Gun violence: No easy solution

[Wonky3]

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?

I don't know how to explain this any better.

 
Hugo is making the conclusion that all those who are against guns are non violent.
But I'm saying why assume that? Who's to say these people don't mind using violence IF in their mind it stops mass shootings?

Okay. I guess I didn't pay attention and I missed the point. I did not understand that he is suggesting that all who are against guns are nonviolent 

Still kind of confusing. Your sentence "Who's to say these people don't mind using violence IF in their mind it stops mass shootings?" confuses me. (I'm easily confused). Still sounds like killing people who kill people. 
I guess we are saying that we can be "against guns" but still be violent and kill someone who is about to be a mass murderer. 
Weird kind of argument, but I guess I get it. Weirder still that we so often argue about the stupidest stuff! 

By the way...Yep, I misspelled "yea". Of course I know it's yeah, but it has less to do with "Ain't the English language a bitch" than simply inattention. My "Ain't the English language a bitch" comments have to do with the inconsistent rules and complexities of our language.

[Hugo]

Hugo is making the conclusion that all those who are against guns are non violent.

  Ain't the English language a bitch?

[Hugo]

too late.  

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?

Wonky:  More like threatening to KILL people who have NEVER killed anyone, just because they believe in the 2nd amendment?  And TV....  I never, for fucks sake, said EVERYONE against guns does this.  You twist and roll and imply SO much that simply is not in my post.

[Wonky3]

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?

Wonky:  More like threatening to KILL people who have NEVER killed anyone, just because they believe in the 2nd amendment?  And TV....  I never, for fucks sake, said EVERYONE against guns does this.  You twist and roll and imply SO much that simply is not in my post.

Getting far too twisted and unclear to follow and continue. Carry on, I'll sit and watch.

[tvguy]

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?

Wonky:  More like threatening to KILL people who have NEVER killed anyone, just because they believe in the 2nd amendment?  And TV....  I never, for fucks sake, said EVERYONE against guns does this.  You twist and roll and imply SO much that simply is not in my post.

You   said......It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.

How does that NOT imply that the "dangerous ones" are the OTHER ones who are not comfortable with guns?

I'm not twisting anything. Or not trying too anyway

[Wonky3]

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?

Wonky:  More like threatening to KILL people who have NEVER killed anyone, just because they believe in the 2nd amendment?  And TV....  I never, for fucks sake, said EVERYONE against guns does this.  You twist and roll and imply SO much that simply is not in my post.

You   said......It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.

How does that NOT imply that the "dangerous ones" are the OTHER ones who are not comfortable with guns?

I'm not twisting anything. Or not trying too anyway

Here we go again. 

Hugo posted (in post #10) about a woman who is "pro-gun" getting slammed by people who are "anti-gun" and more than just slammed, threatened with violence. See below: 
 

---

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch said Sunday she was preparing to move from her home "due to repeated threats from gun control advocates."
In a series of tweets, Loesch explained some of the threats she has recently experienced.

"One guy hunted down my private cellphone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard," Loesch wrote.

In another post, Loesch said someone posted photos of her house, and "threatened to rape me to death."

The threats haven't just targeted Loesch, but have also focused on her children.


"I’m grateful that my kids’ school worked with law enforcement and private security to ensure campus safety, and work with me," she wrote.
Loesch said she's only discussed these threats "kinda vaguely," and noted there were others she "can’t discuss."


"I and other 2A women are sexually threatened regularly," she wrote, referring to women who support the Second Amendment.



To wrap up her posts, Loesch wrote, "Maybe now you understand why I believe all women have the right to defend themselves with 2A and expand their skills w training."

She recently slammed "Saturday Night Live" actors who made fun of gun owners in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, saying during an appearance on "FOX & Friends," they "lack the courage of their own convictions."
Loesch said the anti-Second Amendment jokes are told by celebrities who often have armed security guards to protect them.
"Why don't you give up the firearms that your private security is holding?" she said. "You're not being more virtuous just because you're paying someone else to carry it. You're outsourcing it because you lack the courage of your own convictions."

