Tulsa police: Multiple people shot at medical building

So we agree that laws do little to prevent crime by criminals intent on perpetrating criminal activity?

 

We have more of everything, including means of expression. Is that what causes lies? Since when did leave it to Beaver become, I hate Beaver and want to murder him.

 

Of course not, the problem is the left regularly believes that government can solve all societal problems with either money or legislation. Unfortunatley, that isn't the case.

 

Does use of ad hominem fallacy make people look smart?

 

Living in a society is basically by choice (I had a cousin who bought his own Island because he was fed up with societies). As such you must abide by rules which are enacted or you forfiet your rights. Once you serve your time usually you are once again free to exercise your rights. It's really a simple concept to understand. I don't know why you're struggling to do so.

 

Where did I say that?

You need to stop misrepresenting what people say

No, not me, but anyone who is not living under a rock knows the Covid year of 2020 was extremely restless. People were laid off, and schools were closed and people vented out their frustrations. How about we wait and see it that is the new normal. Are you seeing rioting now? I'm not.

 

Not all of them but this one can be.

 

Means of expression aren't necessarily means of murder. What do lies have to with it?

 

First, they are referred to as carbine rifles

Second, you are the one making the claim that 35 years worth of data isn’t enough to prove whatever point you’re trying to make (poorly). If you don’t want to contribute, then don’t. But I’m no longer playing this back-and-forth childish game that you’re attempting.

I couldn't care less what you believe or what your opinion is. If you do not have a valid source to back up your claims and overrule the numerous sources provided then that showcases you don’t have a valid claim and are subsequently dismissed as such.

 

Requiring specific items to express a “right” is not a violation of the constitution.

Ex) having to register to vote or pass a background check to buy a gun

 

Rights can be violated, but not taken. Or there is no such thing as a right.

 

Same/same. All of this rights/privileges/taken/violated/granted etc is semantic quibbling and usually meant to confuse the issue According to Locke rights are things inherent in our physical makeup and there is really only one, the right of self-defense, from which all others derive.

 

The Brady crowd refers to them as "assault weapons" so I'm just using your kin's term for it.
In the stats they call them "modern sporting rifles", a carbine simply refers to a rifle shooting a pistol cartridge.

You're missing the point that laws now are still far more restrictive than they were, with the same sorts of weapons available and MORE, during periods your graph does not account for because it runs counter to the narrative the graph is created to spin.
If your theory was correct and a lack of regulation of ownership of firearms was the issue, then the 60's should be replete with examples of people going ape **** and rampaging about the countryside. The 70's as well, all the way up to 1986, should be replete with examples because 1) there was no brady bill and 2) you could still buy machineguns with a simple NICS check.

^ these are facts in common knowledge IE the dates the various laws were passed.
If you don't know them, you shouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Registering to vote simply ensures one person one vote.
You only have the right to vote one time and only in your district. Registering in your district and providing proof you are yourself, ensures you don't vote twice.

You have the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed.

Seeing the difference?

 

Hi, jcarlilesiu.

No, we do not. The degree to which a law deters crime depends upon the law, the crime and the level of enforcement. A general statement is unwarranted.

I believe that's all for this thread. I'll not respond again.

Best wishes to you and yours..

 

But I can infringe on your right to self defense so by the other member’s definition it isn’t a right.

If self defense is your right, where did you get it? Locke?

 

No, I get it because I CAN act in my own self-defense. You may infringe that right but you cannot remove it, it is inherent in my existence

 

That’s what I said. You can’t take a right. Only infringe on it.

Since my ability to attack you is inherent to my existence do I have the right to attack you?

 

To answer your question ask yourself this:

"Would I mind getting attacked?"

 

Kids were getting slaughtered en masse at schools then, were they?

 

Dunno about what you do there, but we put down bitey dogs. You can damn sure I'll keep shoving the deaths of kids by gun in your face every time it happens. I will unashamedly use the tragedy of a death by gun to get guns out of the household toy box.

 

Poor us ey? Send money.

 

Fake news ey?

 

No, just a statistical fact. Kids are more likely to be electrocuted, or struck by lightning than be killed in a school shooting.

 

This is not a discussion about what we like or dislike.

The other poster made a claim based on ability, not preference. If what an individual preferred was their right we would have serious problems.

As to the irrelevant question, it depends on the circumstances.