FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So you're saying — because some stranger on the Internet didn't give you solutions on a nice enough plate, it's not worth considering? It's not worth doing? It's not worth reading up on? Your solution is, what? "Stop whining"? "Get over it"? "Well, nothing can be done about guns, guys, LA Grant on the TwoBillsDrive sub-forum didn't adequately convince me in a single post that doing something is better than doing nothing. Shootings that are clearly preventable will just happen forever and there's nothing we can do." What an entitled and lazy attitude you have here. Shame on you. How are we complicit if we can't come up with a plan? Does that also make you complicit because you have no solution either, besides buzzwords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 How are we complicit if we can't come up with a plan? Does that also make you complicit because you have no solution either, besides buzzwords? He's not complicit because he's MAD AS HELL, AND HE'S NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE! Because why solve problems, when you can just be self-righteous about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 He's not complicit because he's MAD AS HELL, AND HE'S NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE! Because why solve problems, when you can just be self-righteous about them? The thought leader has spoken! Everyone return to your lives, nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 How are we complicit if we can't come up with a plan? Does that also make you complicit because you have no solution either, besides buzzwords? But....but....hope and change! And umm...Yes we can! Yes that's it see told ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So you're saying — because some stranger on the Internet didn't give you solutions on a nice enough plate, it's not worth considering? It's not worth doing? It's not worth reading up on? Your solution is, what? "Stop whining"? "Get over it"? "Well, nothing can be done about guns, guys, LA Grant on the TwoBillsDrive sub-forum didn't adequately convince me in a single post that doing something is better than doing nothing. Shootings that are clearly preventable will just happen forever and there's nothing we can do." What an entitled and lazy attitude you have here. Shame on you. You must be new here. PPP is full of "Cliff Clavens" who know it all, have a lot of free time to pontificate and have nothing but disdain for people who don't agree with them. I grew up with guns and know that it's unrealistic to think we'll get rid of them. There are many things that can be done to reduce the number of these types of shootings. However the culture of fear in the "Home of the Brave" drives cowards to cling to their guns above all else, as if having an arsenal in their homes is going to help when someone shoots up a McDonald's. A solution I like is to penalize the owner of record when a crime is committed with their gun, or when a gun is used to cause harm (as in a 3-year old blows the face off a 4-year old because his chickenshirt parents can't bother to lock up their guns or watch their kids). You know - "personal responsibility". Another one is to limit the guns one can buy to handguns and hunting/sporting guns. No need for people to have things like AK47's, unless you're going to kill someone. Those guns used yesterday were purchased legally. "Oops". However guys with little tiny penises and monsters under the bed will fight even those types of limitations, which are just common sense. Because, well, they labor under the misapprehension that if the government WANTED to enslave them, they could actually mount a defense with their little tiny guns. Of course they look stupid, which they are, but unfortunately their fear and gullibility ends up with nothing changing and innocent people getting killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 No, I want to encourage people to STOP DISHONESTLY SENSATIONALIZING EVENTS WITH MISUSED AND MISUNDERSTOOD DATA. You got all bitchy about there being "more than 300 mass shootings" this year without even knowing what that meant. You purposefully misrepresented data in an attempt to sensationalize the issue to make an emotional argument, because you can't make anything resembling a rational one. That is ENTIRELY relevant. You are lying, and you are ignorant, and you are basing your entire position on those lies and ignorance. Wrong. Again, it is black & white: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Your only argument is to try and dismiss and argue these down and say they're somehow irrelevant because there were also a lot of shootings last year. For you, that's enough of an argument that we should just ignore it and do nothing. That is not rational, that's idiotic. From you, I would expect nothing less. You must be new here. PPP is full of "Cliff Clavens" who know it all, have a lot of free time to pontificate and have nothing but disdain for people who don't agree with them. I grew up with guns and know that it's unrealistic to think we'll get rid of them. There are many things that can be done to reduce the number of these types of shootings. However the culture of fear in the "Home of the Brave" drives cowards to cling to their guns above all else, as if having an arsenal in their homes is going to help when someone shoots up a McDonald's. A solution I like is to penalize the owner of record when a crime is committed with their gun, or when a gun is used to cause harm (as in a 3-year old blows the face off a 4-year old because his chickenshirt parents can't bother to lock up their guns or watch their kids). You know - "personal responsibility". Another one is to limit the guns one can buy to handguns and hunting/sporting guns. No need for people to have things like AK47's, unless you're going to kill someone. Those guns used yesterday were purchased legally. "Oops". However guys with little tiny penises and monsters under the bed will fight even those types of limitations, which are just common sense. Because, well, they labor under the misapprehension that if the government WANTED to enslave them, they could actually mount a defense with their little tiny guns. Of course they look stupid, which they are, but unfortunately their fear and gullibility ends up with nothing changing and innocent people getting killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Yes, "more than three" would be four. Ok but not sure why you worded it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Wrong. Again, it is black & white: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Your only argument is to try and dismiss and argue these down and say they're somehow irrelevant because there were also a lot of shootings last year. For you, that's enough of an argument that we should just ignore it and do nothing. That is not rational, that's idiotic. From you, I would expect nothing less. How does that link invalidate Tom's point? Why have you ignored other questions that people asked you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 How are we complicit if we can't come up with a plan? Does that also make you complicit because you have no solution either, besides buzzwords? The plan is to agree that guns are a problem and that there are solutions. If it sounds easy, well, yeah, it should be easy. But unfortunately we live in a society where disagreement means gridlock means nothing changes. Look how hard so many of you are fighting against stronger gun restrictions, despite how common-sense it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 However guys with little tiny penises and monsters under the bed will fight even those types of limitations, which are just common sense. Says the hag who complains about the coarse behavior by the rest of this board. Pansy hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Wrong. Again, it is black & white: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Your only argument is to try and dismiss and argue these down and say they're somehow irrelevant because there were also a lot of shootings last year. For you, that's enough of an argument that we should just ignore it and do nothing. That is not rational, that's idiotic. From you, I would expect nothing less. No person is this dumb. How does that link invalidate Tom's point? Why have you ignored other questions that people asked you? Because he wouldn't be a total hypocrite without calling PPP an echo chamber, and then only echoing his own statements without fielding any challenges. The plan is to agree that guns are a problem and that there are solutions. If it sounds easy, well, yeah, it should be easy. But unfortunately we live in a society where disagreement means gridlock means nothing changes. Look how hard so many of you are fighting against stronger gun restrictions, despite how common-sense it is. Gun violence sucks, no one disagrees. What solutions are there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Wrong. Again, it is black & white: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Your only argument is to try and dismiss and argue these down and say they're somehow irrelevant because there were also a lot of shootings last year. For you, that's enough of an argument that we should just ignore it and do nothing. That is not rational, that's idiotic. From you, I would expect nothing less. I'm using the definition THAT SITE USES, you moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Says the hag who complains about the coarse behavior by the rest of this board. Pansy hypocrite. It'll be so nice when we elect a Republican POTUS so she can return on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 How does that link invalidate Tom's point? Why have you ignored other questions that people asked you? DC Tom is attempting to say that the amount of shootings this year are not a problem because he disagrees with "mass" and "normal." I'm saying, here is a well-compiled list of shootings from this year. Can we agree that this is a problem with available solutions that would prevent these? Can we agree that it is possible and you are just stubbornly refusing to try to do anything besides name-call on your favorite Internet forum? It seems like DC Tom and those that agree with him would rather see gun violence continue unabated than ever consider they may be wrong. It's more important they feel right than to be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 DC Tom is attempting to say that the amount of shootings this year are not a problem because he disagrees with "mass" and "normal." I'm saying, here is a well-compiled list of shootings from this year. Can we agree that this is a problem with available solutions that would prevent these? Can we agree that it is possible and you are just stubbornly refusing to try to do anything besides name-call on your favorite Internet forum? It seems like DC Tom and those that agree with him would rather see gun violence continue unabated than ever consider they may be wrong. It's more important they feel right than to be right. No, I'm saying that your dishonest use of the statistics that you don't understand is needlessly sensationalist. What part of that don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm using the definition THAT SITE USES, you moron. Again, so we agree. But again, you ignore the point and keep your focus elsewhere to deflect. You're doing what graceless people do when they lose arguments. You have no point and no argument. Your argument is semantics, name-calling, and dodging the point. You'd fit in well with Republican Congress. You have less than nothing but you spew it with vitriol nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 You must be new here. PPP is full of "Cliff Clavens" who know it all, have a lot of free time to pontificate and have nothing but disdain for people who don't agree with them. I grew up with guns and know that it's unrealistic to think we'll get rid of them. There are many things that can be done to reduce the number of these types of shootings. However the culture of fear in the "Home of the Brave" drives cowards to cling to their guns above all else, as if having an arsenal in their homes is going to help when someone shoots up a McDonald's. A solution I like is to penalize the owner of record when a crime is committed with their gun, or when a gun is used to cause harm (as in a 3-year old blows the face off a 4-year old because his chickenshirt parents can't bother to lock up their guns or watch their kids). You know - "personal responsibility". Another one is to limit the guns one can buy to handguns and hunting/sporting guns. No need for people to have things like AK47's, unless you're going to kill someone. Those guns used yesterday were purchased legally. "Oops". However guys with little tiny penises and monsters under the bed will fight even those types of limitations, which are just common sense. Because, well, they labor under the misapprehension that if the government WANTED to enslave them, they could actually mount a defense with their little tiny guns. Of course they look stupid, which they are, but unfortunately their fear and gullibility ends up with nothing changing and innocent people getting killed. Punishing someone who is the owner of record of a gun used in a crime is not a bad idea however there are challenges to that which I'll get to. When our house was broken in to my wife and I decided to take some measures. One get a safe for her jewelry seeing that's pretty much what they stole. They turned over our mattress and rifled through our clothing drawers. I asked the police why and they said they were looking for guns because that's where some people (irresponsible people) keep their firearms. We also bought a gun and now own two. When we are not in our house our guns are locked in the safe. But lets say someone breaks in our house while we're asleep. Happens more than I'm afraid to admit in Oakland. The guns are out because we don't want to have to get to the safe and mess with the combination while someone is breaking in. So in this scenario they overpower us and somehow make away with our guns. They now have a gun that is registered to us. If he uses it in a crime we are now liable for some sort of punishment? What do you recommend is our punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 No, I'm saying that your dishonest use of the statistics that you don't understand is needlessly sensationalist. What part of that don't you understand? We agree on the statistics. I'm not arguing with you about "sensationalist" because again I know the only fight you want to have is a semantical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 We agree on the statistics. I'm not arguing with you about "sensationalist" because again I know the only fight you want to have is a semantical one. Then why is that the only argument you'll address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Then why is that the only argument you'll address? I addressed most of the counter-arguments in my original post. Look there first, then go ahead and bring me another argument if you want to argue that we should not try to improve gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts