I don't if you can refer to SUX as an authority, made we should label it as an appeal to stupidity.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
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.
6000SUX loses.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
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.
6000SUX loses.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
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!
Ah. I'm the anti-intellectual, even though you are the one who doesn't know what a straw man is. Thanks for playing, please come again.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
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.
So a thing in itself is not inherently dangerous, but all things are inherently dangerous. You can deny all you like; facts are facts. Outside the confines of this message board, the world is full of things deemed dangerous: hazardous materials, dangerous weapons, etc. They're not called dangerous because of me-- they are that way because of the long-standing practice and decisions of many, many people. This alone should convince you that some things are inherently much more dangerous than others, guns being one of them. Ever hear of the crime "assault with a deadly weapon"?
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: FDF12389
NVM Im done.
Mommy, Mommy, people on the internet are being mean to me.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
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!
Ah. I'm the anti-intellectual, even though you are the one who doesn't know what a straw man is. Thanks for playing, please come again.
Case in point: I defined it textbook dictionary exactly, through both example (albeit humorously exaggerated) and statement, and you claim I don't know what it is and follow with a condescending statement.
Let me give you an example here: there's another poster here who is gay, a douchebag, and always pulls the gay card. If this guy was the straightest straight straight on earth, most people here would still think he's a douchebag. But... he insists over and over and over that it's because he's gay that people don't like him and that we're all of us homophobes and just keeps pulling out the gay card.
Now... do you understand what I'm trying to tell you here?
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: FDF12389
NVM Im done.
Mommy, Mommy, people on the internet are being mean to me.
I can use da keyboard! w00t
Originally posted by: Vic
Sigh... I tried, guys. "Fire" away, just don't make him go Cho.
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
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.
So a thing in itself is not inherently dangerous, but all things are inherently dangerous. You can deny all you like; facts are facts. Outside the confines of this message board, the world is full of things deemed dangerous: hazardous materials, dangerous weapons, etc. They're not called dangerous because of me-- they are that way because of the long-standing practice and decisions of many, many people. This alone should convince you that some things are inherently much more dangerous than others, guns being one of them. Ever hear of the crime "assault with a deadly weapon"?
I stand by what I said, given my clarification. Everything is dangerous somehow, but our perception of the danger is a matter of degree based in situational factors. Therefore nothing is inherently MORE DANGEROUS, things become more dangerous based on criteria and perception.
I cannot control how society or the world chooses to categorize or perceive the world around them. Fortunately those things have no place in theoretical debate. When we leave theory (what is danger) and enter practical (which gun is more dangerous in a certain set of circumstance), then we talk about those things - which I did.
The names and categories we give things, even the laws we go by, do not impart reality to the objects involved. You illustrate my point perfectly since there is no such law in my state, it is only an assumption of the public perception that such a law exists. Assault in the first degree covers serious assaults using a weapon, but a weapon is not a pre-requisite to commit that crime. The crime isn't defined by the weapon but by the effect of the attack. As far as I know this is usually the case even when such a specific law as you describe exists, and a lawyer can argue that something not usually covered under the definition of 'deadly weapon' should be included on a case by case basis. That also supports my theoretical point, that danger is subjective and must be viewed on a case by case basis given other circumstances.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
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.
6000SUX loses.
No. Go read a Wikipedia article for cripe's sake. Two wrongs don't make a right... this has never been more true.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
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!
Ah. I'm the anti-intellectual, even though you are the one who doesn't know what a straw man is. Thanks for playing, please come again.
Case in point: I defined it textbook dictionary exactly, through both example (albeit humorously exaggerated) and statement, and you claim I don't know what it is and follow with a condescending statement.
Let me give you an example here: there's another poster here who is gay, a douchebag, and always pulls the gay card. If this guy was the straightest straight straight on earth, most people here would still think he's a douchebag. But... he insists over and over and over that it's because he's gay that people don't like him and that we're all of us homophobes and just keeps pulling out the gay card.
Now... do you understand what I'm trying to tell you here?
A straw man argument is a mischaracterization of the opponent's argument, made in order to attack the changed version. You used the term when I gave an example of one thing government employees can do in the U.S. that the citizenry cannot do. A straw man is not an illogical argument, an argument you just don't agree with, etc.; the term has a very specific meaning in the context of a debate. You misused the term.
Knowing what I know of you and this forum, I don't expect you to own up to your mistake.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Vic
Sigh... I tried, guys. "Fire" away, just don't make him go Cho.
I am shocked that you are leaving without admitting your latest mistake.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
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.
6000SUX loses.
