Since I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, I would appreciate some suggestions in responding to someone who quoted Paul Waldman (?): "we should really ask every other country on earth how they all eliminated mental illness, since that is the source of all gun massacres."

 

He is being sarcastic because I stated that mental illness is often the issue and I would appreciate the gov addressing that before they attack my Const. Rights.

 

Thanks guys.

Since I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, I would appreciate some suggestions in responding to someone who quoted Paul Waldman (?): "we should really ask every other country on earth how they all eliminated mental illness, since that is the source of all gun massacres."

 

He is being sarcastic because I stated that mental illness is often the issue and I would appreciate the gov addressing that before they attack my Const. Rights.

 

Thanks guys.

My guess is they got rid of all the liberals.

Lol.

I just read a NY Times article where this Oregon assholes mother said he suffered from Aspergers...same thing Adam Lanz suffered from. I am sure it is more involved than Aspergers, but worth noting.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

 

I read that today which really opened my eyes to violence outside of our borders and put our violence per capita in perspective.

Lol.

I just read a NY Times article where this Oregon assholes mother said he suffered from Aspergers...same thing Adam Lanz suffered from. I am sure it is more involved than Aspergers, but worth noting.

Well if the mother knew, someone should be knocking on her door with a battering ram .

Since I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, I would appreciate some suggestions in responding to someone who quoted Paul Waldman (?): "we should really ask every other country on earth how they all eliminated mental illness, since that is the source of all gun massacres."

 

He is being sarcastic because I stated that mental illness is often the issue and I would appreciate the gov addressing that before they attack my Const. Rights.

 

Thanks guys.

Your sharper than most brother.... You weren't sure how to respond but you didn't talk out of your ass ....

Thats pretty sharp to me

They do not understand that the narrative doesn't change based on the inanimate object used:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

Thanks guys. I hit him with the link from MidwestPX and that seemed to silence him.

Nice !

Try a bitch slap, that should fix it.

Lol.

I just read a NY Times article where this Oregon assholes mother said he suffered from Aspergers...same thing Adam Lanz suffered from. I am sure it is more involved than Aspergers, but worth noting.

aspergers doesn't make one violent. i've known people with it. they're quiet and keep to themselves. but they don't hurt people.

aspergers doesn't make one violent. i've known people with it. they're quiet and keep to themselves. but they don't hurt people.

True in my experience. That said, what meds was he on? That would be a huge issue to me.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html

 

And speaking to violence in other countries:

aspergers doesn't make one violent. i've known people with it. they're quiet and keep to themselves. but they don't hurt people.

There are cops with aspergers.

Excellent link, MidwestPX.

 

Topher, great video! Even though I've seen it before, it's a good reminder. Does anyone else have trouble pulling up the right stats when arguing with libs?

Real good video....thanks for sharing

Never try to sway a liberal to the truth.  It wastes your time and annoys the liberal.

You cannot argue with a liberal like maintenanceguy said.

 

I am having the same argument with two people in LE after last weeks Oregon school shooting. One, thinks no civilians should have any firearms at all (that comment really pissed me off) and that no civilians should have "high-capacity" mags or access to "assault rifles". His snarky comment was I have a better chance of shooting myself in my home, then me ever stopping someone from breaking in. I shot back with, "why do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?". He then called me a "paranoid gun-nut". I came back at him with FBI.gov statistics and he asks me if it is alright for civilians to have access to rocket launchers and tanks? Doh! The other LEO doesn't think civilians should be completely disarmed, but that there should be limitations put on people as to what they can have as citizens. Isn't this great? Two LEOs sworn to uphold the Constitution and I am debating with them about our Rights.

 

I also quoted the "shall not be infringed" and he responded with "remind me what well-regulated state militia you belong to."  He asked me "why do I need an "assault rifle" specifically designed to kill people? You should be restricted from owning a weapon whose sole purpose is mass murder."  I responded, with "I am a law-abiding citizen and I want one I can have one". His response, "What a childish answer, 'because I wanna'". How do you argue with that way of thinking?

 

A third LEO jumped into the debate and said we should bring back the assault weapons ban of 1994; that it was Bush's fault for not renewing it. After that ridiculous comment I walked away.....

Ben Carson said it was not a gun that caused the problem, it was evil. He is correct.

You cannot argue with a liberal like maintenanceguy said.

 

I am having the same argument with two people in LE after last weeks Oregon school shooting. One, thinks no civilians should have any firearms at all (that comment really pissed me off) and that no civilians should have "high-capacity" mags or access to "assault rifles". His snarky comment was I have a better chance of shooting myself in my home, then me ever stopping someone from breaking in. I shot back with, "why do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?". He then called me a "paranoid gun-nut". I came back at him with FBI.gov statistics and he asks me if it is alright for civilians to have access to rocket launchers and tanks? Doh! The other LEO doesn't think civilians should be completely disarmed, but that there should be limitations put on people as to what they can have as citizens. Isn't this great? Two LEOs sworn to uphold the Constitution and I am debating with them at work about our Rights.

 

A third LEO jumped into the debate and said we should bring back the assault weapons ban of 1994; that it was Bush's fault for not renewing it. After that ridiculous comment I walked away.....

