General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: LaPierre: 'How Many Bostonians Wish They Had A Gun Two Weeks Ago?' [View all]Pholus
(4,062 posts)Really. A sucky rollercoaster? That's your best comeback?
Sorry to tell you this Sherlock, but that was the just pit forming in your stomach when your NRA-approved cut and paste about failed gun laws in Chicago got ripped out from under you, placing your position in free fall.
So 500 murders got through. Sounds bad. But what WOULD it have been?
The key point is that 7500 illegal guns were also confiscated during that period DUE to the laws. C'mon you pride yourself on your logic so go ahead. The 500 murders are not caused by the gun laws -- it's caused by people who break laws. You know, those guys you say have guns regardless -- you know, criminals. The confiscations are the direct result of the laws and given the grounds for confiscations those guns were also taken from -- wait for it -- criminals. For your "failure" conclusion to be correct you simply need to prove the now absent guns made no difference to the murder rate.
Except you can't. You know it, and I know it. I'll take a moment to mock you now: Bwahahahhaaha.
Whew, that felt good. I'd say "epic fail" but frankly it's kind of a "feeble fail" in this case.
Actually I find you kinda of humorous as well. Certainly, you helped me coin the "Crowley Rule" which neatly describes the fallacy of the whole meme. Certainly YOU had no comeback to that other than to lamely exclaim "Well you *almost* fail too -- with a D."
In the end, your rights end where mine begin. What you obviously don't get is how that works. I attribute that to your arrogant self-interest. You claim the Second Amendment is not abridged by anything -- by implication you mean MY RIGHTS don't matter. So in your bleating about your rights I hear the faint sound of jackboots and you not giving a rat's ass when it comes to mine. I certainly know most gunners do tend to have that authoritarian bent when they talk....