---

---

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 
A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun". 

What am I missing here? (And I'm reaching that point where I don't really care. 
I started this Topic with"
GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post. 

So maybe you want to actually read THAT and argue THAT point? 

Or not. I just felt it was another way of looking at something we have long talked about. 

[tvguy]

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?

Wonky:  More like threatening to KILL people who have NEVER killed anyone, just because they believe in the 2nd amendment?  And TV....  I never, for fucks sake, said EVERYONE against guns does this.  You twist and roll and imply SO much that simply is not in my post.

You   said......It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.

How does that NOT imply that the "dangerous ones" are the OTHER ones who are not comfortable with guns?

I'm not twisting anything. Or not trying too anyway

Here we go again. 

Hugo posted (in post #10) about a woman who is "pro-gun" getting slammed by people who are "anti-gun" and more than just slammed, threatened with violence. See below: 
 

---

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch said Sunday she was preparing to move from her home "due to repeated threats from gun control advocates."
In a series of tweets, Loesch explained some of the threats she has recently experienced.

"One guy hunted down my private cellphone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard," Loesch wrote.

In another post, Loesch said someone posted photos of her house, and "threatened to rape me to death."

The threats haven't just targeted Loesch, but have also focused on her children.


"I’m grateful that my kids’ school worked with law enforcement and private security to ensure campus safety, and work with me," she wrote.
Loesch said she's only discussed these threats "kinda vaguely," and noted there were others she "can’t discuss."


"I and other 2A women are sexually threatened regularly," she wrote, referring to women who support the Second Amendment.



To wrap up her posts, Loesch wrote, "Maybe now you understand why I believe all women have the right to defend themselves with 2A and expand their skills w training."

She recently slammed "Saturday Night Live" actors who made fun of gun owners in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, saying during an appearance on "FOX & Friends," they "lack the courage of their own convictions."
Loesch said the anti-Second Amendment jokes are told by celebrities who often have armed security guards to protect them.
"Why don't you give up the firearms that your private security is holding?" she said. "You're not being more virtuous just because you're paying someone else to carry it. You're outsourcing it because you lack the courage of your own convictions."

---

---

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 
A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun". 

What am I missing here? (And I'm reaching that point where I don't really care. 
I started this Topic with"
GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post. 

So maybe you want to actually read THAT and argue THAT point? 

Or not. I just felt it was another way of looking at something we have long talked about. 

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 

A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun".


Holy shit Wonky. Yes it's ironic that SOME pro gun people were threatened by  SOME who were anti gun.

But that in no freaking way means the PRO gun people are not any of the "dangerous ones.
It simply means that SOME anti gun people may be violent.. NOT that pro gun people CAN'T EVER be violent

OK so NOW look at this and tell me THIS makes such a valid point.......

"Hugo....It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."

[Wonky3]

Killing the people who kill people?

Wonky:  More like threatening to KILL people who have NEVER killed anyone, just because they believe in the 2nd amendment?  And TV....  I never, for fucks sake, said EVERYONE against guns does this.  You twist and roll and imply SO much that simply is not in my post.

You   said......It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.

How does that NOT imply that the "dangerous ones" are the OTHER ones who are not comfortable with guns?

I'm not twisting anything. Or not trying too anyway

Here we go again. 

Hugo posted (in post #10) about a woman who is "pro-gun" getting slammed by people who are "anti-gun" and more than just slammed, threatened with violence. See below: 
 

---

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch said Sunday she was preparing to move from her home "due to repeated threats from gun control advocates."
In a series of tweets, Loesch explained some of the threats she has recently experienced.

"One guy hunted down my private cellphone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard," Loesch wrote.

In another post, Loesch said someone posted photos of her house, and "threatened to rape me to death."

