Criminals have no guns. Now that is a standard Democrat response.
That's a standard right wing distortion. "Criminals" is an extremely large group of disparate individuals and characters, with different jobs, religions, races, motivations and desires. Illegalising guns and attaching a five year automatic prison sentence to anybody caught with one dissuades all but the most hardened and determined criminals from obtaining one. In other words, an extremely small proportion of criminals, which you are artificially inflating into all criminals simply because you're a duplicitous toerag with no intention whatsoever of sticking to the cold hard facts.
No, it's your fault for making stupid memes which throw people into convenient, neat little boxes like "criminals". What about the guys who aren't criminals when they buy guns, but then get excited by the rush of power it gives them, and decide they want to start robbing and shooting people? What about those guys?
That anybody blames the gun is a stupid and false straw man argument invented by pro-gun nuts in the NRA who have spent the last few decades practicing advertising slogans and smear campaigns. Blame doesn't even come into it. The simple fact of matters is that if you take away someone's gun, they can't use it to shoot anybody. And people not getting shot should be a high priority mission for any civilised society. There is a simple solution to America's gun violence problem which countless other countries have already implemented. Discussing it with Americans is de facto pointless because by the very nature of refusing that solution you have already demonstrated that you are not rational. There is an irrational argument in your country between people who want to continue as you are, with 50,000 preventable deaths each year, and those who think enough is enough. That maybe the second amendment hasn't really given you freedom, but the tyranny of perpetual paranoia. It's a similar argument as the one which rages on about climate change in that one of you is absolutely right, while the other is making money from death and selling it as freedom (to kill yourselves, apparently).
No they aren't. You pro-gun twerps are just so obnoxious to try to reason with because you literally cut out the fourth dimension of space when you're arguing about guns. You are not a criminal until you are convicted in a court of law of a crime. That's how crime works pal. And that process can take years or even decades. In the meantime, you're free to buy as many guns as you feel like. Banning people from owning guns AFTER they've committed a mass shooting, or a homicide, or a suicide, OBVIOUSLY ISN'T GOING TO HAVE THE INTENDED EFFECT OF HELPING MATTERS, is it you total unadulterated numpty?
So take guns away from cops so they can't shoot anybody
The cops wouldn't need guns if everybody in your entire country wasn't armed you bafflingly irrational bag of monkey nuts.
I will give you one final chance to read and respond with intellectual honesty before I ignore everything you ever write to me for the rest of eternity just as you have ignored me.
Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.- Wikipedia
Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3][4]- Wikipedia
You have (with great dishonesty) appealed to semantics to cling to your original argument, and while your attempts to justify calling science a religion make sense semantically (to an extent) they do not make sense in the reality that exists beyond mere words. Not all ideology is religious in nature and nothing could be farther from religion than science. This is not to say that science is an ideology, because it's not that either. Firstly, religion deals specifically with the spiritual/metaphysical whereas science deals specifically with the material world. Second, science is by definition a process of figuring out what the truth is rather than a claim as to what the truth is. The closest science comes to being an ideology is the fact that there are certain ideological perspectives that lead to science being conceived, but as I already explained you do not have to believe in those perspectives to USE the METHODOLOGY of science because science is a system to be used rather than a statement to be believed. Everything you have said about me is projection, you cannot admit you are wrong so you play semantical games to put a systematic process designed to uncover truths about physical reality in the same category as a mindless faith in supernatural garbage.
You understand very little about my character if you think I'm the type who responds well to threats and ultimatums from people who are having temper tantrums. Good day to you.
You are a pseudo-intellectual cunt who knows I am right but can't bear to admit it due to your own ego. You are a sociopath with a fragile ego who wants to feel morally and intellectually superior to others. You ran away from home because your mommy was mean to you and you are fascinated by Jordan Peterson because you find parallels between his theories and your own pathology, namely that you were neglected by the mother archetype leading you into a false version of what socialism is supposed to be. You are a socialist not out of reason or compassion, but because on a deeper psychological level you want to equalize the level of neglect you experienced. Your fundamental childish psychology is basically saying "I want everyone to be equally miserable if I cannot be equally happy".
You have (with great dishonesty) appealed to semantics to cling to your original argument, and while your attempts to justify calling science a religion make sense semantically (to an extent) they do not make sense in the reality that exists beyond mere words.
So I'm right and wrong simultaneously, but I'm the one appealing to semantics?
Are you even listening to yourself? You are desperate and it shows in the drivel you are writing.
Not all ideology is religious in nature and nothing could be farther from religion than science.
So the "evidence" for your first assertion is two more assertions? Lol.
This is not to say that science is an ideology, because it's not that either.
A third assertion? You're really rolling them off the tongue, aren't you?
Firstly, religion deals specifically with the spiritual/metaphysical whereas science deals specifically with the material world.
So churches don't exist, people don't go to mass, and they don't believe Jesus was really the son of God? You are an idiot. Religion explains the condition of the natural world, its history and its future, just like science does.
You have literally misrepresented everything INTENTIONALLY to avoid honest debate. You really should just fucking kill yourself. You tried it before, why don't you go through with it this time you pathetic, idiotic dick head? Your puny intellect is hiding behind a wall of fancy words, dishonest arguments and credible sources that you use to appear intellectual. In reality you are worthless and retarded just like your parents told you and you should just fucking die.
If guns are illegal, then only bad guys will have guns
This false dichotomy you Americans apply to reality where everybody is neatly packed into a box which reads either "good guy" or "bad guy" is frighteningly stupid. I mean it's borderline farcical and illustrates that large portions of the population seem to think real life is like the movies, where everyone is either Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader. It's pretty sad really, because it's kind of the perspective of a small child, so to think that millions of armed American adults are walking around thinking they live in a movie (in which they are the hero) is staggeringly frightening.
Actually, if guns are illegal, and you have a gun, then you are breaking the law and outlaws are by definition criminals and criminals are bad guys so..., there you go ;)
Actually, if guns are illegal, and you have a gun, then you are breaking the law and outlaws are by definition criminals and criminals are bad guys so..., there you go ;)
I agree. I've heard it put this way before, also. It stops the pro-gun crowd from using their "law-abiding citizen" angle. Well, of course it doesn't stop them. Nothing ever stops them. But at least it exposes it as a baloney argument.
Plastic has been determined not to be used on the battery. House inquiry is underway now and Democrats are a bit confused about the plastics that are needed for the electric car.
Criminals cannot be criminals because the NRA says so. Bill of Rights has nothing to do with tyranny but perpetual paranoia is a driving factor of the paranoid.
Criminals have been known to purchase multiple firearms from a gun store and the gun show loophole allows them to buy firearms by the tractor trailer load.
It could be argued that it's the people's (who own the houses) fault for having an insecure house, in the same way.
To argue that failure to be invulnerable is the fault of the victimised is a truth in all games and scenarios but it doesn't mean it's empathetic or even fair. After all, we didn't choose to end up in the situations that we ended up in, we only chose how to go about the situation once already in it.
If the criminnnnnnnnnnnal does nnnnnnnnnnot want to be shot, he or she should not break in someone's house. Security systems are like most forms of birth control, they can fail. Second, victim blaming from a leftist is awefully ironic, whennnnnnnnnnn leftists purport to be above such behavior.
If the person doesn't want their house broken into, they should better secure their house against being broken into and get a neighbourhood watch thing going.
