It's over: Even the 'fact-checkers' won't defend Hiden anymore

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I said I wanted to eliminate gun crime? I don't believe that's correct. You guys seem to misquote your opponents a LOT.

It's not realistically possible to eliminate gun crime. I want to reduce it.

As long as there are guns and criminals, there will be gun crime.

I don't care about gun crime. I care about crime.

You should too. And I think you do, but your emotions are focused on stopping guns, and that's how you are getting sidetracked.

If we remove guns from the discussion and focus on stopping crime, then we can find a solution. Then we can focus on the criminal and why they are engaging in the behavior that's illegal.

Focusing on gun crime is pointless. Because that draw our attention and energy to the weapon. It should be on the criminal.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Actually this isn't true. Weren't 'bump stocks' banned after a mass shooting a few years ago?

Trump banned them

 

[fatman76]

'Gun free' zones are just people trying to do something within their power to create a safer environment. It's mostly a feel safer thing.

You can't have an effective 'gun free' zone anymore than you could have an effective 'disease free' zone in a hospital.

It might work in a country that's not flooded with guns.

Think back to every mass shooting you can remember. A vast majority were in gun free zones.

How did they end, what stopped them?

 

[GatorTheo]

Think back to every mass shooting you can remember. A vast majority were in gun free zones.

How did they end, what stopped them?

Again, 'gun free' zones aren't going to make much difference because they're surrounded on all sides by guns. An angry or insane person isn't going to pay any attention to an imaginary boundary.

 

[fatman76]

Again, 'gun free' zones aren't going to make much difference because they're surrounded on all sides by guns. An angry or insane person isn't going to pay any attention to an imaginary boundary.

Questions, please answer them.

How many mass shootings that you can recall happened in gun free zones, and what stopped the shooter?

 

[GatorTheo]

I don't care about gun crime. I care about crime.

You should too. And I think you do, but your emotions are focused on stopping guns, and that's how you are getting sidetracked.

If we remove guns from the discussion and focus on stopping crime, then we can find a solution. Then we can focus on the criminal and why they are engaging in the behavior that's illegal.

Focusing on gun crime is pointless. Because that draw our attention and energy to the weapon. It should be on the criminal.

I'm 100% certain you'd be happy if no one ever mentioned gun crime again because it reflects poorly on your beloved guns.

The problem America is facing.....the left want's to protect the criminals and the right wants to protect the guns.....so nothing changes.

 

[GatorTheo]

Questions, please answer them.

How many mass shootings that you can recall happened in gun free zones, and what stopped the shooter?

I don't keep up with gun free zones so I have no idea. It's never a significant part of the story to me. I know they're ineffective.

You guys love to dwell on them because you feel that's 'proof' that no gun law will work.

 

[GatorTheo]

Trump banned them

Ho-lee-chit! Trump is a RINO!

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I'm 100% certain you'd be happy if no one ever mentioned gun crime again because it reflects poorly on your beloved guns.

I don't own a gun and never have. That's at least the third time I've told you that, but it's like it doesn't even register with you cause that would force you to actually think about what I am saying and that seems to give you a headache.

Addressing crime addresses ALL CRIME.

Including gun crime. See you are just too emotional over guns to see that.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I don't keep up with gun free zones so I have no idea. It's never a significant part of the story to me. I know they're ineffective.

You guys love to dwell on them because you feel that's 'proof' that no gun law will work.

I dwell on them cause they don't work. And there's a reason why they don't work.

And you don't keep up with them cause they don't work. So you ignore and attack the 'gun nuts' that do. If they were effective you would champion them to the stars as a way to eliminate gun crime.

Who cares about crime....it's all about the guns, baby!

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Questions, please answer them.

How many mass shootings that you can recall happened in gun free zones, and what stopped the shooter?

He won't answer so.....in my memory a GUN stopped the shooter in every case.

And in almost every case, that gun came from a location OUTSIDE the gun free zone.

If the gun had been present in the area and known to the shooter, would there have been a shooting?

