Guns

[arora]

Yes.

 

[Schwartz]

hippy lib bs.

I get the rest of this post. When I spoke of denying this guy a gun, you respond with this point which was unrelated and before the fact. Frankly, I agree with you here.

But the part I quoted from your post, that's laughable. You're telling me that a background check law (because that's what I am arguing for) is "hippy lib BS." I'm not arguing for the abolishment of the second amendment, I'm arguing for a background check law that I presented in a bad manner. Just check my other posts, I am not against guns. But is it too hard to ask for some proper background checks? I mean Jesus Christ. That law should have never been struck down.

 

[arora]

We already have that and as I said, it appears to me it was followed.

EDIT: sorry I hit the return too soon. If you followed any of what I've been saying you realize I'm making a point directed at avoiding many of these deals, one of treating people with trouble in a decent way. Very simple.

As far as the background since you will keep hammering that, if the guy bought a gun through legal channels as you suggest, and based on the concerns you brought up, no crime was committed as he is not a felon nor diagnosed with a mental illness that is a threat to himself or others.

Perhaps you need to go back and read my very first response to you.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I get the rest of your post. When I spoke of denying this guy a gun, you respond with this point which was unrelated and before the fact. Frankly, I agree with you here.

But the quoted part of your post, that's laughable. You're telling me that a background check law (because that's what I am arguing for) is "hippy lib BS." I'm not arguing for the abolishment of the second amendment, I'm arguing for a background check law that I presented in a bad manner.

No more laughable then you saying that inane crap about gang bangers even though I pointed out a reality that you decided to not acknowledge. So it's no surprise someone else is only talking down to you at the level you approached this conversation. You want to be taken serious and speak on the subject yet not fully acknowledge each facet, you can't pick and choose the reality of the world.

So don't act like you are arguing this to the fullest extent because your doing it from the same angle people like Piers Morgan or Ed Schultz would. I love how those people forget about mass shooting realities.

 

[Schwartz]

So because they don't go into theaters or schools it doesn't matter, though in Chicago or Detroit or even LA many are killed in say a month due to such violence. Many innocent people as well that aren't gang members, but hey let's keep generalizing like you do, more fodder for the fire.

I completely missed this post in the shower of all the other ones (I am browsing the desktop site on my iPhone). Is this the reality you're speaking of? My post about gang violence was completely unsupported and undefendable by anything and I will hereby retract it and accept any and all flame that comes from doing so. And I won't even ask for statistics or a source because I was most likely spewing ********. Now I remember why I never used to enter debates without first doing enough research. However, I still stand by my point about the background check law helping to prevent this massacre.

 

[arora]

However, I still stand by my point about the background check law helping to prevent this massacre.

And you would be wrong.

 

[Schwartz]

As far as the background since you will keep hammering that, if the guy bought a gun through legal channels as you suggest, and based on the concerns you brought up, no crime was committed as he is not a felon nor diagnosed with a mental illness that is a threat to himself or others.

Maybe, but would a look in to the specifics of the crime he committed hinder his ability to purchase a firearm? He committed a crime in which he fired a friggin gun. Surely firearm laws can't be that black and white in terms of determining someone's ability to purchase a firearm.

 

[arora]

one word, felony. You really should look up the law before you claim to know what it says.

 

[Schwartz]

(Double post)

 

[Schwartz]

Allegedly, Alexis was dishonorably discharged from the Navy, which should have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. Now, either that's not true, or the background checks suck. Frankly, at this point there is no way to until we get more information.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Allegedly, Alexis was dishonorably discharged from the Navy, which should have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. Now, either that's not true, or the background checks suck. Frankly, at this point there is no way to until we get more information.

General discharge =/= Dishonorable, thus it doesn't prevent him because their was no Court Marshall case/hearing. Background checks don't suck because they go to the FBI database and so on.

 

[arora]

So now we are just resorting to making crap up to hold strong our position?

 

[Schwartz]

So now we are just resorting to making crap up to hold strong our position?

No, I'm not making anything up. That's what allegedly means. But you don't need to be condescending about it. Cool, you win the debate, is that what you want me to say? I see no reason for this post other for you to tell me you're better than me. I like to share my opinion. I don't care if my position changes over the course/after a debate. I'd rather learn from a debate and be informed than win every time. If I realize I am wrong, I'll admit it. I am not a keyboard warrior trying to protect my pride. If I were, I'd be doing a damn better job of it. At least you could be courteous enough to, oh, you know, let LMS's explanatory post be instead of posting this IBTL-like post to tell me off.

