Liberal Forum

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:50 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:50 pm

More demands.  I have made my point.  Your turn.  Plus, I have already done that.  Less round capacity?  Carry more magazines.

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:50 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:50 pm

More demands.  I have made my point.  Your turn.  Plus, I have already done that.  Less round capacity?  Carry more magazines.

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:54 pm

A new study by researchers Michael Siegel, Molly Pahn, Ziming Xuan, Eric Fleegler, and David Hemenway finds conclusive evidence that states with stricter gun-control laws have lower rates of both murders and suicides. (Nearly two-thirds of U.S. gun deaths are suicides.) We covered an earlier study that found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had higher rates of teen suicide. Research by one of us (Richard) has found that states with stricter gun-control laws have fewer gun deaths. And a meta-analysis of more than 130 studies across 10 nations found strong evidence of the same.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:53 pm

Dwarf..

It is a very simple answer, in 3 bullet points..

Don't assert you have created something you don't know how to construct..

**** brick.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:54 pm

No, I won't.

I've already done it.

Yap!

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm

You're dumber than ****.....

Never, ever presume to dwarfslpain ANYTHING to anyone

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law.  Let's move onto another point I made you did not address, simply calling it irrelevant which is your code that you have no clue what is being discussed.

Let's say this cheese law manages to pass.  Meaning no more magazines with 10 + round capacity.  You with me so far?  We will not be discussing clips. 

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 weapon.  I know you are not schooled in the terminology. That means the magazine carries 8 but I have one chambered when I carry it.  That is the +1 meaning I have nine ready to go.  In my front pocket I have another 8 round magazine.  That means I have 17 rounds.  Remember, it takes a second to change.  That is normally what I carry.

Now if I wanted too I could carry more.  I don't but I could.  I could put 2 magazines in each pocket.  That would be 4 mags x 8 =32.  You with me so far?  So, with the 9 in the weapon we are up to 41.  But wait, there is more.  

I have a shoulder holster I wear sometimes that has two magazine pouches.  Usually in the winter under a jacket.  Two more 8 round magazines = 16.  16 plus 41 is 57.  And no one would ever know.  And it is all perfectly legal under the law you support.  

So according to the law you support a person who was inclined (I am not) to do so could effectively shoot 57 people and the law has done nothing to stop it.  Just like the VA Tech shooting you claimed was irrelevant.  

That is how a man makes an argument Mr. Irrelevant.  I gave you a realistic REAL world example.  

 

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm

But this new study scrutinizes how different types of gun laws—alone and in combination—affect homicides and suicides. The study examines 10 different types of measures, including universal background checks, age limits for handgun purchases, concealed-carry laws, assault-weapon bans, prohibiting purchases for those who have committed violent crimes, stand-your-ground laws, and bans on large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:00 pm

OP?  Who sticks to the op?

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm

@Blackvegetable  

Your turn.

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:18 pm

See...that was not so hard

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:55 pm

I understand you get easily confused if you have to read more than three lines.  TO the point you become disoriented and if you are in public a SENIOR alert needs to be issued because you become the old man wandering around aimlessly in town.

Make your counter argument or admit defeat.  I have done my work here, stop whining and either concede or make a counter argument.

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm

You're dumber than ****.....

Never, ever presume to dwarfslpain ANYTHING to anyone

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law.  Let's move onto another point I made you did not address, simply calling it irrelevant which is your code that you have no clue what is being discussed.

Let's say this cheese law manages to pass.  Meaning no more magazines with 10 + round capacity.  You with me so far?  We will not be discussing clips. 

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 weapon.  I know you are not schooled in the terminology. That means the magazine carries 8 but I have one chambered when I carry it.  That is the +1 meaning I have nine ready to go.  In my front pocket I have another 8 round magazine.  That means I have 17 rounds.  Remember, it takes a second to change.  That is normally what I carry.

Now if I wanted too I could carry more.  I don't but I could.  I could put 2 magazines in each pocket.  That would be 4 mags x 8 =32.  You with me so far?  So, with the 9 in the weapon we are up to 41.  But wait, there is more.  

I have a shoulder holster I wear sometimes that has two magazine pouches.  Usually in the winter under a jacket.  Two more 8 round magazines = 16.  16 plus 41 is 57.  And no one would ever know.  And it is all perfectly legal under the law you support.  

So according to the law you support a person who was inclined (I am not) to do so could effectively shoot 57 people and the law has done nothing to stop it.  Just like the VA Tech shooting you claimed was irrelevant.  

That is how a man makes an argument Mr. Irrelevant.  I gave you a realistic REAL world example.  

 

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:19 pm

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:57 pm

@Blackvegetable  

Your turn.

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law

never happened.

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 

No one gives a ****.

Acknowledge that you've been informed.

 

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 4:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:23 pm

THAT is a ****** move.  I did not think that you were that low.

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:24 pm

Sorry, Adolph, that is not a counter argument to my post.  I accept your defeat.

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm

You're dumber than ****.....

Never, ever presume to dwarfslpain ANYTHING to anyone

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law.  Let's move onto another point I made you did not address, simply calling it irrelevant which is your code that you have no clue what is being discussed.

Let's say this cheese law manages to pass.  Meaning no more magazines with 10 + round capacity.  You with me so far?  We will not be discussing clips. 

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 weapon.  I know you are not schooled in the terminology. That means the magazine carries 8 but I have one chambered when I carry it.  That is the +1 meaning I have nine ready to go.  In my front pocket I have another 8 round magazine.  That means I have 17 rounds.  Remember, it takes a second to change.  That is normally what I carry.

Now if I wanted too I could carry more.  I don't but I could.  I could put 2 magazines in each pocket.  That would be 4 mags x 8 =32.  You with me so far?  So, with the 9 in the weapon we are up to 41.  But wait, there is more.  

I have a shoulder holster I wear sometimes that has two magazine pouches.  Usually in the winter under a jacket.  Two more 8 round magazines = 16.  16 plus 41 is 57.  And no one would ever know.  And it is all perfectly legal under the law you support.  

So according to the law you support a person who was inclined (I am not) to do so could effectively shoot 57 people and the law has done nothing to stop it.  Just like the VA Tech shooting you claimed was irrelevant.  

That is how a man makes an argument Mr. Irrelevant.  I gave you a realistic REAL world example.  

 

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:26 pm

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:24 pm

Sorry, Adolph, that is not a counter argument to my post.  I accept your defeat.

I only need to counterargue an argument.

 

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 4:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:23 pm

Dwarf,

You have just admitted that you cannot describe the structure of what you insist you are wielding with such a......uh....vengeance...

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:26 pm

It’s not just that gun control works—and it does, according to the study—it’s that particular kinds of gun-control measures are significantly more effective than others. In fact, three types of restrictions are most effective, individually and in combination, in reducing the overall homicide rate. They are: universal background checks, bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, and “may-issue” laws (which give police discretion in issuing concealed-carry permits).

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:55 pm

I think you just posited the yawning flaw in Vag's "reasoning"..

@Vegas

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:56 pm

It wont matter.  He is allergic to evidence

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:34 pm

So what?  Are you saying if we cant have a perfect system we should have no system?  

HAHAHAHAHA 

That is so **** stupid.  Lol