Again, is the goal to eliminate crime, or eliminate guns?

 

[GatorTheo]

He won't answer so.....in my memory a GUN stopped the shooter in every case.

And in almost every case, that gun came from a location OUTSIDE the gun free zone.

If the gun had been present in the area and known to the shooter, would there have been a shooting?

Again, is the goal to eliminate crime, or eliminate guns?

And the #1 gun company approved gun nut talking point:

The answer to gun crime is.....more guns.

More guns.....what could possibly go wrong?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

And the #1 gun company approved gun nut talking point:

The answer to gun crime is.....more guns.

More guns.....what could possibly go wrong?

You tell me, but think logically, not emotionally.

If someone wants to shoot a school, are they more likely to choose the school with more or less guns on premises and in the hands of people who are trained on how to use them?

Of course more guns in the hands of properly trained owners decreases the chance of a mass shooting. That's not open for debate.

UNLESS.......we let our emotions override common sense. Then we think OMG MORE GUNS EQUALS MORE DEATH!!!!

Don't do that. Think with your brain, not your feels.

 

[GatorTheo]

You tell me, but think logically, not emotionally.

If someone wants to shoot a school, are they more likely to choose the school with more or less guns on premises and in the hands of people who are trained on how to use them?

Of course more guns in the hands of properly trained owners decreases the chance of a mass shooting. That's not open for debate.

UNLESS.......we let our emotions override common sense. Then we think OMG MORE GUNS EQUALS MORE DEATH!!!!

Don't do that. Think with your brain, not your feels.

I doubt they think about it. I would have no idea what schools around me had more or less guns.

You want armed people everywhere....just in case a mad man with a gun shows up?

The gun companies must love you!

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Again, 'gun free' zones aren't going to make much difference because they're surrounded on all sides by guns. An angry or insane person isn't going to pay any attention to an imaginary boundary.

WRONG...these shooting by a LARGE majority happen in "gun free zones" Lay off the CNN.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

I'm 100% certain you'd be happy if no one ever mentioned gun crime again because it reflects poorly on your beloved guns.

The problem America is facing.....the left want's to protect the criminals and the right wants to protect the guns.....so nothing changes.

No..pretty sure if you set that gun down ALL BY ITSELF..it would NEVER commit a crime. You trolling is second grade level

 

[Capt Ron 1]

I'm 100% certain you'd be happy if no one ever mentioned gun crime again because it reflects poorly on your beloved guns.

The problem America is facing.....the left want's to protect the criminals and the right wants to protect the guns.....so nothing changes.

This MAY (we have some doozies from you lefties) be THE dumbest post EVER. RE READ what you posted and get back with me. ) If I need to explain it to you.....I will need a picture ID...because you REALLY seem to be BSUCK in disguise here.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

I cannot wait.....I know you could NEVER figure it out. JUST remove the criminals from the equation....how much crime would we have? I will stand by for your answer..........

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Now JUST remove guns from the equation...how much crime would we have? You painted yourself in the preverbal corner

 

[GatorTheo]

WRONG...these shooting by a LARGE majority happen in "gun free zones" Lay off the CNN.

Oh, I'm sure gunfacts.com has the real story. 😂

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

This MAY (we have some doozies from you lefties) be THE dumbest post EVER. RE READ what you posted and get back with me. ) If I need to explain it to you.....I will need a picture ID...because you REALLY seem to be BSUCK in disguise here.

The left does want to protect the criminals, but the right wants to protect the Constitution, not the guns. That's what he can't see.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Oh, I'm sure gunfacts.com has the real story. 😂

Is that a real site?

 

[GatorTheo]

Is that a real site?

There's gunfacts.info and americangunfacts.com.

You'd love both.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

There's gunfacts.info and americangunfacts.com.

You'd love both.

Never heard of any of them. Not at all surprised that you know about all three.

 

[GatorTheo]

Never heard of any of them. Not at all surprised that you know about all three.

You guys could be writers.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You guys could be writers.

Why would I ever visit a 'gun facts' site if I have never owned a gun?

