Spray and pray. Put out that much flying metal and you're bound to damage something!
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Spray and pray. Put out that much flying metal and you're bound to damage something!
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Is there a meaningful difference between an rpg being intended to destroy tanks and it being meant to kill people? Not sure tbh
I shot air rifles as a scout when I was a kid, but to be honest, I didn't find it at all exciting.
Of course, that doesn't mean I think other people who do enjoy it shouldn't be able to.
I'm not a shootey person altogether - I don't even like first person shooting games!
I told my son at the age of 4 that I would never buy him a toy gun - I'm not going to stop him pretending that a stick is a gun, but I'm not going to normalize gun ownership either.
I've never lived in a society where a person needs a gun to feel or to be safe... and that's quite an indictment on the USA and its gun culture considering the varied and exotic places I've lived.
Of course, that doesn't mean I think other people who do enjoy it shouldn't be able to.
I'm not a shootey person altogether - I don't even like first person shooting games!
I told my son at the age of 4 that I would never buy him a toy gun - I'm not going to stop him pretending that a stick is a gun, but I'm not going to normalize gun ownership either.I've never lived in a society where a person needs a gun to feel or to be safe... and that's quite an indictment on the USA and its gun culture considering the varied and exotic places I've lived.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Yeah, he's firing blanks here.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Ohoho!
Patty P
Member
Yes seriously. It's one of the most popular rifles used for large game like deer.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
My father used an AR-15 for hunting pigs. Not uncommon at all.
Oh, and stating X is only for Y (and sometimes Z) necessarily means X is only for Y is wrong. 21st Demon Lord, try restating your argument since you already admit it was wrong in the OP. It appears your real argument is that there are types of guns that should not be allowed to be owned, or people that own guns are at a higher risk of killing an innocent person.
Oh, and stating X is only for Y (and sometimes Z) necessarily means X is only for Y is wrong. 21st Demon Lord, try restating your argument since you already admit it was wrong in the OP. It appears your real argument is that there are types of guns that should not be allowed to be owned, or people that own guns are at a higher risk of killing an innocent person.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Nah, not gonna bother with this anymore ... seems pointless when you have people that argue that guns are not meant for killing people and then go full on Apocalypse Now.
To even be able to get anywhere 2 things need to be accepted first, that guns are weapons and that guns do not belong in the hands of average Joe. And ... just go over the thread so far ... even the fact that guns are weapons was being disputed.
To even be able to get anywhere 2 things need to be accepted first, that guns are weapons and that guns do not belong in the hands of average Joe. And ... just go over the thread so far ... even the fact that guns are weapons was being disputed.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
And there it is.
Your assessment of the thread is as woefully inadequate as your initial argument.
You began the thread with an assertion that 'guns have only one purpose'. When that was challenged, you asked for a list of other purposes, despite the fact that your own argument contained the concession of your entire position without you even having the logical chops to realise it. When provided with a list of falsifying examples that utterly crushed your preposterously overstated case, you attempted to poison the well by morphing objections to your asinine statement into support for the negation of your position, which is a whole litany of fallacies in only a few words.
You don't get to play the martyr card because you said something stupid and quite rightly had it ripped to pieces. It's pathetic, and easily spotted by anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of logic and discursive tactics. I've seen precision optical lenses that were harder to see through than you.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
There just does not seem to be anything useful in the point you are trying to make. Im an American. Lets say I buy gun, specifically for the purpose of killing someone who breaks into my home at night and tries to kill me or my family. The very next week someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me and I shoot him dead.
Then you come and say what? What happens next?
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Yes Hacken, exceptions exists and by no means invalidate the point.
People shouldnt screw around with explosives, still, some people get to work with explosives. People should not have access to Plutonium, still, some people get to work with Plutonium.
Thats in no way irrational or illogical.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Then I come and tell you, that no one is gonna break into your house to kill you. Thats an irrational fear.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Bzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. In this case, you erected an absolute statement that could brook no contradiction; a true binary statement. Any falsifying observation renders the statement false. It's as simple as that.
None of these is a statement on the same logical footing as 'guns have only one purpose'. The key bit of that is 'only one', which is an absolute that cannot countenance alternatives. This is a simple principle of logic which, given that you clearly don't get it, is a nice commentary on your competence to render a logical assessment of anything.
I can demonstrate that you have no credibility to make such an assessment.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
"The average joe has no business owning a gun" is a contention that you might actually be able to argue.
"The average joe has no business owning a gun" is not the original contention stated in your opening post.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
What's really amusing is that I'm a staunch advocate of gun control. I have two pretty solid posts on the blog advocating it, and in fact advocating against private gun ownership (my actual view is considerably more nuanced than the view I present on the blog, FYI). With a little work and careful thought, I'm pretty sure 21DL could develop it into a defensible argument, but a defensible argument isn't what he has here, he has a lazy argument, and lazy arguments irritate the crap out of me. More importantly, as I've always said, poor or lazy arguments ostensibly in support of a position I hold don't actually support my position, they undermine it, not least because I have to deal with all the morons presenting your flimsy bullshit as if it's mine.
Bad arguments exist only to be disposed of.
Bad arguments exist only to be disposed of.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Yes hacken, I have no credibility at all. I am incredible.
That should be clear since I am using a silly pseudonym and not giving out any personal information.
That should be clear since I am using a silly pseudonym and not giving out any personal information.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I have no problem with demonstrably responsible people owning firearms for all sorts of reasons. I have a problem with unrestricted access, largely because I have a problem with the resultant societal problems.
What I'd actually advocate might as well go in amorrow's infantile nuclear disarmament baby lottery thread, because it's not realistic. A man can dream, though, even a terminal sceptic. I advocate intelligence and social awareness training and testing as a prerequisite for licensing, and that all owners should be licensed at state level (can't do it federally without violating the second amendment).
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Oh, woe is me.
Diddums. Get over yourself. You have no credibility in assessing the logical content of anything because you demonstrably don't grasp even the most rudimentary aspects of logic.
I'm also using a pseudonym, yet I have credibility. Why? Because I've demonstrated an ability to grasp logical principles and, more importantly, to accept when I get things wrong or overstate a case. We all do it, even those of us who've worked hard to expunge such practices from our thinking. I did it only this week.
Rather than become a pathetic victim (which only makes you look more stupid/dishonest/disingenuous), you could try learning, but repeated history in a very, very short time has shown us that you're not really interested in that.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
Really? I've already been shot at twice before with real bullets by real people who were trying to kill me. Once I was actually inside my home but they were shooting from the outside so I guess that doesnt count.
Hell there are people all over the world who would kill you like a chicken just for the fun of it and have a big party afterwards. Location is everything..