This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Gun Control
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I have thought it through. Have you?YesI'm still waiting for how it is a proportional response to shoot someone until they're dead for demanding your walletIt isn't. If they threaten me with a weapon, then it is. If someone demands my wallet, I will tell them "no", but not shoot them.-- especially when you have the capability not to do that and still walk away with a) your life intact and b) without losing anything.Yes, but, that isn't what we are talking about. You have changed the entire scenario into something else than what is being discussed, and demanding a response to this new scenario. We said weapons for
personal defense
, not wallet defense, or you have placed me in the shoes of the attacker. Anyone who mugs people isn't in their right mind in the first place. You are trying to superimpose my logic onto an illogical or disturbed mind. It just doesn't work that way. Because I wouldn't shoot someone to death over a wallet, doesn't mean other people wouldn't, because they often do, on a daily basis in fact.P.S., your response clouds the fact that you grossly misused the word "Often" to attempt to subvert my point. Good job there.I used the word properly. There was no misuse. The word "often" quite effectively subverts your point. Even if your argument were an incorrect assumption only ONCE, it would still be ONCE to many for such a deadly scenario. Are you admitting that you are making an incorrect assumption, but arguing that my use of the word "often" makes too much about the degree of incorrectness? So you admit you are wrong, but the only contention is HOW wrong? What exactly are you arguing against when you point to my use of the word "often"? If I am misunderstanding, then spell it out for me a bit clearer, because this CERTAINLY isn't.But I've now made my point perfectly clear, and you've evaded all the meaningful discussion for longer than I care to carry on, so I'll leave you to your delusions.What are you talking about? lol. Silly man. I have been discussing this with you. You insist that people do not shoot people they believe are unarmed. I'm telling you that you are not correct. Would you like me to give you examples of people who are killed when the attacker knew they were unarmed? It happens every day. EVERY DAY unarmed people are murdered. I remember back in 2001 LA went 1 day without a murder and threw a big celebration. You have a view of life, society, and human relations that is seen through rosey glasses. You are not viewing life in the harsh reality that it exists. You have made it very easy to invalidate your arguments, by not addressing these harsh realities. Then you accuse
me
of being "delusional"? Pray tell what delusions have I succumbed to, or don't make personal attacks in a fairly bland debate. The worst offense is you hung the attack at the end of an "I'm leaving" statement, as if you wanted to get the last word in a fight or something. It's just way to dramatic for a debate that is fairly stale and statistical. If you seriously can't keep it civil in this tame of waters, you should definitely steer clear of the stormy threads. Do you honestly feel this passionate about firearm ownership to call your opponents "delusional"? Why not calm down, be reasonable, and come back to the debate with logical points supporting your argument?
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'll leave you to your delusions.lol, silly man.I suppose I should consider the possibility that while you would like him to be civil, you don't necessarily think you need to be.That
must
be it. I thought I was doing pretty good to shrug off accusations of insanity as simply being "silly and uncivil". I guess I should have known better than to use such a massively inflammatory and wildly uncivil word as "silly". Lol. Irony.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##There is a difference and "silly man" does cross the line even if it's not in a particularly offensive way. One addresses the ideas presented and one addresses the person presenting the ideas. Keep the conversation about the ideas please and leave any comments about other participants of the conversation out of the thread. Thanks.
Post by
gamerunknown
To my knowledge the kid hasn't tried anything that stupid again, especially out here.
I don't own a firearm and probably never will, but this is the kind of anecdote I like. Everyone left with their lives and property (slightly soiled in his case) and hopefully the kid has got his life on track. Can you imagine looking into their parent's eyes if you had shot him though?
Also, out of interest, what do you guys think about statistics on condom effectiveness? In Catholic circles, we often hear statistics such as "70% effective", but I hear that those are based on incorrect usage (such as double bagging, incorrect sizes or lubricant that damages that material). I'd count those as accidents much like I'd count an unintentional discharge of a firearm as an accident.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.