13-year-old with BB gun killed by police in Columbus, Ohio

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Well atleast you have properly identified the problem is the criminal and not the gun.

 

There are over 100 million gun owners in the US who are law abiding citizens who do not rob people or pull their guns on the police. 

 

There are a small fraction of criminals who use guns illegally. 

 

The problem is not the gun--it is the subculture that promotes violence and guns in their songs and videos and movies. 

 

Yes and the sub culture exacerbated by the fact how easily it is to acquire a gun.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Well atleast you have properly identified the problem is the criminal and not the gun.

 

There are over 100 million gun owners in the US who are law abiding citizens who do not rob people or pull their guns on the police. 

 

There are a small fraction of criminals who use guns illegally. 

 

The problem is not the gun--it is the subculture that promotes violence and guns in their songs and videos and movies. 

You reading comprehension lets you down, again.

 

I did not criticize the officers handling, so your demand should not be addressed to me.

If I say 'criminals without guns are less of a problem that criminals with guns' your conclusion "you have properly identified the problem is the criminal and not the gun" comes out of this air, and is just your own projection.

[Pimay1]

8 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

Well atleast you have properly identified the problem is the criminal and not the gun.

Excellent point. Why don't they blame a suicide bombing on the C4 explosives? Because it is the person exploding it who is responsible.

[ClutchClark]

Just now, stevenl said:

You reading comprehension lets you down, again.

 

I did not criticize the officers handling, so your demand should not be addressed to me.

If I say 'criminals without guns are less of a problem that criminals with guns' your conclusion "you have properly identified the problem is the criminal and not the gun" comes out of this air, and is just your own projection.

 

Poor StevenL...always resorting to personal attack.

 

All I said was you correctly identified the problem is the "criminal". 

If I was mistaken and gave you credit where none wa deserved then I apologize.

[smutcakes]

Just now, Pimay1 said:

Excellent point. Why don't they blame a suicide bombing on the C4 explosives? Because it is the person exploding it who is responsible.

 

Yes, the US has a special type of criminal, far different to criminals in other countries......... the fact gun ownership and the ability to acquire one is no issue here

[nottocus]

Would have been a real gun in a few years

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Looking at previous experiences from other countries that gave up their guns: NO, your claim is not correct. Why come up with excuses that make no sense when the real reason is easy: you just don't want to give them up, you (and that is not personal but general) just love them. All the reasons given for not giving up your guns are just excuses that, when examined properly, prove to be incorrect.

 

You make it sound as if they were voluntary. 

 

Its true, I don't want to give them up and even if there was zero crime, I still wouldn't give them up. 

 

Ok, lets try it on, how would you reduce gun violence? (remember, without disarming good people) 

[Pimay1]

3 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

Yes, the US has a special type of criminal, far different to criminals in other countries......... the fact gun ownership and the ability to acquire one is no issue here

And acquiring C4 is different. Right.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

You make it sound as if they were voluntary. 

 

Its true, I don't want to give them up and even if there was zero crime, I still wouldn't give them up. 

 

Ok, lets try it on, how would you reduce gun violence? (remember, without disarming good people) 

I don't see how one could ban guns without disarming good people.

As I said, ban them.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Poor StevenL...always resorting to personal attack.

 

All I said was you correctly identified the problem is the "criminal". 

If I was mistaken and gave you credit where none wa deserved then I apologize.

On this front, please, don't credit me. That would seriously make me doubt myself. Easy in this case, since I did not say or intend to say what you're claiming I said.

[smutcakes]

1 minute ago, Pimay1 said:

And acquiring C4 is different. Right.

 

I am not quite sure the point you are trying to make, i think you are saying that the guns are not a problem, its just the criminal.

 

I agree with that, but the situation is obviously not helped by the ease those criminals can acquire guns. I don't think that is a particularly contentious point. Surely making gun ownership more onerous, would over time, reduce the amount of guns in circulation, and hopefully reduce the incident of gun crime.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I don't see how one could ban guns without disarming good people.

As I said, ban them.

 

Naw I said reduce gun violence without disarming good people. Don't act like you didn't read it and thankfully its still up there unedited for you to review. 

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

On this front, please, don't credit me. That would seriously make me doubt myself. Easy in this case, since I did not say or intend to say what you're claiming I said.

 

but it is the only thing you really have managed to say in all of your posts--the fact you recognize criminals are the problems. 

 

If you didn't say that then I fear you have said nothing.

[stevenl]

Just now, Strange said:

 

Naw I said reduce gun violence without disarming good people. Don't act like you didn't read it and thankfully its still up there unedited for you to review. 

What 'naw'. I give you my opinion 'I don't see how one could ban guns without disarming good people. As I said, ban them.'. That may not meet your requirements, but I don't agree with your requirements.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Yes, the US has a special type of criminal, far different to criminals in other countries......... the fact gun ownership and the ability to acquire one is no issue here

 

Again, typical default to insult and derail from the facts. 

 

19 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

That is why i said it would be interesting if there was a vote on it to see what the overall sentiment is in the on gun ownership. One of the problems when people vote is that they vote on a total package rather than an individual issue. I.e i might vote one way over the other as I agree with more of a parties stances, although i might disagree with certain parts.

 

Seems you are getting a bit defensive, lucky you don't have a gun to start shooting wildly with people who disagree with you:)

 

Don't worry I know you are scared, but you have nothing to worry about. 

 

I can promise you without a shadow of a doubt that if it were a 100% public vote on "Ban all guns or not" then it would be no. 

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

I agree with that, but the situation is obviously not helped by the ease those criminals can acquire guns. I don't think that is a particularly contentious point. Surely making gun ownership more onerous, would over time, reduce the amount of guns in circulation, and hopefully reduce the incident of gun crime.

 

There are 300,000,000 guns in the US. 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

but it is the only thing you really have managed to say in all of your posts--the fact you recognize criminals are the problems.

Again, you're projecting.

 

[Pimay1]

5 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

I am not quite sure the point you are trying to make, i think you are saying that the guns are not a problem, its just the criminal.

 

I agree with that, but the situation is obviously not helped by the ease those criminals can acquire guns. I don't think that is a particularly contentious point. Surely making gun ownership more onerous, would over time, reduce the amount of guns in circulation, and hopefully reduce the incident of gun crime.

Yes that is what I am saying. I support making gun ownership more onerous by strict background checks and 100% registration of handguns. But not taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

[smutcakes]

1 minute ago, ClutchClark said:

 

There are 300,000,000 guns in the US. 

 

And? You have to start somewhere.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

What 'naw'. I give you my opinion 'I don't see how one could ban guns without disarming good people. As I said, ban them.'. That may not meet your requirements, but I don't agree with your requirements.

 

Ah ok so you don't want to have a debate you just want to have an uneducated opinion about a country you know nothing about. 

 

How would you ban guns then? 

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Again, typical default to insult and derail from the facts. 

 

 

Don't worry I know you are scared, but you have nothing to worry about. 

 

I can promise you without a shadow of a doubt that if it were a 100% public vote on "Ban all guns or not" then it would be no. 

 

Scared of what? You have no facts. You like I share opinions. Does not make either one of us right or wrong.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

How would you ban guns then? 

Why would I even think about something that is not going to happen because you (again, general, not personally at you) don't want it to happen?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, smutcakes said:

Scared of what? You have no facts. You like I share opinions. Does not make either one of us right or wrong.

 

Incorrect. 

 

An opinion is just that. Opinion. It is impossible to debate a serious topic without factual data. Just because you don't "like" or "feel" a certain way does not make it right nor any kind of solution. 

[Gary A]

If any of you bleeding hearts were cops, would you give the kid the first shot? I don't think so.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Why would I even think about something that is not going to happen because you (again, general, not personally at you) don't want it to happen?

 

Because its hardly productive for people to insult the civility, personality, and culture of a nation, then lay down over opinionated one-liner sentences like you can solve all the worlds problems with a couple of keystrokes and a period. Then decide that you don't want to defend your position with actual fact. 

[smutcakes]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Incorrect. 

 

An opinion is just that. Opinion. It is impossible to debate a serious topic without factual data. Just because you don't "like" or "feel" a certain way does not make it right nor any kind of solution. 

 

So where is your factual data? You saying you 100% promise something does not make it factual data! How can you provide factual data on an opinion about what you may think might happen in the future.........

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Because its hardly productive for people to insult the civility, personality, and culture of a nation, then lay down over opinionated one-liner sentences like you can solve all the worlds problems with a couple of keystrokes and a period. Then decide that you don't want to defend your position with actual fact. 

And I guess you're going to vote Trump?

[Strange]

Just now, stevenl said:

And I guess you're going to vote Trump?

 

Another typical deflection. 

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Another typical deflection. 

I think it reflects on your question perfectly.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Maybe "boys" shouldn't be involved in armed robberies with realistic looking guns...oh, but I guess you kinda need them to commit the robbery.