The threats haven't just targeted Loesch, but have also focused on her children.


"I’m grateful that my kids’ school worked with law enforcement and private security to ensure campus safety, and work with me," she wrote.
Loesch said she's only discussed these threats "kinda vaguely," and noted there were others she "can’t discuss."


"I and other 2A women are sexually threatened regularly," she wrote, referring to women who support the Second Amendment.



To wrap up her posts, Loesch wrote, "Maybe now you understand why I believe all women have the right to defend themselves with 2A and expand their skills w training."

She recently slammed "Saturday Night Live" actors who made fun of gun owners in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, saying during an appearance on "FOX & Friends," they "lack the courage of their own convictions."
Loesch said the anti-Second Amendment jokes are told by celebrities who often have armed security guards to protect them.
"Why don't you give up the firearms that your private security is holding?" she said. "You're not being more virtuous just because you're paying someone else to carry it. You're outsourcing it because you lack the courage of your own convictions."

---

---

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 
A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun". 

What am I missing here? (And I'm reaching that point where I don't really care. 
I started this Topic with"
GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post. 

So maybe you want to actually read THAT and argue THAT point? 

Or not. I just felt it was another way of looking at something we have long talked about. 

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 

A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun".


Holy shit Wonky. Yes it's ironic that SOME pro gun people were threatened by  SOME who were anti gun.

But that in no freaking way means the PRO gun people are not any of the "dangerous ones.
It simply means that SOME anti gun people may be violent.. NOT that pro gun people CAN'T EVER be violent

OK so NOW look at this and tell me THIS makes such a valid point.......

"Hugo....It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."

Yes, well as usual it's about context.
Look again at the thing Hugo posted.
In THAT context, he has a point. Maybe to be perfectly clear, it should say, "...with guns aren't the ONLY dangerous ones. The point remains: There are some nut jobs who are anti-gun who ARE dangerous. OF COURSE we know there are gun owners who are dangerous. We ASSUME as much. We also know there are millions of gun owners who pose no threat to others. 

But I'm really tired of arguing over all these fine points. Let's just assume from now on you are right, I'm either not clear or dead wrong. My ego can deal with it.

[tvguy]

Wonky:  More like threatening to KILL people who have NEVER killed anyone, just because they believe in the 2nd amendment?  And TV....  I never, for fucks sake, said EVERYONE against guns does this.  You twist and roll and imply SO much that simply is not in my post.

You   said......It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.

How does that NOT imply that the "dangerous ones" are the OTHER ones who are not comfortable with guns?

I'm not twisting anything. Or not trying too anyway

Here we go again. 

Hugo posted (in post #10) about a woman who is "pro-gun" getting slammed by people who are "anti-gun" and more than just slammed, threatened with violence. See below: 
 

---

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch said Sunday she was preparing to move from her home "due to repeated threats from gun control advocates."
In a series of tweets, Loesch explained some of the threats she has recently experienced.

"One guy hunted down my private cellphone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard," Loesch wrote.

In another post, Loesch said someone posted photos of her house, and "threatened to rape me to death."

The threats haven't just targeted Loesch, but have also focused on her children.


"I’m grateful that my kids’ school worked with law enforcement and private security to ensure campus safety, and work with me," she wrote.
Loesch said she's only discussed these threats "kinda vaguely," and noted there were others she "can’t discuss."


"I and other 2A women are sexually threatened regularly," she wrote, referring to women who support the Second Amendment.



To wrap up her posts, Loesch wrote, "Maybe now you understand why I believe all women have the right to defend themselves with 2A and expand their skills w training."

She recently slammed "Saturday Night Live" actors who made fun of gun owners in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, saying during an appearance on "FOX & Friends," they "lack the courage of their own convictions."
Loesch said the anti-Second Amendment jokes are told by celebrities who often have armed security guards to protect them.
"Why don't you give up the firearms that your private security is holding?" she said. "You're not being more virtuous just because you're paying someone else to carry it. You're outsourcing it because you lack the courage of your own convictions."

