United We Stand - uwsboard.com

BG Hokie wrote:

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
When it comes to this class of gun killings, I don't think so. You think the mass shootings since Columbine have much to do with these issues? Here and there, sure but it the amount of carnage boils down to easy access, legal or otherwise given our level of freedom.

The firearm homicide rate is less now than it was when Columbine happened, Sherlock. In fact, the overall homicide rate reached a 51-year low in 2016:



...over a period in which the number of guns increased:



https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

Not fair USN. You’re using real facts and statistics while he’s trying to have an emotional argument.

The slurping sound is another one of you faggots on USN's dick.

You sure have the cock on your mind a lot.

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

awesome guy wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
When it comes to this class of gun killings, I don't think so. You think the mass shootings since Columbine have much to do with these issues? Here and there, sure but it the amount of carnage boils down to easy access, legal or otherwise given our level of freedom.

The firearm homicide rate is less now than it was when Columbine happened, Sherlock. In fact, the overall homicide rate reached a 51-year low in 2016:



...over a period in which the number of guns increased:



https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

Not fair USN. You’re using real facts and statistics while he’s trying to have an emotional argument.

The slurping sound is another one of you faggots on USN's dick.

You sure have the cock on your mind a lot.

He's having flashbacks to his superbowl party.

UpstateSCHokie wrote:So more fake news. I should have known.

Jesus **** Christ, you posted a story from InfoWars!


Do you think maybe this means he doesn't particularly care for Muslims?

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

That's not how he spells his name BTW.

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

Oh, and thanks for using the term "fake news". It's a dead giveaway when it comes to spotting idiots.

Your lack of self awareness is stunning. Get ****.

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

So it's your opinion that if all semi-automatic guns were banned, that mass shooting casualties would be the same, because people would use bombs and other means?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ml?referer

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The Sheer Amount of Guns...

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

So it's your opinion that if all semi-automatic guns were banned, that mass shooting casualties would be the same, because people would use bombs and other means?

1. Not legal.
2. Not enough money to compensate everyone (that pesky bill or rights again) .
3. Not feasible (you'd be lucky to get 10%)

BG Hokie wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ml?referer

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The Sheer Amount of Guns...

"mass shootings" are statistical noise. Think rationally.

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ml?referer

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The Sheer Amount of Guns...

"mass shootings" are statistical noise. Think rationally.

So it's fair to say that mass shootings, the statistical noise that is, is a consequence of our freedom, correct?

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ml?referer

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The Sheer Amount of Guns...

"mass shootings" are statistical noise. Think rationally.

So it's fair to say that mass shootings, the statistical noise that is, is a consequence of our freedom, correct?

If there is no possibility of bad things happening, you don't have freedom. I chose freedom.

How does the quote go again? "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Is it the same folks that say that it's not possible/practical/reasonable to deport all illegal aliens that advocate at least considering the collection of guns from the citizenry?

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

Maryland has the toughest gun laws in the united states. In 2017, 350 people were murdered by guns in Balitmore alone- the most since 1993. Tell me again how strict gun laws/control = less crime? I'm listening

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

So it's your opinion that if all semi-automatic guns were banned, that mass shooting casualties would be the same, because people would use bombs and other means?

A glock/Sig/Beretta/HK 9mm and most other handguns are "semi-automatic".. you are arguing for an outright gun ban, just so you know.

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

So it's your opinion that if all semi-automatic guns were banned, that mass shooting casualties would be the same, because people would use bombs and other means?

A glock/Sig/Beretta/HK 9mm and most other handguns are "semi-automatic".. you are arguing for an outright gun ban, just so you know.

Just so you know, I'm not arguing for that. I'm just trying to get the UWS locals to admit that our gun freedom results in death and that it's costly. I don't think I've gotten anyone on this board to admit that.

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

Maryland has the toughest gun laws in the united states. In 2017, 350 people were murdered by guns in Balitmore alone- the most since 1993. Tell me again how strict gun laws/control = less crime? I'm listening

State restrictions are hardly relevant in this discussion. Guns are easily manufactured and purchased, without limit. This, in turn fuels a secondary gun market where state restrictions and other gun restrictions aren't much of a hurdle.

