Pages:
Author

Topic: In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid? - page 3. (Read 15506 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
lol... coming from you, "double idiot" is a compliment. And you've further abandoned any hope of logical debate by trying to change the subject.

I think we're done here.  Kiss

I didn't change the subject. I merely made an observation about you.

You keep going on how a gun is just a tool. That's like saying a tank is just a vehicle. To generalize something is to say less about it - not more. Try saying more about a gun, rather than less. It's pathetic that your arguments rely on saying less about something (which is to reduce information, eliminate information, hide information), rather than getting more specific.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
lol... coming from you, "double idiot" is a compliment. And you've further abandoned any hope of logical debate by trying to change the subject.

I think we're done here.  Kiss
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
You're a fucking idiot playing word games.

And you've conceded defeat by abandoning logic in favor of insults.

No. One can logically argue, and then top it off with a truth about the person one is arguing with. That makes you a double idiot for attempting to infer something with no logical basis.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
You're a fucking idiot playing word games.

And you've conceded defeat by abandoning logic in favor of insults.

I am glad, though, that you've finally realized that a gun is merely a tool for firing bullets, just like a hammer is merely a tool for driving nails. Progress!
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.

So? Hammers do get swung. And guns do get fired.

So they do. By people. When a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house, we don't say the hammer built the house, do we?

I don't care if we say the hammer built the house or not. He didn't, nor would he, pound the nails with his nose.

Guns are made to counteract the fact that shooting bullets doesn't work well with your mouth. A human without a gun is not a man with a gun. You're a fucking idiot playing word games.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.

So? Hammers do get swung. And guns do get fired.

So they do. By people. When a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house, we don't say the hammer built the house, do we?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.

So? Hammers do get swung. And guns do get fired.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
And carpenters would use cotton swabs to drive nails.

A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Its crazy to blame an inanimate object and not the individual. I also don't see why anyone would want to give up anymore rights to the state.

You are of course correct.  That's why the poll is 2-1 in favor of recognizing the stupidity of the asinine gun-grabbers.  They should go to DailyKos or something.

Two to one is not a very good showing considering the gun nut crowd here. If inanimate objects played no role, then nobody here would mind if guns were no longer available. Why, the military would simply use cotton balls for weapons.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
Its crazy to blame an inanimate object and not the individual. I also don't see why anyone would want to give up anymore rights to the state.

You are of course correct.  That's why the poll is 2-1 in favor of recognizing the stupidity of the asinine gun-grabbers.  They should go to DailyKos or something.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
My apologies if I was incorrect.

Accepted, and forgiven. That you would offer it at all shows you to be more mature than most on here.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?


I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

I discovered that he was not a native speaker of English months ago, and concluded that due to his lack of fluency in the English language, and my complete lack of knowledge of Portuguese, we would be unable to have a cogent conversation. I believe, at the time, you called me out for an ad hominem attack based on that observation.

It was in the middle of our "debate" regarding child-rearing methods, so I suppose it can be forgiven that you would object to the message based on the messenger.

My apologies if I was incorrect.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?


I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

I discovered that he was not a native speaker of English months ago, and concluded that due to his lack of fluency in the English language, and my complete lack of knowledge of Portuguese, we would be unable to have a cogent conversation. I believe, at the time, you called me out for an ad hominem attack based on that observation.

It was in the middle of our "debate" regarding child-rearing methods, so I suppose it can be forgiven that you would object to the message based on the messenger.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?


I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

Look up the term, "Literary license"; because it's a useful thing to know.  I'm not really interested in what you know, however.

No.  You made an observation for which you believe I were justifying my intent.  I have already explained your error of observation.  I have made zero attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  Again, I do not require your consent.

You indeed made an attempt to justify your firearm ownership: 'The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons. I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that. Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.'


That was not an attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  I wouldn't consider recreational shooting to be a rational justification to possess a (presumed by others) dangerous tool.  I wouldn't consider personal entertainment an acceptable cause for a untrained and unlicensed person to make and store fireworks in an old wood shed next to a city park.  Even professionally sometimes blow themselves up.  There would have to be a different, overriding reason to posses a firearm than simply "it's fun to shoot".  Fortunately, there is, and I've presented data to support that concept.  A neighbor would require my consent to start packing dynamite next to where my kids play, he would not require my consent to own a firearm.  If he started using my fence as a target support, however, we'd have words over that.

