Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
Nice rifle, is that a Leopould scope on it? What kind of a load do you shoot? I have a .300 also and shoot a 180gr boatail with 72.5 grains of 4350.Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
Don't forget, he can shoot better then us too, just ask him. If that doesn't prove his case I don't know what will?? :laugh:
-1 you lose.
Because I can shoot better, run faster, jump higher, hit harder, drive faster, piss farther, and debate better than he could ever dream. It's easy for someone like him to back talk to his superiors from a keyboard on the other side of the world.
Here is *my* proof:
http://members.cox.net/exdeath/pic1.jpg
300 yards with my .300 WM hand built on a rem 700 with a Navy sniper barrel. Not exactly one hole but still spinal cord width, given a shitastic 9x scope (now taking donations for a Nightforce 12-42x56 )
(disregard the 6 shots to the lower right, they were from another gun, a .338 if I remember, desperately looking for some unused paper at the end of the day before taking the targets down)
Oh, and my daddy can beat up his daddy. Therefore I win.
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
No, not at all. However, when you simply repeats phrases like "appeal to authority" without even knowing what they mean, because you think they make you sound smart, you effectively disqualify yourself from the debate. It's like debating astronomy with a flat-earth believer: sometimes, you not only can't win, you can't argue because that is impossible with someone of limited capacity.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
No, not at all. However, when you simply repeats phrases like "appeal to authority" without even knowing what they mean, because you think they make you sound smart, you effectively disqualify yourself from the debate. It's like debating astronomy with a flat-earth believer: sometimes, you not only can't win, you can't argue because that is impossible with someone of limited capacity.
So tell me, what's it like going through life as both an idiot and an asshole?
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Ignore him. I am.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Nice rifle, is that a Leopould scope on it? What kind of a load do you shoot? I have a .300 also and shoot a 180gr boatail with 72.5 grains of 4350.Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
Don't forget, he can shoot better then us too, just ask him. If that doesn't prove his case I don't know what will?? :laugh:
-1 you lose.
Because I can shoot better, run faster, jump higher, hit harder, drive faster, piss farther, and debate better than he could ever dream. It's easy for someone like him to back talk to his superiors from a keyboard on the other side of the world.
Here is *my* proof:
http://members.cox.net/exdeath/pic1.jpg
300 yards with my .300 WM hand built on a rem 700 with a Navy sniper barrel. Not exactly one hole but still spinal cord width, given a shitastic 9x scope (now taking donations for a Nightforce 12-42x56 )
(disregard the 6 shots to the lower right, they were from another gun, a .338 if I remember, desperately looking for some unused paper at the end of the day before taking the targets down)
Oh, and my daddy can beat up his daddy. Therefore I win.
My two main rifles are a .300 Win mag and a .220 Swift. The .300 is my "meatgetter" and I have it sighted in for 275 yds and shoot 2 1/2" groups at that range. I practice with it out to 800 yds and can hit a 20" rectangle just about every shot at that range. My .300 is just a Winchester Model 70 stock hunting rifle I bought back in the 70's and doesn't have the heavy barrel, so it really kicks after shooting 2 boxes of ammo from a shooting bench your ready to quit shooting it.
My .220 has the heavy varmit barrel on it and at 125 yards I've shoot lots of 5-shot groups that can be covered with a dime.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Tell me something. I already know you are a dyed-in-the-wool gun nut, which is fine. But isn't it obvious to you that some guns are inherently more dangerous than others, such as a fully automatic AK-47 versus a two-shot derringer? Does it make sense to you to say that all guns are equally lethal, "in the right hands"? I'm really curious. Because I've asked three people here just now, and they all feel it's obvious. If you are fair, you will also admit it-- and if not, no big deal.