 

[arora]

That's rich, I'm no warrior and winning a gtp debate ranks just below a satisfying morning throne session.

I will say this much, sure we would like some more info on the guy and the event but we have already been told the state of his discharge have we not? I'll ask you again to look up any sort of law or meaning of an action if you don't know what it means.

Seems to me you were looking for a way he could be denied sales, then you twisted the definition of his discharge to suit your means.

I'll tell you what, you win, please lobby for more strict background checks or whatever it is you are so adamant about, you will see no drop in this sort of crime and simply piss off all of us law abiding citizens as is your wish. Typical elitist lib nonsense, always with the feel good over the substance.

 

[Schwartz]

Typical elitist lib nonsense, always with the feel good over the substance.

Disregarding your name calling, what is the substance, then?

 

[arora]

The facts, you know those pesky things you wish did not exist. Go look up the stats on crime vs gun control and background, whatever you feel like looking up. I've already posted tons of it in here as have countless others.

 

[FoolKiller]

Aaron Alexis is what happens when the NRA puppets in congress strike down a law expanding background checks. Congratulations.

FFS MAN!!! It hasn't even been 24 hours. The bodies, literally, probably aren't cold yet.

Never mind using dead bodies as a political tool, but it is far too soon to have anything more than speculation. Let them finish the investigation at least.

So now we are just resorting to making crap up to hold strong our position?

More likely someone is all ready to go on a rant due to an emotional reaction to an event that we haven't had time to get any actual facts about.

Just trying to see if his comments had any merit I was running into conflicting info. At this point the only thing to be argued is the background check law he is on a rant about, but I broke down its many, many flaws back in April, in this thread. I'll save quoting myself for a day or two, out of respect for the dead, and to have some actual facts regarding this case.

I suggest everyone else does the same.

 

[Schwartz]

The facts, you know those pesky things you wish did not exist. Go look up the stats on crime vs gun control and background, whatever you feel like looking up. I've already posted tons of it in here as have countless others.

The facts are inconclusive because so many contradict each other. I have fact filled posts in this thread, but when it comes to guns, correlation does not equal causation. Just take a look at any of my other posts.

 

[arora]

The facts I speak of are not inconclusive at all but whatever. And no thank you, reading your posts once is quite enough 👍

One day you might actually care about solutions rather then touting your own agenda to feel good about yourself.

 

[Schwartz]

Get over your condescension, I'm looking for a solution. You seem to not be willing to have a discussion without putting passive agressive attacks at the end of your posts. I'm going to leave now, but I'll wait for you to put in the final word so you can feel like a real internet champion.

 

[Zenith]

Do you purposely wait until the news networks are talking about mass murders to make these cases or is it just coincidence? Surely a logical and well-reasoned argument shouldn't need emotions and uncertainty as crutch.

 

[Schwartz]

Just a coincidence. I debated not posting this today because I didn't want this to happen. I figured why the hell not, since I'm hardly ever on GTP and I would probably forget to post about it on another day.

If you've seen any other case I've made on anything, there is much more preparation than what went on here.

 

[Zenith]

Which is why your post was entirely centered around today's mass shooting.

 

[a6m5]

FFS MAN!!! It hasn't even been 24 hours.

100% agreed. It does remind me of Trayvon Martin thread. It's kind of pointless to argue when we know almost nothing outside the fact that a gunman shot up bunch of people.

 

[Schwartz]

Yep, I guess so. I'm as bad as MSNBCFOXCNN! That's why I usually listen to NPR. But today I turned on CNN. Must have some creepy mind control **** goin on there.

 

[Scaff]

The personal digs and attacks stop now or people will be facing temporary bans.

 

[Zenith]

Favoring gun control is one thing, but coming into a thread waving the bloody shirt with wild declarations of blame concerning an event that nobody knows enough about is precisely the kind of poor argument tactic forums are great for getting away from.

You can try to argue like they do on news sites and TV shows, but we can call out the holes in your argument here.

 

[KSaiyu]

Unfortunately this will continue as long as guns are so readily available to people with mental health problems. The problem comes in deciding who is vulnerable to such disease and I honestly can't see a way of accurately screening a population to ensure guns only get into the right hands.

 

[counter345]

Well, the US healthcare system does need work...

 

[KSaiyu]

I doubt even a perfect healthcare system could address this problem. A certain amount of personal responsibility is usually needed to diagnose and treat conditions that can lead to this and you can't enforce that no matter how hard you try.