Did those toddlers get background checks?at least four people have been shot by toddlers since last weekend.
where are the armed, law abiding toddlers to stop this?
i agree. applying NRA logic to anything at all comes off as quite trolly.Total troll thread. cn
You agree to the wrong premise. You started this thread to fling poo at gun owners. cni agree. applying NRA logic to anything at all comes off as quite trolly.
not at all.You agree to the wrong premise. You started this thread to fling poo at gun owners. cn
See? There it was in your last clause. You're aiming your hate at the gun, and denying it by use of verbal gymnastics.not at all.
the direction of the poo is on a clear vector to wayne lapierre and his toadying sychophants.
unless you're supposing that all gun owners must follow the same retarded logic as the guy who makes sure america has the best equipped mass murderers of children anywhere.
woah now, bear.See? There it was in your last clause. You're aiming your hate at the gun, and denying it by use of verbal gymnastics.
For every child murdered in a gunner's spree, how many more have had their lives saved by an armed citizen in the right time and place? You cannot suggest "fewer" because it's immeasurable even as it's a real force in our society. I can suggest "thousands to one" and you can't refute that. They only tabulate the losers, and to the uncritical thinker this creates a clear and present problem. The only arguments "pro" are currently only available by imperfect analogy ... violent crime rates in Australia and the UK after they implemented sweeping firearm restriction and confiscation. But the antis look only at violence that was performed with a gun. At first glance one is inclined to nod and say "yeah", but the dishonesty in how the stats are prepared and presented requires a bit more analysis. cn
christian pedophiles?also-
it has come to light buck has a stake in this fight. he was abused by his gun owning white father. who was also claiming to be Christian.
You want NRA-style logic but with the premise inverted? Consider the term "assault weapon". Seriously, is there any such thing as a NONassault weapon?woah now, bear.
this is the NRA logic thread, let's keep it at NRA level.
for example, people get killed by drunk drivers, so everyone should be able to drive drunk legally.
considering that several children survived newtown because lanza had to change magazines, what do you say about the NRA's opposition to limiting high capacity mags?You want NRA-style logic but with the premise inverted? Consider the term "assault weapon". Seriously, is there any such thing as a NONassault weapon?
Or, the premise that fewer guns = less crime. That one does not stand even the most sloppy scrutiny.
Finally, ... it's for the children. cn