Gun Control Is Bad (BROAD)

>"Please show proof that a majority of democrats support Donald trump." What? I clearly said a majority of Republican voters support a radical man that wants to build a wall and deport illegals (Obviously Trump_ Then I said a large portion of Democrat voters are in favor of a radial man that supports a 90% tax rate and socialist-communist style system.. (Obviously not Trump, who do you think it is?) >"Here's a bundy source - http://thinkprogress.org...; I said the bundy RANCH situation, the one from years ago.. Not the Oregon militia situation in 2016. >"Ignorant means uneducated, the bundies are indeed that, a group of terrorist as they are use terror to try to get what they want. Please know when to use the word ignorant." You're assuming that I am ignorant. Please know when to use the word ignorant. " you think playing COD gets you ready for an actual firefight you need to wake up" Because when I said "realistic military shooters" I obviously meant COD.. The fact that you even stated COD shows your lack of awareness. There are plenty of realistic shooters but with ARMA being one I distinctly remember. >" All you did was waste character space. In fact please show proof about people playing video games and shooting at the gun range being enough training to prepare them for a terrorist attack." You're setting up arguments that are virtually impossible to counter, the fact that you are even saying this further proves how out of touch with firearms knowledge and common sense. You are dead set on your arguments and it seems nothing I can say will convince you, so I am not going to write a complicated argument and instead say this. Look at the terrorists and mass shooters themselves, only VERY few have military or police training. Most of them only got their experience from shooting ranges. Look at the two California shooters recently, all they did was shoot at the range constantly and they had the will and "experience" to kill many people. And what about the terrorist militas in the middle east and especially Syria.. Most of them literally have no training and are simply given a gun and told to shoot, yet they are surprisingly successful in holding back the Americans, Russians, French.. ETC. It's not just about training, it's about state of mind and self sacrifice. A gun is point and shoot, and depending on your mindset will frame you on what happens next. "I put emphasis on and because of a lack of experience will cause a lapse in judgement." Yes, that's why I stated in my last reply that the chance for your own death is high if you attempt to stop the terrorists, but around 130 people had already died in that Paris attacks so for someone to risk their life to even kill one of the terrorists is a sound idea. >"Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but that isn't a real firefight. Anyone with experience will tell you the two are completely different" Actually no, and even if you won't take my word for it.. If the Canadian army includes it in their training then it must be useful, what are you going to do argue with the military now? "Because you don't get to just wipe the paint off and go home." It's not about that, it's about the "training" you just said.. Now you are meaning physiological training? Damn Shrek stop changing your mind. >"Again you don't know for a fact casualties would have been lower or not so this argument is also invalid because it's you're personal opinion" Well you would have to be pretty dumb to think that everyone that is armed is just going to lay down and die. You are dead set on a narrative and there is LITERALLY nothing I can say to change it. Why are you even debating if you have convinced yourself that your twisted logic is the only right logic. >"do you think a pistol can accurately hit a target across a concert venue? " A first time shooter... Not even close..... A person who visits the range and hones their skills.. Absolutely. Saying that makes me doubt you have even fired a gun before. >"Sorry to burst your bubble again but black people aren't the only ones in poverty." Yes but the majority of blacks are on welfare and social services, while only a small amount of whites are. >"Also please show proof that German women are constantly being raped and sexually assaulted by refugees." You serious? Have you even looked on the news? Are you this dense? Just Google "Cologne Germany rape" .. It's on news stations all over the world. I am losing patience for a smelly onionboy like you. >"Also show proof that it was non-existent before the refugees arrives" Well it's common sense, take the 80 or so rapes per day by refugees and compare it to any rape statistic before that point. Seriously just Google it so you don't keep wasting my time with your garbage. >"How is this a rebuttal? This actually solidifies my point, if you have no ill-intent when purchasing a gun, there should be no need to have it right away. As a gun is designed to do one thing, and that is to kill." Because it's a law that wastes lawful people's time. In America the wait can be several hours to a week, in Canada it can be several weeks to a month. It's simply a law to wait. Why not put a wait time on getting your car? If you don't have ill intentions you can wait. You should just give up your arguments are getting sad. >"As a gun is designed to do one thing, and that is to kill." Rat poison is designed to do one thing, and that is to kill, yet it's extremely useful. You have that scared leftist mindset that wants to take away everything deemed "too scary for the children", but here we are back to step one.. It doesn't matter if guns are sooper dooper scary and can kill things, criminals will still have those guns nomatter what laws you pass. Like the war on drugs actually brought more drugs into America. >"that article has its sources cited as well as the statistics from the actual studies." Then give me the cited sources that are relevant to what you are trying to prove to me. >" 80% of mass shootings guns have been obtained legally" and if we banned all guns tomorrow 100% of mass shootings would be done illegally. >"if there was a system in place to prevent those people from getting guns in the first place things could have been different. " a "system in place" would only stop overtly stupid or physically handicapped. The majority of mass shooters are psychopaths, and they are above average intelligence. They won't any trouble fooling ANY system you want to put in place. "mental health/background checks" What does that even mean? A magical button automatically and omnisciently reads the minds of the person and scans them for problems?... Describe how a government official can "mental health check and background check" a clean person . Nearly all the mass shooters were clean.