No. Go read a Wikipedia article for cripe's sake. Two wrongs don't make a right... this has never been more true.
Wikipedia as a source? Now I know you're lying about your debate skills. Nobody with any credibility cites Wikipedia.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
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.
6000SUX loses.
No. Go read a Wikipedia article for cripe's sake. Two wrongs don't make a right... this has never been more true.
Wikipedia as a source? Now I know you're lying about your debate skills. Nobody with any credibility cites Wikipedia.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
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.
So a thing in itself is not inherently dangerous, but all things are inherently dangerous. You can deny all you like; facts are facts. Outside the confines of this message board, the world is full of things deemed dangerous: hazardous materials, dangerous weapons, etc. They're not called dangerous because of me-- they are that way because of the long-standing practice and decisions of many, many people. This alone should convince you that some things are inherently much more dangerous than others, guns being one of them. Ever hear of the crime "assault with a deadly weapon"?
I stand by what I said, given my clarification. Everything is dangerous somehow, but our perception of the danger is a matter of degree based in situational factors. Therefore nothing is inherently MORE DANGEROUS, things become more dangerous based on criteria and perception.
I cannot control how society or the world chooses to categorize or perceive the world around them. Fortunately those things have no place in theoretical debate. When we leave theory (what is danger) and enter practical (which gun is more dangerous in a certain set of circumstance), then we talk about those things - which I did.
The names and categories we give things, even the laws we go by, do not impart reality to the objects involved. You illustrate my point perfectly since there is no such law in my state, it is only an assumption of the public perception that such a law exists. Assault in the first degree covers serious assaults using a weapon, but a weapon is not a pre-requisite to commit that crime. The crime isn't defined by the weapon but by the effect of the attack. As far as I know this is usually the case even when such a specific law as you describe exists, and a lawyer can argue that something not usually covered under the definition of 'deadly weapon' should be included on a case by case basis. That also supports my theoretical point, that danger is subjective and must be viewed on a case by case basis given other circumstances.
Now I get it. A marshmallow really is just as dangerous as a land mine. All them words was mighty convincin'.
I've read that 100 children die per year from peanut allergies. We need a War on Peanuts.Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Choking on a marshmallow will kill you as dead as any land mine. If you're inside your house I'd happily make the claim that you have more to fear from marshmallows than from landmines, and they are therefore more dangerous within the confines of that scenario. I don't see how anyone could be allergic to marshmallows, but if they could then again I would have much more to fear from them than from landmines. Again, everything is subjective and temporal. Everything.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
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.
So a thing in itself is not inherently dangerous, but all things are inherently dangerous. You can deny all you like; facts are facts. Outside the confines of this message board, the world is full of things deemed dangerous: hazardous materials, dangerous weapons, etc. They're not called dangerous because of me-- they are that way because of the long-standing practice and decisions of many, many people. This alone should convince you that some things are inherently much more dangerous than others, guns being one of them. Ever hear of the crime "assault with a deadly weapon"?
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yes I have, and 'deadly weapon' not only means gun, as in ANY gun, it can also mean knife, automobile, baseball bat, spear, bomb, nunchaku, nail gun, crowbar, anything which can readily cause death if used maliciously such that the disparity of force creates a potentially life threatening situation. Also, if you were familiar with the legal system, you would understand a little thing known as context, in that the intent of the user often determines if the implement used could be considered a 'deadly weapon'; basically the point I've been making since you appeared. A ballpoint pen in my hands is considered a deadly weapon.
Have you ever heard of 'assault with a more dangerous deadly weapon'? Neither have I. Because dead is dead and their is no such thing as 'more deadly'. That would be why it is called 'assault with a deadly weapon' with any gun, not 'assault with a machine gun' or 'assault with a derringer'
The very charge you cite, 'assault with a deadly weapon', makes no distinction between a a simple pocket knife or semi automatic assault rifle, nor does it differentiate between the capabilities of different weapons capable of potentially causing death. You just negated your own point while supporting mine.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: exdeath
Definitely on the 3850 fps. Hardly any recoil due to the weight of the rifle. Squeeze the 3 lb zero creep trigger and see a hole appear on your target, and hear a boom and a crack about 5 minutes later First time I fired this rifle he had just finished it. Handed it over to me, said it was sighted in at zero @ 300 yds. I held about 2" low on a golf ball on the berm at 110 yards and hit it twice after finding where it went between shots He gave it to me for $800! The barrel is from a SEAL sniper rifle that only had 100 rds through it, powder coated.
I'll get you all the other stuff out of my log book when I get home
When I first got my 220 Swift I loaded up some 40 grain bullets to max load, 4400fps according to the book.
