Of course, the easiest thing for one to do when one does not like a law is to dismiss it somehow. Regardless, it shows how wrong exdeath is about the fact that one must be against all guns if one is against some of them.
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The legislatures treatment of firearms shows nothing except extreme ignorance regarding them; and also a lack of logic, reason, rationality, intelligence, usefulness, honesty, integrity, and so on.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
It looks as if you are the one not wanting to admit you are wrong now isn't it? You completely circumvented someone else's point because you couldn't offer a counter-point. You did not make the claim that a derringer is ineffective in a sniping position on a roof top. You made the claim that "some weapons are more dangerous than others". Cho wasn't sitting on a roof, and he didn't have a sniper rifle or a derringer. But he still killed 32 people. You blanket statement that one type of weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, without regard for the human role in implementing those weapons, is blatantly wrong.
A gun is a tool, and like other tools, they each come with difference capabilities suited for different things, such as range, ammo capacity, accuracy, penetration against hard or soft targets, ease of concealment, etc, all of which have trade offs for differing circumstances. Simply sitting there however, an AK47 is no more dangerous than a derringer, and a derringer is no less dangerous than a nuclear missile offline in a underground silo or a Skilsaw sitting on a work bench all by itself. Being more powerful or more capable at something does not make any tool more dangerous than another. Do you care if you cut your hands off on a 7 1/4" saw blade or a 36" saw blade? Human skill, intention, and intervention, is required in all cases.
The point was the illustrate that any person intent on doing harm to others will competently use any tool at his disposal in order to do so, thereby completely rendering the anti-gun arguments null and void. Tell me why Cho chose a G19 9mm if a AK47 would have been more dangerous and deadly? Last Monday, his 9mm handgun was infinitely more dangerous than everything in my house, which includes AK47s, AR15s, etc.
Like a Skilsaw or a book of matches, it is only in the hands of a competent individual that weapons of differing types can be used to kill people in different circumstances. A sniper on a roof top isn't going to use a derringer any more than an assassin is going to stuff a semi automatic .50 BMG in his pocket. One is no more inherently dangerous than the other; conversely, and more accurately, you could say that no gun is safe at all. It all comes down to the needs of the application. Bottom line, if you are against private ownership of any guns, you are against them all, as they all have the same purpose in the end: to launch a projectile at high speeds by means of chemical propellant.
And you know this, assuming you are as smart as you claim you are, and you can't even state your pro-gun or anti-gun stance for what it is and speak your peace. You just want to make a fuss for the sake of fussing in and of itself.
PS: I'll take that silenced .22 and you can have a .50 cal machine gun. Unless you provide me your serial number so that I can confirm whether or not I have plausible reason to believe otherwise, I will win. Are you going to blame my weapon and claim that I cheated because I had a superior and more dangerous weapon?
End of debate. Go home.
Ah, so you give up. You should be the one to "go home" then, not me. My statementt is not "blatantly wrong". LOL It is obviously true. It's an interesting technique to tell someone their viewpoint, as if you can convince anyone that way...
One gun may be inherently more dangerous than another. A sniper rifle is inherently more dangerous than a small derringer. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. One shoots projectiles with more force and accuracy, and has more range. Similarly, an automatic weapon is inherently more dangerous than a non-automatic weapon that is otherwise similar.
You are incorrect that one who is against one gun must be against them all. Look at the legislature's treatment of automatic weapons-- does that show a different level of restriction or not? I guess, typically, that you haven't thought this through. You're just eager to make blanket statements that will be pleasing to other gun nuts on this board.
As I said, two different purposes. A sniper rifle in it's intended role of hitting a target 2000 yards away will indeed impact it's target with the same force as a derringer held to the back of someones head point blank.
The fact that the sniper rifle fires a more powerful charge is irrelevant in this discussion because:
a) sniper rifle point blank or derringer point blank? Doesn't matter, the person will be dead either way. If a 124gr bullet at 1200 fps is sufficient to kill, the excess of the sniper rifle is irrelevant, and if anything, overkill and wasted energy.
b) nobody sticks a sniper rifle in their pocket and shoots people through a scope from 10 feet away, so comparing it to a derringer in this way makes no sense in the first place.
c) even if they DID commit b), and even though the sniper rifle IS more powerful, that doesn't make it more deadly. The argument isn't about one weapon being more powerful, it's about one weapon being more deadly. Indeed a sniper rifle is more powerful than a derringer, but that doesn't make it more deadly. See point a)
d) we are talking levels of dangerousness, not power. you are confusing "powerful" with "dangerous". The power of a weapon has nothing to do with it's lethality. If a 9mm can already kill someone and be considered dangerous, how is a .45 "more" deadly? Dead is dead. Period. Sure a 120mm tank cannon is more powerful than a 9mm. But hold both up to your head and pull the trigger, either will kill you just as dead.
