The Philosopher - 3 common gun control myths debunked

[CFM]

lol.....Legion would be outraged if he noticed your "your v you're" error.....

Not when it involves Legion being mad at himself.

I get the feeling Legion will be back soon.

LeonTheCat recently made a return.

[Ralph]

It only took two minutes to see that the "Philosopher" is wrong

The statistics comparing Australia and the US aren't in rough numbers, they are already pro rated based upon population, and when the narrator explaining it all in "other differences" she never covered, that was enough, the "Philosopher" is most likely an NRA sponsored video

Priceless.....you attack the methodology of a report by clearing it up with a very objective method of presenting the ever popular left wing term........MOST LIKELY. LMAO.....most likely? Really? Where is the there, there? The right can't Philosophy....but to the left "philosophy" is gospel truth?

Most Likely: Conjecture, Speculation, a strong hope void of evidential presentation.

[PostmodernProphet]

Not when it involves Legion being mad at himself.

I get the feeling Legion will be back soon.

LeonTheCat recently made a return.

idiot......Legion never left......

[Ralph]

idiot......Legion never left......

There are many "socks" on this board....either that or they all had the same 1st grade grammar teacher.

[USFREEDOM911]

Lower courts have ruled in favour of this military premise, however it is not denying that the Supreme Court is of a higher and more elite status. Granted.

I am unsure of your position and what solution you may pose. It seems you liken the quoting of Judges and backing your belief up merely by facts and evidence rather than morals or conscience. To term this as politely as possible...the US is like a spoilt child. The gun is the dangerous toy.....those anti firearm are the parents who attempt to remove this danger. Yet those pro-firearms argue that its their right, however rights are merely privileges. You treat them well they remain. You treat them poorly they become spoilt, and yes for everyone. Hypothetically if that mother found that toy to be dangerous she wouldn't let her niece or her friends children maintain that in their possession thus like a web the danger of this toy would spread. Through this the danger is removed for most except some negligent and disobeying parents and children.

I cannot help but also point this notion out relating to the 14th Amendment. It states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" The laws pertaining to firearms and the use of firearms are depriving individuals of their right to life. The final line terming "equal protection", appears to be failing. How a gunman who is awaiting trial and innocent teenagers and kids who have passed (along with their families) are receiving equal protection is beyond my intelligence.

So if you want to bring to the table the Bill of Rights Debate, then you should be ashamed. I have heard few Americans stand up for the 14th Amendment but so many for the 2nd Amendment, why is this because guns seem to be valued more than justice, protection and life. The 2nd Amendment is merely an excuse to cover the United States hideous gun culture, if you deny this I would assert you look past the 2nd Amendment and onto the news, the true events and heck maybe even the 14th Amendment.

While you do a very good job of stringing words together, without really accomplishing much; could you please explain how the Mother is going to NOT LET her niece or her friends maintain in THEIR possession, a toy SHE finds to be dangerous?

Major fail though, of trying to equate a gun and a toy.

[CFM]

idiot......Legion never left......

Idiot?

I never said he did. The Legion name will make a return. The member of JPP that is Legion never did.

[goldkam]

While you do a very good job of stringing words together, without really accomplishing much; could you please explain how the Mother is going to NOT LET her niece or her friends maintain in THEIR possession, a toy SHE finds to be dangerous?

Major fail though, of trying to equate a gun and a toy.

Major fail though, of trying to justify a weapon over a persons life.

Everyone who disagrees bases their perception off no facts, statistics but merely their opinion or perception. You simply have drawn on my analogy and refuted or argued against nothing else I have mentioned.

If you are able to read aloud the sentence you have just stated to me " the Mother is going to NOT LET her niece or her friends maintain in THEIR possession, a toy SHE finds to be dangerous?" I was attempting to a convey a point which clearly went over your head. Thus the stringing together of words clearly accomplished more than you could articulate. I was highlighting that any responsible individual who found a toy to be dangerous or faulty would alert others of this danger, through social media, word of mouth etc..... .Now in relation to equating a gun to a toy. This is an analogy not a real story, where the toy was merely utilised to prove a point not compare to a gun.

It would nice to see someone for firearms to respond to my points on the 14th Amendment or 2nd Amendment instead of putting forth broad statements and knit picking my analogy which really doesn't prove your point any more.

[USFREEDOM911]

Major fail though, of trying to justify a weapon over a persons life.

Everyone who disagrees bases their perception off no facts, statistics but merely their opinion or perception. You simply have drawn on my analogy and refuted or argued against nothing else I have mentioned.

If you are able to read aloud the sentence you have just stated to me " the Mother is going to NOT LET her niece or her friends maintain in THEIR possession, a toy SHE finds to be dangerous?" I was attempting to a convey a point which clearly went over your head. Thus the stringing together of words clearly accomplished more than you could articulate. I was highlighting that any responsible individual who found a toy to be dangerous or faulty would alert others of this danger, through social media, word of mouth etc..... .Now in relation to equating a gun to a toy. This is an analogy not a real story, where the toy was merely utilised to prove a point not compare to a gun.

It would nice to see someone for firearms to respond to my points on the 14th Amendment or 2nd Amendment instead of putting forth broad statements and knit picking my analogy which really doesn't prove your point any more.

You didn't use the word "alert" until just now; but I can see in your desperation that you've finally realized how much your example was just a pile of dumbassery and needed to change what you wrote.

Now;p make the "toy" a gun and explain how the Mother is going to NOT LET her niece or her friends maintain in THEIR possession, a gun SHE finds to be dangerous?
Who the fuck is she, to tell her niece or her friends what they can or can't possess?

[goldkam]

You didn't use the word "alert" until just now; but I can see in your desperation that you've finally realized how much your example was just a pile of dumbassery and needed to change what you wrote.

Now;p make the "toy" a gun and explain how the Mother is going to NOT LET her niece or her friends maintain in THEIR possession, a gun SHE finds to be dangerous?
Who the fuck is she, to tell her niece or her friends what they can or can't possess?

I didn't even realise I had altered it, I didn't or wasn't trying to alter or change what I was stating.

You are digging far too deep into a hypothetical situation I was trying to draw upon to prove a point, however quite clearly you lacked the depth to understand such an issue. My point was a dangerous weapon with the primary function to kill doesn't have a rightful place in society. Thus strict regulation or bans should be in place. You as many others I have posed the question too have failed to answer or respond to statement on the 14th Amendment. Deny that other societies are living examples of the success of gun legislation, deny that some interpret including courts of law that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to protect the milita and their right to guns, this is the 2nd Amendment that was written in the 1700's in a society raging battles with British forces.

[CFM]

I didn't even realise I had altered it, I didn't or wasn't trying to alter or change what I was stating.

You are digging far too deep into a hypothetical situation I was trying to draw upon to prove a point, however quite clearly you lacked the depth to understand such an issue. My point was a dangerous weapon with the primary function to kill doesn't have a rightful place in society. Thus strict regulation or bans should be in place. You as many others I have posed the question too have failed to answer or respond to statement on the 14th Amendment. Deny that other societies are living examples of the success of gun legislation, deny that some interpret including courts of law that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to protect the milita and their right to guns, this is the 2nd Amendment that was written in the 1700's in a society raging battles with British forces.

What about things that kill more people than guns? If something whose primary function isn't to kill produces a result greater than something that is designed to do so, shouldn't it be banned or severely restricted?

Unless that gun can grow arms/legs, walk to where it fires, and shoot itself, it isn't dangerous. The person(s) misusing it are dangerous. If they use it to do wrong, that doesn't make it the gun's fault just like someone using a spoon to eat more than they should or things that are bad for them doesn't make it the spoons' fault they're are overweight/unhealthy.

[USFREEDOM911]

I didn't even realise I had altered it, I didn't or wasn't trying to alter or change what I was stating.

You are digging far too deep into a hypothetical situation I was trying to draw upon to prove a point, however quite clearly you lacked the depth to understand such an issue. My point was a dangerous weapon with the primary function to kill doesn't have a rightful place in society. Thus strict regulation or bans should be in place. You as many others I have posed the question too have failed to answer or respond to statement on the 14th Amendment. Deny that other societies are living examples of the success of gun legislation, deny that some interpret including courts of law that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to protect the milita and their right to guns, this is the 2nd Amendment that was written in the 1700's in a society raging battles with British forces.

Then you should pay attention to the discussion and stay on track.

You made the case, so I would like you to explain how the Mother is going to NOT LET her niece or her friends maintain in THEIR possession, a gun SHE finds to be dangerous?
Who the fuck is she, to tell her niece or her friends what they can or can't possess?

[goldkam]

What about things that kill more people than guns? If something whose primary function isn't to kill produces a result greater than something that is designed to do so, shouldn't it be banned or severely restricted?

Unless that gun can grow arms/legs, walk to where it fires, and shoot itself, it isn't dangerous. The person(s) misusing it are dangerous. If they use it to do wrong, that doesn't make it the gun's fault just like someone using a spoon to eat more than they should or things that are bad for them doesn't make it the spoons' fault they're are overweight/unhealthy.

To your first point. Of course they should be addressed with appropriate legislation and policy, don't you agree??? However what may these 'things' be??? I have never stated that objects or occurrences shouldn't be addressed, we were having a gun debate not a broad USA policy debate.

To your second point. Of course it should, as should guns that are killing innocent people not terrorists in Syria.

To your third point. You are posing the notion that guns are not dangerous....even if the USA didn't have a gun problem and the US army was utilising guns there is some element of danger. So you are stating that those fighting overseas are not threatened by guns of the enemy, because they are not dangerous???

I never denied the person using it isn't dangerous, hence this too needs to be addressed. However would the person be as dangerous if the gun was removed?? What is more dangerous a mentally insane individual with a gun or a mentally insane individual with a knife??

It is not the guns fault, but it is the individuals instituting these guns and making them a normality's fault. Banning or legislating heavily on guns does not suddenly blame the gun, as if they are humane, it merely reduces and even eradicates the mass shootings, homicides etc.... Follow the example of Japan, India, Australia and the UK.

[CFM]

To your first point. Of course they should be addressed with appropriate legislation and policy, don't you agree??? However what may these 'things' be??? I have never stated that objects or occurrences shouldn't be addressed, we were having a gun debate not a broad USA policy debate.

To your second point. Of course it should, as should guns that are killing innocent people not terrorists in Syria.

To your third point. You are posing the notion that guns are not dangerous....even if the USA didn't have a gun problem and the US army was utilising guns there is some element of danger. So you are stating that those fighting overseas are not threatened by guns of the enemy, because they are not dangerous???

I never denied the person using it isn't dangerous, hence this too needs to be addressed. However would the person be as dangerous if the gun was removed?? What is more dangerous a mentally insane individual with a gun or a mentally insane individual with a knife??

It is not the guns fault, but it is the individuals instituting these guns and making them a normality's fault. Banning or legislating heavily on guns does not suddenly blame the gun, as if they are humane, it merely reduces and even eradicates the mass shootings, homicides etc.... Follow the example of Japan, India, Australia and the UK.

My point was speaking toward those that say "(fill in the blank) wasn't invented to kill people" when numbers showing (fill in the blank) kill more than guns. When what's in quotes is used as an excuse, it becomes part of the debate unless you can explain to me how someone kill by a NUT with (fill in the blank) is less dead than someone killed by a NUT with a gun. By the way, NUT is capitalized for a reason. See if you can figure it out.

Guns are killing people. PEOPLE with guns are killing people. Since just about anything could be used to kill another person, should we ban everything?

I'm looking at several of my guns now. What danger do they pose leaning against the chair? The gun, itself, is not dangerous unless it can grow legs/arms and load/shoot itself. For it to be dangerous, SOMEONE has to be doing something with it. My lawnmower is in my utility building outside. It isn't running but it has a sharp blade on it. Unless I start it, is there any danger because it's there?

I had a gun stolen from my LOCKED vehicle, while it sat on PRIVATE PROPERTY, by someone that did something THE LAW SAID THEY SHOULDN'T DO. I did what the law said. The thief didn't yet pussy gun haters like you want to punish me while admitting no law will prevent the criminal from doing something illegal with the gun. In other words, laws on a piece of paper, what you propose, don't work because criminals don't read the laws.

If you like what they do in those countries, take your pansy ass to them. I own FOUR of the type gun the shooter used in Florida. If you don't think I, someone that has never done nor would do what Cruz did, shouldn't own them, come and try to get them.

[goldkam]

My point was speaking toward those that say "(fill in the blank) wasn't invented to kill people" when numbers showing (fill in the blank) kill more than guns. When what's in quotes is used as an excuse, it becomes part of the debate unless you can explain to me how someone kill by a NUT with (fill in the blank) is less dead than someone killed by a NUT with a gun. By the way, NUT is capitalized for a reason. See if you can figure it out.

Guns are killing people. PEOPLE with guns are killing people. Since just about anything could be used to kill another person, should we ban everything?

I'm looking at several of my guns now. What danger do they pose leaning against the chair? The gun, itself, is not dangerous unless it can grow legs/arms and load/shoot itself. For it to be dangerous, SOMEONE has to be doing something with it. My lawnmower is in my utility building outside. It isn't running but it has a sharp blade on it. Unless I start it, is there any danger because it's there?

I had a gun stolen from my LOCKED vehicle, while it sat on PRIVATE PROPERTY, by someone that did something THE LAW SAID THEY SHOULDN'T DO. I did what the law said. The thief didn't yet pussy gun haters like you want to punish me while admitting no law will prevent the criminal from doing something illegal with the gun. In other words, laws on a piece of paper, what you propose, don't work because criminals don't read the laws.

If you like what they do in those countries, take your pansy ass to them. I own FOUR of the type gun the shooter used in Florida. If you don't think I, someone that has never done nor would do what Cruz did, shouldn't own them, come and try to get them.

To your first point. The first point you pose is merely a blanketed statement that doesn't justify nor aid in anyway to the current gun problem in the United States. I was merely contrasting other objects, to guns to accentuate my point. So you pose that because other objects can be used to kill individuals, a gun is no different. It is like stating well legal drugs such as paracetamol, nicotine, sleeping pills and prescription medication (which are not high risk legal drugs), along with the illegal drugs such as ice, methanphetomene, heroin and methamphetamine (higher abuse rates and thus also the level of risk) should all be banned because they are all being abused. Quite clearly the legal drugs I listed are advantageous in nature and are being abused far less than illegal drugs. Is this a far assumption??? The average item in society, that could be used to kill, is not at the rate of killing of firearms. You have also failed to inform me of this object, that is worse than guns??

To your next point. Correct guns are killing people. Correct people with guns are killing people. I never denied this notion.

To your third point. Just because you or any individual in the USA did what the law stated, does not mean it is going to protect or in fact reduce criminals or individuals stealing firearms or even utilising a firearm for evil. This clearly highlights the inadequacy of legislation pertaining to your state and country. It is all well and good for a law to "say" something for it actually to be enforceable and effective is another. Criminals may not very well read the laws, however if you remove the item from the situation completely they do not have a gun to steal or even embark on homicides, mass shootings etc....For instance if the laws pertaining to guns were stricter and much tighter, would the outcome of your situation be different.....of course it would. For example in Australia, you must have your gun stored in a locked cabinet when not in use, failure to do leads to the removal of a firearm license and hefty fines.

I am already in one of those countries, a country where firearms are not a normality, are heavily legislated and in fact primarily banned. No mass shootings in the past 20 years, reduction in homicide rates, reduction in youth suicides and a reduction in domestic gun violence.

And your last statement. It truely does show what type of person you are, one of no moral fibre. How you can continue to hold a weapon that is a continuing problem (for decades) the nation is beyond me???? It would be acceptable if this had been occurring for a single decade and other solutions had been trialed and failed, however this debate and issue is continuing for the past 50-60 years and no amicable solution has been met.

[CFM]

To your first point. The first point you pose is merely a blanketed statement that doesn't justify nor aid in anyway to the current gun problem in the United States. I was merely contrasting other objects, to guns to accentuate my point. So you pose that because other objects can be used to kill individuals, a gun is no different. It is like stating well legal drugs such as paracetamol, nicotine, sleeping pills and prescription medication (which are not high risk legal drugs), along with the illegal drugs such as ice, methanphetomene, heroin and methamphetamine (higher abuse rates and thus also the level of risk) should all be banned because they are all being abused. Quite clearly the legal drugs I listed are advantageous in nature and are being abused far less than illegal drugs. Is this a far assumption??? The average item in society, that could be used to kill, is not at the rate of killing of firearms. You have also failed to inform me of this object, that is worse than guns??

To your next point. Correct guns are killing people. Correct people with guns are killing people. I never denied this notion.

To your third point. Just because you or any individual in the USA did what the law stated, does not mean it is going to protect or in fact reduce criminals or individuals stealing firearms or even utilising a firearm for evil. This clearly highlights the inadequacy of legislation pertaining to your state and country. It is all well and good for a law to "say" something for it actually to be enforceable and effective is another. Criminals may not very well read the laws, however if you remove the item from the situation completely they do not have a gun to steal or even embark on homicides, mass shootings etc....For instance if the laws pertaining to guns were stricter and much tighter, would the outcome of your situation be different.....of course it would. For example in Australia, you must have your gun stored in a locked cabinet when not in use, failure to do leads to the removal of a firearm license and hefty fines.

I am already in one of those countries, a country where firearms are not a normality, are heavily legislated and in fact primarily banned. No mass shootings in the past 20 years, reduction in homicide rates, reduction in youth suicides and a reduction in domestic gun violence.

And your last statement. It truely does show what type of person you are, one of no moral fibre. How you can continue to hold a weapon that is a continuing problem (for decades) the nation is beyond me???? It would be acceptable if this had been occurring for a single decade and other solutions had been trialed and failed, however this debate and issue is continuing for the past 50-60 years and no amicable solution has been met.

If that's what you think, you missed the point, moron.

Guns don't kill people unless they can grow arms and shoot themselves. Missed again, moron.

The U.S. tried removing alcohol. How did that work out?

Stay the fuck there, coward. If you need the government to look out of you, it shows you're a fucking pussy.

It truly shows that I exercise the right the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the country where I live gives me the right to do so. In other words, I continue to hold it for two reason. First, I can and secondly, I choose to do so. If you don't like that, I suggest you man up and try to take them or you can continue to whine like the snowflake pussy you were either raised or have become. From what I've seen, you've already picked the latter. Just remember, while you're whining, I still have what I have and those aren't the only ones. I don't give up my rights because pantry wastes like you get your feelings hurt.