You live in Jersey and your cops are not typical on average. Don't let them make you bitter, and don't believe the cops on TV, because those are not cops but really appointed chiefs, superintendents, and union bosses. Political appointees, all, and liberal politicians.

 

Here is what cops think when you are not stuck in the echo chamber of the Garbage State or your TV:

 

http://police-praetorian.netdna-ssl.com/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

mipafox-

 

They are not all bad. I was not bashing them; they are entitled to their opinions. I just find them very hypocritical with the "they can have it, but you cannot mentality".  In fact there are many I work with that think the same way as many of us do here. I have gotten many great ideas from them.

You cannot argue with a liberal like maintenanceguy said.

 

I am having the same argument with two people in LE after last weeks Oregon school shooting. One, thinks no civilians should have any firearms at all (that comment really pissed me off) and that no civilians should have "high-capacity" mags or access to "assault rifles". His snarky comment was I have a better chance of shooting myself in my home, then me ever stopping someone from breaking in. I shot back with, "why do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?". He then called me a "paranoid gun-nut". I came back at him with FBI.gov statistics and he asks me if it is alright for civilians to have access to rocket launchers and tanks? Doh! The other LEO doesn't think civilians should be completely disarmed, but that there should be limitations put on people as to what they can have as citizens. Isn't this great? Two LEOs sworn to uphold the Constitution and I am debating with them about our Rights.

 

I also quoted the "shall not be infringed" and he responded with "remind me what well-regulated state militia you belong to."  He asked me "why do I need an "assault rifle" specifically designed to kill people? You should be restricted from owning a weapon whose sole purpose is mass murder."  I responded, with "I am a law-abiding citizen and I want one I can have one". His response, "What a childish answer, 'because I wanna'". How do you argue with that way of thinking?

 

A third LEO jumped into the debate and said we should bring back the assault weapons ban of 1994; that it was Bush's fault for not renewing it. After that ridiculous comment I walked away.....

 

When your friendly LEO tells you that "assault rifles" are specifically designed to kill people (or as it's sometimes expressed, "to kill as many people as fast as possible"), ask him why police use them.  And when they call for another AWB, ask them about how successful the last one was in reducing

gun violence.  The answer is that it had exactly zero affect.  And you can also remind him that in a free society, you don't have to demonstrate a "need" to own something.  

mipafox-

 

They are not all bad. I was not bashing them; they are entitled to their opinions. I just find them very hypocritical with the "they can have it, but you cannot mentality".  In fact there are many I work with that think the same way as many of us do here. I have gotten many great ideas from them.

They are certainly not all bad. I didn't even suggest any of them were "bad."

 

I said they are not typical on average. If you think they, on average, are typical of cops around the country, I would disagree. It's Jersey.

 

Check the link I posted above for what cops think.

Old Glock Guy-

 

I said those things to both of them. I was told "civilians should not have access to weapons that can kill cops or mass killings of school children". 

 

I was then asked if I should have access to plutonium to make a nuke? For real......

 

I mentioned how well drug laws are working. Nothing. "I cannot compare drug laws to weapons designed to kill large masses of people".

Matter of fact, share the link with them.

mipafox-

 

I just did with one of them. thanks.

 

*Edit*

 

He responded. His argument with the survey is most of the responses are by small (less than 100 depts) and that the numbers may be squewered against LEOs with larger depts.(more violent crimes).

I tell them they better pray for their families who dont have a firearm for protection because the police take 4 to 10+ minutes to respond and God can only do so much.

You cannot argue with a liberal like maintenanceguy said.

 

I am having the same argument with two people in LE after last weeks Oregon school shooting. One, thinks no civilians should have any firearms at all (that comment really pissed me off) and that no civilians should have "high-capacity" mags or access to "assault rifles". His snarky comment was I have a better chance of shooting myself in my home, then me ever stopping someone from breaking in. I shot back with, "why do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?". He then called me a "paranoid gun-nut". I came back at him with FBI.gov statistics and he asks me if it is alright for civilians to have access to rocket launchers and tanks? Doh! The other LEO doesn't think civilians should be completely disarmed, but that there should be limitations put on people as to what they can have as citizens. Isn't this great? Two LEOs sworn to uphold the Constitution and I am debating with them about our Rights.

 

I also quoted the "shall not be infringed" and he responded with "remind me what well-regulated state militia you belong to." He asked me "why do I need an "assault rifle" specifically designed to kill people? You should be restricted from owning a weapon whose sole purpose is mass murder." I responded, with "I am a law-abiding citizen and I want one I can have one". His response, "What a childish answer, 'because I wanna'". How do you argue with that way of thinking?

 

A third LEO jumped into the debate and said we should bring back the assault weapons ban of 1994; that it was Bush's fault for not renewing it. After that ridiculous comment I walked away.....

Mabey they should reread that oath they took awhile ago. It seems that they did not understand it.

I also like this article from Hotair:

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers-and-actual-solutions/

Since I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, I would appreciate some suggestions in responding to someone who quoted Paul Waldman (?): "we should really ask every other country on earth how they all eliminated mental illness, since that is the source of all gun massacres."

 

He is being sarcastic because I stated that mental illness is often the issue and I would appreciate the gov addressing that before they attack my Const. Rights.

 

Thanks guys.

 

Tblant, thought you might enjoy this article which specifically addresses your friend's sarcastic comment:

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-07.html#read_more