Your misquote is stupid. I'm not using a tactic, since there is no arguing with someone like exdeath. I am merely noting that exdeath has lost, and won't admit it; I'm not basing his loss on his failure to admit he's lost. Don't be stupider than necessary.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
No, not at all. However, when you simply repeats phrases like "appeal to authority" without even knowing what they mean, because you think they make you sound smart, you effectively disqualify yourself from the debate. It's like debating astronomy with a flat-earth believer: sometimes, you not only can't win, you can't argue because that is impossible with someone of limited capacity.
So tell me, what's it like going through life as both an idiot and an asshole?
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Tell me something. I already know you are a dyed-in-the-wool gun nut, which is fine. But isn't it obvious to you that some guns are inherently more dangerous than others, such as a fully automatic AK-47 versus a two-shot derringer? Does it make sense to you to say that all guns are equally lethal, "in the right hands"? I'm really curious. Because I've asked three people here just now, and they all feel it's obvious. If you are fair, you will also admit it-- and if not, no big deal.
Your misquote is stupid. I'm not using a tactic, since there is no arguing with someone like exdeath. I am merely noting that exdeath has lost, and won't admit it; I'm not basing his loss on his failure to admit he's lost. Don't be stupider than necessary.
An AK-47 in my hands is much less dangerous than a two shot derringer in a killers hands.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I'm not picking fights. I've pointed out many inaccuracies... including your trollish mischaracterization of what I said. Have a nice life.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Tell me something. I already know you are a dyed-in-the-wool gun nut, which is fine. But isn't it obvious to you that some guns are inherently more dangerous than others, such as a fully automatic AK-47 versus a two-shot derringer? Does it make sense to you to say that all guns are equally lethal, "in the right hands"? I'm really curious. Because I've asked three people here just now, and they all feel it's obvious. If you are fair, you will also admit it-- and if not, no big deal.
Your misquote is stupid. I'm not using a tactic, since there is no arguing with someone like exdeath. I am merely noting that exdeath has lost, and won't admit it; I'm not basing his loss on his failure to admit he's lost. Don't be stupider than necessary.
An AK-47 in my hands is much less dangerous than a two shot derringer in a killers hands.
That's not what I asked. One of the inaccurate points I was addressing, back before the gun nuts decided to gang up on me, was that all weapons have equal capability.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
No, not at all. However, when you simply repeats phrases like "appeal to authority" without even knowing what they mean, because you think they make you sound smart, you effectively disqualify yourself from the debate. It's like debating astronomy with a flat-earth believer: sometimes, you not only can't win, you can't argue because that is impossible with someone of limited capacity.
So tell me, what's it like going through life as both an idiot and an asshole?
You deserve a vacation. Marked.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Tell me something. I already know you are a dyed-in-the-wool gun nut, which is fine. But isn't it obvious to you that some guns are inherently more dangerous than others, such as a fully automatic AK-47 versus a two-shot derringer? Does it make sense to you to say that all guns are equally lethal, "in the right hands"? I'm really curious. Because I've asked three people here just now, and they all feel it's obvious. If you are fair, you will also admit it-- and if not, no big deal.
Your misquote is stupid. I'm not using a tactic, since there is no arguing with someone like exdeath. I am merely noting that exdeath has lost, and won't admit it; I'm not basing his loss on his failure to admit he's lost. Don't be stupider than necessary.
An AK-47 in my hands is much less dangerous than a two shot derringer in a killers hands.
That's not what I asked. One of the inaccurate points I was addressing, back before the gun nuts decided to gang up on me, was that all weapons have equal capability.
He said any gun in "the right hands", which is a key point.
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.
No, not at all. However, when you simply repeats phrases like "appeal to authority" without even knowing what they mean, because you think they make you sound smart, you effectively disqualify yourself from the debate. It's like debating astronomy with a flat-earth believer: sometimes, you not only can't win, you can't argue because that is impossible with someone of limited capacity.
So tell me, what's it like going through life as both an idiot and an asshole?
You deserve a vacation. Marked.
Watch out you've been marked by the master baiter.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Tell me something. I already know you are a dyed-in-the-wool gun nut, which is fine. But isn't it obvious to you that some guns are inherently more dangerous than others, such as a fully automatic AK-47 versus a two-shot derringer? Does it make sense to you to say that all guns are equally lethal, "in the right hands"? I'm really curious. Because I've asked three people here just now, and they all feel it's obvious. If you are fair, you will also admit it-- and if not, no big deal.
Your misquote is stupid. I'm not using a tactic, since there is no arguing with someone like exdeath. I am merely noting that exdeath has lost, and won't admit it; I'm not basing his loss on his failure to admit he's lost. Don't be stupider than necessary.
An AK-47 in my hands is much less dangerous than a two shot derringer in a killers hands.
That's not what I asked. One of the inaccurate points I was addressing, back before the gun nuts decided to gang up on me, was that all weapons have equal capability.
He said any gun in "the right hands", which is a key point.
It's still wrong. Take the most lethal weapons expert in the world, give him a choice between a sniper rifle and a derringer, put him on a rooftop and ask him to shoot a far target. Guess what he'll pick?
The comparison is not a more-dangerous weapon in the hands of a safer person versus a less-dangerous weapon in the hands of a more dangerous person. The fact that you are trying to arrange your facts this way is because one is more lethal than the other (by which I mean lethal in a greater range of circumstances, not that one kills and one does not). If you are honest, you will now admit to yourself that you consider one weapon to be more lethal than another. If not, fine.
Originally posted by: JD50
Of course one weapon has more lethal capabilities than a less powerful one, but that wasn't the argument. Now you are going to add in all of these qualifiers just so you're right and everyone else is wrong.
This is like me telling you that the sky is not blue its red, then you say no, its blue, then I say, "well actually if you put on red glasses then the sky is red and not blue" and then I go and claim to have beaten you in a debate.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Of course one weapon has more lethal capabilities than a less powerful one, but that wasn't the argument. Now you are going to add in all of these qualifiers just so you're right and everyone else is wrong.
This is like me telling you that the sky is not blue its red, then you say no, its blue, then I say, "well actually if you put on red glasses then the sky is red and not blue" and then I go and claim to have beaten you in a debate.
That was indeed the argument. It is untrue that all weapons are equally lethal in the right hands, as you've just allowed. I merely pointed out the error. It was, IIRC, in the context of a minor discussion of restricting some guns and not others. The reason some weapons are more restricted is because they are inherently more dangerous.
I'm not adding qualifiers. One gun may be more lethal than another, in any hands. It's simple, and there shouldn't be any issue with someone like exdeath owning up to this simple fact. You have.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Tell me something. I already know you are a dyed-in-the-wool gun nut, which is fine. But isn't it obvious to you that some guns are inherently more dangerous than others, such as a fully automatic AK-47 versus a two-shot derringer? Does it make sense to you to say that all guns are equally lethal, "in the right hands"? I'm really curious. Because I've asked three people here just now, and they all feel it's obvious. If you are fair, you will also admit it-- and if not, no big deal.
Your misquote is stupid. I'm not using a tactic, since there is no arguing with someone like exdeath. I am merely noting that exdeath has lost, and won't admit it; I'm not basing his loss on his failure to admit he's lost. Don't be stupider than necessary.
An AK-47 in my hands is much less dangerous than a two shot derringer in a killers hands.
That's not what I asked. One of the inaccurate points I was addressing, back before the gun nuts decided to gang up on me, was that all weapons have equal capability.
He said any gun in "the right hands", which is a key point.
It's still wrong. Take the most lethal weapons expert in the world, give him a choice between a sniper rifle and a derringer, put him on a rooftop and ask him to shoot a far target. Guess what he'll pick?
The comparison is not a more-dangerous weapon in the hands of a safer person versus a less-dangerous weapon in the hands of a more dangerous person. The fact that you are trying to arrange your facts this way is because one is more lethal than the other (by which I mean lethal in a greater range of circumstances, not that one kills and one does not). If you are honest, you will now admit to yourself that you consider one weapon to be more lethal than another. If not, fine.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.
Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.
He loses... at life.
Nope. By the way, guns have different capabilities, and it is untrue that in the right hands, all guns are equally lethal. Lethality depends on many factors, including the ammo, range and accuracy of the weapon, and the situation. That's why you can't walk around shoot people accurately in the spinal cord at 25 yards with a derringer.
See, you don't lose because I am an award-winning debater, and I never said that. You just lose because you won't admit when you've lost a point, disqualifying yourself from the argument. There is no point in trying to convince you, a gun nut, that you're wrong; and you will deny to others that you are wrong, even when it's obvious.
You lose.
LOL, so now your tactic is to say, "you lose because you won't admit that you lost". This is getting ridiculous.
Tell me something. I already know you are a dyed-in-the-wool gun nut, which is fine. But isn't it obvious to you that some guns are inherently more dangerous than others, such as a fully automatic AK-47 versus a two-shot derringer? Does it make sense to you to say that all guns are equally lethal, "in the right hands"? I'm really curious. Because I've asked three people here just now, and they all feel it's obvious. If you are fair, you will also admit it-- and if not, no big deal.
Your misquote is stupid. I'm not using a tactic, since there is no arguing with someone like exdeath. I am merely noting that exdeath has lost, and won't admit it; I'm not basing his loss on his failure to admit he's lost. Don't be stupider than necessary.
An AK-47 in my hands is much less dangerous than a two shot derringer in a killers hands.
That's not what I asked. One of the inaccurate points I was addressing, back before the gun nuts decided to gang up on me, was that all weapons have equal capability.
He said any gun in "the right hands", which is a key point.
It's still wrong. Take the most lethal weapons expert in the world, give him a choice between a sniper rifle and a derringer, put him on a rooftop and ask him to shoot a far target. Guess what he'll pick?
The comparison is not a more-dangerous weapon in the hands of a safer person versus a less-dangerous weapon in the hands of a more dangerous person. The fact that you are trying to arrange your facts this way is because one is more lethal than the other (by which I mean lethal in a greater range of circumstances, not that one kills and one does not). If you are honest, you will now admit to yourself that you consider one weapon to be more lethal than another. If not, fine.
Of course one weapon has more lethal capabilities than a less powerful one, but that wasn't the argument. Now you are going to add in all of these qualifiers just so you're right and everyone else is wrong.
This is like me telling you that the sky is not blue its red, then you say no, its blue, then I say, "well actually if you put on red glasses then the sky is red and not blue" and then I go and claim to have beaten you in a debate.
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yeah it's a Leupold, a cheesy 4-9x for now... between car stuff, computers, school, etc, having a hard time parting with $1500+ for the scope I want (Nightforce NXS).
I have all that written down somewhere, a buddy of mine does loads for me, since he knows more about building and loading than I can forget. He built the rifle and has it all gauged specifically to that gun as far as throat lead and all that good stuff. All form fired Norma and Starlight brass, etc, he knows his stuff. I have two loads that have the same point of impact at 300 yards, one is a 125gr @ 3850 and the other is a 150 @ ? fps. I'll update from home with the exacts.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yeah it's a Leupold, a cheesy 4-9x for now... between car stuff, computers, school, etc, having a hard time parting with $1500+ for the scope I want (Nightforce NXS).
I have all that written down somewhere, a buddy of mine does loads for me, since he knows more about building and loading than I can forget. He built the rifle and has it all gauged specifically to that gun as far as throat lead and all that good stuff. All form fired Norma and Starlight brass, etc, he knows his stuff. I have two loads that have the same point of impact at 300 yards, one is a 125gr @ 3850 and the other is a 150 @ ? fps. I'll update from home with the exacts.
A "cheesy" Leopould? LOL! When you get your new scope, LMK and I may just take that POS off your hands.
Are you sure about that 3850 FPS on the 125gr bullet load? Man would I like to bust some praire dogs with that.