#BoycottNRA

Just as deadly. Also just as deadly as a handgun.

As I've said on here a bunch of times before, the reason gun rights people are so skeptical of gun control people is that gun control people are very specific in that they want ARs banned. Gun rights people know guns, and they know that ARs are no functionally different from traditional-looking hunting rifles.

So that brings up the obvious question, why do you want ARs banned, but not PaPaw's hunting rifle? They do the same thing. Hence the suspicion that once you get ARs banned (the low-hanging fruit), you'll come after rifles generally, and then maybe handguns.

Also mirrors gun control measures in other countries. Give an inch they will take a mile.
 
Just as deadly. Also just as deadly as a handgun.

As I've said on here a bunch of times before, the reason gun rights people are so skeptical of gun control people is that gun control people are very specific in that they want ARs banned. Gun rights people know guns, and they know that ARs are no functionally different from traditional-looking hunting rifles.

So that brings up the obvious question, why do you want ARs banned, but not PaPaw's hunting rifle? They do the same thing. Hence the suspicion that once you get ARs banned (the low-hanging fruit), you'll come after rifles generally, and then maybe handguns.

We all know that the great concern of the gun non-control side is that the long term objective is to completely eliminate guns. Sleep easily - that's not the objective. And even if it was (WHICH IT"S NOT), you know it would never happen.

My basic premise is this....fewer guns is preferable to more guns.

I base everything on that premise.
 
We all know that the great concern of the gun non-control side is that the long term objective is to completely eliminate guns. Sleep easily - that's not the objective. And even if it was (WHICH IT"S NOT), you know it would never happen.

My basic premise is this....fewer guns is preferable to more guns.

I base everything on that premise.

The premise is flawed. Sometimes more guns are preferable to less guns.
 
Last edited:
More absolute statements from you?

He just proved the lack of correlation in his own problem statement. It isn’t being driven by volume of type of gun.

Yes yes we know Luth. It’s for a better world with less scary black guns we know. Even though there’s no correlation to causation of the issue of gun related killings.
 
Last edited:
He just proved the lack of correlation in his own problem statement. It isn’t being driven by volume of type of gun.

Yes yes we know Luth. It’s for a better world with less scary black guns we know. Even though there’s no correlation to causation of the issue of gun related killings.

How asinine. The murder rate is impacted by multiple variables. Had the number of guns decreased instead of increased, the murder rate would have gone down more drastically.
 
How asinine. The murder rate is impacted by multiple variables. Had the number of guns decreased instead of increased, the murder rate would have gone down more drastically.

And MORE absolute statements from you.

image
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Not provable. Just as it's not provable that the increased number of guns contributed to the reduction in the murder rate.

Or that the increasing % of non-whites didn't contribute to the reduction in the murder rate.

Bull****. While guns are the instrument of a gun killing the guns amount and type weren’t correlated to the gun killing rates. They moved in opposite directions. But there is undeniable correlation to firearms and firearm homocides. That’s the whole damn point. In response you put forth an illogical correlation. And you know it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top