Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[Beefbisquit]

So, you are incapable of discussion.

Says the person who;

Lies, e.g. 'The Rockodile hunter', 70mph 3lb rock throws from 50ft with pin point accuracy. Says rocks are deadlier than guns, specifically that he is as deadly with a rock, as a person with a handgun.

Makes up stats, e.g 1,000,000 gun saves per year, or 50,000? What was it? Where did you get your info from? Never did get a source.

Pretends stats mean something they don't, e.g. Thinks 'saves' mean 'lives saved', then changes it to mean 'saved from horror'... whatever that means.

Creates straw-men to argue instead of the actual points that are brought up, e.g. Too many to list, reference the entire thread for countless examples.

Makes unequivocal comparisons, states them as valid; E.g. Comparing any time a gun was ever used to deter someone from doing anything illegal, to times a gun has killed someone illegally, instead of comparing it to times a gun was used illegally.

It could be worse, you could be NoBrain... Oh, sorry... NoDrama. lol

 

[Doer]

I can predict you....and that makes you boring.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I can predict you....and that makes you boring.

Logic is predictable.

You, are illogical, yet still somehow repetitive and lacking content.

At least, Nevaeh talks about 'space lasers' and 'giant, space ball, homes'....

 

[Doer]

I am asking only for a simple opinion, as always. But, a phlio needs no facts, and doesn't use them.

I ask again. He lies. And claims his lies are my prose. Yet, he cannot come up with any facts.

I never said I could throw a rock that fast. I said the math about it in foot pound to compare to 9mm.

But even at 30 mph, a 2 pound rock has plenty left to kill.

Guns save. That matters.

Gun device laws don't make any sense. That matters.

The fact that claim you have reasonable suggestion and don't. That matters.

Your fluff and dance doesn't matter.

 

[Doer]

Are you trying to tell us that training in Philo, is training in logic? Too Funny!!!!

There are no facts in Religion or Philosophy, so there is no logic, only rhetoric.

 

[NoDrama]

If you're a lawful citizen, you will report it stolen.

Soon you will find that 99.9999999% of the nation isn't lawful when it comes to cutting their own throats.
Face it, your idea has no merit whatsoever. Not enforceable and depends on people who are willing to throw their lives away to be honest.
LULZ

 

[NoDrama]

cannot access their firearms without at the very least, working for it.

So committing a felony and trespassing, breaking and entering and theft of property, all of which carry prison term punishments obviously don't deter jack shit.

Thieves don't normally just walk into a home through the front door after being invited in. They have to commit several crimes in order to get that firearm in the first place, but you, YOU Want to make the victim of the crime the responsible party if something bad were to happen.

I also want to point out that this law you think we should have is unconstitutional. Why do you hate the constitution so much?

If you want less guns to be stolen you need to EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE and let people make that decision for themselves to be responsible as no law exists anywhere that can do so.

Notice how tobacco use has declined greatly over the last 30 years? Was it laws proscribing punishment that did that or was it because people got educated about the dangers?

 

[Beefbisquit]

Soon you will find that 99.9999999% of the nation isn't lawful when it comes to cutting their own throats.
Face it, your idea has no merit whatsoever. Not enforceable and depends on people who are willing to throw their lives away to be honest.
LULZ

So, instead of buying a $150 safe, you'd rather have your firearm and probably all your other possessions, stolen. Then, not report it to prevent having repercussions. So, you lose the chance of getting your firearm, and all your stuff, back too.... Smart. Really smart.

I know you can't make the clear-as-day leaps from point a to b, but I hope to fuck the rest of the nation isn't a dumb as you.

The other option, if you wanted to actually have the police search for your stolen property, would be to buy a safe/lock after the fact, then report your firearms/property stolen. Again, stupid. You'd end up buying the safe/lock anyways to avoid repercussions, why not do it before the fact (like a law abiding citizen).

Hell, have the gov. design a gun locking mechanism that can be given to gun owners, so there are no excuses about not having money to buy one, or other nonsense.

I beleive it was TRH that said he already had a gun safe.... I'm sure there are other like-minded Americans that already have taken responsibility into their own hands, and the law wouldn't effect them.

 

[Doer]

Dumb da dumb dumb.......

Dumb da dumb dumb daaaaaaa.

 

[kelly4]

I like to get high and start my day off with some Beefbiskit dumbassery. It's nice to start my day with a smile.

 

[Beefbisquit]

So committing a felony and trespassing, breaking and entering and theft of property, all of which carry prison term punishments obviously don't deter jack shit.

There is no information on how many thefts the laws against theft, actually stop. Saying prison terms 'don't deter jack shit', isn't accurate, because of the previously mentioned fact. There are no numbers on deterrence.

Thieves don't normally just walk into a home through the front door after being invited in. They have to commit several crimes in order to get that firearm in the first place, but you, YOU Want to make the victim of the crime the responsible party if something bad were to happen.

