My angle is to receive endless ad hominem non sequiturs from people with no arguments.

No you aren't. You gun owners aid and abet criminals with straw purchases and gun trafficking. You are the problem.

Unless I'm mistaken putin we have the right to bear arms. If that is the law then what law did we break? Also I might have been wrong with the amount of homicide commited by guns but look at this.

Http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

I would like to point out that as much as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. But no guns are evil!!

Gun Owners of America? They're a hate group tied to the militia movement.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/20/468146/fringe-gun-rights-advocate-with-ties-to-white-supremacists-helped-build-up-alec/

"I would like to point out that as much as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse"

BS. Guns kill women.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm

"A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. "

"If that is the law then what law did we break?"

Laws against buying guns for people who are not entitled to buy guns. Laws against trafficking, smuggling guns from areas with no or lax gun regs to areas with tough gun regs.

"My angle is to receive endless ad hominem non sequiturs from people with no arguments."

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that's not what you want to happen when you post. What do you want to happen when you post?

<tears of laughter running down my face...> Ho boy....<catching breath...> Putin complaining about attacks and name calling...Good lord. That as funny as a rusty hot poker shoved up Putin's ass.

<Come on...you *all* know you'd love to see that!>

Oh he irony of Putin's twisted view. That table shows that every year from 2007-2011 in nearly every category of firearm death, death by firearm has gone down. Considering the assault weapon and other amendments to the Brady Bill law expired in 2004 so that only backgrounds checks are required, I think this shows that banning weapons *doesn't* reduce firearms crimes. In fact, *reasonable* measures to ensure those with the guns are less likely to commit violent acts do a better job.

Detroit's Chief of Police has *repeatedly* in recent days made the interview rounds in which one of his primary talking points is that he *wants* law abiding citizens to own guns, because statistics demonstrate it reduces crime.

So....I guess he's really just hoping for a dramatic increase in gun deaths on the streets so he can get fired....according to Putin, that is.

"I think this shows that banning weapons *doesn't* reduce firearms crimes"

No, that's not what that means. People don't murder people with heavy guns that cannot be concealed. Any gun control that doesn't target handguns is relatively worthless. But thanks for ignoring the fact that guns are involved in the majority of homicides. Assault weapons are nothing but weapons porn for people like Gunfighter. They typically aren't involved in crimes.

"I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that's not what you want to happen when you post. What do you want to happen when you post?"

I don't know, P.E. Since you're fond of armchair psycho-analysis, seem to think you can read my mind and know my motives, and would rather analyze me than actually defend your indefensible views, why don't you tell me?

Oh....so now guns aren't the cause of crime, says Putin, because some guns are just for the enjoyment of shooting...

Ahhh...and there's Putin, flinging his poo at PE again instead of saying anything intelligent. Atta-boy, Putty...

Some guns exist to compensate for the small genitalia of their owners, like Hummers and large dogs. The rural rednecks with their massive military weapons are too cowardly to ever use them. Look at the data on handguns and the answer to the problem is self-evident.

I thought it was pretty clear from my questions that I don't know your motives and certainly can't read your mind.

There's a good reason I'm asking -- I cannot recall the last conversation we had where we were on opposing sides of any policy, situation, etc. and you attempted to discuss aforesaid policy/situation/etc. with any degree of good faith. I'd simply ignore you, but you continually come into threads in which I participate and comment on things I say. Here right now, for instance, you apparently want me to "defend [my] indefensible views." So you're engaging me, and you're not doing it in good faith, and so instead of wasting my time pretending to discuss the issue as though you would do so in good faith, I want to know what it is you're after so I can just give it to you and you go along your merry way.

This isn't the first time the gun issue has been brought up. It's been discussed ad nauseum, with plenty of data provided (and ignored) by you and your cronies who simply shout "freedom" 5,000 times and ignore the data, or if you address data at all, you trot out John Lott or Gun Owners of America shit.

Spare me the lectures about arguing in good faith. You're more interested in pissing on me than actually saying anything serious because you know you can win cheap applause by doing so and thereby duck and run, like you normally do.

The record of 'good faith' debate is there for all to see, if anybody is actually serious about looking at it. I doubt anybody is, because as far as debate goes this is amateur hour and people are more interested in being cute 99% of the time or posting gifs, ala President Eden.

"Some guns exist to compensate for the small genitalia of their owners"

Other guys with small genitalie <PUTIN!!!...cough...cough...> just go after people with small genitalia....<CHILDREN!!!....cough....cough....>

Man, I even outright asked you what you wanted so I could give it to you. Do you not know?

You post with purpose elsewhere, and it's not like you just try to come after me all the time. When Thucy posted up the Great Debate #1 you gave an insightful analysis of the debate and completely persuaded me to it. Really amusingly -- but sensibly! -- enough, whenever discussions of how much professional athletes should be paid come up, we're on the same side, despite coming from philosophical viewpoints that couldn't be more opposite if they tried.

So again, it's not always like this. That's why it's so befuddling that in this particular instance -- and unfortunately in every instance I can recall where we *are* on opposite sides -- it is like this. What's the big difference? What are you looking for this time that makes useful this vastly different approach?

PE....why do you try? He's angry. He full of hate and rage, and the only way to make himself feel better is to attack and belittle everyone - even while he claims such tactics are beneath him. He is a frothing contradiction of intellectual violence...you are better than he, and this attempt to reason with him is simply not worth your time and effort, unless you think you can persuade the dung beetle to abandon it's poo. Only Putin can take the poo from the dung beetle...so he can fling it with great glee!

It could be that you simply see what you want to see Eden. When you like what people say, it appears reasonable. When you don't, it doesn't. The big difference is your own disposition. Nothing more.

I've already explained why serious conversation is pointless on this topic. Serious conversation was attempted many times in the past.

@Putin33 "Spare me the lectures about arguing in good faith. You're more interested in pissing on me than actually saying anything serious because you know you can win cheap applause by doing so and thereby duck and run, like you normally do. "

You've leveled similar charges at me in the past... what is this "cheap applause" you're talking about? I can't imagine anyone participating here except for their own amusement.

You still haven't told me what you're after. What is it?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/09/remember-the-former-marine-who-opened-fire-after-an-arizona-couple-pulled-a-gun-on-a-sears-employee-police-will-be-submitting-charges-against-him/

The follow up to this shooting is the only shots were fired by a retired Marine who is being charge for now with discharging a firearm in the city limits. The 4 shots hit the broad side of Sears, a tree, and a car where he just missed hitting a woman witness. A trained shooter didn't hit the woman he was shooting at or her husband who was shoplifting.

So having someone armed almost resulted in death or injury of an innocent and no harm to the person with a toy gun committing a crime.

So what. I can find other cases where armed citizens DID protect others.

This **juvenile** form of argument you use -- "Sometimes something bad happens, therefore..." is just so asinine.

Sometimes cars loose control and kill people.....ban cars, because they are *frequently* driven improperly
Sometimes knoves -- weapons by design -- are used to kill people, sop ban knives.
Sometimes idiot parents feed their children junk food and cause them to be obese and suffer a lifetime of health problems and mental abuse -- ban all forms of junk food...or just all pre-packaged food in general.

And on and on the idiotic arguments go applying your childish logic.

But here's a better point, Randomizer....sometimes the COPS commit crime and kill people without cause and abuse their power. Sometimes the *court* system locks up innocent people.

So by the childish logic of "sometimes something *bad* happens so let's ban X", I guess you are for the abolishment of the court system and law enforcement, right?

It fits your juvenile logic perfectly.

Law enforcement in the UK for example is already mostly without guns as far as I know, krellin. As some English guy explained it to me when I was there a bit more than a year ago, the average cop is quite a strong guy.

When needed, special units come with guns.

Maybe my info is outdated though :)

And before you use those special units as an argument, I presume they are under serious regulations, and even if not, no gun at all is quite ridiculous, obviously...

"A trained shooter didn't hit the woman he was shooting at or her husband who was shoplifting. "

Maybe because he was trying to discourage the thieves without actually killing any one. You know, warning shots? Duh!

The special units are indeed under serious regulations, and when they mess up (which doesn't actually happen often) it often leads to massive protests.