Next?
Your logic is poor. The fact that both weapons can kill point-blank does not mean a derringer is as dangerous as a sniper rifle. A tank gun can also kill point-blank-- does that mean a derringer is as dangerous as a tank? Your point c) is pointless.
A sniper rifle is more deadly than a derringer because it can kill over a much longer range. Similarly, a more powerful handgun is more deadly than a derringer, because it can kill in more situations than a derringer. I made this point several times already. The fact that two things can kill does not make them equally deadly. Else a sledgehammer would be as deadly as a sniper rifle, or a fist.
Put another way: the fact that a weapon can kill some of the time does not mean it will kill all of the time. The times that it does not kill, it does less than kill-- it wounds or misses, i.e. is less lethal. Also, the fact that it kills less often than another makes it less lethal.
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm shocked you're not on vacation already-- or not so shocked. It proves my point.
Proves your point, find anyone that was banned for calling you an asshole and you might have a point.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The legislatures treatment of firearms shows nothing except extreme ignorance regarding them; and also a lack of logic, reason, rationality, intelligence, usefulness, honesty, integrity, and so on.
Of course, the easiest thing for one to do when one does not like a law is to dismiss it somehow. Regardless, it shows how wrong exdeath is about the fact that one must be against all guns if one is against some of them.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm shocked you're not on vacation already-- or not so shocked. It proves my point.
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, it is your logic which is flawed. A thing is not itself inherently dangerous. Danger is dictated by circumstances, environment, and a number of other factors. Everything is subjective and temporal. In cqb the smaller weapon is more dangerous, no matter what the range of the long rifle is. This is true for any number of factors.
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm shocked you're not on vacation already-- or not so shocked. It proves my point.
Proves your point, find anyone that was banned for calling you an asshole and you might have a point.
And 6000SUX made threats of violence in other threads without me saying anything to him. And that was definatly not a death threat.
Originally posted by: Vic
Why oh why are the stupidest of people always the most annoying? Look, pandora's box can't be closed. Sorry. Guns exist and will continue to do so. Bummer dude. On top of that, authority is an artificial construct of human society. Belief in it is analagous to a religious belief that God will protect you. So when the anti-gunners say, "we need to get rid of all the guns," they're just deluding themselves, as that's not even what they mean. What they mean is, disarm the people while leaving those in authority and power fully armed. Such an argument is analogous to saying we should ban drugs to all the people except that the police, rich, and power elite are free to do as much coke as they want. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is inherently undemocratic. Get it?
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm shocked you're not on vacation already-- or not so shocked. It proves my point.
Proves your point, find anyone that was banned for calling you an asshole and you might have a point.
And 6000SUX made threats of violence in other threads without me saying anything to him. And that was definatly not a death threat.
You simply got lucky that these forums are not correctly moderated.
Originally posted by: Vic
Ban in 3... 2... 1...
Heh, you certainly are begging for it. To clarify for you, the definition of "not correctly moderated" does not mean that you get to be an ass to other people but no gets to be an ass to you. Just FYI. And here's another tip: when you're posting in ATPN, which is infamous for its extreme partisanship, and posters from across the political spectrum are united against you, chances are it's you who's the douchebag.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm shocked you're not on vacation already-- or not so shocked. It proves my point.
Proves your point, find anyone that was banned for calling you an asshole and you might have a point.
And 6000SUX made threats of violence in other threads without me saying anything to him. And that was definatly not a death threat.
You simply got lucky that these forums are not correctly moderated.
Ban in 3... 2... 1...
Heh, you certainly are begging for it. To clarify for you, the definition of "not correctly moderated" does not mean that you get to be an ass to other people but no gets to be an ass to you. Just FYI. And here's another tip: when you're posting in ATPN, which is infamous for its extreme partisanship, and posters from across the political spectrum are united against you, chances are it's you who's the douchebag.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Why oh why are the stupidest of people always the most annoying? Look, pandora's box can't be closed. Sorry. Guns exist and will continue to do so. Bummer dude. On top of that, authority is an artificial construct of human society. Belief in it is analagous to a religious belief that God will protect you. So when the anti-gunners say, "we need to get rid of all the guns," they're just deluding themselves, as that's not even what they mean. What they mean is, disarm the people while leaving those in authority and power fully armed. Such an argument is analogous to saying we should ban drugs to all the people except that the police, rich, and power elite are free to do as much coke as they want. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is inherently undemocratic. Get it?
Why, oh why are the stupidest people always the most annoying? The people at large are not allowed to do other dangerous things government employees can do, such as fire shoulder-launched rockets. Major bummer, dude.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Vic
Ban in 3... 2... 1...
Heh, you certainly are begging for it. To clarify for you, the definition of "not correctly moderated" does not mean that you get to be an ass to other people but no gets to be an ass to you. Just FYI. And here's another tip: when you're posting in ATPN, which is infamous for its extreme partisanship, and posters from across the political spectrum are united against you, chances are it's you who's the douchebag.
Careful Vic, he's going to create a thread whining about how you called him a douchebag.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, it is your logic which is flawed. A thing is not itself inherently dangerous. Danger is dictated by circumstances, environment, and a number of other factors. Everything is subjective and temporal. In cqb the smaller weapon is more dangerous, no matter what the range of the long rifle is. This is true for any number of factors.
You don't know much about the English language. Similarly, a chemical may be called a "hazardous material" when it is safely contained. Why? Because it is the material itself which is hazardous.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Why oh why are the stupidest of people always the most annoying? Look, pandora's box can't be closed. Sorry. Guns exist and will continue to do so. Bummer dude. On top of that, authority is an artificial construct of human society. Belief in it is analagous to a religious belief that God will protect you. So when the anti-gunners say, "we need to get rid of all the guns," they're just deluding themselves, as that's not even what they mean. What they mean is, disarm the people while leaving those in authority and power fully armed. Such an argument is analogous to saying we should ban drugs to all the people except that the police, rich, and power elite are free to do as much coke as they want. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is inherently undemocratic. Get it?
Why, oh why are the stupidest people always the most annoying? The people at large are not allowed to do other dangerous things government employees can do, such as fire shoulder-launched rockets. Major bummer, dude.
Notice that those government employees cannot fire those rockets here within the boundaries of the United States (except for testing/practices). The same could not be said for law enforcement gun use, etc. Lovely straw man there though. It demonstrates just how far removed you are from any actual intelligence on this subject. BTW, just how well have laws against drug use actually worked in curtailling drug use? Now, are you telling us that you expect laws against gun ownership to be more effective?
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: FDF12389
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm shocked you're not on vacation already-- or not so shocked. It proves my point.
Proves your point, find anyone that was banned for calling you an asshole and you might have a point.
And 6000SUX made threats of violence in other threads without me saying anything to him. And that was definatly not a death threat.
You simply got lucky that these forums are not correctly moderated.
Ban in 3... 2... 1...
Heh, you certainly are begging for it. To clarify for you, the definition of "not correctly moderated" does not mean that you get to be an ass to other people but no gets to be an ass to you. Just FYI. And here's another tip: when you're posting in ATPN, which is infamous for its extreme partisanship, and posters from across the political spectrum are united against you, chances are it's you who's the douchebag.
I just happen to be the only one posting who is not in support of the gun movement. Several yokels united anonymously on the Internet means nothing.
I cannot possibly deserve to be banned for being threated and called an asshole, when I did nothing of the sort. I am not "begging for it", simply being treated unfairly.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Why oh why are the stupidest of people always the most annoying? Look, pandora's box can't be closed. Sorry. Guns exist and will continue to do so. Bummer dude. On top of that, authority is an artificial construct of human society. Belief in it is analagous to a religious belief that God will protect you. So when the anti-gunners say, "we need to get rid of all the guns," they're just deluding themselves, as that's not even what they mean. What they mean is, disarm the people while leaving those in authority and power fully armed. Such an argument is analogous to saying we should ban drugs to all the people except that the police, rich, and power elite are free to do as much coke as they want. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is inherently undemocratic. Get it?
Why, oh why are the stupidest people always the most annoying? The people at large are not allowed to do other dangerous things government employees can do, such as fire shoulder-launched rockets. Major bummer, dude.
Notice that those government employees cannot fire those rockets here within the boundaries of the United States (except for testing/practices). The same could not be said for law enforcement gun use, etc. Lovely straw man there though. It demonstrates just how far removed you are from any actual intelligence on this subject. BTW, just how well have laws against drug use actually worked in curtailling drug use? Now, are you telling us that you expect laws against gun ownership to be more effective?
It's not a straw man, just an example. There are many others. Believe it or not, government employees may do many things generaly citizenry cannot, even in a democracy! Go figure.