As I said, I am not at all surprised that you know about those three, and likely many more.

As I said, focus on eliminating crime, stop worrying about sending guns to jail LOL

 

[fatman76]

And the #1 gun company approved gun nut talking point:

The answer to gun crime is.....more guns.

More guns.....what could possibly go wrong?

So the answer is “less” guns?

How do we go about doing that?

 

[BamaFan1137]

It matters if you're actually trying to write laws to address specific guns or capabilities. <----- we don't do this here

It doesn't matter in a more general conversation about the problems caused by guns. <----- we do this here

What gun nuts want to do is totally dismiss pro-gun control opinions because many of the people aren't knowledgeable about the details of the individual firearms.

If you're trying to say some guns are OK and some guns are not ok, it seems to me that a person making that argument should have a clue what they are talking about. You disagree I guess. That doesn’t make sense to me.

It doesn't appear that we're going to find common ground here. You'll say I'm dismissing your argument based on BS reasons and I'll say you're dismissing me by just calling me a gun nut. And here we are.

 

[GatorTheo]

If you're trying to say some guns are OK and some guns are not ok, it seems to me that a person making that argument should have a clue what they are talking about. You disagree I guess. That doesn’t make sense to me.

It doesn't appear that we're going to find common ground here. You'll say I'm dismissing your argument based on BS reasons and I'll say you're dismissing me by just calling me a gun nut. And here we are.

Do you think some guns are OK and some are not?

 

[GatorTheo]

So the answer is “less” guns?

How do we go about doing that?

Fewer guns is a no brainer. Sorry, gun companies!

I don't care how it's done. First of all, owning a gun should be a privilege not an alleged right. Then make them more difficult to acquire. License and register them like cars. Ban certain guns....ban certain capabilities....I don't care.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I'm 100% certain you'd be happy if no one ever mentioned gun crime again because it reflects poorly on your beloved guns.

The problem America is facing.....the left want's to protect the criminals and the right wants to protect the guns.....so nothing changes.

You like to paint those who disagree with you as gun nuts. That sort of makes the entire conversation fruitless and retarded.

We have different definitions for what a gun nut is, I suppose. For me, a gun nut is a person who buys as many as they can afford or get their hands on...and probably has a few modified in ways that they should not.

I'm not that person. I'm a guy that supports the second amendment. Despite the fact that I could afford an arsenal, I don't have one....nor do I want one.

I don't love guns. I love the constitution.

 

[fatman76]

I doubt they think about it. I would have no idea what schools around me had more or less guns.

You want armed people everywhere....just in case a mad man with a gun shows up?

The gun companies must love you!

16 states have constitutional carry laws. This means your right to carry is encompassed by the second amendment.

Including all of them, even states like Missouri with high gun-related murder rates, their average is below the national average (6.9 vs 7.2 per 100k) according to the CDC.

If “everyone running around with guns” was such a dire threat, there’s no way this would even be close to net positive.

Facts matter: CDC statistics confirm that constitutional carry states have lower gun-related homicides

The CDC figures compiled from 2020 proved that constitutional carry states have lower homicide rates and lower gun-related homicide rates- numbers don't lie

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

A vast majority of the time people who exercise legal carry are law-abiding, peaceful citizens who just want to protect themselves. And their guns rarely come out because criminals operate under the assumption that anyone could be armed.

Believe whatever you want but guns don’t kill people any more than spoons make people fat. More guns does not equate with more gun deaths. More criminals, however, does.

 

[fatman76]

Fewer guns is a no brainer. Sorry, gun companies!

I don't care how it's done. First of all, owning a gun should be a privilege not an alleged right. Then make them more difficult to acquire. License and register them like cars. Ban certain guns....ban certain capabilities....I don't care.

So you’re an anti constitutional, big gov’t fascist?

It was LITERALLY the second thing our Founders wrote. Of all of the things, the right to defend yourself from threats foreign and domestic was just past the right to speak freely.

 

[GatorTheo]

16 states have constitutional carry laws. This means youright to carry is encompassed by the second amendment.

Including all of them, even states like Missouri with high gun-related murder rates, their average is below the national average (6.9 vs 7.2 per 100k) according to the CDC.

If “everyone running around with guns” was such a dire threat, there’s no way this would even be close to net positive.

Facts matter: CDC statistics confirm that constitutional carry states have lower gun-related homicides

The CDC figures compiled from 2020 proved that constitutional carry states have lower homicide rates and lower gun-related homicide rates- numbers don't lie

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

A vast majority of the time people who exercise legal carry are law-abiding, peaceful citizens who just want to protect themselves. And their guns rarely come out because criminals operate under the assumption that anyone could be armed.

Believe whatever you want but guns don’t kill people any more than spoons make people fat. More guns does not equate with more gun deaths. More criminals, however does.

You guys keep saying stuff in the face of gun crime across the nation like "guns don't kill people." That the kind of stuff that amazes me. And I know you totally believe it. It's crazy!

I know you guys passionately love guns but "guns don't kill people"? That is nuts!

 

[GatorTheo]

So you’re an anti constitutional, big gov’t fascist?

It was LITERALLY the second thing our Founders wrote. Of all of the things, the right to defend yourself from threats foreign and domestic was just past the right to speak freely.

I'm not anti-constitution but laws that apparently sounded good 200+ years ago don't necessarily apply today.

I'm pretty sure they didn't write the amendments first.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Do you think some guns are OK and some are not?

Simple question, complicated answer.

As a constitutional purist...all guns are OK.

As a realist and in practice, no. Some guns shouldn't be allowed as things are.

If we had a system in place, THAT WAS ACTUALLY USED, that could effectively keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals, then there would be no need for restrictions.

 

[fatman76]

I'm not anti-constitution but laws that apparently sounded good 200+ years ago don't necessarily apply today.

I'm pretty sure they didn't write the amendments first.

No, the Articles of Confederation were first…which means the Constitution was even more well argued and thought out.

And the Constitution is a founding document, it isn’t a set of “laws”, it’s a set of agreed upon values that gov’t uses as a guideline to make law.

And nothing has fundamentally changed about the need for the citizenry to be able to protect itself. Might be even more important these days.

Rounding up guns is what fascist dictators do. And it doesn’t work, there are more guns in Australia now than before they banned guns.

How about we improve society, make it more prosperous, and reduce the number of people that want to kill each other? You think most murderers come out of the womb with murderous intent? It’s learned often from desperation and hard circumstances.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I'm not anti-constitution but laws that apparently sounded good 200+ years ago don't necessarily apply today.

I'm pretty sure they didn't write the amendments first.

Good Lord....

 

[GatorTheo]

No, the Articles of Confederation were first…which means the Constitution was even more well argued and thought out.

And the Constitution is a founding document, it isn’t a set of “laws”, it’s a set of agreed upon values that gov’t uses as a guideline to make law.

And nothing has fundamentally changed about the need for the citizenry to be able to protect itself. Might be even more important these days.

Rounding up guns is what fascist dictators do. And it doesn’t work, there are more guns in Australia now than before they banned guns.

How about we improve society, make it more prosperous, and reduce the number of people that want to kill each other? You think most murderers come out of the womb with murderous intent? It’s learned often from desperation and hard circumstances.

But it is a set of laws. People got together and figured out what the rules would be based on what sounded good at the time.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Fewer guns is a no brainer. Sorry, gun companies!

You keep addressing the gun and not the person who possesses the gun.

More guns in the hands of people who have no idea how to use them could be bad. Especially if those people are forced to use a gun for the first time in a hostile situation like a school shooting.

However, take that same school shooting, and give a gun to every adult AND make sure every adult is also trained to be an expert in using a gun for defense, and suddenly MORE guns is how you make every law abiding citizen safer in that case.

Same guns, but the PERSON OWNING THEM is different.

That's why you focus on the person who has the gun, and not the gun itself. Stop being emotional about guns, it's blinding you to what really matters: Stopping crime.