independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 13 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 11/24/19 8:23am

poppys

maplenpg said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:


guns do not kill people.... we can argue the issues such as guns make it easier or more effective... sure. But if cops and bad guys have guns then we should be allowed to have them too.


I can also see that the way a gun looks can lead them to be used is some kinds of crimes...but there is not any reason other than how they LOOK... pure cosmetic.

Of course many are less than honest when the say they only want "Assault weapons" banned.. but then list features that apply to many other guns. Others just do not know what they are talking about.




Of course guns kill people. What a stupid fucking statement.


cborgman said:

Only gonna Only...
liars gonna lie, frauds gonna fraud.
but its a joy to call them out on their bullshit.


OnlyNDaUsa said:


and guns do not kill people...


Um, no. buh-bye troll

[Edited 11/24/19 9:36am]

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 11/24/19 9:22am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

Um, no. buh-bye troll

Either you stand by what you claimed or you do not... you do not.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 11/24/19 9:31am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

He'll argue the semantics. I'll not rise to it. I'm getting closer to adding him to my ignore list.

there's an ignore list? I know you cab block orgnotes...

but why do get so triggered that I do not agree with you?

and again guns do not kill people any more than a fork makes people fat or that a shot glass makes people drunk.

Total bullshit.

Let's take one incident. The Las Vegas shooting. One man. Lots of guns. 59 dead, 851 injured (422 by gunfire). How many innocents could he (one man) have killed without access to guns?

Guns kill. It's their purpose. Comparing a gun to a fork, or a glass, is beyond stupid.

[Edited 11/24/19 9:34am]

To accumulate power, a government with authoritarian tendencies must first destroy power. https://www.theguardian.c...y-exchange
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 11/24/19 9:32am

PennyPurple

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Either you stand by what you claimed or you do not... you do not.

Hahahahahaaaahaaaahaaa You are the one who NEVER stands by what you claim. What a joke.

lol lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 11/24/19 9:49am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

there's an ignore list? I know you cab block orgnotes...

but why do get so triggered that I do not agree with you?

and again guns do not kill people any more than a fork makes people fat or that a shot glass makes people drunk.

Total bullshit.

Let's take one incident. The Las Vegas shooting. One man. Lots of guns. 59 dead, 851 injured (422 by gunfire). How many innocents could he (one man) have killed without access to guns?

Guns kill. It's their purpose. Comparing a gun to a fork, or a glass, is beyond stupid.

[Edited 11/24/19 9:34am]

fallacy... the gun did not kill anyone.. it was the man... without the man no one dies...

you seem to miss that a gun is a tool. like a hammer or fork... just a tool.

oh and 99% of the time a gun is used it harms no one. So to say their purpose it to kill is not really true.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 11/24/19 9:56am

PennyPurple

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

Total bullshit.

Let's take one incident. The Las Vegas shooting. One man. Lots of guns. 59 dead, 851 injured (422 by gunfire). How many innocents could he (one man) have killed without access to guns?

Guns kill. It's their purpose. Comparing a gun to a fork, or a glass, is beyond stupid.

[Edited 11/24/19 9:34am]

fallacy... the gun did not kill anyone.. it was the man... without the man no one dies...

you seem to miss that a gun is a tool. like a hammer or fork... just a tool.

oh and 99% of the time a gun is used it harms no one. So to say their purpose it to kill is not really true.

When a gun is used, it harms some one or some thing. Guns are meant and used to cause harm.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 11/24/19 10:24am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



maplenpg said:




OnlyNDaUsa said:




there's an ignore list? I know you cab block orgnotes...



but why do get so triggered that I do not agree with you?

and again guns do not kill people any more than a fork makes people fat or that a shot glass makes people drunk.



Total bullshit.

Let's take one incident. The Las Vegas shooting. One man. Lots of guns. 59 dead, 851 injured (422 by gunfire). How many innocents could he (one man) have killed without access to guns?

Guns kill. It's their purpose. Comparing a gun to a fork, or a glass, is beyond stupid.


[Edited 11/24/19 9:34am]




fallacy... the gun did not kill anyone.. it was the man... without the man no one dies...

you seem to miss that a gun is a tool. like a hammer or fork... just a tool.

oh and 99% of the time a gun is used it harms no one. So to say their purpose it to kill is not really true.


Why do you get so triggered when confronted by truth?
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 11/24/19 10:29am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

Total bullshit.

Let's take one incident. The Las Vegas shooting. One man. Lots of guns. 59 dead, 851 injured (422 by gunfire). How many innocents could he (one man) have killed without access to guns?

Guns kill. It's their purpose. Comparing a gun to a fork, or a glass, is beyond stupid.

[Edited 11/24/19 9:34am]

fallacy... the gun did not kill anyone.. it was the man... without the man no one dies...

you seem to miss that a gun is a tool. like a hammer or fork... just a tool.

oh and 99% of the time a gun is used it harms no one. So to say their purpose it to kill is not really true.

I'll ask again. How many people could the Las Vegas shooter have killed or injured if he had no guns?

You have never provided a link for your 99% bullshit. Even if it were true any preventable death is a death too many.

This is from an academic article (edited from abstract. bold added): (link)

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home. Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method. Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.




[Edited 11/24/19 10:32am]

To accumulate power, a government with authoritarian tendencies must first destroy power. https://www.theguardian.c...y-exchange
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #98 posted 11/24/19 12:24pm

IanRG

wildgoldenhoney said:

Are you requiring that I take a stance? Why does everyone have to have a stance? I already mentioned that my feelings doesn't have any bearing on what is going to happen through Divine intervention. And check this out, anyone's opinions don't have any bearing on what God does. Do you really think God will think 'politically correctly'? Whatever your belief or not belief, does not have any bearing on what God decides to do. I mean like, can a puny human such as you or me have control on what God decided? Yeah, no! Whether a person decides not to 'share' a belief, it does not change truth of what God will do. If it's already put into place by the higher power, it is the truth and eventuality of man made laws. It trumps politics. Why would there be anarchy if God took over for good? He would have control and willing people will comply with the law to not kill their neighbors. God's government is superior to human governments. And it is a monarchy.

.

Did God make the Law that thou shall not kill?

.

Do humans follow this law any more than the laws against murder and gun control?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #99 posted 11/24/19 1:40pm

wildgoldenhone
y

poppys said:



poppys said:




wildgoldenhoney said:



poppy's.... That's all. TIP OF THE ICEBERG




Guns are not political. argument makes no sense to me.




wildgoldenhoney said:


The process of changing the laws can be political. Someone mentioned NRA paying off politicians. Tell me that's not politics. Politics are man made. Man made laws have many flaws and loopholes that people use as a fulcrum to swing things in their favor for their personal advantage. Beliefs aside, I don't trust politics and the people who make laws to get it right all the time. But that's cool, we don't have to continue this conversation.

This is getting very familiar old friend...

Now you are editing pieces of my post out. It is disingenuous to change someone's words in a discussion and pretend you are making a point about what they said. This is my actual post:

poppys said:

Guns are not political. They kill indiscriminately, in this case children. So the politics vs religion argument makes no sense to me. In my view, we get rid of the tool of violence as much as possible. Practical solution.


The definition of the word politics is my signature right now:


politics: the art or science of government.


You are applying the word politics as a catch all for everything you don't like in the world. The word government and the word politics and the word religion are all different words. All of them are neutral until they are applied to a specific situation. This thread is about mass shootings. bored

I was raised in a pacifist Christian sect who does not believe in bearing arms, and will go to jail instead of war if they have to. We were almost wiped out (by the Pope) in Europe before we fled here, aka religious violence. Non-violence can be political, just like violence, the word does not have a static meaning.

