At 11/7/17 02:34 AM, EdyKel wrote: more exciting to believe in those things than what the news brings you. .....and you slam religions for their hard to believe stories. *rollseyes.

Do I?
Am I?
Sure man. Whatever. If petty meaningless e-penis extending victories over the Internet is what floats your boat then fine whatever. Tell yourself whatever you need to.
I just believe every damn conspiracy going. Sure, why not. If that gets you off, belittling others for sake of your own ego. I'm not gonna argue. Contrary to what you say, I'm never pissed off in these needless arguments. Just completely annoyed I have to waste valuable time repeating myself over and over and over and over again because some people overreact and jump to their own conclusions. Instead of keeping an open mind or contributing to the discussion.
Nevermind that I've explicitly said from the start that I was literally just sharing that link for awareness purposes, in response to your apparently rhetorical question.
Sorry for knowing that such things exist. Apparently just being aware of their existence means I support them? Even though I include full disclosure that I'm not endorsing them.
I am not deflecting anything to save face. Why would I need to save face against a maggot like you? Nor am I making this about you. You're making this about me actually, by just automatically assuming I was saying that's what I believed then flipping your shit for literally no reason whatsoever.

Oh and FYI, religion is literally the biggest worldwide conspiracy going.
Or maybe you are the only person with actual proof of Gods existence??

Grow up dude.

At 11/7/17 08:17 AM, SamPercy wrote: Gun lobbyists and the NRA start funding for mental health checks and safety checks on suspected dangerous individuals? The only difference will be whether the whole nation will be paying for via taxes, whether the Gun market will pay for it through corporation tax and tax stamps

why should an industry which by the way makes for much law enforcement's weaponry have to pay for more in taxes than any other industry because of the actions of a few people? that's not how it works.

or whether the NRA will pay for it through its membership and gun sales.

the NRA is a nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights for the population you can't make them do anything.

it wont be "gun control" in your more typical understanding it, but it will still be controlling the sale and ownership of firearms by dangerous individuals, however unfair it might be for poorer gun owners, since no one was able to come up with a better idea.

that's already happening on the communist west coast states. and the Manufacturers will just comp the cost on Law enforcement and the Military in contract bids so your paying for it in tax money. it's better to just leave it how it is, as it is right now.

At 11/7/17 09:21 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
why should an industry which by the way makes for much law enforcement's weaponry have to pay for more in taxes than any other industry because of the actions of a few people? that's not how it works.

Extra taxes and fees are tacked on to other products like cigarettes and alchohol ('sin' taxes), and vehicles are heavily regulated (again, at an extra cost), so that's in fact how it works for most other products that can kill people. That's not how it works for guns right now, true (at least nationwide anyway; places like New York have said added costs), but that's a statement, not an argument. Kind of a bad habit of yours in discussions on these things, saying that things aren't like that now legally rather than why that's a good thing.

Also, isn't it just awesome that we now have two threads on extreme shootings? You've got your work cut out for you, Tony; let's see if we can get another 20+ person slaughter before the end of the year so we can watch this depressingly predictable cycle happen again and again. Sheesh.

At 11/7/17 10:07 AM, Gario wrote: Extra taxes and fees are tacked on to other products like cigarettes and alchohol ('sin' taxes), and vehicles are heavily regulated (again, at an extra cost), so that's in fact how it works for most other products that can kill people. That's not how it works for guns right now, true (at least nationwide anyway; places like New York have said added costs), but that's a statement, not an argument. Kind of a bad habit of yours in discussions on these things, saying that things aren't like that now legally rather than why that's a good thing.

of course on the state level totally. but on a federal? unlikely. though you bringing up new york could be considered an argument.

Also, isn't it just awesome that we now have two threads on extreme shootings? You've got your work cut out for you, Tony; let's see if we can get another 20+ person slaughter before the end of the year so we can watch this depressingly predictable cycle happen again and again. Sheesh.

pff, its not that hard to keep up with the weak arguments.

At 11/7/17 03:51 AM, AcidX wrote:

At 11/7/17 02:34 AM, EdyKel wrote: more exciting to believe in those things than what the news brings you. .....and you slam religions for their hard to believe stories. *rollseyes.

Do I?
Am I?
Sure man. Whatever. If petty meaningless e-penis extending victories over the Internet is what floats your boat then fine whatever. Tell yourself whatever you need to.
I just believe every damn conspiracy going. Sure, why not. If that gets you off, belittling others for sake of your own ego. I'm not gonna argue. Contrary to what you say, I'm never pissed off in these needless arguments. Just completely annoyed I have to waste valuable time repeating myself over and over and over and over again because some people overreact and jump to their own conclusions. Instead of keeping an open mind or contributing to the discussion.
Nevermind that I've explicitly said from the start that I was literally just sharing that link for awareness purposes, in response to your apparently rhetorical question.
Sorry for knowing that such things exist. Apparently just being aware of their existence means I support them? Even though I include full disclosure that I'm not endorsing them.
I am not deflecting anything to save face. Why would I need to save face against a maggot like you? Nor am I making this about you. You're making this about me actually, by just automatically assuming I was saying that's what I believed then flipping your shit for literally no reason whatsoever.

