Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And, as the saying goes, "those who value security above freedom shall not have, nor do they deserve, either." Yes, we are less safe with guns, but we are also less safe with alcohol. Should we ban that again too?
I prefer to be .0001% less safe than about 20% less free. Get it now?
You still don't get it! No one is taking your damn handgun away! Duh! Do you even understand what regulating these high-powered, automatic/semi-automatic weapons with 30 round mags is about? Do you understand that loopholes still exist at gun shows? Some of the people here on this message board who are on your side even admit that!
Ask yourself this: why can't you legally buy a bomb at your local corner gun shop? Why can't you legally buy a nuke or a grenade launcher or a missle? Answer why and you'll see why your silly kung fu/katana argument is laughable. I've never seen a kung fu master kill 26 people at the same time, have you? This is about scale. No martial artist is a weapon of mass destruction. Uzis are. AK-47s are. ARs are. Bushmasters are. This is about regulating weapons (not BANNING them!) so that crazies don't do this ever again. This really should be obvious to you, but you keep wanting to push this ridiculous "hands and feet should be banned" argument. I really do question your cognitive skills because even your own side sees how ridiculous you're being. You watch too many Jackie Chan movies or something. Give it up.
You still don't get it! No one is taking your damn handgun away! Duh! Do you even understand what regulating these high-powered, automatic/semi-automatic weapons with 30 round mags is about? Do you understand that loopholes still exist at gun shows? Some of the people here on this message board who are on your side even admit that!
Ask yourself this: why can't you legally buy a bomb at your local corner gun shop? Why can't you legally buy a nuke or a grenade launcher or a missle? Answer why and you'll see why your silly kung fu/katana argument is laughable. I've never seen a kung fu master kill 26 people at the same time, have you? This is about scale. No martial artist is a weapon of mass destruction. Uzis are. AK-47s are. ARs are. Bushmasters are. This is about regulating weapons (not BANNING them!) so that crazies don't do this ever again. This really should be obvious to you, but you keep wanting to push this ridiculous "hands and feet should be banned" argument. I really do question your cognitive skills because even your own side sees how ridiculous you're being. You watch too many Jackie Chan movies or something. Give it up.
I will ignore the strawmen and appeal to ridicule fallacies and instead ask this:
So, it wouldn't bother you if only a handful of people died?
I admit I am nearly a sociopath, as I laughed when my mother died and tend to giggle when someone I don't care for gets it, but even I'm not that bad. So, two grieving mothers are okay, but not five?
"After the first death, there will be no other"-Dylan Thomas.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,395 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline
FALSE! We want to live in a world with sensible gun restrictions so we don't have to bury children anymore. Keep you 6-shooter/revolver, keep your .22 rifle for hunting. That's all you should need. No more rapid fire assault weapons.
Sorry buddy. Your "fun" with your gun is FAR less important than the lives of twenty 6 year-olds and all the thousands of people who die each year. You lose this one big time. Pick up a new hobby if you need to practice your aim.... shoot some damn basketball freethrows or something, jeez. Get over your selfishness and think about the greater good of the world you live in.
This is not about cars, so stop with the false analogy. This is about weapons that have been built and designed for only one purpose: to kill people. Cars are designed to be SAFE. When a gun is used as designed, someone dies. When a car is used as designed, you get to our destination safely.
Guns are designed to KILL PEOPLE and been getting more and more deadly with each new technological advancement. Meanwhile, cars get more and more safe with each technological advancement. Get it now?
Yes. Talking about restricting certain kinds of guns and certain kinds of ammunition does not equal banning guns; I live in a house with a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun. When the OP can show me evidence that the various methods of killing discussed in this thread can possibly be capable of snuffing out close to thirty lives in under three minutes, then we can talk. And, as much as the OP keeps trying to represent to the contrary, no one here as far as I can tell has fallen prey to the fallacy of appeal to ridicule or mockery. That particular fallacy involves invoking an opponent's argument in the most ridiculous light possible, rendering it, to some extent, a straw man argument. To qualify to be such an argument, the opponents must necessarily both exaggerate and twist the original arguer's words.
That hasn't happened here. Victorianpunk has routinely made baseless assertions that "liberals" have tried to take away people's guns and that they have ignored other causes of death. That is simply not the case. I would say that the OP has been entranced by an equally fallacious line of argument, that of the slippery slope. To say that regulations on a very limited class of guns will lead to a ban on all of them is like saying that legalizing the sale of marijuana will lead to 7/11s pushing heroin to school children. It's bad argumentation, period.
Yes. Talking about restricting certain kinds of guns and certain kinds of ammunition does not equal banning guns; I live in a house with a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun. When the OP can show me evidence that the various methods of killing discussed in this thread can possibly be capable of snuffing out close to thirty lives in under three minutes, then we can talk. And, as much as the OP keeps trying to represent to the contrary, no one here as far as I can tell has fallen prey to the fallacy of appeal to ridicule or mockery. That particular fallacy involves invoking an opponent's argument in the most ridiculous light possible, rendering it, to some extent, a straw man argument. To qualify to be such an argument, the opponents must necessarily both exaggerate and twist the original arguer's words.