---

---

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 
A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun". 

What am I missing here? (And I'm reaching that point where I don't really care. 
I started this Topic with"
GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post. 

So maybe you want to actually read THAT and argue THAT point? 

Or not. I just felt it was another way of looking at something we have long talked about. 

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 

A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun".


Holy shit Wonky. Yes it's ironic that SOME pro gun people were threatened by  SOME who were anti gun.

But that in no freaking way means the PRO gun people are not any of the "dangerous ones.
It simply means that SOME anti gun people may be violent.. NOT that pro gun people CAN'T EVER be violent

OK so NOW look at this and tell me THIS makes such a valid point.......

"Hugo....It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."

Yes, well as usual it's about context.
Look again at the thing Hugo posted.
In THAT context, he has a point. Maybe to perfectly clear, it should say, "...with guns aren't the ONLY dangerous ones. The point remains: There are some nut jobs who are anti-gun who ARE dangerous. OF COURSE we know there are gun owners who are dangerous. We ASSUME as much. We also know there are millions of gun owners who pose no threat to others. 

But I'm really tired of arguing over all these fine points. Let's just assume from now on you are right, I'm either not clear or dead wrong. My ego can deal with it.

You are doing the straw man thing again. You want to argue about whether Hugo had a "point" or not.

  He implies that gun owners are not the dangerous ones.

If you agree with that then so be it. I have explained this every possible way known to man.THAT is the point I'M making!!!   If you want to argue about something else leave me out of it.

If you actually believe that gun owners are never a threat and that anti gun owners are the real threat based on threats received by an NRA spokes person go for it.
What percent of ALL anti gun people do you think are making these violent threats? One millionth of one percent?

And how does anyone know these threats are from pro NRA people in an effort to make the anti gun people look bad? Either way if it's real it's a minuscule amount of people threatening violence

And to take that and conclude that "people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."  is moronic.

[Hugo]

You   said......It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.

How does that NOT imply that the "dangerous ones" are the OTHER ones who are not comfortable with guns?

I'm not twisting anything. Or not trying too anyway

Here we go again. 

Hugo posted (in post #10) about a woman who is "pro-gun" getting slammed by people who are "anti-gun" and more than just slammed, threatened with violence. See below: 
 

---

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch said Sunday she was preparing to move from her home "due to repeated threats from gun control advocates."
In a series of tweets, Loesch explained some of the threats she has recently experienced.

"One guy hunted down my private cellphone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard," Loesch wrote.

In another post, Loesch said someone posted photos of her house, and "threatened to rape me to death."

The threats haven't just targeted Loesch, but have also focused on her children.


"I’m grateful that my kids’ school worked with law enforcement and private security to ensure campus safety, and work with me," she wrote.
Loesch said she's only discussed these threats "kinda vaguely," and noted there were others she "can’t discuss."


"I and other 2A women are sexually threatened regularly," she wrote, referring to women who support the Second Amendment.



To wrap up her posts, Loesch wrote, "Maybe now you understand why I believe all women have the right to defend themselves with 2A and expand their skills w training."

She recently slammed "Saturday Night Live" actors who made fun of gun owners in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, saying during an appearance on "FOX & Friends," they "lack the courage of their own convictions."
Loesch said the anti-Second Amendment jokes are told by celebrities who often have armed security guards to protect them.
"Why don't you give up the firearms that your private security is holding?" she said. "You're not being more virtuous just because you're paying someone else to carry it. You're outsourcing it because you lack the courage of your own convictions."

---

---

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 
A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun". 

What am I missing here? (And I'm reaching that point where I don't really care. 
I started this Topic with"
GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post. 

So maybe you want to actually read THAT and argue THAT point? 

Or not. I just felt it was another way of looking at something we have long talked about. 

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 

A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun".


Holy shit Wonky. Yes it's ironic that SOME pro gun people were threatened by  SOME who were anti gun.

