And perhaps it would be smarter to choose to link to someone more intelligent?

Their statistics are really really bad. I mean, a 4th grader could rip through their little austrailia "debunking".... they cherry-pick the best stats they can get from other states in the USA (note they just "counts the population in America’s most pro-gun states up to Australian population count"... and then compares the homicide rate per 100,000.... the entire point of comparing a rate (per 100,000) is to allow one to compare homicides of two groups with different population sizes. The only reason I can see for them to add in states until they get the australia's population is likely to be able to add in states with lower homicide rates to their stats. It stinks of cherry picking data. They could have just chosen one state and done the same comparison. But, even with their cherry picked data, they get a difference of 1.6 to 1. And they then call that "negligible". 60% more is wayyy the hell away from negligible. The actual difference is 240 to 384...

Her #2 point is similarly ridiculous. "other things can kill people... so there's no reason to ban these things that can kill people".

Pretty much every human being on the planet can kill a person. So we probably shouldn't bother jailing murderers... why bother? The dude next to you could kill you too... so there really isn't any value in getting other murderers off the street....

Her #1 point is the only one I agree with. She states "As the right to bear arms must be maintained with the ability to resist government, military grade weapons cannot be peremptorily kept out of the hands of individuals as it is violative of their fundamental rights."... I really do look forward to the day that everyone's neighbor has access to military grade weaponry, hardware, biological and nuclear included. That will truly be an exciting time to live in. She does a very interesting job of coming to that conclusion however. The same rationale she uses is what many here have accused the left of using "activist judges" regarding abortion. But I have no problem with her rationale.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it....?

You may say you're not a noob. But you posted your thread in the wrong forum... therefore you are a noob.

You have no problem with her using bad statistics and cherry picked data because you believe "libs do it on a daily basis"... yeah. Smart move... lower your arguments to the lowest intellectual level you believe your opponents are using.... sh%t like that makes me convinced we will never get better as a society.

I'm pretty sure banning the most common weapons to kill people is just stupid. I'm going to guess there is a second reason the law wants to ban weapons such as assault rifles... when someone kills a person with a knife, it's pretty damn easy for the police, using hand guns, to arrest that person. When someone kills a person with an assault rifle, it becomes more risky for police to apprehend the suspect. But that's not really my problem. I don't want to ban anything.. I just am pointing out her dumb argument.

Who says we won't be able to get all military weapons? She said, and I quote: "As the right to bear arms must be maintained with the ability to resist government, military grade weapons cannot be peremptorily kept out of the hands of individuals as it is violative of their fundamental rights.". I literally support that 100%. I don't care if your neighbor wants an assault rifle, or a canister of weaponized smallpox... I have no problem with them owning it. Do you? If you want a musket too, that's fine, I don't really care. But the instant you tell your neighbor they can't have a nuke you've started restricting the 2nd amendment.

Internet tough guy? Where have I done any threatening? If you think that's threatening maybe you're a bit of a snowflake....

Slinging insults? I thought you weren't a noob? I just pointed out your lack of reading comprehension. If you think that's insulting, get better at reading and understanding what you read.

Then after whining that you're being insulted by an "internet toughguy" (god that's funny)... you say I'm wearing panties, and that they're bunched. So you're upset because you were insuted by someone you believe wears panties?.... dude... you really are a snowflake. First rule in cbid noob, wear a thick coat.

Second rule in cbid, noob... political discussion goes in the Politics tab.

Heh.... why would you assume I'm a "libtard"? Is it because I dislike poor logical arguments? Does that imply that anyone who isn't a "libtard" agrees with poorly constructed arguments?

And reread my statement.. I didn't get mad at all that you think I wear panties. Don't really care... it amuses me that you are doing a really poor job of making any sort of sense in an argument with someone you apparently believe is a crossdresser or a woman.

If you truly thought "It's not a political discussion to me, "

Then you wouldn't resort to a statement like "libtard" when arguing with me.

Now thatt we've established you'll openly lie in your discussions, and that you have no problem with cherry picked statistics because you believe the "other side" is doing it too...

Should anyone trust anything you say?

You brought the politics in with the term snowflake....which is used in political discussions, so what your telling me is this couldn't be a general discussion about guns...maybe that's the problem. Everyone wants to bring politics in everything. I'm not a political person hence the general discussion. As far as trust you trust what you want and I will do the Same. The people that know me trust me so I could care less if you do or not

:D

I've never been good at arguing...now insults...sh1t talking yes....arguing not so much.

I'm still trying to figure out how I'm an "internet tough guy" who wears panties....

sigh.... noobs these days. So sensitive...

Makes me laugh that this crop of snowflakes thinks disagreeing with sh$t-poor logical arguments is the equivalent to being an "internet tough guy"...

They must be millennials.

This old fart is just laughing at you. You're willing to lie, to accept statistics you know are bad, simply because they support your stance, and call someone an "internet tough guy" for pointing out your use of a terrible, poorly written and poorly thought out article to reference for a link titled "someone who gets it"...

Maybe if your idea of "someone who gets it" were a smarter person, you wouldn't get mocked?