That is not at all what I said. Why don't you admit you and the dem party only care about trying to save live that score political points rather than doing things that could save multiple times more lives? There is a finite set of time and resources. If you really care about saving lives, you would focus the time and resources where it would save the most lives instead of where it produces the most political advantage would you not?
OT: Uvalde
- Thread starter Willence
- Start date
interesting take. are you saying we should stop cancer? or maybe we should regulate what gives you heart disease?
at least we agree you don't care about children. that clears things up for the next time a kid wipes out a school. you're in the 'couldnt have been prevented' camp
If I though we could stop cancer and heart disease, then yes. Again, you are just completely making ish up. I care about kids MORE than you do. I would like to do things to save more kids lives than what you/dems would like to do. me want to save more kids = me care more/ you want less kids to live = you care less.
At least we agree I care more about saving kids lives than you do.
there's likely no chance a ban on handguns will ever pass, but compromising and banning the leading weapon used in mass shootings and school shootings is a step in the right direction. your argument is flawed because you're working under the assumption that dems, or rather those who support stricter gun legislation which has support from those on the right as well, don't also want to address all causes of gun violence. i don't speak for everyone, but i would prefer to eventually ban everything that isn't a revolver, bolt or lever action rifle, and double barreled shotgun. this will never happen in my lifetime, so i'm fine compromising and focusing on the weapon that is the leading weapon of choice for mass murderers and school shootings.
Just so you can put your argument in perspective, in your best case scenario how many lives will be saved per year from the reduction in mass shootings/school shootings? Let's back up your arguments with some relevant numbers/goals.
if it saves just 1 life it's worth it to me. if it's 1 or 1000 i'm happy and the juice will be worth the squeeze imo.
nice deflection! There are literally millions of things we can do to save at least one life - like banning vending machines. Should we focus our attention on those or things that would save multiple more times the number of lives?
it's not a deflection. you asked for numbers and i gave you what would satisfy me. i don't care to dig in to how many lives are taken each year in school shootings and mass shootings via rifle because that number is >1 and TO ME that is unacceptable.
and wrt to vending machines, no, because people aren't using vending machines to kill other people.
So you only value lives taken intentionally and not accidental deaths? I am sure that is comforting to all the families who have children die in accidental deaths.
as much fun as it is having a conversation with someone who insists on being disingenuous, i'm gonna bow out.
I am not being disingenuous, but pointing out how asinine your stance is. There is nothing wrong with wanting to save lives, even just one. What is wrong is devoting massive amounts of time and $$$ to save one life when those resources of time, $$$ and effort could be used to save so many MORE lives.
yeah but you don't seem to understand - you start with assault rifles and more stringent requirements for purchasing guns, and then you can work towards other things (like handguns) which will help save even more lives. you don't have to get the whole pie in one fell swoop, you can attack it in pieces.
you're failing to see the big picture or 5 moves in the future.
I am not failing to see anything. Like you stated in a your other post, banning handguns is never going to happen, it's unconstitutional.
Actually, it's not. There are over 100 yrs of handguns being legal as precedent to tell you you are wrong.
Thank god the removed the children screaming, such cowardice though at the beginning
turns out that is a lie told by conservatives that isnt actually true, but they believe because it's been posted on facebook enough times.
20 cops standing around afraid to go in and the shooter taunting them to do something after they've been standing around for 45minutes.
i mean this should pretty much dispel the notion that having armed security guards will help prevent these shootings. if 20 cops (some of which armed with rifles and in ballistic gear) were afraid to do anything about a single shooter with a long rifle then what's one or two low paying security guards going to do in this situation?