But that in no freaking way means the PRO gun people are not any of the "dangerous ones.
It simply means that SOME anti gun people may be violent.. NOT that pro gun people CAN'T EVER be violent

OK so NOW look at this and tell me THIS makes such a valid point.......

"Hugo....It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."

Yes, well as usual it's about context.
Look again at the thing Hugo posted.
In THAT context, he has a point. Maybe to perfectly clear, it should say, "...with guns aren't the ONLY dangerous ones. The point remains: There are some nut jobs who are anti-gun who ARE dangerous. OF COURSE we know there are gun owners who are dangerous. We ASSUME as much. We also know there are millions of gun owners who pose no threat to others. 

But I'm really tired of arguing over all these fine points. Let's just assume from now on you are right, I'm either not clear or dead wrong. My ego can deal with it.

You are doing the straw man thing again. You want to argue about whether Hugo had a "point" or not.

  He implies that gun owners are not the dangerous ones.

If you agree with that then so be it. I have explained this every possible way known to man.THAT is the point I'M making!!!   If you want to argue about something else leave me out of it.

If you actually believe that gun owners are never a threat and that anti gun owners are the real threat based on threats received by an NRA spokes person go for it.
What percent of ALL anti gun people do you think are making these violent threats? One millionth of one percent?

And how does anyone know these threats are from pro NRA people in an effort to make the anti gun people look bad? Either way if it's real it's a minuscule amount of people threatening violence

And to take that and conclude that "people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."  is moronic.

You PROFESSIONALLY make mountains out of mole hills.

[Wonky3]

Here we go again. 

Hugo posted (in post #10) about a woman who is "pro-gun" getting slammed by people who are "anti-gun" and more than just slammed, threatened with violence. See below: 
 

---

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch said Sunday she was preparing to move from her home "due to repeated threats from gun control advocates."
In a series of tweets, Loesch explained some of the threats she has recently experienced.

"One guy hunted down my private cellphone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard," Loesch wrote.

In another post, Loesch said someone posted photos of her house, and "threatened to rape me to death."

The threats haven't just targeted Loesch, but have also focused on her children.


"I’m grateful that my kids’ school worked with law enforcement and private security to ensure campus safety, and work with me," she wrote.
Loesch said she's only discussed these threats "kinda vaguely," and noted there were others she "can’t discuss."


"I and other 2A women are sexually threatened regularly," she wrote, referring to women who support the Second Amendment.



To wrap up her posts, Loesch wrote, "Maybe now you understand why I believe all women have the right to defend themselves with 2A and expand their skills w training."

She recently slammed "Saturday Night Live" actors who made fun of gun owners in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, saying during an appearance on "FOX & Friends," they "lack the courage of their own convictions."
Loesch said the anti-Second Amendment jokes are told by celebrities who often have armed security guards to protect them.
"Why don't you give up the firearms that your private security is holding?" she said. "You're not being more virtuous just because you're paying someone else to carry it. You're outsourcing it because you lack the courage of your own convictions."

---

---

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 
A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun". 

What am I missing here? (And I'm reaching that point where I don't really care. 
I started this Topic with"
GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post. 

So maybe you want to actually read THAT and argue THAT point? 

Or not. I just felt it was another way of looking at something we have long talked about. 

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 

A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun".


Holy shit Wonky. Yes it's ironic that SOME pro gun people were threatened by  SOME who were anti gun.

But that in no freaking way means the PRO gun people are not any of the "dangerous ones.
It simply means that SOME anti gun people may be violent.. NOT that pro gun people CAN'T EVER be violent

OK so NOW look at this and tell me THIS makes such a valid point.......

"Hugo....It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."

Yes, well as usual it's about context.
Look again at the thing Hugo posted.
In THAT context, he has a point. Maybe to perfectly clear, it should say, "...with guns aren't the ONLY dangerous ones. The point remains: There are some nut jobs who are anti-gun who ARE dangerous. OF COURSE we know there are gun owners who are dangerous. We ASSUME as much. We also know there are millions of gun owners who pose no threat to others. 

But I'm really tired of arguing over all these fine points. Let's just assume from now on you are right, I'm either not clear or dead wrong. My ego can deal with it.

You are doing the straw man thing again. You want to argue about whether Hugo had a "point" or not.

  He implies that gun owners are not the dangerous ones.

If you agree with that then so be it. I have explained this every possible way known to man.THAT is the point I'M making!!!   If you want to argue about something else leave me out of it.

If you actually believe that gun owners are never a threat and that anti gun owners are the real threat based on threats received by an NRA spokes person go for it.
What percent of ALL anti gun people do you think are making these violent threats? One millionth of one percent?

And how does anyone know these threats are from pro NRA people in an effort to make the anti gun people look bad? Either way if it's real it's a minuscule amount of people threatening violence

And to take that and conclude that "people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."  is moronic.

You PROFESSIONALLY make mountains out of mole hills.

Don't we all? This is so much harder than face to face kind of stuff. 
For instance...and I REALLY mean for instance...as an example: Your sentence above in BOLD does "suggest" that folks who own guns and are comfortable with them are not dangerous. We know that simply is not true. I get what you are saying, but taken literarily it just is not accurate. 
Or is it? 
Maybe I missed something you intended. 
Feel free to set me straight.

[tvguy]

Here we go again. 

Hugo posted (in post #10) about a woman who is "pro-gun" getting slammed by people who are "anti-gun" and more than just slammed, threatened with violence. See below: 
 

---

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch said Sunday she was preparing to move from her home "due to repeated threats from gun control advocates."
In a series of tweets, Loesch explained some of the threats she has recently experienced.

"One guy hunted down my private cellphone number, called when police were here, threatened to shoot me in my front yard," Loesch wrote.

In another post, Loesch said someone posted photos of her house, and "threatened to rape me to death."

The threats haven't just targeted Loesch, but have also focused on her children.


"I’m grateful that my kids’ school worked with law enforcement and private security to ensure campus safety, and work with me," she wrote.
Loesch said she's only discussed these threats "kinda vaguely," and noted there were others she "can’t discuss."


"I and other 2A women are sexually threatened regularly," she wrote, referring to women who support the Second Amendment.



To wrap up her posts, Loesch wrote, "Maybe now you understand why I believe all women have the right to defend themselves with 2A and expand their skills w training."

She recently slammed "Saturday Night Live" actors who made fun of gun owners in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, saying during an appearance on "FOX & Friends," they "lack the courage of their own convictions."
Loesch said the anti-Second Amendment jokes are told by celebrities who often have armed security guards to protect them.
"Why don't you give up the firearms that your private security is holding?" she said. "You're not being more virtuous just because you're paying someone else to carry it. You're outsourcing it because you lack the courage of your own convictions."

---

---

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 
A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun". 

What am I missing here? (And I'm reaching that point where I don't really care. 
I started this Topic with"
GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post. 

So maybe you want to actually read THAT and argue THAT point? 

Or not. I just felt it was another way of looking at something we have long talked about. 

So again, I think Hugo has a point. 

A woman who is "pro-gun" is threatened by some who are "anti-gun".


Holy shit Wonky. Yes it's ironic that SOME pro gun people were threatened by  SOME who were anti gun.

But that in no freaking way means the PRO gun people are not any of the "dangerous ones.
It simply means that SOME anti gun people may be violent.. NOT that pro gun people CAN'T EVER be violent

OK so NOW look at this and tell me THIS makes such a valid point.......

"Hugo....It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."

Yes, well as usual it's about context.
Look again at the thing Hugo posted.
In THAT context, he has a point. Maybe to perfectly clear, it should say, "...with guns aren't the ONLY dangerous ones. The point remains: There are some nut jobs who are anti-gun who ARE dangerous. OF COURSE we know there are gun owners who are dangerous. We ASSUME as much. We also know there are millions of gun owners who pose no threat to others. 