I want gun owners to help prevent needless crimes. Not wearing a seatbelt also comes with a fine....

I also want to point out that this law you think we should have is unconstitutional. Why do you hate the constitution so much?

I don't hate inanimate objects. I think the constitution is a very, very, old document that could stand some revision. How would it infringe upon the constitution? You could still keep and bear arms. Last time I checked, it said requiring a lock didn't infringe upon your ability to purchase and own/keep firearms.

You can't use a gun if you're not around it, and requiring a lock, etc., doesn't infringe upon your right to keep or bear arms.

If you want less guns to be stolen you need to EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE and let people make that decision for themselves to be responsible as no law exists anywhere that can do so.

Notice how tobacco use has declined greatly over the last 30 years? Was it laws proscribing punishment that did that or was it because people got educated about the dangers?

How would you compare tobacco regulation today, with the 1950-1970's? What about tobacco on TV, in movies, in advertising? What about age regulation? How has all that changed?

Hmm...

Another facile argument from NoDrama.

 

[NoDrama]

So, instead of buying a $150 safe, you'd rather have your firearm and probably all your other possessions, stolen. Then, not report it to prevent having repercussions. So, you lose the chance of getting your firearm, and all your stuff, back too.... Smart. Really smart.

I know you can't make the clear-as-day leaps from point a to b, but I hope to fuck the rest of the nation isn't a dumb as you.

The other option, if you wanted to actually have the police search for your stolen property, would be to buy a safe/lock after the fact, then report your firearms/property stolen. Again, stupid. You'd end up buying the safe/lock anyways to avoid repercussions, why not do it before the fact (like a law abiding citizen).

Hell, have the gov. design a gun locking mechanism that can be given to gun owners, so there are no excuses about not having money to buy one, or other nonsense.

I beleive it was TRH that said he already had a gun safe.... I'm sure there are other like-minded Americans that already have taken responsibility into their own hands, and the law wouldn't effect them.

LULZ, first of all there are no $150 safes that would store rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers all at once. Your lockbox idea is stupid, as any dumb thief will just take the entire box with him and open it at his leisure. People would have to have a vault as a trigger lock can be dremeled off ( I Know this for fact), lockboxes can be taken, small safes can be taken, cable locks can easily be cut etc etc etc. Oh and missing parts can be over-nighted to you for a small fee. Any part of any modern firearm is only a mouse click away.

Your idea has ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT, at all. You are trying to place the responsibility for someone ELSES actions on the gun owner. You can only be responsible for yourself, your argument that people must be forced to be responsible for others will never work as it flies against the winds of reality.


TRH said he already had a gun vault? You sure bout that? Are you relying on your Skylard Photographic memory?

 

[NoDrama]

Not wearing a seatbelt also comes with a fine....

There is no federal law that requires the use of seatbelts.

Don't confuse what states can do with what the fed can do.

You are suggesting the FEDERAL government instate these draconian and useless storage laws.

 

[NoDrama]

How would you compare tobacco regulation today, with the 1950-1970's? What about tobacco on TV, in movies, in advertising? What about age regulation? How has all that changed?

Hmm...

Another facile argument from NoDrama.

Wanna talk about facile arguments?

Trying to make innocent people responsible for other's criminal acts.

The home is the locked box, the guns are already in a box, a box in which entering uninvited constitutes a crime.

 

[kelly4]

Most murders aren't even a federal crime. Why do the Feds care more about our guns than our lives?

 

[Beefbisquit]

There is no federal law that requires the use of seatbelts.

Don't confuse what states can do with what the fed can do.

You are suggesting the FEDERAL government instate these draconian and useless storage laws.

Or state level, doesn't really matter.

Draconian... Your hyperbole is amusing.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Wanna talk about facile arguments?

Trying to make innocent people responsible for other's criminal acts.

The home is the locked box, the guns are already in a box, a box in which entering uninvited constitutes a crime.

Another unequivocal comparison. It's not 'making innocent people responsible for others acts'. You are not responsible for them breaking in and stealing your stuff. You are responsible for storing your firearm properly. It doesn't matter if there's a crime or not, you're still responsible for storing your firearm properly. Just because there happened to be a break-in only sheds light on whether or not you were responsibly storing your firearm. You were either already breaking the law, or abiding it. The action of the criminal does nothing to change that. You are responsible for your own actions, e.g. whether or not you properly store your own firearm or not.

Try again, junior.

Your analogies and responses are baby-town frolics.

 

[Doer]

If all gun have to be in safes or other impediment, how is that secure for personal protection?

 

[Beefbisquit]

If all gun have to be in safes or other impediment, how is that secure for personal protection?

Guns don't always have to be in safes or some other impediment.

Playing dumb is dumber than being dumb, dummy.

 

[Doer]

Guns don't always have to be in safes or some other impediment.

Playing dumb is dumber than being dumb, dummy.

I am talking about the Laws. You are just trolling.