Anyway, I was driving around the farm doing some shooting and I noticed that when the sun was behind me a little I could "see" the bullet going to the target. So I got a good angle where the sun was right and was shooting at a big rock 300 to 400 yards away. I could see the bullet most of the way to the rock, but I never heard it hit it. After shooting it a half dozen times I went over and looked and there were NO marks on the rock?? The only explanation I could come up with is that the bullet was completley vaporizing itself before it got to the target.
I guess I don't know for sure if that was what the deal was, but I don't ever load anything hotter then 4000fps anymore.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yes I have, and 'deadly weapon' not only means gun, as in ANY gun, it can also mean knife, automobile, baseball bat, spear, bomb, nunchaku, nail gun, crowbar, anything which can readily cause death if used maliciously such that the disparity of force creates a potentially life threatening situation. Also, if you were familiar with the legal system, you would understand a little thing known as context, in that the intent of the user often determines if the implement used could be considered a 'deadly weapon'; basically the point I've been making since you appeared. A ballpoint pen in my hands is considered a deadly weapon.
Have you ever heard of 'assault with a more dangerous deadly weapon'? Neither have I. Because dead is dead and their is no such thing as 'more deadly'. That would be why it is called 'assault with a deadly weapon' with any gun, not 'assault with a machine gun' or 'assault with a derringer'
The very charge you cite, 'assault with a deadly weapon', makes no distinction between a a simple pocket knife or semi automatic assault rifle, nor does it differentiate between the capabilities of different weapons capable of potentially causing death. You just negated your own point while supporting mine.
Don't forget peanuts.
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: exdeath
Definitely on the 3850 fps. Hardly any recoil due to the weight of the rifle. Squeeze the 3 lb zero creep trigger and see a hole appear on your target, and hear a boom and a crack about 5 minutes later First time I fired this rifle he had just finished it. Handed it over to me, said it was sighted in at zero @ 300 yds. I held about 2" low on a golf ball on the berm at 110 yards and hit it twice after finding where it went between shots He gave it to me for $800! The barrel is from a SEAL sniper rifle that only had 100 rds through it, powder coated.
I'll get you all the other stuff out of my log book when I get home
When I first got my 220 Swift I loaded up some 40 grain bullets to max load, 4400fps according to the book.
Anyway, I was driving around the farm doing some shooting and I noticed that when the sun was behind me a little I could "see" the bullet going to the target. So I got a good angle where the sun was right and was shooting at a big rock 300 to 400 yards away. I could see the bullet most of the way to the rock, but I never heard it hit it. After shooting it a half dozen times I went over and looked and there were NO marks on the rock?? The only explanation I could come up with is that the bullet was completley vaporizing itself before it got to the target.
I guess I don't know for sure if that was what the deal was, but I don't ever load anything hotter then 4000fps anymore.
Ok here we go.
The 125 gr are Nosler ballistic tip with 75 gr of H4350 @ 3800 fps. The 150 gr are Nosler Accubond with the same charge @ 3420 fps. Both with Federal 215 match magnum primers.
My bad, 'only' 3800 fps, not 3850
Originally posted by: Vic
On second thought, I'll take your troll bait. I really want you to elaborate on what my "mistake" was. You see, I said that prohibiting gun ownership to the people while allowing it to the "police, rich, and power elite" was undemocratic, and your sole argument in response was that government employees get to fire rocket launchers as though that answered my argument. Hmmm...
What I really want you to answer is how you think the creation of this power divide between the people and the government would actually stop gun crime. There's no evidence that is so. Your example of Britain also had low gun crime BEFORE they banned guns (and the rate of gun crime has gone virtually unchanged since). OTOH, there are other countries with strict gun laws that have much higher crime and murder rates than the US, Russia and Mexico for comparable examples. AND, there are countries with more lax guns laws than the US which have some of the lowest crime rates of all, like Switzerland.
In short, correlation != causation. Yet your entire argument is based on that.
Even more to the point, you haven't explained WHY a law-abiding citizen, gun-owning, who has never committed a crime in his/her life and is not likely to, should be forced to give up his/her right to gun ownership. You have not demonstrated ANY benefit to the people. Which, I am sure, is why you make moronic sweeping generalizations like we're all just "yokels" or that "never mind the fact that it makes sense only to an NRA member."
In closing, my argument, which you have not yet addressed, is that gun ownership has no effect on crime rates WHATSOEVER, and all the statistics in the world back me up. So tell me, with this mind, what motivation can you possibly give the people to give up their gun rights?