Current Events

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

National Acrobat — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:10:34 GMT

Autolykos:

National Acrobat:
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't mean you have to play dumb [sic] to the intentional lethality of guns vs swimming pools.

Just what difference must intentional lethality make?

It does't have to make any difference. However, people who support gun control generally consider the lethal purposes that guns are designed for a major part of the reason they want to restrict them. Playing dumb to this won't convince them of anything. If you're goal is to refute and convince people that disagree with you, it's pretty important to consider this.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

Autolykos — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:35:37 GMT

National Acrobat:
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't mean you have to play dumb [sic] to the intentional lethality of guns vs swimming pools.

Just what difference must intentional lethality make?

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

Torsten — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:34:40 GMT

I agree with all of that, but that doesn't mean you have to play dumb to the intentional lethality of guns vs swimming pools.

So you are using a design argument here?

I'd agree, Among other things guns are designed to injure or kill bad guys safely or to threaten to do so.

Among other things Swimming pools are designed to swim and relax in safely.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

National Acrobat — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 04:05:12 GMT

boniek:

Biggest flaw in liberal logic is to me the fact that banning simply means that one group of people (criminals - public and private) are immune to ban while non-criminal private sector is not. It is simply a way to give more power (physical and psychological) to one group of people (imho "bad", parasitic people) at the cost of another group of people ("good", productive people). Banning guns will improve security of those that will have guns - namely criminals, public and private.

You can minimize effects violence only when either nobody has weapons or when everybody has them. Giving government and criminals (purely semantic difference) exclusive access to weaponry seems like dumb idea to me if you do not value concentration of power and all assorted baggage.

I agree with all of that, but that doesn't mean you have to play dumb to the intentional lethality of guns vs swimming pools.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

gotlucky — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:57:59 GMT

I'm glad they know what "Ol' George" would think today. It's truly an impressive feat. Just think of how knowledgeable these people must be. Not only do they have extensive knowledge as to Washington's beliefs on both personal and political ethics, they know exactly how that would translate to the modern American culture and political system.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

HabbaBabba — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:05:22 GMT

Thought y'all might get a kick out of some of the back and forth on a forum I saw:

Any move to regulate and control gun sales and restrict certain weapons is not condoned by the amendment, which as stated, is pretty bald.

Im sure the founding fathers would be surprised at that, but im also sure the founding fathers would be surprised at just how many mass shooting events we are prepared to tolerate this day and age before even marginally altering a 200 year old amendment.

My guess is they would be aghast at what they created...

exactly. Boston Massacre, killed 5 men, injured 6. All of them adults and gathered in protest.
6 years later, we declared independence from England and went to war.

Today, 61 mass murder events since 1982, 31 school shootings since columbine in 99. Hundreds dead, plenty of them defenseless school children. You think they would have screwed around as long as we have without acting in the public interest?

Ol George would have been outlawing weapons left and right.

The thread is up to 52 pages...

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

Malachi — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:40:03 GMT

Sorry, that was rude.

guns are useful for things besides killing. Peace of mind, communication and persuasion come to mind.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:31:54 GMT

wat

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

Malachi — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:31:18 GMT

In that case I LMAO and you GTFO, or someone can reply to my above reply, as it is topical and somewhat counterintuitive.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:27:21 GMT

Eh, I think I'm just tired of it at this point. I know I've said that before, but the excitement in trying to do the only thing that I really can do is pretty much gone now.

I don't think I'd want to do it again.

Well...maybe...I would...if...

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

Malachi — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:21:42 GMT

Hit em back with a LMAO GTFOH

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:18:21 GMT

Also, they now are just responding to me with things like "lol" trying to condescend me out of the place. Screw liberals.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:16:25 GMT

Actually I think Wheylous made an account on there called PublicAccess where the password is "password." I think he might have changed it though, I don't know.

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

Anenome — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:15:07 GMT

SkepticalMetal:

It's up. Check it out.

Nonmembers can't view that board. I'm not gonna sign up just to read one reply...

Re: 22 children killed with knife in China

Anenome — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:13:41 GMT

Sounds to me like if someone says "shove the 2nd amendment up your ass" that they cannot refute your principled argument and are instead falling back on the pure emotionalism which is actually driving their argument.

I'd press the point again and challenge them on the reasoning again as if they never said anything. It means you've beaten them in the fight, they have no more 'logic' to throw at you and are now devolved to pure emotionalism.