This fellow bought an AK-47 Because he thought they would be banned

[gonzoliberal]

Cheap-shot scapegoating is cheap trash talk.

As long as you can blame "the other"...

[Calamari]

No.

Don't bother because you would just continue to be wrong.

What part of the article confirms your invented premise that he bought the AK-47 "so he can threaten his wife and daughter with it"?

That is what he did with it, unless you are claiming otherwise, or if this is more of your dishonest attempts at "inventing reality." How would he have pointed his man-maker at his wife and daughter if he hadn't bought it first? The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

It's most astonishing to actually find people here defending his motives. Even I didn't predict that, and I am a bit of a cynic.

[Abatis]

That is what he did with it, unless you are claiming otherwise, or if this is more of your dishonest attempts at "inventing reality."

Not disputing "that's what he did with it" . . . I'm disputing your statement that he bought the AK-47 "so he can threaten his wife and daughter with it".

Are these fundamental exercises in logical premises really that confusing to you?

How would he have pointed his man-maker at his wife and daughter if he hadn't bought it first? The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

That doesn't prove your premise; you invented that for yourself to enhance your denunciation of the weapon. He picked up the most threatening item he thought would instill the most terror . . . Could have been a machete or Samurai sword or a baseball bat . . . the weapon really is of no significance except to you and the 'gunz R evel' emotionally based construct you suffer from.

It's most astonishing to actually find people here defending his motives. Even I didn't predict that, and I am a bit of a cynic.

Who is "defending his motives" or his actions?

The only motives and actions being criticized in this thread are yours. It seems you are incapable of separating the two. How very sad but that's what happens when projection is used as a proxy for logic and reason . . .

[Abatis]

Cheap-shot scapegoating is cheap trash talk.

As long as you can blame "the other"...

Just who is this passive-aggressive "reply" directed to?

There are 40 possibilities but given your name that narrows it down.

If it is me then you better pick up your game and use my facts or your own to attack my argument.

Otherwise you are practicing precisely what you think you are condemning.

[gonzoliberal]

Just who is this passive-aggressive "reply" directed to?

There are 40 possibilities but given your name that narrows it down.

If it is me then you better pick up your game and use my facts or your own to attack my argument.

Otherwise you are practicing precisely what you think you are condemning.

What are the "facts" in your rant?

How about starting with a statement or question, then following it up with evidence pro and/or con?

It seems all you wish to do is to smear all "liberals".

[Abatis]

What are the "facts" in your rant?

How about starting with a statement or question, then following it up with evidence pro and/or con?

It seems all you wish to do is to smear all "liberals".

You really can't be that dense or so removed from actual debate that you don't recognize that what you are asking for is there.

My premise (first sentence):

Liberal hug-a-thug policies in cities have allowed a violent, armed criminal underclass to operate and re-re-re-re-offend without any meaningful restriction:

Fact one (with link to the study):

60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros.

Fact two with link to the USAToday article quoting police officials:

In many large metros / cities, between 70% and 91% of both murder victims and perpetrators have criminal histories.

Fact three, quoting a big city police chief stating that the criminal justice system in his city catches criminals with guns and just keeps letting them go, expunging the records of those arrests so there are no repeat offenders making it harder to put armed criminals in jail:

"An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get . . . probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased. So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon.

These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

So, do you really want to debate that I have not proven my premise?

[Abatis]

Meanwhile in the liberal run, real criminal coddling hellhole I live in:

WATCH THIS

[Calamari]

Not disputing "that's what he did with it"

Well it's nice to see you have come to see reason then.

[Abatis]

Well it's nice to see you have come to see reason then.

And I'm sad to see you are distancing yourself farther from reason.

that's what he did with it ≠ that's why he bought it

[gonzoliberal]

You really can't be that dense or so removed from actual debate that you don't recognize that what you are asking for is there.

My premise (first sentence):

Liberal hug-a-thug policies in cities have allowed a violent, armed criminal underclass to operate and re-re-re-re-offend without any meaningful restriction:

Fact one (with link to the study):

60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros.

Fact two with link to the USAToday article quoting police officials:

In many large metros / cities, between 70% and 91% of both murder victims and perpetrators have criminal histories.

Fact three, quoting a big city police chief stating that the criminal justice system in his city catches criminals with guns and just keeps letting them go, expunging the records of those arrests so there are no repeat offenders making it harder to put armed criminals in jail:

"An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get . . . probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased. So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon.

These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

So, do you really want to debate that I have not proven my premise?

I don't want to debate at all.

I just get tired of the same old bullshxt opinion (ie; your first so-called fact) passing for wisdom.

But do carry on. Maybe someone else around here wants to "debate" you.

[Abatis]

I don't want to debate at all.

I just get tired of the same old bullshxt opinion (ie; your first so-called fact) passing for wisdom.

My first fact (60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros.) is BS opinion?

Please take that up with the Atlantic Magazine, the source of that fact.

If you have any alternate, opposing facts then by all means, bring them into the discussion, otherwise just keep your cheap-shot scapegoating trash talk to yourself, especially if you so readily admit having no motivation to debate.

You are the epitome of what a worthless troll is, and does.

Maybe someone else around here wants to "debate" you.

It seems that engaging in actual logical, reasoned, supported debate is shunned here and avoided at all costs.

Such a common trait amongst intellectually bankrupt leftists, especially pathetic, passive-aggressive one like you.

[veritas]

My obsession with what? I'm not the guy buying an AK-47 so he can threaten his wife and daughter with it.

Really? That's why he bought it? A cheap handgun would be much better for the purpose. As pointed out, you're bizarrely obsessed with scrounging up these stories and the comical part is that you and your gang are driving the record sales. Nice job!

[Calamari]

It's great that you've put that much thought into what weapon would be better for the purpose of threatening women and children. Really.

[veritas]

It's great that you've put that much thought into what weapon would be better for the purpose of threatening women and children. Really.

Gee, that took about a second to figure out. That it might take you a few days is not my problem. The forum's problem is your continued "fabrications".

[kudzu]

It's great that you've put that much thought into what weapon would be better for the purpose of threatening women and children. Really.

I don't think that a Man needs a weapon in order to threaten women and children.

Do you ?