I would expect laws against gun ownership to be effective. Britain has 1/5 the population of the U.S., but less than 1/5 the gun crime. One thing that has no basis in reality is the notion that one can trust the citizenry to serve as police, and that fewer mass murders would be committed if everyone packed a gun. It can't be proven-- never mind the fact that it makes sense only to an NRA member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Gene_Ashbrook
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, it is your logic which is flawed. A thing is not itself inherently dangerous. Danger is dictated by circumstances, environment, and a number of other factors. Everything is subjective and temporal. In cqb the smaller weapon is more dangerous, no matter what the range of the long rifle is. This is true for any number of factors.
You don't know much about the English language. Similarly, a chemical may be called a "hazardous material" when it is safely contained. Why? Because it is the material itself which is hazardous.
Well, let's look at this. From your link:
"1. full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe.
2. able or likely to cause physical injury: a dangerous criminal."
By that definition absolutely everything is dangerous. Everything. There is NOTHING which has ever, or could ever, exist which is not in some way dangerous (because everything is able to cause injury, and becomes likely to cause injury within a certain context. Furthermore there is no action would could be taken which does not include some measure of danger, as everything can be unsafe depending on the circumstances and how it is done. Breathing is dangerous - if you have a broken rib that might puncture your lung. Given that everything has the potential for danger, in order to distinguish it we have to examine the comparative levels of danger.
In close quarters the smaller weapon is much more able and/or likely to cause physical injury. Therefore it is more dangerous within the confines of the encounter. Since we've established that the only way we can perceive the traits of something is comparatively, it is reasonable to say that the derringer is the dangerous weapon in near proximity.
Finally it's interesting to note that you accuse many of lack of reason, lack of debate knowledge, making personal attacks, etc and then you accuse me of not knowing much about my native tongue because I find fault with your logic. I would say that I have been nothing but polite, and have refrained from any personal characterizations here. The same can not be said of you.
While Russia has a complete prohibition on private gun ownership and 5x the murder rate. Never mind the fact that you're pulling statistics out of your ass to justify sweeping bigoted generalizations.Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Why oh why are the stupidest of people always the most annoying? Look, pandora's box can't be closed. Sorry. Guns exist and will continue to do so. Bummer dude. On top of that, authority is an artificial construct of human society. Belief in it is analagous to a religious belief that God will protect you. So when the anti-gunners say, "we need to get rid of all the guns," they're just deluding themselves, as that's not even what they mean. What they mean is, disarm the people while leaving those in authority and power fully armed. Such an argument is analogous to saying we should ban drugs to all the people except that the police, rich, and power elite are free to do as much coke as they want. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is inherently undemocratic. Get it?
Why, oh why are the stupidest people always the most annoying? The people at large are not allowed to do other dangerous things government employees can do, such as fire shoulder-launched rockets. Major bummer, dude.
Notice that those government employees cannot fire those rockets here within the boundaries of the United States (except for testing/practices). The same could not be said for law enforcement gun use, etc. Lovely straw man there though. It demonstrates just how far removed you are from any actual intelligence on this subject. BTW, just how well have laws against drug use actually worked in curtailling drug use? Now, are you telling us that you expect laws against gun ownership to be more effective?
It's not a straw man, just an example. There are many others. Believe it or not, government employees may do many things generaly citizenry cannot, even in a democracy! Go figure.
I would expect laws against gun ownership to be effective. Britain has 1/5 the population of the U.S., but less than 1/5 the gun crime. One thing that has no basis in reality is the notion that one can trust the citizenry to serve as police, and that fewer mass murders would be committed if everyone packed a gun. It can't be proven-- never mind the fact that it makes sense only to an NRA member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Gene_Ashbrook
No he's not, he's an award winning debater. You lose.Originally posted by: Vic
No, you're an obstinate and offensive anti-intellectual incapable of reasonable or rational debate.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: smack Down
Proves your point, find anyone that was banned for calling you an asshole and you might have a point.
True to form, you don't understand what was said.
Originally posted by: Vic
DAMNIT!! NOSEPICKING CAUSES CANCER! FROM THIS POINT ON, ANY AND ALL NOSEPICKING SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH! ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A YOKEL AND AN IDIOT AS I AM GREATER THAN YOU ALL! MY WILL BE DONE!!! BECAUSE I SAY SO!
Wow, someone else who agrees that SUX boasting of his debate skills are in fact appeals to authority. Imagine that. Maybe it's because I'm right.Originally posted by: Vic
Such appeals to authority get you nowhere because your argumentive style (or lack of) does not lend itself to credibility.