But I'm really tired of arguing over all these fine points. Let's just assume from now on you are right, I'm either not clear or dead wrong. My ego can deal with it.

You are doing the straw man thing again. You want to argue about whether Hugo had a "point" or not.

  He implies that gun owners are not the dangerous ones.

If you agree with that then so be it. I have explained this every possible way known to man.THAT is the point I'M making!!!   If you want to argue about something else leave me out of it.

If you actually believe that gun owners are never a threat and that anti gun owners are the real threat based on threats received by an NRA spokes person go for it.
What percent of ALL anti gun people do you think are making these violent threats? One millionth of one percent?

And how does anyone know these threats are from pro NRA people in an effort to make the anti gun people look bad? Either way if it's real it's a minuscule amount of people threatening violence

And to take that and conclude that "people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones."  is moronic.

You PROFESSIONALLY make mountains out of mole hills.

Bullshit. I had a problem with ONE comment you made. I still do. I explained why CLEARLY . And you know damn well what I meant but you don't have the balls to be honest and even try and see or admit my point.

Hell I'm pro gun.. But even so when you make a comment so ridiculous I feel like I have to point it out.

[tvguy]

Wonky.......as an example: Your sentence above in BOLD does "suggest" that folks who own guns and are comfortable with them are not dangerous. We know that simply is not true. I get what you are saying, but taken literarily it just is not accurate.


YOU GOT IT!!!!!   HALLELUIA HALLELUJAH HALLELUJAH!!!

[GPnative]

Wonky.......as an example: Your sentence above in BOLD does "suggest" that folks who own guns and are comfortable with them are not dangerous. We know that simply is not true. I get what you are saying, but taken literarily it just is not accurate.


YOU GOT IT!!!!!   HALLELUIA HALLELUJAH HALLELUJAH!!!

second round of applause in one day!

[Wonky3]

Wonky.......as an example: Your sentence above in BOLD does "suggest" that folks who own guns and are comfortable with them are not dangerous. We know that simply is not true. I get what you are saying, but taken literarily it just is not accurate.


YOU GOT IT!!!!!   HALLELUIA HALLELUJAH HALLELUJAH!!!

second round of applause in one day!

Read it AGAIN. I said, clearly, "but we know that's not true".

[Cuzz]

Here's a gun owner that I think would be considered a dangerous one.

SC father gave toddler son a loaded gun to chase a man. Now he’s charged with murder.


http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime...50856.html

[tvguy]

Wonky.......as an example: Your sentence above in BOLD does "suggest" that folks who own guns and are comfortable with them are not dangerous. We know that simply is not true. I get what you are saying, but taken literarily it just is not accurate.


YOU GOT IT!!!!!   HALLELUIA HALLELUJAH HALLELUJAH!!!

second round of applause in one day!

Read it AGAIN. I said, clearly, "but we know that's not true".

Wonky....Your sentence above in BOLD does "suggest" that folks who own guns and are comfortable with them are not dangerous. We know that simply is not true.

Read it again??

How else can I interpret what you just said...... you said said it's NOT TRUE that people who are comfortable with guns are the the dangerous ones.

That's all I've been trying to say the entire time.. You FINALLY agree and now you don't get it AGAIN???

[tvguy]

I'm pretty damn sure the guy who shot over 500 people and killed 58

Was "comfortable with guns" 

So to say otherwise is absurd. I have no clue how what I'm saying is such a fucking mystery.

[chuck white]

I like the notion that guns kill people. That way I don't feel so guilty.

Bad gun... No supper for you.

[Wonky3]

I'm pretty damn sure the guy who shot over 500 people and killed 58

Was "comfortable with guns" 

So to say otherwise is absurd. I have no clue how what I'm saying is such a fucking mystery.

Enough!