Ah, so one really dumb over-reaction to something that punishes the innocent and does *nothing* at all to stop would be perpetrators deserves another even bigger, even dumber over-reaction that will do nothing but punish the innocent?To quote John Oliver
"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."
Ah, so one really dumb over-reaction to something that punishes the innocent and does *nothing* at all to stop would be perpetrators deserves another even bigger, even dumber over-reaction that will do nothing but punish the innocent?
Always double-down on stupid, eh?
Brilliant.
Unsurprisingly you missed his point.
No he didn't, he hit the nail squarely on the head.
By all means post the OP's proposal, I'm sure you can find it in his first three posts of this thread.
I'll wait.
Seriously though, like it or not, if people don't get it together, the guns will go away sooner or later. Likely much later, perhaps a little at a time. But they will be gone. We'll be left with maybe bolt guns and shot guns and revolvers...if that. If people don't get it together, the public's patience will be eroded by the constant reports of killings and the outcries from parents. Its going to get to that point pretty soon.
I know, I know, but the truth only hurts for a little while, once you realize it's for the better, it gets better little guy.
Still waiting.
Is that supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? You're even more pathetic inept than I thought.
....more waiting.
Not sure what exactly it is you're waiting for, well, I know what you think you're waiting for, but unfortunately, as previously discussed, your reading skills are apparently on par with those of a goldfish. So tell ya what, I'll wait for you to go back and figure out why your "gotcha" doesn't actually exist. Pay attention to things like sentence structure, and punctuation.
Lol! I'll take that as you conceding that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about nor do you have any idea what the OP's point was.
Like most righties, you pussy out when challenged.
No, it's simple, and I don't think some of you are as daft as you're pretending to be. We tried to eliminate the threat of 'shoe-bombing' by having our shoes taken off at the airport, everyone, no exceptions (that I know of).
So it's time to try something big, broad sweeping to prevent even one tragedy like this happening. Background checks come to mind, for everyone.
He already stated what he interpreted the op's point as. If you think he misinterpreted it, it is your duty as a reasonable participant in an argument to at the very least offer your own interpretation.
In the op's second post...
Pay particular note to the bolded/underlined/italicized "so". Unless you think the op is accusing guns-rights types of being TSA-loving hypocrites (which is a tenuous link afaik), it's quite clear that he's being petty at best and supportive of gun regulation because other intrusive regulation exists at worst.
I'm confused. Are you arguing that making everyone take off their shoes is a good idea and an effective means of preventing terrorism? Or that banning guns would just as futile?
No, it's simple, and I don't think some of you are as daft as you're pretending to be. We tried to eliminate the threat of 'shoe-bombing' by having our shoes taken off at the airport, everyone, no exceptions (that I know of).
So it's time to try something big, broad sweeping to prevent even one tragedy like this happening. Background checks come to mind, for everyone.
It's clear there is a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun related deaths.
Of course there are other factors at play here. Poverty and mental health screening being other key factors, but the link is undeniable. People that suggest otherwise are just lying through their hillbilly teeth.
Holy fuck! Do you morons share a computer? His point was that something needs to be done, he didn't say what and yet the post I responded to was already, somehow, shiting on a non existent idea that the OP didn't make, calling it, "some dumb overreaction"
Do you get it now? Or do I need to quote this whole thread for you?
How do I know the OP wasn't pushing for stupid measures or gun bans? Because he fucking said so when asked!
Pay particular attention to the bolded, it's a response and an answer to the previous posters question.
Reading comprehension! Learn it you fucking tools!
So it's time to try something big, broad sweeping to prevent even one tragedy like this happening. Background checks come to mind, for everyone.
That's a great chart, if you like cherry picked data.
So your point is that the op has no solution? Great defense of his "argument".
I think you should read the entire post you quoted, btw, particularly the last sentence.
That is clearly him providing some kind of solution. Now, I will concede that his solution could be...
1. Tongue-in-cheek
2. Reactionary
3. Trolling
...instead of serious, but you can't deny that he offered a solution in some form.
However, the "No" you quoted meant "No, I'm not arguing that making everyone take off their shoes is a good idea" or "No, I'm not saying that banning guns would just as futile", as clearly indicated in the post by QuantumPion to which he made that reply.
EDIT: The above in reply to ivwshane
And I'm not even saying that's a solution, but a step towards finding one. So far we've done jack shit. There's been a lot of finger pointing, but zero action.
You're such a special little man, and don't let anybody tell you your mom is wrong!
Guess how I know you are a fucking idioy? You decided to double down on stupid.
His very next post:
If you want more schooling then I'll need to be paid for my tutoring.
It doesn't stop being a solution just because he says it isn't one after he already said it. You're basically defending him sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "No I didn't!"... by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "No he didn't!"