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ml?referer

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The Sheer Amount of Guns...

"mass shootings" are statistical noise. Think rationally.

So it's fair to say that mass shootings, the statistical noise that is, is a consequence of our freedom, correct?

If there is no possibility of bad things happening, you don't have freedom. I chose freedom.

How does the quote go again? "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Is a semi-automatic rifle an essential liberty in present day America?

BG Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

So it's your opinion that if all semi-automatic guns were banned, that mass shooting casualties would be the same, because people would use bombs and other means?

A glock/Sig/Beretta/HK 9mm and most other handguns are "semi-automatic".. you are arguing for an outright gun ban, just so you know.

Just so you know, I'm not arguing for that. I'm just trying to get the UWS locals to admit that our gun freedom results in death and that it's costly. I don't think I've gotten anyone on this board to admit that.

If you are not arguing "all semi-automatic guns were banned".. you might not want to post it- just sayin. could confuse some people.

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ml?referer

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The Sheer Amount of Guns...

"mass shootings" are statistical noise. Think rationally.

So it's fair to say that mass shootings, the statistical noise that is, is a consequence of our freedom, correct?

If there is no possibility of bad things happening, you don't have freedom. I chose freedom.

How does the quote go again? "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Is a semi-automatic rifle an essential liberty in present day America?

Since 99% of hunting rifles are semi automatic, yes. You should really educate yourself on guns before preaching about them. Pro Tip

BG Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

Maryland has the toughest gun laws in the united states. In 2017, 350 people were murdered by guns in Balitmore alone- the most since 1993. Tell me again how strict gun laws/control = less crime? I'm listening

State restrictions are hardly relevant in this discussion. Guns are easily manufactured and purchased, without limit. This, in turn fuels a secondary gun market where state restrictions and other gun restrictions aren't much of a hurdle.

Fantastic... so if tomorrow congress "bans all AR15s" -like they have done already in DC, NY, Illinois, California. Psychotic killers are going to have a change of heart, and not look to any number of semi automatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that are the same exact calibur and action of the AR15, nope. There is an AR15 ban, thus these mass killings will stop. So ban all rifles, you say? welp, the US supreme court- both liberal and conservative justices have been crystal clear on that as recently as last year. So again, can we please talk about real solutions? Airlines banned smoking in the early 1990's. Many people wpuld sneak in the bathroom, ignore the bans, etc. Only when smoking as a whole became largely a social stigma, socially unacceptable to most that people simply don't even think about smoking on a plane.- It's a non issue now. Teens shooting up schools would be a non issue if that type of behavior and lawlessness and societal decay/lowest common denominator/social justice outcomes were socially unacceptable and this country got back to some type of values and morals and personal accountability. - Which BTW would be easier than confiscating guns from american gangs and thugs.

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

Maryland has the toughest gun laws in the united states. In 2017, 350 people were murdered by guns in Balitmore alone- the most since 1993. Tell me again how strict gun laws/control = less crime? I'm listening

State restrictions are hardly relevant in this discussion. Guns are easily manufactured and purchased, without limit. This, in turn fuels a secondary gun market where state restrictions and other gun restrictions aren't much of a hurdle.

Fantastic... so if tomorrow congress "bans all AR15s" -like they have done already in DC, NY, Illinois, California. Psychotic killers are going to have a change of heart, and not look to any number of semi automatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that are the same exact calibur and action of the AR15, nope. There is an AR15 ban, thus these mass killings will stop. So ban all rifles, you say? welp, the US supreme court- both liberal and conservative justices have been crystal clear on that as recently as last year. So again, can we please talk about real solutions? Airlines banned smoking in the early 1990's. Many people wpuld sneak in the bathroom, ignore the bans, etc. Only when smoking as a whole became largely a social stigma, socially unacceptable to most that people simply don't even think about smoking on a plane.- It's a non issue now. Teens shooting up schools would be a non issue if that type of behavior and lawlessness and societal decay/lowest common denominator/social justice outcomes were socially unacceptable and this country got back to some type of values and morals and personal accountability. - Which BTW would be easier than confiscating guns from american gangs and thugs.

tldr because it was babble

BG Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

So it's your opinion that if all semi-automatic guns were banned, that mass shooting casualties would be the same, because people would use bombs and other means?

