Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[olafberserker]

sure hypocrite

[VinBucFan]

sure hypocrite

Quite a while ago, I posted that the weakness in the pro-gun position can be seen in their penchant for avoiding actually substantive response in favor of attacking the messenger.  This morning I posted this simple question:

what is your best argument to support the claim that there are NOT too many guns in the US?

Spartan provided two responses. Here are the responses from the other pro-gun guys so far:

The hypocrisy is unfriggin' believable.

you've been given arguments.  you don't like them hypocrite

right hypocrite

There is over 100 pages on the Cove of PeanutButterCheeseBoy making himself look like a fool regarding guns, and this dips*** keeps rattling off the same stale question as if he can have a valid debate w/someone?  Friggin' caricature.

Another solid point PBCBoy.

All attacking the messenger, no actual response.

Since Olaf and Buggsy both claimed that my simple question has been answered before, I ask them (and invite anyone on the pro-gun side) to post a quote with someone giving a direct answer to this simple question, other than Spartan’s two answers this morning:

what is your best argument to support the claim that there are NOT too many guns in the US?

[VinBucFan]

sure hypocrite

This ^^^^^^^^ is your response to this:

how about the anti-gun crowd tell everyone what a reasonable number of guns in the country is ....

Even putting aside your clear effort to avoid my question by raising another question, you know I actually did answer this question several times. I know you didn't like the responses, but maybe you can answer your own question, slightly rephrased: 

ASSUMING THE CURRENT NUMBER OF GUNS IS 310 MILLION, IS THERE ANY REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF GUNS YOU WOULD FIND TO BE REASONABLE AND, IF SO, WHAT IS THAT NUMBER?

You asked me for a number, so I am just asking you for a number if you even would accept any reduction?  You criticized me for not giving a number, so surely you can, right?

I asked you for a number, apparently you can't give one and yet you keep criticizing me for not giving you a number  . . .all while calling me a "hypocrite" ............. nice

[Biggs3535]

Another solid point PBCBoy.

[VinBucFan]

right hypocrite

and this ^^^^^^^ was your response to this:

(Btw, Olaf . . . I have tried repeatedly to move on from your sparring, but it never seems to work, as evidenced by today's posts where I was discussing the substance with someone and you appear calling me names. I can handle the name calling obviously, but cant we move on at some point?)

 

[VinBucFan]

Another solid point PBCBoy.

interesting that you would take the time to find that .gif, but don't have the time to either a) answer a simple question or b) post a quote of someone other than Spartan answering since you claim its been answered many times.

I guess we all know why . . . . well, I mean besides that fact that posting pictures and .gifs is kind of your schtick

[Biggs3535]

An oldie but goodie that still rings true:

[VinBucFan]

An oldie but goodie that still rings true:

I guess this proves:

a) no one answered the question before, which means your last comment was FALSE

b) you don't have an answer yourself, which illustrates my point about the lack of merit in your position.

Thanks for your help Buggsy.  Feel free to spend more time finding pictures.  Bye-bye.

[VinBucFan]

Interesting little case study here today.  Simple question posed:

what is your best argument to support the claim that there are NOT too many guns in the US?

Five pro-gun guys responded:

1. Dolorous  -- said he would answer, but has not yet
2. Olaf -- no answer, but plenty of trash talking
3. Buggsy -- no, answer but plenty of trash talking
4. Blue Falcon -- no answer
5. Spartan - two arguments

[Biggs3535]

[olafberserker]

did they teach hypocrisy at that law school of yours or is it just a natural skill?

[spartan]

For anyone in the pro-gun crowd:  what is your best argument to support the claim that there are NOT too many guns in the US?

A lot more people would die because of the inability to defend themselves than would be saved  by banning them.

Thank you Spartan. 

So, am I correct that you think the number of people currently successfully defending themselves with guns is either close to or possibly even more than the number dying from guns? I ask that because your comment suggests to me  that even if the deaths are higher now than successful defenses, reducing the number of guns would "tip the balance" so to speak.

Estimates range that firearms are used in a defensive posture (not necessarily fired) from 1-2.5 million times a year. Do the math, what do you think the laws of averages are on how many of those would have resulted in a violent confrontation?

[Biggs3535]

did they teach hypocrisy at that law school of yours or is it just a natural skill?

PBCBoy's moving on from you.  It's hard to tell since he responds to every post about how he is moving on, but trust him.  He's moving on.  Moving on, indeed.

[VinBucFan]

For anyone in the pro-gun crowd:  what is your best argument to support the claim that there are NOT too many guns in the US?

A lot more people would die because of the inability to defend themselves than would be saved  by banning them.

Thank you Spartan. 

So, am I correct that you think the number of people currently successfully defending themselves with guns is either close to or possibly even more than the number dying from guns? I ask that because your comment suggests to me  that even if the deaths are higher now than successful defenses, reducing the number of guns would "tip the balance" so to speak.

Estimates range that firearms are used in a defensive posture (not necessarily fired) from 1-2.5 million times a year. Do the math, what do you think the laws of averages are on how many of those would have resulted in a violent confrontation?

I agree that you raise an interesting point, I guess its the math that is a little fuzzy.  If there are 310 million guns and roughly 50 million gun households (and at best using your numbers about 5% defend themselves with a gun each year) why does each household need 6 or 7 guns? Do they only defend themselves because they have a 6 to 7 gun arsenal as opposed to a single gun? As for not being fired, I presume you threw that in there because included in your numbers would be people who ostensibly "defended" themselves by simply showing a gun.  if that is the case, did all of those people need or have assault rifles or was the handgun enough to "defend"

Seems to me there has to be some room in the numbers for a reasonable reduction in the number of guns . . . .

[VinBucFan]

How about this question, any of the pro-gun types want to answer it:

ASSUMING THE CURRENT NUMBER OF GUNS IS 310 MILLION, IS THERE ANY REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF GUNS YOU WOULD FIND TO BE REASONABLE AND, IF SO, WHAT IS THAT NUMBER?


Credit to Olaf for the question