I’m sorry, I seem to have missed the part where you proposed dealing with the millions upon millions of guns already out here in the wild.

Yeah, it must chap your ass that you haven’t out-debated him yet either.

No, you showed us all.

Thanks for proving your idiocy.

Well, it’s stronger than your reading comprehension, but that’s not saying much.

Only an idiot would even say that people around here are proposing “to just let everyone have a gun”, “internet commentator”.

There’s really nothing I can say about how idiotic this is that you don’t say yourself. Thanks.

Idiots who handle guns are a problem for sure, even more than idiots on the internet. *ahem*

Not enough, my friend. Not nearly enough.

Absolutely, my friend. In fact, the horror in Texas should have been the easiest of these massacres to prevent.

I mean, you brought up vaccines, my friend ;-)

I’m sorry, but I’m too busy trying to imagine you’re not a troll.

I fully agree with your last two points, but I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence.

Well, the armed robbers fled after they were shot by the occupants of the home, who were NOT shot by the armed robbers.

Of course guns should be banned. There is no question.

Would they have been any less safe if they had had a gun?

Were those two men harmed by the two home invaders who had guns?

Thanks for losing. You have played yourself.

I’d say the kid who died from the vaccine was likely harmed by the for-profit nature of vaccine companies who make massive money on a product that they sell to a captive market (by virtue of government subsidies and the corrupt politicians they most certainly deal with). If it wasn’t for-profit, it would be open…

Did owning a gun make the men who fended off the home invaders more safe?