Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It’s not hard to do. I’ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I’ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I’ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won’t read what I’ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest ‘got ya’ yet.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It’s not hard to do. I’ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I’ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I’ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won’t read what I’ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest ‘got ya’ yet.

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?

I disagree. Shootings were dropping before the bill, dropped during the bill, and continued down after its sunset and it expired. The statistics are cherry picked and the appeal to popularity is, of course, fallacious. It is, though, quite a stretch, ignoring the rest of your clown show attempt at the dumbest gotcha of this thread, to consider the statement to be Reagan’s, who was losing his mind at this time. It has three signatures, none of whom actually wrote it, and of the 3 Reagan was the only one losing his mind. It’s not really his statement, though Reagan rarely found gun control he didn’t love.

It’s a safe bet that I’ll disagree with most Reagan measures. I do not hold other political views you seem to be operating under the assumption that I do, which you would know if you read the thread. Recurring theme here.

Your appeal to authority is to a man losing his mind. Classic. The jokes about how it takes the braindead to support these measures write themselves.

Going to answer my questions from the last post or just keep firing blanks and ignore each of your misfires?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I disagree. Shootings were dropping before the bill, dropped during the bill, and continued down after its sunset and it expired. The statistics are cherry picked and the appeal to popularity is, of course, fallacious. It is, though, quite a stretch, ignoring the rest of your clown show attempt at the dumbest gotcha of this thread, to consider the statement to be Reagan’s, who was losing his mind at this time. It has three signatures, none of whom actually wrote it, and of the 3 Reagan was the only one losing his mind. It’s not really his statement, though Reagan rarely found gun control he didn’t love.

It’s a safe bet that I’ll disagree with most Reagan measures. I do not hold other political views you seem to be operating under the assumption that I do, which you would know if you read the thread. Recurring theme here.

Your appeal to authority is to a man losing his mind. Classic. The jokes about how it takes the braindead to support these measures write themselves.

Going to answer my questions from the last post or just keep firing blanks and ignore each of your misfires?

What do you want me say about Reagan's mental state? According to his son, he had Alzheimer's during his first term. Regardless of when he had it, I think the letter he helped pen regarding reducing assault weapons was spot on.

A previous argument for gun control I presented in this thread was about Australia having vastly reduced gun violence with gun reform. But you "refuted" that argument with your own "research" saying that reforms have not reduced gun violence. Basically, you will just believe what you want, regardless of fact. Statistical analysis shows Australia's gun reforms have been effective, regardless of what you have concluded.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

What do you want me say about Reagan's mental state? According to his son, he had Alzheimer's during his first term. Regardless of when he had it, I think the letter he helped pen was spot on.

A previous argument for gun control I present was about Australia having vastly reduced gun violence with gun reform. But you "refuted" that argument by citing bogus statistics saying that reforms have not reduced gun violence. Basically, you will just believe what you want, regardless of fact. Statistical analysis shows Australia's gun reforms have been effective, regardless of what you have concluded.

I mean it would probably add to the comedy to get a justification for an appeal to authority to a person losing their mind, made by a person who thinks I ignore facts (which seem to mean left wing op eds to you). Of course you can’t do that, because it’s absurdly stupid. If you don’t have time to actually partake in a thread, then don’t. Trying to end run it by not reading anything tends to back one into comically bad corners.

Yes, I understand you are upset that there have been just as many mass shootings after the Australian ban as in an equal number of years before the ban. I am aware you like op-ed’s and not the actual dataset. I even told you back then that I would expect some bans in other nations not steeped in guns would have resulted in reductions. You chose to pick one to debate whose dataset shows literally 0 change.

Still waiting for an actual argument from a participant in this thread that passes the Aristotelian. We have a guy who is here out of a personal vendetta and flipped a 180 on his views to troll, this gentleman who openly professes he won’t read the thread and appeals to the mentally addled, and someone whose argument is that hiring a security guard is effective impossible. There must be an anti gunner who can put forth a logical argument. The current batch are making a better argument against gun control than the people actually against gun control.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I mean it would probably add to the comedy to get a justification for an appeal to authority to a person losing their mind, made by a person who thinks I ignore facts (which seem to mean left wing op eds to you). Of course you can’t do that, because it’s absurdly stupid. If you don’t have time to actually partake in a thread, then don’t. Trying to end run it by not reading anything tends to back one into comically bad corners.

Yes, I understand you are upset that there have been just as many mass shootings after the Australian ban as in an equal number of years before the ban. I am aware you like op-ed’s and not the actual dataset. I even told you back then that I would expect some bans in other nations not steeped in guns would have resulted in reductions. You chose to pick one to debate whose dataset shows literally 0 change.

Still waiting for an actual argument from a participant in this thread that passes the Aristotelian. We have a guy who is here out of a personal vendetta and flipped a 180 on his views to troll, this gentleman who openly professes he won’t read the thread and appeals to the mentally addled, and someone whose argument is that hiring a security guard is effective impossible. There must be an anti gunner who can put forth a logical argument. The current batch are making a better argument against gun control than the people actually against gun control.

You are 100% wrong about Australia, and the fact that you believe your own BS is disturbing. Good luck

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You are 100% wrong about Australia, and the fact that you believe your own BS is disturbing. Good luck

There were 14 before, 14 after. Facts. Good luck.