That hasn't happened here. Victorianpunk has routinely made baseless assertions that "liberals" have tried to take away people's guns and that they have ignored other causes of death. That is simply not the case. I would say that the OP has been entranced by an equally fallacious line of argument, that of the slippery slope. To say that regulations on a very limited class of guns will lead to a ban on all of them is like saying that legalizing the sale of marijuana will lead to 7/11s pushing heroin to school children. It's bad argumentation, period.
That would be a bad argument if it was the one I was making.
Here it is for the tenth time:
Guns: guaranteed by the constitution, laws already on the books about them, they were made to kill people, and liberals want more laws and regulations for them
Martial arts: not protected by the constitution, no laws on the books about them, they too were made to kill people, and the liberals are not asking for regulation or laws for them.
How is that not "hypocrisy?" Only answer I get is:
I will ignore the strawmen and appeal to ridicule fallacies and instead ask this:
So, it wouldn't bother you if only a handful of people died?
I admit I am nearly a sociopath, as I laughed when my mother died and tend to giggle when someone I don't care for gets it, but even I'm not that bad. So, two grieving mothers are okay, but not five?
"After the first death, there will be no other"-Dylan Thomas.
Dude you are really sick... and I'm saying that out of genuine concern. I'm serious. Please get help. If that is how you respond to other people's demise, there is something very very wrong. You're going to be one of these psychos someday if you don't get a handle on it. Empathy is a critical aspect of being a human. If you laugh when your own mother dies, you should recognize that as highly unusual. Here's where you can start to find someone:
Dude you are really sick... and I'm saying that out of genuine concern. I'm serious. Please get help. If that is how you respond to other people's demise, there is something very very wrong. You're going to be one of these psychos someday if you don't get a handle on it. Empathy is a critical aspect of being a human. If you laugh when your own mother dies, you should recognize that as highly unusual. Here's where you can start to find someone:
I care about people I don't know dying, yes, and about injustice...family? Who cares? Family is for the weak and I couldn't care less about my own (when dad finally dies I do get some life insurance money, which would be sweet )
But I would never harm an innocent person...If I was going to go down, I would set off firecrackers in a mall to sound like guns while throwing pies at people. I would get shot by cops who think I'm shooting and be the THE FIRST perpetrator of a rampage pieing and go down in a blaze of lemon meringue.
That is what I don't understand about these guys: if you hate society so much, why treat them seriously? Why not go down giving society the finger and laughing at them instead of treating them seriously and killing them?
Why not drown yourself in chocolate syrup next to a cheerleaders convention with a note that says "ah hah! I got to eat and you skinny chicks didn't" or masturbate nude in a public place while biting on a cyanide capsule with a note that says "yep, I came and went at the same time!"
That is the way to go...having the last laugh. Why leave people crying, which they can understand, when you can leave them feeling like fools and shaking their heads?
Oh, I better shut up...liberals may try to ban practical jokes now too.
So killing people is okay, as long as it happens slowly
Bottom line: liberals want to disarm everyone. Why stop at guns? Why not ban martial arts too? We have a bunch of laws that say who can sell a gun to hell, but none saying who can teach martial arts to who or what martial arts can be taught...how is that not hypocrisy?
That's not what I said, you ding dong.
Savoir Faire said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire
YOUR thread is about martial arts which apparently involves strangulation (news to me, thanks for educating us).
I said they can and some do, and gave an example of one with a large number of strangulation techniques. You actually made essentially the exact same comment nearly simultaneously:
I then made a comment that it is massively slower than guns-which is true. I made no value judgement on guns or strangulation.
I simply wanted to point out the fallacy of saying strangulation is not a part of martial arts, to Savoir Faire. Have the rest of your protracted argument with him.
Guns: guaranteed by the constitution, laws already on the books about them, they were made to kill people, and liberals want more laws and regulations for them
Martial arts: not protected by the constitution, no laws on the books about them, they too were made to kill people, and the liberals are not asking for regulation or laws for them.
How is that not "hypocrisy?" Only answer I get is:
I propose we ban all assault martial arts and regulate non-automatic martial arts. Sorry, but no decent American of sane mind needs to learn Muay Thai:
Horrible! There is no justifiable reason for learning Muay Thai. Think of the little bitty children who could be hurt (that always gets liberals crying)
Not to mention the EVILS of Kung Fu. It is UNARMED COMBAT! MURDER TRAINING! WE NEED TO STOP IT!
Can any conservative give me a justifiable reason why someone would want to learn a art to emulate a movie called "FISTS OF FURY"?! What purpose does Kung Fu serve other than to hurt people? Think of THE CHILDREN
An Capoeira? Capoeria WAS INVENTED BY BRAZILIAN SLAVES TO FIGHT ARMED MEN! IT IS ALL ABOUT VIOLENCE AND DEATH! WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO KEEP THE CHILDREN AWAY FROM THIS?
Come on people, let's march on the UFC and martial arts expos and show those fists and foot nuts that we mean business! After all, unlike guns there is NOTHING in the constitution that says you have the right to learn a martial art. Come on liberals...think of the Children
Now turning sarcasm mode off.
Man, the RW is getting scared!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one is taking your damn handgun away! Duh! Do you even understand what regulating these high-powered, automatic/semi-automatic weapons with 30 round mags is about? Do you understand that loopholes still exist at gun shows? Some of the people here on this message board who are on your side even admit that!
) 