[Edited 11/24/19 13:13pm]


wildsign
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #100 posted 11/24/19 1:42pm

wildgoldenhone
y

IanRG said:



wildgoldenhoney said:


Are you requiring that I take a stance? Why does everyone have to have a stance? I already mentioned that my feelings doesn't have any bearing on what is going to happen through Divine intervention. And check this out, anyone's opinions don't have any bearing on what God does. Do you really think God will think 'politically correctly'? Whatever your belief or not belief, does not have any bearing on what God decides to do. I mean like, can a puny human such as you or me have control on what God decided? Yeah, no! Whether a person decides not to 'share' a belief, it does not change truth of what God will do. If it's already put into place by the higher power, it is the truth and eventuality of man made laws. It trumps politics. Why would there be anarchy if God took over for good? He would have control and willing people will comply with the law to not kill their neighbors. God's government is superior to human governments. And it is a monarchy.

.


Did God make the Law that thou shall not kill?


.


Do humans follow this law any more than the laws against murder and gun control?


wildsign
[Edited 11/24/19 13:46pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #101 posted 11/24/19 3:44pm

RodeoSchro

You're either with the shooters, or you're with the victims.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #102 posted 11/24/19 4:15pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

You're either with the shooters, or you're with the victims.

I am with the victims and their right to keep and bear arms... do you support the 2A? or are you for mass shootings?

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #103 posted 11/24/19 5:55pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



RodeoSchro said:


You're either with the shooters, or you're with the victims.




I am with the victims and their right to keep and bear arms... do you support the 2A? or are you for mass shootings?


Believe me, there isnt a single p&r orger that doesnt already know youre for the shooters. Vomiting up a bunch or pig diarrhea like you just did in this last post doesnt change that.


.
[Edited 11/24/19 18:03pm]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #104 posted 11/24/19 6:18pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I am with the victims and their right to keep and bear arms... do you support the 2A? or are you for mass shootings?

Believe me, there isnt a single p&r orger that doesnt already know youre for the shooters. Vomiting up a bunch or pig diarrhea like you just did in this last post doesnt change that. . [Edited 11/24/19 18:03pm]

define "know"

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #105 posted 11/24/19 6:20pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



cborgman said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:



I am with the victims and their right to keep and bear arms... do you support the 2A? or are you for mass shootings?



Believe me, there isnt a single p&r orger that doesnt already know youre for the shooters. Vomiting up a bunch or pig diarrhea like you just did in this last post doesnt change that. . [Edited 11/24/19 18:03pm]


define "know"


Why? do you not have some terrible poorly thought out and self-defeating analogy that attempts to define it for us? They are one of your specialties.

.
[Edited 11/24/19 18:29pm]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #106 posted 11/24/19 6:46pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

define "know"

Why? do you not have some terrible poorly thought out and self-defeating analogy that attempts to define it for us? They are one of your specialties. . [Edited 11/24/19 18:29pm]

no...Socrates's definition will work...

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #107 posted 11/24/19 6:57pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

the fact is if you ban law abiders from having guns then only the law breakers will have them and the one thing that all mass killings have in common is they were done by a law breaker.

so if you are for banning guns (and the call for reasonable laws IS a call to ban guns via incrementalism) then you MUST be for more mass shootings.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #108 posted 11/24/19 7:00pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



cborgman said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:



define "know"



Why? do you not have some terrible poorly thought out and self-defeating analogy that attempts to define it for us? They are one of your specialties. . [Edited 11/24/19 18:29pm]


no...Socrates's definition will work...



Have you ever heard of Plato’s “lie in the soul”? Cause... it could have been written about you
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #109 posted 11/24/19 7:05pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the fact is if you ban law abiders from having guns then only the law breakers will have them and the one thing that all mass killings have in common is they were done by a law breaker.

so if you are for banning guns (and the call for reasonable laws IS a call to ban guns via incrementalism) then you MUST be for more mass shootings.


Well, then the fact is i should be allowed to have a nuke. Cause not allowing me to is just a ban on tools of self-defense via incrementalism.

I, as a law abider, need to have a nuke to protect myself and stop a nuclear attack from a law breaker.

And, of course, by not allowing me to have nukes, youre for more nuclear bombings.

Right?


.
[Edited 11/24/19 21:13pm]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #110 posted 11/24/19 8:52pm

cborgman

avatar

For someone who just looooves to overuse the word fallacy, its amazing how many of them you somehow completely manage to miss when posing one of your theories (aka vomiting up pig diarrhea).



.
[Edited 11/25/19 1:12am]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #111 posted 11/24/19 11:22pm

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:

You're either with the shooters, or you're with the victims.

I am with the victims and their right to keep and bear arms... do you support the 2A? or are you for mass shootings?

This is a vile post which honestly turns my stomach. Do you really think arming all the school kids, or arming all the cinema goers, or arming all the church goers, etc...etc... would lead to less violence? Less mass shootings? I think my dog is more intelligent than you.

To accumulate power, a government with authoritarian tendencies must first destroy power. https://www.theguardian.c...y-exchange
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #112 posted 11/24/19 11:23pm

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the fact is if you ban law abiders from having guns then only the law breakers will have them and the one thing that all mass killings have in common is they were done by a law breaker.

so if you are for banning guns (and the call for reasonable laws IS a call to ban guns via incrementalism) then you MUST be for more mass shootings.

No - look at the rest of the western world. We don't have mass shootings like America does.

To accumulate power, a government with authoritarian tendencies must first destroy power. https://www.theguardian.c...y-exchange
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #113 posted 11/24/19 11:26pm

maplenpg

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the fact is if you ban law abiders from having guns then only the law breakers will have them and the one thing that all mass killings have in common is they were done by a law breaker.

so if you are for banning guns (and the call for reasonable laws IS a call to ban guns via incrementalism) then you MUST be for more mass shootings.

Well, then the fact is i should be allowed to have a nuke. Cause not allowing me to is just a ban on tools of self-defense via incrementalism. I, as a law abider, need to have a nuke to protect myself and stop a nuclear attack from a law breaker. And, of course, by not allowing me to have nukes, youre for more nuclear bombings. Right? . [Edited 11/24/19 21:13pm]

This. In fact why ban any weapon? If they are not dangerous, just tools like a fork, or a shot glass. I might get some Novichok and a rocket launcher, a nuke and some milssiles, you know, just in case the boogieman calls. It'll be a safer society then.

To accumulate power, a government with authoritarian tendencies must first destroy power. https://www.theguardian.c...y-exchange
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #114 posted 11/24/19 11:37pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said: Believe me, there isnt a single p&r orger that doesnt already know youre for the shooters. Vomiting up a bunch or pig diarrhea like you just did in this last post doesnt change that. . [Edited 11/24/19 18:03pm]

define "know"

.

be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information

.

You have only ever promoted guns over people and often argued that people killed and injured by guns are the price of freedom. You have shown you have no idea about legal concepts, laws, rights, mathematics or the impact of gun death culture you constantly seek to protect.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #115 posted 11/24/19 11:50pm

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyAChicken said:

the fact is if you ban law abiders from having guns then only the law breakers will have them and the one thing that all mass killings have in common is they were done by a law breaker.

so if you are for banning guns (and the call for reasonable laws IS a call to ban guns via incrementalism) then you MUST be for more mass shootings.


yeah true. we can witness that in other countries with more restricted gun laws and background checks. they have so much more mass shootings. so your logic is very profound. the facts back you up. as always


oh wait... Duh!
this just in: it's the other way around!

and only ignorant propganda driven tools would not know that... Only in da Shithole...


so more full blown idiocy of the highest degree. fully neglectging every fact from the real world, just repeating horseshit from the Fox&NRA bubble, what a tool LOL



so obviously YOU want children and innocents to die.

YOU want criminals to have easy access to guns
YOU support terrorists and mass murderes.
that makes YOU disgusting SCUM




thankfullly though you have THE perfect method to rebut facts and inconveniant arguments, the infallible method you always choose and will also choose here: RUN FOR THE HILLS

[Edited 11/25/19 0:37am]

Has anyone tried unplugging the United States and plugging it back in?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #116 posted 11/24/19 11:52pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the fact is if you ban law abiders from having guns then only the law breakers will have them and the one thing that all mass killings have in common is they were done by a law breaker.

so if you are for banning guns (and the call for reasonable laws IS a call to ban guns via incrementalism) then you MUST be for more mass shootings.

.

Wrong and wrong in several ways.

.

A common distinguishing feature of most mass murders is that they were criminals before the shootings. There has been a spike in acts domestic violence in the lead up to the mass shooting but not with a criminal conviction.

.

Also, the mass shootings are enabled by the volume of guns and the gun death culture in the US. This is why it has 10 times the gun death and injury rate of equivalent countries: these countries include a few with as many guns per 100,000 people as the US but these countries have laws and adult mentalilties and sane attitudes to guns. All the others have fewer mass murders per 100,000 people because they have fewer guns coupled with effective gun control laws.

.

You are arguing that the death and injury rate in the US is acceptable because IN YOUR OWN WORDS "REASONABLE LAWS IS A CALL TO BAN GUNS". This is an admission that your current laws are less than reasonable. They are failing but, somehow in your mind, improving them to be in line with every other equivalent nation - the ones will an average of 10% of the gun death and violence rates of the US - that this will result in the US gun and death rate becoming even more of disaster compared to equivalent nations - This is like requiring cars to increase speeds in accident hot spots so it is not only the dangerous drivers who drive dangerously whilst every one else thinks to to solve the death rate required that cars slow cars down in accident hot spots.

[Edited 11/25/19 1:22am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #117 posted 11/25/19 12:00am

BombSquad

avatar

so for a quick moment let's assume that Only is right, that more guns mean less mass shootings
(oh boy... this IDIOCY hurts just when typing... how can some fuckturds twist and wrap their brain that much... seriously!?! but whatever.. )


so then mass shootings an gun deaths in general should be lower in the US
in fact they are way higher

so this means ineveitable, that for some reasons Americans are way DUMBER way more PRIMITIVE way MORE VIOLENT way more PSYCHOTIC assholes than people from othere countries? so there.


so just more SHITHOLE country evidence

maybe Only is correct after all?? LMFAO

Has anyone tried unplugging the United States and plugging it back in?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #118 posted 11/25/19 12:56am

cborgman

avatar

maplenpg said:



cborgman said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:

the fact is if you ban law abiders from having guns then only the law breakers will have them and the one thing that all mass killings have in common is they were done by a law breaker.

so if you are for banning guns (and the call for reasonable laws IS a call to ban guns via incrementalism) then you MUST be for more mass shootings.



Well, then the fact is i should be allowed to have a nuke. Cause not allowing me to is just a ban on tools of self-defense via incrementalism. I, as a law abider, need to have a nuke to protect myself and stop a nuclear attack from a law breaker. And, of course, by not allowing me to have nukes, youre for more nuclear bombings. Right? . [Edited 11/24/19 21:13pm]

This. In fact why ban any weapon? If they are not dangerous, just tools like a fork, or a shot glass. I might get some Novichok and a rocket launcher, a nuke and some milssiles, you know, just in case the boogieman calls. It'll be a safer society then.


Its the fallacy of his argument he always pretends doesnt exist. You wont see him championing rocket launchers and nukes for all, but its totally covered under his logic. And as far as i have ever seen, he usually side-steps that fact rather than be honest.

Like i have been saying:
Only gonna Only.


.
[Edited 11/25/19 1:09am]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #119 posted 11/25/19 1:16am

cborgman

avatar

Of course, he is gonna pretend to ignore most if not all of these posts, being as he cant actually argue with these facts, or do his usual nonsense tap dance and bullshit side-step.

https://m.youtube.com/wat...ALREbJZEZk

Only gonna Only, after all.

.
[Edited 11/25/19 1:33am]
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 13 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting