Reality vs. trump supporters

[Into the Night]

Once again, you just take your opinion as fact over valid, documented evidence. Labeling everyone else a liar while being unable to logically or factually prove such just makes you a 3rd rate propagandist on this particular subject.

YOU stated that there is no proof that gun control works

Gun control doesn't work. Criminals don't pay attention to gun control laws.

and that all studies on such were bogus.

Newspapers are a false authority.

The first link details various information regarding guns to show how proper, in depth and corroborated studies are stymied by weak legislation and the Orange Oaf's efforts to eliminate even that.

Newspapers are a false authority.

What's fascinating in your myopic, supposition and conjecture laden screed

Inversion fallacy.

is that you IGNORE that your life time chances of experiencing gun violence is 1 in 315, mass shootings are 1 in 11,125.

Argument from randU. You are using made up numbers.

Given we are a population of over 300 million, those odds are not so comfortable...

Conclusion based on random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.

just ask the surviving family members of mass shooting victims in the last 30 years.

One lives next to me. He carries a gun now.

...you know, like one of the sub-titles said, "After Congress let a 1994 ban on assault weapons expire in 2004,

Congress does not have authority to ban or limit any gun. See the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th amendments, and Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

gun massacre deaths skyrocketed."

A result of 'gun free' zones.

Here are some other titles (with highlighted links to documentation) that you ignore from the first link: States that have stricter background-check laws for gun purchases have fewer school shootings.

Lie. See the list of school shootings in California alone in the past 30 years.

There's a widening gap between the number of gun deaths in states with relaxed gun-control laws and states with more restrictive policies,

Argument from randU fallacy. No such correlation is noted in any data from the FBI, which collects statistics on such things.

according to a study published in March.

Newspapers are not a valid authority on the data.

Research shows that states that require background checks on all gun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita between 2009 and 2012.

Research is not a proof. California has some of the strictest laws, and they have a high death rate by guns.

That's just pulling the rug out from under your first myopic review.

Inversion fallacy.

You display similar tactics for the other 2 links.

Your links are bogus. Newspapers are not valid data.

All the reader has to do is just click on the links and read the material themselves to see your folly.

Why. They are invalid data. They are just propaganda.

You should apply for Lapierre's job....if the organization is still financially solvent by the end of this year. Carry on.

He's doing a fine job. The NRA is doing quite well financially.

 

[Into the Night]

Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness.

Inversion fallacy.

You just ignore the information in the link you don't like

I dismiss newspapers as authoritative data on this. It is the Holy Link itself I don't like.

and harp on out of context quotes.

Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem.

Obviously, you were asleep when they taught comprehensive reading in school.

YALIF.

Then to add insult to injury, keep making accusation you cannot prove.

He is no accusing you of anything but your paranoia. He has made a solid case of it. You continue your paranoia. Q.E.D.

Again, calling a source fake

Your sources are fake. False authority fallacy.

and proving such

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

are two different things.

Yes. They are two different fallacies you are committing.

...a concept lost on you when it comes to guns.

Inversion fallacy. Again, YOUR problem.

The childish tactic found in the babblings of the current NRA propaganda

The NRA doesn't mention your lousy sources.

and general right wing noise machine (like Fox News).

Fox News doesn't mention your lousy sources.

Maybe it's okay in your warped mindset to be 1 in 315 victim of gun violence or 1 in 11,125 mass shooting victim or have a family member/relative/friend/significant other be one.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are AGAIN using random numbers as 'data'. You are chanting.

But if you ask the surviving members of such victims from the last 20 years (hell, the last 10), they'd have some choice words for you.

I live next to one. He carries a gun now. We are good friends as well.

Oh, and FYI; my Pop was a NYC homicide detective...I grew up with guns in the house, and could tell you some stories regarding them and homicides that would curl your toes.

I don't believe you. You demonstrated already that you know nothing about guns.

It's like this, Reggie...all this stuck pig squealing from you regarding guns is just plain stupid,

Inversion fallacy.

as of this second you (a law abiding citizen) can choose from a plelthora of hand guns, rifles and shot guns to buy that are more than adequate for home protection, self protection (given local state laws) or hunting... it's been that way for all my 60 years on this planet.

YOU don't get to determine what is adequate for home protection, or for what purpose one is allowed to buy a gun. You are not the king.

And since NO OUTRIGHT CONFISCATION OF LEGALLY BOUGHT WEAPONS UNDER THE LAW HAS OCCURRED,

The British attempted it. They failed.
The government of the State of Connecticut attempted it. They failed.
The government of Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of California attempted it. Though they largely failed, some guns were confiscated.
The federal government attempted it. They succeeded in some cases and even killed the people with the 'illegal' guns. The failed in most attempts.

your hand wringing is just the result of being duped by gun manufacturers/sellers

Nope. It happened, dude.

and some internal paranoia/hatred of the federal gov't.

I support the federal government, as long as they conform to the Constitution of the United States, which defines them and gives them their authority. Individuals within the Federal government, that ignore the Constitution, are another story.

No facts or logic can dissuade folk like you,

You are not using any logic or facts. You are committing fallacy after fallacy. You are quoting random numbers as 'data', and calling them 'facts' as a proof of some kind. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means. A 'fact' is simply an assumed predicate.

so since we are in agreement on the OP, I'll just leave you to utter your final accusations, insults and revisionist clap trap. We're done here.

Thought terminating cliche fallacy.

If you think this ends the debate on gun control, you have another think coming!

 

[Into the Night]

*hollow* , your own
He said it, dear readers! Possibly the most absurd retort in the NRA flunky arsenal....a version of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"!

Guns don't kill people.

No shyte, Sherlock! Obviously you've discovered that unlike a 1950's Warner Bros. cartoon, guns don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around shooting at them.

You are arguing that guns kill people. Now you say they don't. You have just locked yourself in paradox. Which is it, dude?

In the real world, a person needs to aim and fire.

Nope. Just fire. Define 'real'. I know what it means. Do you? Buzzword fallacy.

..the more bullets accurately fired, the more victims wounded, maimed or killed.

Nope. It all depends on where you're aiming at. I assure you, I never killed or maimed a single person shooting at paper targets, hunting for any animal, or by hitting any clay target.

So a revolver with 6 chambers has the possibility of doing the aforementioned to 6 people,

Nope. A bullet doesn't necessarily kill or maim. I may have to fire multiple bullets at the same person to kill him.

the bolt action hunting rifle more killing power and bullet loads,

It doesn't have more killing power. Killing is not a power.

the semi-automatics carrying up to 14 shots or more,

My pistols carry 20 except one, which carries 10. It takes about a second to reload them.

the shotgun doing serious damage with either 2 shots or a pump action of many, etc. etc.

Depends on the shot and the distance to the target, as always.

Hell of a more deadly potential than a hammer, wouldn't you say?

Nope. A hammer can kill just as effectively as a bullet.

Reggie, you've gone off the deep end in your gunner rhetoric.

Inversion fallacy.

You're wasting my thread space with this drivel.

Thread space is not limited. You don't own it either.

The chronology of our exchanges will always be your undoing to the objective reader.

I came here as an objective reader. Inversion fallacy.

You're done. Adios.

Repetitious Thought Terminating Cliche Fallacy. RTTCF

 

[Into the Night]

That someone was a guard, not a person who walked by with a gun. It was his job.

Irrelevance fallacy (ignoratio elenchi).

 

[Into the Night]

Not quite. He was a volunteer security guard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Whether he was a hired guard or not, it makes no difference.

 

[Into the Night]

the opening of this thread was about the absurd defense that Kelly Ann Conway offered for Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine and the House Impeachment hearings.....nothing to do with gun control.

Then why did YOU bring up gun control?!?

 

[Mason Michaels]

 

[Into the Night]

that's the narrative... but I disagree.

What 'narrative'???

 

[Sammy Jankis]

What 'narrative'???

a nation divided:film at 11

 

[Into the Night]

a nation divided:film at 11

I said polarized, not divided. Pay attention.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I said polarized, not divided. Pay attention.

like sunglasses? and my windshield?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Taichiliberal,

the opening of this thread was about the absurd defense that Kelly Ann Conway offered for Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine and the House Impeachment hearings.....nothing to do with gun control.

Thank you.

And it is quite remarkable to hear a sentence with both Trump supporters and reality.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
the opening of this thread was about the absurd defense that Kelly Ann Conway offered for Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine and the House Impeachment hearings.....nothing to do with gun control.

Hello Taichiliberal,



Thank you.

And it is quite remarkable to hear a sentence with both Trump supporters and reality.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Then why did YOU bring up gun control?!?

I was curious as to why you post on my thread so much, since I had you on IA. For your clarification, check the chronology of the posts...Daddyo and another posted initiated the gun debate Segway. I called them on it, and then ended it from my end via IA. Back into the bin with you.

 

[Into the Night]

like sunglasses? and my windshield?

Do you really want to wander off in contextomy fallacies?

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Taichiliberal,



Thank you.

And it is quite remarkable to hear a sentence with both Trump supporters and reality.

Define 'reality'. I know what it is, do you? Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I was curious as to why you post on my thread so much, since I had you on IA. For your clarification, check the chronology of the posts...Daddyo and another posted initiated the gun debate Segway. I called them on it, and then ended it from my end via IA. Back into the bin with you.

No answer, eh? Well, thanks for removing yourself from the thread.

 

[PoliTalker]

If it was a 'perfect phone call' why was it hidden on a secret server until the WB exposed the President's plot?

 

[PoliTalker]

Does this sound like Trump?

"When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

Great quote by Schiff..

That was Alexander Hamilton, who seemed to understand that one day, a man like Trump would come along.

 

[Jerome]