Something really funny about gun control in America

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, sorry, proof is on you.

You are challenging the point, not I. The point being the already legal gun rights.

In other words, you don't have proof and it's empty rhetoric. More to the point, you are just another ignorant fool who believes something out of ignorance.

Prove that removing guns from America would make it safer. If you prove that, I will back you up. I will switch sides. How hard is that? Is it REALLY that difficult to do? If you believe so strongly in something, don't you think you'd know more about it?

Prove it, prove it, prove it.

recap.

my claim to which you replied

"criminals wont have illegal guns with proper government control. and people who HAVE legals firearms are not noticeably safer from criminals with illegal firearms then an unarmed person would be"

you: Back up your facts.

Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.

I am not swayed by words.

As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.

...............................................................................................

not only was your post a non reply, but you were citing a post by me which you all but forgot about by your second reply. i already showed which types of deaths cud be avoided by not having gun ownership thus PROVING the second part{ofcourse u didnt even know what you were replying to so i dont know how much sense all this was making in your head}. and i asked you to give evidence to the contrary since you were CONTESTING my claim, and you go on to babble about the burden of proof being on me, while u talk about sumthing completely different from MY post that YOU quoted and go on to say that i have no proof{when i have showed which types of deaths area avoided by having no private gun ownership} and go on to say that the whole point is that i am an ignorant fool who beleives sumthing out of ignorance.

do you have any idea how silly and rude you sound? or is this random babbling and feining incoeherence another one of KMC's idiotic debating tactics which among other things tries to veil itself by the sheer amount of random and strawman bullshit it spews which makes it troublesome not only to keep track of the conversationg, but get lost in justifying one'self againt the number of idiotic allegations and strawmen being made, which continually mutates from post to post? orrrr. r u just drunk?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
recap.

my claim to which you replied

"criminals wont have illegal guns with proper government control. and people who HAVE legals firearms are not noticeably safer from criminals with illegal firearms then an unarmed person would be"

you: Back up your facts.

Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.

I am not swayed by words.

As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.

...............................................................................................

not only was your post a non reply, but you were citing a post by me which you all but forgot about by your second reply. i already showed which types of deaths cud be avoided by not having gun ownership thus PROVING the second part{ofcourse u didnt even know what you were replying to so i dont know how much sense all this was making in your head}. and i asked you to give evidence to the contrary since you were CONTESTING my claim, and you go on to babble about the burden of proof being on me, while u talk about sumthing completely different from MY post that YOU quoted and go on to say that i have no proof{when i have showed which types of deaths area avoided by having no private gun ownership} and go on to say that the whole point is that i am an ignorant fool who beleives sumthing out of ignorance.

do you have any idea how silly and rude you sound? or is this random babbling and feining incoeherence another one of KMC's idiotic debating tactics which among other things tries to veil itself by the sheer amount of random and strawman bullshit it spews which makes it troublesome not only to keep track of the conversationg, but get lost in justifying one'self againt the number of idiotic allegations and strawmen being made, which continually mutates from post to post? orrrr. r u just drunk?

Seems like one massive dodge of a post.

Edit - Notice I didn't respond to any of your words in the above post? It contains too much ignorance and "I have no clue what's going on" to warrant a response."

Let me recap:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.

No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.

Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like one massive dodge of a post.

Let me recap:

and thats my cue to stop wasting time by humouring you. honestly, grow up and learn to debate instead of showing empty bravado.

{try answering my post that you so conveniently pushed away for starters}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and thats my cue to stop wasting time by humouring you. honestly, grow up and learn to debate instead of showing empty bravado.

{try answering my post that you so conveniently pushed away for starters}

So why O' why, sir, can you not provide data. You are so good at "a-level" course work, yet you can't approach the subject scientifically.

Here, let me restate my post:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.

No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.

Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.

So, please, sway me with your data.

Ever heard the phrase, "put up or shutup"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So why O' why, sir, can you not provide data. You are so good at "a-level" course work, yet you can't approach the subject scientifically.

Here, let me restate my post:

So, please, sway me with your data.

Ever heard the phrase, "put up or shutup"?

i did, all the many types of deaths which legal firearms are responsible for wud be gone. data doesnt always have to be statistics. and it seems like you have more a bone to pick with me personally than anything else.

and you dont need to restate the extant of your stupidity, it has already been demonstrated ad nauseum. you only have to reply to the post you conveniently avoided and stop the persona undertones. theyr pathetic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i did, all the many types of deaths which legal firearms are responsible for wud be gone.

Does not compute. Your logic is so horrible it's rediculous. The use of "illegal firearms" automatically makes the entire idea of "gun control" a moot point.

(In Carlos Mencia's retard voice) They are called illegal firearms for a reason. Dee dee deeee.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
data doesnt always have to be statistics.

Show me where I said that it does.

And, in this particular case, it really does have to be statistics. Again, your logic is so horrible it's rediculous.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and it seems like you have more a bone to pick with me personally than anything else.

No, it seems you are incapable of proving to me why you hold the stance that you do on guns. It's more like empty rhetoric from you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and you dont need to restate the extant of your stupidity,

No matter how many times you say or type that, it still won't make it true.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it has already been demonstrated ad nauseum.

Hmmm...no why would I repost it more than once? hmm

Hmmm.. hmm

Man..I just can't quite put my finger on why I keep reposting it. hmm

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you only have to reply to the post you conveniently avoided

I already replied to it. It is a dodge post and in no way addresses the topic correctly. Your fail of logic in that post is a waste of time to even address. I'd rather keep it on topic instead of you pretending to pretend like you can play word games.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and stop the persona undertones. theyr pathetic.

Nah. They are rather obvious, and no way subversive or hidden. And what's pathetic is your "logic."

Does not compute. Your logic is so horrible it's rediculous. The use of "illegal firearms" automatically makes the entire idea of "gun control" a moot point.

(In Carlos Mencia's retard voice) They are called illegal firearms for a reason. Dee dee deeee.

empty claim, no reply, gotcha

not only did u again fail to elaborate HOW its a moot point, but u failed to convince me.

Show me where I said that it does.

And, in this particular case, it really does have to be statistics. Again, your logic is so horrible it's rediculous.

No, it seems you are incapable of proving to me why you hold the stance that you do on guns. It's more like empty rhetoric from you.

no it doesnt, you failed to reply. i think the reason you CHOOSE not to refer to actual points in the argument and are happy just waving them away is because if you did, ud actually have to DEBATE and let the line of questioning continue and develop. no no, its easy to just sidestep thing until they cant be kept a track of of.

the last part is to be blamed on ur intellect

No matter how many times you say or type that, it still won't make it true.

u mean it wont make it any more true than it already is

Hmmm...no why would I repost it more than once? hmm

Hmmm.. hmm

Man..I just can't quite put my finger on why I keep reposting it. hmm

because your stupid.

I already replied to it. It is a dodge post and in no way addresses the topic correctly. Your fail of logic in that post is a waste of time to even address. I'd rather keep it on topic instead of you pretending to pretend like you can play word games.

Nah. They are rather obvious, and no way subversive or hidden. And what's pathetic is your "logic."

you didnt address a single point made, which makes you a liar.

so ur admitting to being a rude and personally offensive?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
empty claim, no reply, gotcha

not only did u again fail to elaborate HOW its a moot point, but u failed to convince me.

No sir. You lack the ability to understand what I just pointed out. I'm quite certain that everyone else understands the point I just illustrated.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it doesnt, you failed to reply. i think the reason you CHOOSE not to refer to actual points in the argument and are happy just waving them away is because if you did, ud actually have to DEBATE and let the line of questioning continue and develop. no no, its easy to just sidestep thing until they cant be kept a track of of.

the last part is to be blamed on ur intellect

Okay. In that case, you try to get a drug approved without any data (statistics) and only what you intend the drug to do. Let me know if it convinces anyone

Try to do anything in the professional world without some sort of evidence or data to back up your reasons and you'll be laughed at.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
u mean it wont make it any more true than it already is

I know you are but what am I.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
because your stupid.

I know you are but what am I.

Up your butt with a coconut.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you didnt address a single point made, which makes you a liar.

Sir, you said I didn't reply to it.

I did reply to it, which makes you a doodoo stupid brain.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so ur admitting to being a rude and personally offensive?

No, I am indicating that your use of "undertones" is incorrect. It was what one might call an indirect insult or a witty comeback. And, your fail of logic makes itself apparent, yet again. I didn't admit to persona overtones. I admitted to blatant persona. Even thought this would not be the correct way to say it. Pompous, sarcastic, smartass...those would be better ways of saying it. Since I'm not a total jerk and realize that English isn't your first language, I don't point out those odd word combinations you make because the meaning can be derived in context. (BTW, that's how logic is SUPPOSED to be used. You're welcome.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No sir. You lack the ability to understand what I just pointed out. I'm quite certain that everyone else understands the point I just illustrated.

Okay. In that case, you try to get a drug approved without any data (statistics) and only what you intend the drug to do. Let me know if it convinces anyone

Try to do anything in the professional world without some sort of evidence or data to back up your reasons and you'll be laughed at.

I know you are but what am I.

I know you are but what am I.

Up your butt with a coconut.

Sir, you said I didn't reply to it.

I did reply to it, which makes you a doodoo stupid brain.

No, I am indicating that your use of "undertones" is incorrect. It was what one might call an indirect insult or a witty comeback. And, your fail of logic makes itself apparent, yet again. I didn't admit to persona overtones. I admitted to blatant persona. Even thought this would not be the correct way to say it. Pompous, sarcastic, smartass...those would be better ways of saying it. Since I'm not a total jerk and realize that English isn't your first language, I don't point out those odd word combinations you make because the meaning can be derived in context. (BTW, that's how logic is SUPPOSED to be used. You're welcome.)

nowhere in there do i see on topic sentence dealing in the least with the points i made. they seem to be ad hominem attacks anc cheap insults.

nice job on the subtle jab at my inability to work with english though, as if that wud say anything even if it were true.

quite pathetic. and you are ill equipped mentally, to lecture me on how logic is supposed to work. too many of your own posts work against you here.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nowhere in there do i see on topic sentence dealing in the least with the points i made. they seem to be ad hominem attacks anc cheap insults.

That's because you can barely read. 😉

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nice job on the subtle jab at my inability to work with english though, as if that wud say anything even if it were true.

Nah, I was just pointing out how nice I was being to you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
quite pathetic. and you are ill equipped mentally, to lecture me on how logic is supposed to work. too many of your own posts work against you here.

No matter how many times you say it or post it, it doesn't make it true.

Now, on with your evidence.

I'm ready to be convinced. Show me, sir, your evidence to sway me to the side of eliminating guns from America. If you show me the data and it's sound, I promise, I'll switch sides. That's all I want. 🙂

ad hominem

loving yourself

repeating the same idiotic debating tactic with a factually untrue statement and expecting a different result.

your a delusional narcissist sir.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ad hominem

loving yourself

repeating the same idiotic debating tactic with a factually untrue statement and expecting a different result.

your a delusional narcissist sir.

Untrue and off topic.

Can we get back on topic, please?

Here, I'll post again:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.

No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.

Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.

ive dealt with that, now i see you have no intention of answering my post. so why dont you stop trolling?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ive dealt with that, now i see you have no intention of answering my post. so why dont you stop trolling?

You did not deal with that.

Let me put it this way:

I dealt with you refusing to back up your claims.

You dodged.

I reposted.

You dodged.

Etc. etc.

Now, I'v decided to be civil and give you another chance.

Where is your data on gun control?

Where is it, sir? And to take care of your next 10 posts.

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Now, either provide your evidence to make your case or concede that you're an idiot.

^but that isnt true at all. unfortunately, you avoid the post dealing with the real order of things that i posted.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is proven by statistics.

Come on, even you would facepalm that comment.

Originally posted by lord xyz

Come on, even you would facepalm that comment.

really, because i was under the mistaken impression that per capita ownership of guns showed no corellation with decrease in crime rate gunshot wounds. silly me.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^but that isnt true at all. unfortunately, you avoid the post dealing with the real order of things that i posted.

You are for removing guns from civilians hands in the US. Why? Cite your sources.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
[B]
not only was your post a non reply, but you were citing a post by me which you all but forgot about by your second reply. i already showed which types of deaths cud be avoided by not having gun ownership thus PROVING the second part{ofcourse u didnt even know what you were replying to so i dont know how much sense all this was making in your head}. and i asked you to give evidence to the contrary since you were CONTESTING my claim, and you go on to babble about the burden of proof being on me, while u talk about sumthing completely different from MY post that YOU quoted and go on to say that i have no proof{when i have showed which types of deaths area avoided by having no private gun ownership} and go on to say that the whole point is that i am an ignorant fool who beleives sumthing out of ignorance.

Gun Crime in China Up
UK gun crime up after handgun ban

Ownership of Guns Lowers Crime

2 years after New Jersey passed the most stringent gun control laws in the country in 1966, the murder rate went up 46% and robbery almost doubled
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/njcrimn.htm
UK gun crime keeps rising even with stringent bans