12 Nov 18
@vivify said"Bingo. That's one of the many reasons comparing guns to cars is stupid. "
Bingo. That's one of the many reasons comparing guns to cars is stupid.
[quote]if someone attacked my girlfriend , i am already intent on using every means necessary to stop the attacker and i wouldn't care in the slightest if he ends up unconscious or dead. not having a gun makes the attacker more likely to succeed because i am very far from "kung-fu master" status and i ...[text shortened]... ourself against an armed attacker. More disadvantages exist with guns in the world than advantages.
doesn't follow. in the slightest.
i am going to ignore this point from now on, i got bored arguing over and over what i meant while you don't bother making any argument besides "comparing guns with cars is stupid" without supporting whatsoever.
"If your attacker also has a gun, you're most likely dead anyway. "
or i might get lucky and fire first. it's an option i should have if i want it. your statement is based on nothing is just like saying "if you have a front collision with a tree, you're dead anyway, seatbelt or no seatbelt".
"Since you admit to being physically weak, chances are you're no gunslinger
either"
yes, that's why there are no women soldiers, since they are physically weaker chances are they are no gunslinger either. or would you come to realize that one skill has nothing to do with other ?
yes, it takes skill to use a gun which is why i support implementing a gun license that is at least as thorough with a driving license: hours of classes, theoretical and practical, psych evaluation, a test at the end and in the case of guns, periodical reexaminations.
you assume guns can only exist in a country like the US which gives them out like candy on Halloween to anyone or be outright banned. most(all) civilized countries however have decent gun laws (not universal bans). i have not checked them all but please find me a country that has a universal ban on all guns and tell me how much of a dictatorship it isn't.
"It's easier to kill an unsuspecting target than it is to defend yourself against an armed attacker"
Most attacks don't happen with the intent to kill from the start, if they do then yes, you are dead anyway. For those attacks that happen with sufficient warning, like rape, a drunk abusive ex forcing himself in your apartment, you might have a chance to get a gun, if you want to. Some want to, some don't and just want to curl into a ball and wait for it to be over. That is a choice everyone must make and you want to take away that choice for the good of... someone, instead of making the harder but right choice of making good enough laws to regulate and control , not ban.
You don't get to tell a rape victim that wanted to get a gun to protect herself that "it's gonna be a while until we have no rapes in our country, until then you only get to protect yourself how I want to, not how you feel is right"
"More disadvantages exist with guns in the world than advantages."
if the only advantage is that I get to protect myself against an attacker and i get to live, i don't give a rat's ass about what you perceive as disadvantages. If kids shoot themselves with their parents guns, solve that problem, i don't have kids, i don't have that problem. If depressed people shoot themselves with guns, psych eval me and see that i am not depressed, it's not my problem.
You solve each problem with various measures, you don't ban something outright because you're too lazy to come up with solutions rather than "let's just bury the whole thing and forget about it"
Uranium has a ton of disadvantages but we somehow managed to address many of them without banning it completely and giving up its advantages, and no, i don't care that you are going to use your tired argument "uranium has other uses than to kill" again.
12 Nov 18
@zahlanzi saidGuns have a different purpose from cars, are specifically designed to easily kill, unlike cars, and thus are in an entirely different class of products from cars (or anything else). Therefore, the way to deal with guns is completely different from how we deal with cars. It's that simple.
i am going to ignore this point from now on, i got bored arguing over and over what i meant while you don't bother making any argument besides "comparing guns with cars is stupid" without supporting whatsoever.
Notice how you've offered zero reasons as to why cars are the least bit comparable to guns, you just assert they are. Clearly, you don't follow your own standards when *you're* the one making comparisons.
"If your attacker also has a gun, you're most likely dead anyway. "
or i might get lucky and fire first. it's an option i should have if i want it.
If every last victim in the Las Vegas shooting had a gun, they wouldn't have been able to stop a gunman safely behind a window, 23 stories high, on top of having to guess which window the shooter was aiming from.
For every specific scenario where a gun could successfully defend you that you invent, there are a lot more where victims, even armed stand no chance of surviving against a gunman.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 18
@zahlanzi said"considering you said repeatedly you support banning guns under any circumstances"
"Firstly, you didn't need to argue this point. As I stated guns should be banned its not a long stretch to assume that I would support regulations of guns while they are not banned. "
considering you said repeatedly you support banning guns under any circumstances it is in fact a stretch to assume you don't care for regulation.
"Apart from all the countries that have ...[text shortened]... , it fails now with drugs (cocaine, lsd or marijuana, doesn't matter), it will fail with everything.
I didn't type those words once never mind repeatedly.
"it is in fact a stretch to assume you don't care for regulation. "
Correct, it would be stretch (not sure you meant this though).
"such as ? which country banned all guns? "
C'mon, don't be that guy. I didn't say 'all' guns, you know what I meant.
"Yes, absolutely anything for which you can make a case that it can be used responsibly shouldn't be banned"
Life is more complex than a simple binary "can it be used responsibly or not". There are many sociological and risk/reward issues, amongst others to consider.
Would you rather have America or Britain's gun violence statistics for your country?
12 Nov 18
@stellspalfie said"considering you said repeatedly you support banning guns under any circumstances"
"considering you said repeatedly you support banning guns under any circumstances"
I didn't type those words once never mind repeatedly.
"it is in fact a stretch to assume you don't care for regulation. "
Correct, it would be stretch (not sure you meant this though).
"such as ? which country banned all guns? "
C'mon, don't be that guy. I didn't say 'al ...[text shortened]... o consider.
Would you rather have America or Britain's gun violence statistics for your country?
I didn't type those words once never mind repeatedly.
ah, cool, so i only need to find one instance where you did say that.
I won't even look. I am psychic. first page of this thread, 8th post. I see it in my mind's eye that is where you said it first.
"C'mon, don't be that guy. I didn't say 'all' guns, you know what I meant. "
first page of this thread, 8th post.
"Life is more complex than a simple binary "can it be used responsibly or not". "
hehe this was funny😀
"can be used responsibly or not" is anything but binary. it is a whole spectrum of how much is considered responsible or not.
"ban or not ban all guns" is actually quite binary. you can't deal with anything in between so you just want to ban all guns to get it over with.
first page, 8th post in case you're wondering when did you say you wanted to ban all guns.
"Would you rather have America or Britain's gun violence statistics for your country?"
Britain's. which is why i asked for Britain's gun control laws, or France's or Canada's or Australia's and not US's
12 Nov 18
@vivify said"Guns have a different purpose from cars,"
Guns have a different purpose from cars, are specifically designed to easily kill, unlike cars, and thus are in an entirely different class of products from cars (or anything else). Therefore, the way to deal with guns is completely different from how we deal with cars. It's that simple.
Notice how you've offered zero reasons as to why cars are the least bit comparable ...[text shortened]... nvent, there are a lot more where victims, even armed stand no chance of surviving against a gunman.
there it is again. what you lack in originality and inventivity in finding new arguments you make up for in persistence.
"If every last victim in the Las Vegas shooting had a gun"
oh, i never heard this argument before. if something can't solve 100% of a problem, it's not worth implementing. oh wait, yes i have, when whodey and eladar and quacksmcquacking talks about guns. "gun control can't solve gun deaths so why bother".
then again, for a while now i started to suspect more and more you're a lefty whodey.
"For every specific scenario where a gun could successfully defend you that you invent, there are a lot more where victims, even armed stand no chance of surviving against a gunman."
yet one has nothing to do with the other. if you have responsible gun laws, if you don't allow the sale of assault rifles, if you do psych evaluations, background checks, a woman defending herself from a rape with a handgun won't lead to another las vegas shooter who used guns i want banned and had enough ammo to equip a plutoon which i don't support and wasn't asked any questions when checkin into the hotel or when he bought the, what was it, fifth rifle?
12 Nov 18
2 edits
@zahlanzi saidCreativity isn't needed for logical statements. They're needed to support bad arguments. A felon can still drive as long as their conviction wasn't vehicle related; but they can't own a gun, even if no guns were involved in their sentence. Clearly, guns aren't comparable to cars.
"Guns have a different purpose from cars,"
there it is again. what you lack in originality and inventivity in finding new arguments you make up for in persistence.
"gun control can't solve gun deaths so why bother".
then again, for a while now i started to suspect more and more you're a lefty whodey.
You say this, but your argument style is no different from him or Mott: sarcastic dismissals of any point you disagree with, paired with a smug belief you can't be wrong. You also put words in the mouths of others and attack them for what wasn't said.
No one said "don't bother" with gun control. The point is society is better without guns.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 18
@Zahlanzi
My apologies, you are correct. I did say that....is it too late to pretend that I said 'the vast majority of guns'?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 18
1 edit
@Zahlanzi
"Would you rather have America or Britain's gun violence statistics for your country?"
Britain's. which is why i asked for Britain's gun control laws, or France's or Canada's or Australia's and not US's
If this is what you think then we agree.
13 Nov 18
@stellspalfie saidit is too late to pretend that you said that.
@Zahlanzi
My apologies, you are correct. I did say that....is it too late to pretend that I said 'the vast majority of guns'?
it is not too late to say what you really mean.
yes, i believe the vast majority of guns should be banned too. a woman doesn't need an assault rifle to protect herself while walking home. nobody should need anything that has a 30 round magazine. hunting should only be permitted with a knife. and if you want to fire other guns you should go to a firing range and shoot at targets under supervision.
13 Nov 18
@stellspalfie saidwe agree
@Zahlanzi
"Would you rather have America or Britain's gun violence statistics for your country?"
Britain's. which is why i asked for Britain's gun control laws, or France's or Canada's or Australia's and not US's
If this is what you think then we agree.
13 Nov 18
and no, i don't care that you are going to use your tired argument "uranium has other uses than to kill" again.I am calling ALL of your arguments "tired".
What now?
It is absolutely immature to call an argument you cannot refute
which is repeatedly used against you "tired" .... it does not matter
how often used or how old .. if it is valid it is VALID.
13 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 said"I am calling ALL of your arguments "tired"."
I am calling ALL of your arguments "tired".
What now?
It is absolutely immature to call an argument you cannot refute
which is repeatedly used against you "tired" .... it does not matter
how often used or how old .. if it is valid it is VALID.
without anything to support this statement, i don't care about this either
"What now?"
i guess i will hold my breath waiting for you to actually make a point.
"It is absolutely immature to call an argument you cannot refute
which is repeatedly used against you "tired""
i did refute it. repeatedly. he ignored them and kept repeating that.
if you don't like my arguments, present them each and argue against them.
"if it is valid it is VALID."
really? what a novel idea. i never would have guessed that. If X is X then it is X. did you also pressed on your keyboard extra hard when you were typing valid in all caps?
13 Nov 18
2 edits
@zahlanzi saidWell "lol" was and still is my initial reaction. And bear in mind I'm not here to win debates.
i see a lot of "immediate sentiment" and not a lot of rational why
so other than feelings, do you have something to base this action on? did you think what would happen? did you think that some might have legitimate reasons to carry a gun? like maybe the woman under threat of a stalker that proved he doesn't care for the restraining order she has against him? the abused ...[text shortened]...
what other things you have immediate sentiments on to ban? tobacco? alcohol? naughty movies?
This may shock you but I dont subscribe to "rationale" or "rationalizing" , I suscribe to logic.
Legitimate grounds to carry a gun,? ( a gun in a semi-urban/urban area, not a gun for hunting or protecting stock animals. ) ? Anywhere in the world for me personally? None
Anywhere in the world with an unwilling companion or a minor? Depends on the situation.
Having said that I'm very pleased with the very few firearm deaths that happen here in Australia. And the farmers do have guns and strange things happen to those who deserve it in the outback, but the burbs by and large are dogmeat compared to the U.S. And yes it feels safer even though I haven't actually been to the states.
So I guess kinda sheds light on the rest of the questions until the last line.
Would I ban fun? Hell no. Use not abuse. Moderation.
Gun culture is anti-moderation. (kill or be killed) .
No offence but do you not see the absurdity in this repeated garbage of an argument?
Tobacco,alcohol,porn,and other such vices are not crimes that directly affect others.
Guns have the sole purpose of directly affecting others.
You get my drift?
14 Nov 18
@karoly-aczel said"Well "lol" was and still is my initial reaction. And bear in mind I'm not here to win debates. "
Well "lol" was and still is my initial reaction. And bear in mind I'm not here to win debates.
This may shock you but I dont subscribe to "rationale" or "rationalizing" , I suscribe to logic.
Legitimate grounds to carry a gun,? ( a gun in a semi-urban/urban area, not a gun for hunting or protecting stock animals. ) ? Anywhere in the world for me personally? None
...[text shortened]... ctly affect others.
Guns have the sole purpose of directly affecting others.
You get my drift?
is that a fancy way of saying "i won't bother actually debating"?
"This may shock you but I dont subscribe to "rationale" or "rationalizing" , I suscribe to logic. "
i am sure you have a lengthy explanation as to why they are different from each other and from what i asked of you. In case i ever ask for it.
"Legitimate grounds to carry a gun,? ( a gun in a semi-urban/urban area, not a gun for hunting or protecting stock animals. ) ? Anywhere in the world for me personally? None"
Cool, you declared there are NO legitimate reasons to carry a gun.
I only need to put forward one: self-protection. From a logical standpoint, i can obviously protect myself better than with no gun. Now you prove me wrong if you can. This is how a debate works. If you don't want to prove me wrong and just declare again the same thing "there are NO legitimate reasons to carry a gun", you're not a free spirit who is not out to win debates. You are just someone who speaks out of his ass and not out to HAVE a debate. Which is fine, just let me know so i don't waste time with you.
Or are you going to use that "for me personally" at the end of the statement as a qualifier for your statement? In that case i only have to point out that laws aren't made "for you personally"
"Anywhere in the world with an unwilling companion or a minor?"
Unwilling companion? As in your kidnapping victim? What do you mean.
"Depends on the situation."
Oh, so there are some legitimate reasons after all.
"Having said that I'm very pleased with the very few firearm deaths that happen here in Australia. And the farmers do have guns and strange things happen to those who deserve it in the outback, but the burbs by and large are dogmeat compared to the U.S. And yes it feels safer even though I haven't actually been to the states."
Which is supporting gun control laws. Not complete ban on all guns.
"Would I ban fun? Hell no. Use not abuse. Moderation.
Gun culture is anti-moderation. (kill or be killed) . "
We're not talking about gun culture. I am against that. We are talking about having the possibility to get a reasonable gun after fulfilling reasonable prerequisites. Insisting on pointing to the gun situation in the US is strawmaning. I am not advocating for that, i am against that. Not completely banning guns has different outcomes, fact proven by the US existing and Australia, the example you gave, existing.
"No offence but do you not see the absurdity in this repeated garbage of an argument? "
none taken and no, i don't. Perhaps you not giving me any argument to support the complete ban on guns.
"Guns have the sole purpose of directly affecting others."
sometimes it's targets at a gun range since we're talking about fun with guns. sometimes it's just an aesthetic effect on others when some hang their guns on the wall. i wouldn't do that but i don't kink shame.
"You get my drift?"
As obviously proud as you were of your "arguments" i am afraid i am going to have to say, again , no.
Let's cut the crap: Do you actually support the complete ban on ALL guns?