Pages:
Author

Topic: Whoever Invented the Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blower Should Have His Butt Kicked - page 2. (Read 4230 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?
Does a hammer build a house?
Do cars drive drunk?

Stop engaging in the pointless cliched meme driven drivel and think for yourself.

Do cars get crashed into people while driven by drunks when cars aren't driven by drunks?

Answer the question in my last post.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?
Does a hammer build a house?
Do cars drive drunk?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?

Answer this question: if 300 million guns in this country are not enough, how many will it take? 500 million? One billion? 5 billion?

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Did I say they commit crimes?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.
I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.
Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.
Tsk.. I never said they had no effect. I said that they do not commit crimes. Please learn to read.

Did I say they commit crimes? No, I did not. Thus another pointless remark on your part.

Regarding their effect: since you argue that it's the person and not the gun, then the gun must not be an important part of the equation. That is indeed what you're arguing. Thus, you don't need the gun.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.
I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.
Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.
Tsk.. I never said they had no effect. I said that they do not commit crimes. Please learn to read.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.
I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.
Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.
I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.
Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.
I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.
I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people Tongue.
More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.
See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.
You're still blaming the things, not the people.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

If only there were fewer things, the people who had them wouldn't use them against the people who didn't?

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people Tongue.
More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.
See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.
You're still blaming the things, not the people.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

If only there were fewer things, the people who had them wouldn't use them against the people who didn't?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people Tongue.
More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.
See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.
You're still blaming the things, not the people.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased. People and culture, which affect laws, policies, and lobbying, are the cause of so many guns in this country. Gun rights nuts continue to exacerbate that issue, because of people like you, and because you are influenced and deluded by others.

Increasing guns in this country will not decrease gun crime. I think you need to understand that.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people Tongue.
More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.
See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.
You're still blaming the things, not the people.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people Tongue.
More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.
See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people Tongue.
More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.
See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.
Pages:
Jump to: