Comcast bans gun ads

[flyerhawk]

I'm guessing Jim would refuse to eat there, even if he happens to like their sandwiches.

Maybe. Maybe not.

[eaglesnut]

How many people give a crap about Chik-Fil-A these days?

I give/take a crap about Chik-Fil-A 2 times a week. That chicken is delicious. But to your point they have raised prices since the media conniption.

[Hyped]

I dunno why I am STILL reading this thread...

But a prominent gay organization member reached out to the CAF CEO....and got CAF to agree to drop their sponsorships of several anti-gay organizations. CFA's position is still that marriage is of one man and one woman, but they are no longer funding anti-gay organizations.

I think it's OK to eat at CAF now?

[seahawksfan837]

How many people give a crap about Chik-Fil-A these days?

A ton.

[seahawksfan837]

The lack of evidence does not support ANY claim.

Your last sentence "More often than not, the opposite is true" actually makes my point. If sometimes the observed result is less crime and sometimes it is more crime it either means that gun laws have no effect or, more likely, we are unable to properly measure the impact of gun laws.

The gun control advocates are the ones trying to change the status quo, thus, the burden of proof is on them. And there simply isn't any evidence that gun bans of any kind do ANY good to create a safer environment.

[flyerhawk]

The gun control advocates are the ones trying to change the status quo, thus, the burden of proof is on them. And there simply isn't any evidence that gun bans of any kind do ANY good to create a safer environment.

Really? So we should eliminate the current bans that deny felons, wife beaters, mentally unstable people, and children? Since gun laws do ANY kind of good that seems the most logical approach.

[seahawksfan837]

Really? So we should eliminate the current bans that deny felons, wife beaters, mentally unstable people, and children? Since gun laws do ANY kind of good that seems the most logical approach.

That's a straw man. I didn't say gun LAWS. I said gun bans. I don't think felons or the mentally unstable should have access to guns.

As in specific gun bans (aka handgun ban). There's a specific difference between a ban and a law. There are a lot of gun laws I can get behind, but for this specific conversation we were talking about gun bans (going back to Swords' post).

And yes I'm aware we already outlaw certain weaponry. I think most of us can agree that there is a large difference between handguns or rifles and RPGs.

[flyerhawk]

That's a straw man. I didn't say gun LAWS. I said gun bans. I don't think felons or the mentally unstable should have access to guns.
As in specific gun bans (aka handgun ban). There's a specific difference between a ban and a law. There are a lot of gun laws I can get behind, but for this specific conversation we were talking about gun bans (going back to Swords' post).

And yes I'm aware we already outlaw certain weaponry. I think most of us can agree that there is a large difference between handguns or rifles and RPGs.

But that's the point. There are gun laws, or bans or whatever you want to call them, that almost ALL of us agree serve a purpose. So when you say that gun bans never do any good that is simply not true. What you mean to say is that specific gun bans that you oppose serve no purpose.

[seahawksfan837]

But that's the point. There are gun laws, or bans or whatever you want to call them, that almost ALL of us agree serve a purpose. So when you say that gun bans never do any good that is simply not true. What you mean to say is that specific gun bans that you oppose serve no purpose.

No, I mean in general, the straight ban of a gun with no exceptions has yet to have a positive impact on the safety of Americans. I'm not talking about gun bans for felons or gun bans for the mentally unstable or mag limits or any other reasonable approach. I'm talking about a strict ban of a certain kind of gun, intended for all citizens, which was what Swords, APK and myself were refuting.

I think all of us can agree that laws are needed and in some cases, certain people need to be prevented from using weapons.

[AlexPKeaton]

A. No he wasn't. Let's at least pay attention go the conversation. FWFW asked about why we focused on Chicago and asked about DC and NYC.

You are just plain wrong. Here is the quote:

the news media has been anything but silent about Chicago. But i like how DC and NY have dropped from your roster after they have historic crime low's in 2012 with...tougher gun laws

So as you can plainly see, fwiw made the initial connection between tougher gun laws in DC. Swords refuted it... the gun laws in DC are looser now than when murder rates were much higher, not tougher.

B. If you are just going ignore the numerous comments I made about trying to create a causation between gun laws and gun crime, then I think you simply are ignoring anything that doesn't support your argument.

And if you are going to ignore the multiple times that I've already said that I don't think that the looser gun laws are the reason, that enforcement of existing laws was probably much more the cause, along with many other dynamics, they you are the one ignoring things.

This is often your MO. If/when a point of yours is disproven, you simply ignore that fact and deflect/redirect the conversation to different talking points.

[flyerhawk]

You are just plain wrong. Here is the quote:
So as you can plainly see, fwiw made the initial connection between tougher gun laws in DC. Swords refuted it... the gun laws in DC are looser now than when murder rates were much higher, not tougher.

Fair enough. I think we just inferred very different things but I understand where you guys are coming from.

And if you are going to ignore the multiple times that I've already said that I don't think that the looser gun laws are the reason, that enforcement of existing laws was probably much more the cause, along with many other dynamics, they you are the one ignoring things.

Sorry, APK, but I haven't seen any of those posts from you. Not saying you didn't say it but I didn't notice.

This is often your MO. If/when a point of yours is disproven, you simply ignore that fact and deflect/redirect the conversation to different talking points.

Which point of mine was disproven?