A glock/Sig/Beretta/HK 9mm and most other handguns are "semi-automatic".. you are arguing for an outright gun ban, just so you know.

Just so you know, I'm not arguing for that. I'm just trying to get the UWS locals to admit that our gun freedom results in death and that it's costly. I don't think I've gotten anyone on this board to admit that.

Speed limit freedom results in (a lot more) death. If we had common sense gun laws speed limits (say, 25mph...hard to die in a 25mph crash) think of all the lives which could be saved! And you don't even have a right to drive a car.

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:Nobody said they're driven by ease of access. That happen more than they would if there weren't such ease of access. I'm not even saying we should change anything. I just wish you guys wouldn't be so obtuse about the notion that if we had more restrictive gun policies, we'd have less of these events. It's a cost of our freedom.

1. Makes emotional argument.
2. Doesn't respond to fact-based response.
3. Calls everyone obtuse.

So it's your opinion that if all semi-automatic guns were banned, that mass shooting casualties would be the same, because people would use bombs and other means?

A glock/Sig/Beretta/HK 9mm and most other handguns are "semi-automatic".. you are arguing for an outright gun ban, just so you know.

Just so you know, I'm not arguing for that. I'm just trying to get the UWS locals to admit that our gun freedom results in death and that it's costly. I don't think I've gotten anyone on this board to admit that.

Speed limit freedom results in (a lot more) death. If we had common sense gun laws speed limits (say, 25mph...hard to die in a 25mph crash) think of all the lives which could be saved! And you don't even have a right to drive a car.

Typical liberal partisan my view only response- "Cars serve the greater good, cars are essential to the economy, nobody intends to kill someone by driving 85mph recklessly, cars must be registered and insured in every state. Guns are intended to kill people, that is their only use, thus there is no comparison. also an "assault" rifle can kill a bunch of people at a time, where as a car accident just kills 2-3 people at once. Also car accidents are accidents- like getting killed by an avalanche or aux fire in a Baltimore ghetto- it's an accident. Guns kill people ON PURPOSE".. THAT is who you are arguing with.

Major Kong wrote:Local law enforcement: No ties between militia and Florida high school shooter

I've read that it was a 4Chan hoax used to troll the media.

HooFight hit hardest.

Is a semi-automatic rifle an essential liberty in present day America?

I think you may be looking at this question wrong.

It wouldn’t serve liberty to list all the things we are “allowed” by our government. I don’t own a semi-automatic, and having one isn’t essential to my liberty because even without having one, I feel mostly free. What IS essential to my liberty is being able to choose for myself what, or if, guns I should own.

Where do rights come from, BG?
Pro tip: It isn’t the government.

CFB Apologist wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: Speed limit freedom results in (a lot more) death. If we had common sense gun laws speed limits (say, 25mph...hard to die in a 25mph crash) think of all the lives which could be saved! And you don't even have a right to drive a car.

Typical liberal partisan my view only response- "Cars serve the greater good, cars are essential to the economy, nobody intends to kill someone by driving 85mph recklessly, cars must be registered and insured in every state. Guns are intended to kill people, that is their only use, thus there is no comparison. also an "assault" rifle can kill a bunch of people at a time, where as a car accident just kills 2-3 people at once. Also car accidents are accidents- like getting killed by an avalanche or aux fire in a Baltimore ghetto- it's an accident. Guns kill people ON PURPOSE".. THAT is who you are arguing with.

And a response like that succeeds in pointing out how poorly thought out their original argument was, moving the debate to something more rational (where they ultimately admit that they don't believe you have a civil right to personal self defense).