Oh and FYI, religion is literally the biggest worldwide conspiracy going.
Or maybe you are the only person with actual proof of Gods existence??

Grow up dude.

You are so in denial. Why don't you get back on topic, or do what you said in your previous post and not give a toss about what I say about you instead of writing another page of "I don't like what you said".

Like I said, I have already heard about plenty of conspiracy theories over the Los Vegas shootings, and they ain't another perspective, just people in denial, that are easily disputable.

At 11/7/17 01:20 PM, Sause wrote:

At 11/7/17 10:46 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: pff, its not that hard to keep up with the weak arguments.

In your opinion, have you ever come across an argument you thought was sound against guns? Or something similar to that. I do agree with Gario, your notifications must be in the double digits.

the current laws on the books are fine they could be better enforced. and no my notifications never actually get higher than five or six, i'm not as active as I use to be.

At 11/7/17 02:36 PM, Sause wrote: That's a reasonable public policy proposal. What laws do you think could be better enforced, and how?

the current laws are fine its just unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape that could be removed.

At 11/7/17 11:58 AM, EdyKel wrote: You are so in denial. Why don't you get back on topic, or do what you said in your previous post and not give a toss about what I say about you instead of writing another page of "I don't like what you said".

Like I said, I have already heard about plenty of conspiracy theories over the Los Vegas shootings, and they ain't another perspective, just people in denial, that are easily disputable.

Now I'm in denial am I? What other pop psychology analysis are you going to give me?
This is fun, why would I ignore you, when you apparently know me better than I do??

Aww you've gone soft. All you have left to fight for is the last word?
That's a shame isn't it.
And you're still wrong btw. I don't believe this bullshit conspiracy at all lmfao. You kinda just played yourself, with your own bait luring. Made yourself look like a total asshole tbh.
If you'd seen all perspectives and are all knowledgable, why'd you even ask that dumb rhetorical question in the first place.. when you could've just fucked off instead?

At 11/7/17 03:19 PM, AcidX wrote:

Now I'm in denial am I? What other pop psychology analysis are you going to give me?
This is fun, why would I ignore you, when you apparently know me better than I do??

Aww you've gone soft. All you have left to fight for is the last word?
That's a shame isn't it.
And you're still wrong btw. I don't believe this bullshit conspiracy at all lmfao. You kinda just played yourself, with your own bait luring. Made yourself look like a total asshole tbh.
If you'd seen all perspectives and are all knowledgable, why'd you even ask that dumb rhetorical question in the first place.. when you could've just fucked off instead?

Still waiting for something from you that actually relates to the topic, not meaningless nonsense that makes you look foolish and petty

At 11/7/17 09:21 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the NRA is a nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights for the population

LMAO

At 11/7/17 03:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: Still waiting for something from you that actually relates to the topic, not meaningless nonsense that makes you look foolish and petty

Well if you hadn't asked your stupid bait question I wouldn't have posted at all, so you've only got yourself to blame really.
If I look petty... What exactly does that make you?

Extremely weak pop psycho analysis this time. Disappointing.

I mean, if you read my first post. Like, actually read it... Maybe you will realise I was just sharing information for discussion purposes. As alwayyssss. it was you who over-reacted and made it personal once again. You mistook me making observations for me buying into the theory... because there was indeed a helicopter there and I don't care what you say about numbers, it's suspicious as hell that those people who had an entire case going are now all dead barely a month on.

hurr durr muh sources muh fake news hurrr

At 11/7/17 04:26 PM, AcidX wrote:

At 11/7/17 03:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: Still waiting for something from you that actually relates to the topic, not meaningless nonsense that makes you look foolish and petty

Well if you hadn't asked your stupid bait question I wouldn't have posted at all, so you've only got yourself to blame really.
If I look petty... What exactly does that make you?

Extremely weak pop psycho analysis this time. Disappointing.

I mean, if you read my first post. Like, actually read it... Maybe you will realise I was just sharing information for discussion purposes. As alwayyssss. it was you who over-reacted and made it personal once again. You mistook me making observations for me buying into the theory... because there was indeed a helicopter there and I don't care what you say about numbers, it's suspicious as hell that those people who had an entire case going are now all dead barely a month on.

hurr durr muh sources muh fake news hurrr

I made a rhetorical question, son. I didn't expect you to troll 4+ posts, moaning about how you felt on how I was treating you, which had nothing to so with the topic, other than trolling and deflecting from what you could not rebut about stuff that was related to the topic. Now, get back on topic.