100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jc4751 said:
The logical extension to banning one class of gun is to eventually ban all of them (unless it’s a $5,000 skeet gun pulled out by politicians who want to show that they support “gun rights”). “Fudds” like Catholic Geek seem to think they can appease people who want to ban guns by being “reasonable.”
Click to expand...
It is not a logical extension. The logical step to problems is to find reasonable solutions. Are their people that want to ban all guns and think a step by step approach is the best way to do that? Yes. I am not one of them.

Also, name calling is basically the same as saying I have no logical argument to make so I am going to disparage the person that disagrees with me.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I would have my fully loaded 6 shot revolver within reach and would shoot the intruder. That does not go against anything that I am arguing for.
Click to expand...
There are some who think there is no need for a six shot revolver for self-defense.

Why should you get to keep one when it goes against their beliefs?
 
Gricken said:
Those facts have been pointed out before. He never answers them.
Click to expand...
I don’t answer them because they are not relevant. Your side is trying to limit this to rifles, not me.

I never said that mass murders were on the rise. 1 is too many in my opinion if there is something that can be done to reduce them.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I would have my fully loaded 6 shot revolver within reach and would shoot the intruder. That does not go against anything that I am arguing for.
Click to expand...
So 6 shooters would end these mass shootings?

But what about the vast majority of HAND GUN murders- would 6 shot limits end those too?

And if there were more than one intruder and they were armed? You’re good comfortable with 6 shots?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
I presented several facts which PS1 thusly ignored. Repeatedly.

So no, no civil discussion can take place when one side is disingenuously cherry-picking and politically prioritizing their own version of “facts” and “trends” while hypocritically hiding behind the veil of supercilious sanctimony.

Please forgive me, but I’m simply not strong enough to turn the other cheek on this disingenuous political hackery.
Click to expand...
This is what both sides are doing.

No one has answered the point I brought up about mandatory background checks. No one answered the question that I asked regarding what good reason a person has for owning an AR-15. Why are these not being answered?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
So there are other primary purposes for knives and body parts, and yet guns have only one primary purpose - to kill.

So why not ban all guns?
Click to expand...
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.

The primary purpose of a hand is to grasp and touch things. It can kill, but that is not a PRIMARY purpose.

The primary purpose of a knife varies depending upon its design. There are some that are designed to kill, but not most.
 
iamrefreshed said:
There are some who think there is no need for a six shot revolver for self-defense.

Why should you get to keep one when it goes against their beliefs?
Click to expand...
Because this is not a question of beliefs. It is a question of responsible and reasonable public safety.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
So 6 shooters would end these mass shootings?

But what about the vast majority of HAND GUN murders- would 6 shot limits end those too?

And if there were more than one intruder and they were armed? You’re good comfortable with 6 shots?
Click to expand...
Would it end mass shootings, no. Would it reduce it, probably.

Would it end murders, no. That is why I want mandatory background checks. Would that end murders, no. Would it make it harder for criminals and mentally ill people to get guns, yes. Would that reduce murders, probably.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.

The primary purpose of a hand is to grasp and touch things. It can kill, but that is not a PRIMARY purpose.

The primary purpose of a knife varies depending upon its design. There are some that are designed to kill, but not most.
Click to expand...
All of which means that hands and knives cannot be banned as a practical matter.

So why not ban guns?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
This is what both sides are doing.

No one has answered the point I brought up about mandatory background checks. No one answered the question that I asked regarding what good reason a person has for owning an AR-15. Why are these not being answered?
Click to expand...
Who gets to determine “good reason” or “need”?

Why do we “need” funding for the arts? I don’t think there is a “good reason” for such funding.
 
This thread is getting rude.

I have not been rude to anyone. I have been advocating my position. People are free to agree or disagree. For those that disagree I have been and will continue to answer your points as best I can. No one has a right to be rude or condescending to someone else.

Anyone that wants to continue the debate civilly, I will be more than happy to continue along.

If anyone wants to continue being rude or disrespectful, please troll someone else, I will no longer respond to these posts.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Would it end mass shootings, no. Would it reduce it, probably.

Would it end murders, no. That is why I want mandatory background checks. Would that end murders, no. Would it make it harder for criminals and mentally ill people to get guns, yes. Would that reduce murders, probably.
Click to expand...
It would probably reduce mass murders?

Really?

Prove that.

How would background checks have prevented Newtown?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.

The primary purpose of a hand is to grasp and touch things. It can kill, but that is not a PRIMARY purpose.

The primary purpose of a knife varies depending upon its design. There are some that are designed to kill, but not most.
Click to expand...
The “primary purpose” of a firearm is to fire a projectile. That projectile can be fired at variety of things, (not all of them living).

The primary purpose of a knife is to cut things. They can cut a variety of things (not all of them living).
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
This thread is getting rude.

I have not been rude to anyone. I have been advocating my position. People are free to agree or disagree. For those that disagree I have been and will continue to answer your points as best I can. No one has a right to be rude or condescending to someone else.

Anyone that wants to continue the debate civilly, I will be more than happy to continue along.

If anyone wants to continue being rude or disrespectful, please troll someone else, I will no longer respond to these posts.
Click to expand...
Who got rude with you?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Because this is not a question of beliefs. It is a question of responsible and reasonable public safety.
Click to expand...
No you said you didn’t believe anyone needed an AR-15 and they needed to be banned.

That’s not reasonable or responsible because they were banned already and it didn’t stop mass shootings.

You are acting on simple emotion, you employ no logic.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
It would probably reduce mass murders?

Really?

Prove that.

How would background checks have prevented Newtown?
Click to expand...
Because Nancy Lanza used a “gun show loophole”. No, wait…

Because Adam Lanza would have been forced to pass a background check to steal his mother’s guns. No, wait…

Because if Conneticut had stronger laws banning “assault rifles”, or laws requiring secured storage, Adam Lanza would have never have had access to those guns. No, wait…

Maybe because the previous assault weapons ban didn’t lower crime (or mass shootings)? Maybe because we have seen over a decade of lower violent crime rates, accompanied with a drastic increase in the amount of gun ownership and concealed carry?

I don’t understand people’s emotional response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top