The majority of them, yes.  And yet, the vast majority of them are never employed in that purpose.  At least not in this country.  Punching holes in paper is, by a wide margin, the most widely intended purpose of those who buy them.  This is particularly true with regard to rimfire caliber firearms, many of which are specifically designed to maximize their effectiveness for this particular purpose.  All you have to do to find those is google 'target pistol' or 'target rifle' and you will immediately notice that they have features that make them particularly poor choices for self-defense or hunting.

This alone puts the lie to your line of thought.

Once again, I didn't present a premise.  You are projecting.  You seem to believe that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  I do not require your approval.

This is a forum, do you know that? There is a debate going on here.


There are many debates going on around this forum, but not in this thread.

http://a-human-right.com/

You have the right, but not the ability.  What you don't understand that your government does not grant you rights; it can either respect them and provide a legal structure that standardizes the social rules, or refuse to honor your rights and deny any practical utilization of your rights.  I live in the former, you live in the latter.

There is no such thing of 'practical utilization of your rights'.

I do not require your approval to honor rights which you pretend I have. You are not in a position to dictate what rights I have.

No, I'm not.  Neither are you, nor anyone else.  That's an irony that is not lost on myself, but I'm fairly certain you have no idea what I just said.

You are comfortable with it because you have been conditioned to believe that you are safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs.  This is understandable.

I said: 'I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.'

So from this premise, you made a whole straw man argument.


Wait, do you actually know what it means to "make an argument"?

Sometimes, othertimes it was not.   You speak of a topic for which you have already admitted you have no first hand knowledge.

Well, I did not admitted that. Moreover, I still can argue with basic knowledge about a subject.


You don't have a basic knowledge on the subject.

That varies significantly. The majority of my own firearms are rimfires, so they would be particulary ineffective if self-defense was their primary design consideration.  Excellent at small game hunting, though.  A rabbit doesn't leave much meat if you use a caliber actually intended for self-defense levels of energy.

If you are trying to ask if I have considered "less lethal" weaponry for self-defense, then the answer is yes.  I actually have such weapons, including but not limited to, a 12 gauge shotgun that is designed to fire a shorter than normal shotgun shell, packed with rock salt and pepper powder.   The explicit design goal is to inflict pain without great risk of lethal tissue damage, and without the risk of a projectile with enough kinetic energy to be able to pass through standard gysum board home walls and (potentially) harm my neighbors.  This is an escalation of force method, since (should my invader not get the idea) later shells in the line up do include harder and heaver projectiles.  A 12 gauge shotgun is very versitile.

Wow.. Now at least you presented logical explanations for simple questions.

I am glad for your choices and for your knowledge of firearms.

Well done.

Or you are just mocking me?

Both, but not at the same time.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Likewise, unless there are obvious telltales, one would assume that the bomb is armed. And I've repeatedly stated that your right to own something does not include the ability to threaten someone with it, and that includes a nuclear device. An armed nuke is equivalent to a drawn and pointed firearm, pointed at everyone in range. So while they would certainly have the right to own a nuclear weapon, they would not have the right to carry it around armed, no more than anyone has the right to walk around pointing a gun at people.

Could you be any dumber? Just by virtue of it being in their garage means they don't have to carry it around with them. It's already a threat in their garage.
newbie
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
Its crazy to blame an inanimate object and not the individual. I also don't see why anyone would want to give up anymore rights to the state.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

Stop engaging with them then.


“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”

― Mark Twain

Good advice.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

Stop engaging with them then.


“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance”

― Mark Twain
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

In your society, one cannot tell if the nuclear bomb is armed and ready to blow anymore than if the gun is loaded and ready to fire.

Which is why a smart person always assumes that the gun is loaded. In fact, the "1st law" of gun safety is "The gun is always loaded." However, you can most definitely tell if a firearm is ready to fire, there's a very easy way: it's pointed at someone. So even a loaded pistol, in a holster, harms nobody.

Likewise, unless there are obvious telltales, one would assume that the bomb is armed. And I've repeatedly stated that your right to own something does not include the ability to threaten someone with it, and that includes a nuclear device. An armed nuke is equivalent to a drawn and pointed firearm, pointed at everyone in range. So while they would certainly have the right to own a nuclear weapon, they would not have the right to carry it around armed, no more than anyone has the right to walk around pointing a gun at people.

So you (and the other gun control wackos) are ruled by fear, and I am ruled by reason. And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

In your society, one cannot tell if the nuclear bomb is armed and ready to blow anymore than if the gun is loaded and ready to fire.
Pages:
Jump to: