chest open?
     
    But there absolutely was evidence it would work.

    You think they were just like “what if we tried a pig heart LOL?!” and then just started cutting a dude’s chest open?
    Obtuse much?
    Obviously I don't think that. Thank you for making my PRECISE point. They did not know, so they did research--because they were open to the possibility. What part are you not getting here?
     
    Obtuse much?
    Obviously I don't think that. Thank you for making my PRECISE point. They did not know, so they did research--because they were open to the possibility. What part are you not getting here?
    Great! So presumably there’s been some research done on your argument that you can produce so we can review it, right?

    Or are you saying you’re going to go do the research yourself and report back?

    Again, you’re making the claim of possibility. So now you need to back that up.
     
    Great! So presumably there’s been some research done on your argument that you can produce so we can review it, right?

    Or are you saying you’re going to go do the research yourself and report back?

    Again, you’re making the claim of possibility. So now you need to back that up.
    Go play your obtuse game on someone else.
     
    I really don't care what you reject or accept.
    I wonder what would have happened if the doctor who figured out how to use pig valves in humans had simply said "There is no evidence that it is possible so it must not be possible". That is all you're doing. You are denying even the possibility because you see no evidence for it.

    When people have ideas or theories or hypotheses, they go out and test them. They gather information and data. They then make their case to the scientific community for evaluation.

    You are putting forth a theory with zero evidence and getting pissy when people won't accept it without you doing the legwork. Do you see the difference?
     
    Since we’re talking about times when there was less violence - here’s one that actually has a scientific correlation.

    Guess what happened between the two red lines:


    1734394263154.png

    Didn't see an answer...oh, i know, i know! Assault weapons ban implemented...then repealed. :scratch:
     
    What do you propose to achieve that goal?
    Well, I’ve written pretty extensively on this in multiple threads, but to keep it short and sweet:

    Voluntary gun buyback program at above-market rates.

    Restrict the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons. Require licensing to purchase these weapons with mandatory background checks, gun registration, wait times, and yearly qualification training.

    Lots of ideas.
     
    Voluntary gun buyback program at above-market rates.
    That will help some, but most folks don't really want to sell their guns.
    Restrict the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons.
    That's good, too, but doesn't necessarily restrict access to guns in general.
    Require licensing to purchase these weapons with mandatory background checks, gun registration, wait times, and yearly qualification training.
    Great things too, but not sure how much effect that will have on access.
    I would allow for every 2 years of qualification for those between 26 and 55 years old.
     
    When people have ideas or theories or hypotheses, they go out and test them. They gather information and data. They then make their case to the scientific community for evaluation.

    You are putting forth a theory with zero evidence and getting pissy when people won't accept it without you doing the legwork. Do you see the difference?
    Do you consider yourself open minded?
     
    That will help some, but most folks don't really want to sell their guns.

    That's good, too, but doesn't necessarily restrict access to guns in general.

    Great things too, but not sure how much effect that will have on access.
    I would allow for every 2 years of qualification for those between 26 and 55 years old.

    Without a repeal of the second amendment, the best we can achieve is reducing access to guns. We can’t eliminate it completely, but there are absolutely steps we can take to make it much more difficult for the wrong people to get their hands on weapons.

    There’s tons of good ideas out there that can help. The problem is that Republicans in Congress see any gun control measures as non-starters.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom