LOL NO

I would definitely disagree.

As a matter of fact I don't even agree on your reasons for owning guns.

Argue rationally for why it's ~0 rather than ~1. This series is a good microcosm for one of the (many) reasons you aren't taken seriously in the forum. You demand essentially a computer checkable proof that houses with guns are more likely to see a domestic murder but claim of the cuff that concussions and PEDs can be blamed even in a case where neither has been established. There isn't any logic here.....you have a strong desire to own guns but not to take PEDs.

I believe your concerns have been addressed previously.

Again, please read and attempt to comprehend prior to posting.

Yeah, sorry I was a bit drunk and didn't comprehend the prior posting. Of course the access to guns had little to no causality wrt to this murder but hypothetical concussions and hypothetical PED use did LDO.

Dude. Between this and the Wonderlic arguments you've got going on you may want to take a break from the internet for a bit.

This post makes it very very clear you have no idea what happened in KC. And your posts in the other thread make it clear you have no idea what you're talking about re: Wonderlic/NFL players/Peyton specifically.

catstopposting.jpg

excellent read with a wonderlic bucket of

It was not thought through and planned as far as I know. They had an argument, he got pissed and grabbed his gun and killed her. Then himself. You're telling me that it wasn't easier for him to do so because he had a gun? Is that your argument?

I love the "move somewhere else" argument. So ridiculous. I was born here, my entire family network and friends are here. I have three children that I would be tearing away from all of that. But yeah, I should just move because I don't like the way our country handles one issue.

With that logic, pretty much everyone would have to move. Is there really anyone that agrees with every single thing our country does?

This is essentially the crux of this entire argument. I'm entirely on your side, goofball but I promise you will never get anywhere with DBL or neblis on this. They will eventually deteriorate this argument to personal insults and illogical fallacies.

I've tried a ton of times.

Goofball, Goodie, A friend of mine teaches sporting clays for a living. He's also won a good bit of money at sporting clay tournaments. I'd just like to ask:

A. Do you believe that the type of guns, let's say shotguns in particular, that people use for sporting clay tournaments and deer hunting should be illegal for civilian (not law-enforcement, not military) citizens to own?
B. If your answer to A is yes what percentage of the population of your country would you say agrees with you? I think you're both Americans but if not I'd be curious what nation you live in or what citizenship(s) you hold.

Regardless of your answer I have no intention of following up with a smart-ass comment or anything. I'm genuinely curious.

Sporting Clay tournaments seems reasonable enough but the guns should be kept secured at the facility, not in people's homes. I don't see any reason (I realize that recreation is the reason but that's just not enough) for anyone to go deer hunting so it's just not reason enough for anyone to have a gun in their home.

LOL

NO GUNS FOR YOU!

Thanks. I have another example from my real life. I work with a guy who's extended family harvests 8-10 deer per year on average. The family is solidly blue collar, salt-of-the-earth type of people. Their freezers are stocked with venison most of the year. What if someone were to make the case that they go deer hunting to help feed themselves and/or feed their family?

As that's not recreation, per se, I'm fine with it. However, for them to purchase a gun, I believe they should need to prove that what they are using it for is absolutely needed to help feed their family.

My uncles do quite a bit of hunting. It's not 'absolutely needed' but they use the meat for a lot of stuff. Does that mean they couldn't have a gun for hunting? They also bow hunt.

Listen, I'm aware that it's pretty extreme to not allow your uncle to hunt or all the other very responsible folks to hunt. However, it is my stance that allowing that type of gun ownership ultimately leads to the tragedies that we hear about more and more these days. My stance is that the freedom to have a gun for whatever reason you can come up with is just not enough to outweigh the loss of human life because that freedom exists.

We can go around in circles as we have in the past but that's my stance and I would be extremely surprised if anyone can come up with anything that will change my mind.

You do realize that deer hunting is a legit means to control the population of a herd that would otherwise go unchecked right?

If the population of said herd went unchecked, there would be very real effects that everyone would pay for.

No, I didn't realize that. However, I'm sure we can figure out a way to kill deers even if private citizens don't do it, don't yah think?

Wackos gonna wacko, regardless of what's in arms reach. Get someone made enough, with a few screws loose, etc and they will kill you with whatever they want to use.

Of course he doesn't.

Nor is he aware that not all hunting is recreational.

I doubt he's aware of issues created by Feral Hogs, and I'm certain he's not quite sure of the threats fox and coyotes present to crops and livestock.

He's a gun control advocate FFS. It's pretty much the equivalent of a flat Earther.

I'm listening. Do tell us how you're going to harvest the 422,000 deer that were taken during deer season last year (in Michigan alone) without firearms and a legal hunting season....

Anyone????

Come on now, goal post shift and tell us that you don't want all the guns, just the dangerous ones. Or give us a solution to the very real consequences of taking away the primary way to control a herd of wild animals.

Citation needed yo. And not from "cold dead hands quarterly" or whatever

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL