daily reminder for you since you have the 50-first-dates-syndrome:

i'm pro gun control, i'm anti gun crime and pro CJ reform, i actually worked in these communities rehabilitating violent prisoners for release.

but sure, whatever other outright lies you need to deflect to to avoid copping to the fact that you have zero credible plan to remove guns off the streets.

we can all see what's happening clear as day, you implied removing guns would have a marked effect on mass shootings, you got shut down and moved over to street crime, you got schooled on street crime, and now you are playing the classic liberal "well you just dont care about....." line, as beo said you would 10 responses ago. you're as predictable as old faithful. you've got no pragmatic suggestions, just snark for america. that's why you're recycling posts and offering nothing new. just "look at those studies i posted 10 days ago" and lazy say-nothing phrases.

you're stuck in a loop.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 12 2019 11:18am

you are the only one who insisted on distinguishing between mass shootings and street crimes, even though i have educated you several times on the fact that your assumptions are not just factually wrong, but also morally bankrupt. i don't know why you keep returning to them, but it doesn't matter since repetition doesn't make them right...

i said you were wrong then, only for you to come back and act like you proved without a doubt and with much backing from other posters that i and others were wrong.

in reality you got surrounded and proved nothing except that you're not receptive to criticism of your sources, nor that you're capable of meta analysis.

as i said many times i'm for many forms of gun control, many of them that aren't pragmatic to implement due to the constitution and many other societal factors.

in short i said: "Here's what i support,here is what its reasonable to actually try to codify into law (separate smaller subset) , and here's why that's reasonable."

in short you heard: (pro gun control stances redacted), "i support the constitution entirely and am not going to let any gun control gain traction. FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOM" (gun noise fires off into the background)


the question remains: how do you remove even 50% of the guns from American society? 25%? 10%?

dodge around that some more boy. 50+ posts and counting dodging a simple question.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 12 2019 11:29am

if you sit in that chair until Fender comes up with a plan to clear even 8.5m (1%) guns you'll have bedsores.

your whole 'argument' is based on hypotheses, on assumptions based on literally zero evidence.

mine is based on plenty of examples from peer countries all over the world. countries that ALL have their own unique makeup, struggles, social, and historical problems, most of them with a far longer history than the american one (just to inb4 that lazy excuse)...

so no, if 'removing guns' would NOT have an impact on mass killings, as you falsely claim over and over again, we would have such incidents at similar rates in other countries. we don't. again, facts don't care about your feelings...

his ‘plan’ would be eerily similar to the methodology detailed in his favorite book “my struggle”

i challenged the validity of your comparison, and pointed out (correctly) that those places still have mass killings (Nice France, etc).

then just simply asked, even if you're right, how you'd remove the guns.

it's a 2 part conversation, 1 i challenge that removing guns would have the effect you claim it would, 2 i accept your assertion in a hypothetical sense then ask how you'd do it.

you're still caught on part 1, because you can't explain part 2. keep dancing.

now you'll of course be predictable and point out the vastly lower occurrence of mass killings in European "peers", ignoring that i said it wasn't a valid comparison for that metric. then we can start the merry go round again, for the 5th or 6th time, so that you can avoid explaining how your plan works.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 12 2019 12:11pm

an argument does not become invalid just because you don't like it...