439 replies to this topic

[aztek]

Stellar, on 13 January 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

  do you enjoy arguing with yourself and claiming you won?

not at all, i enjoy watching you fail.  you are doing enough of it here, very entertaining actually.

[Stellar]

aztek, on 13 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

that is not my argument, that is your imagination again., we already have background checks in place, there is no argument as to remove them, i personally question their effectives, since crooks don't get their checks run on black markets, and it is their guns you want to control, not mine, i did pass background checks, and my guns are registered,  and i do have enough trainig, at least  enough for range masters to sign of on my range card. but for the sake of shutting up clueless anti gunners, i would leave background checks in place.

Do you or do you not agree that there should be a method in place to prevent criminals and psychopaths from walking into walmart and buying a gun. I'm not asking if there are methods in place, I'm asking if you think there should be.

[aztek]

Stellar, on 13 January 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Do you or do you not agree that there should be a method in place to prevent criminals and psychopaths from walking into walmart and buying a gun. I'm not asking if there are methods in place, I'm asking if you think there should be.

yes, absolutely.

and its doable, just don't let criminals and psychopaths walk in walmart for any reason, period.
  there are axes, knives, potentially explosive chemicals, (in determined hands), chainsaws..... there,

[Stellar]

aztek, on 14 January 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

yes, absolutely.

So then you are controlling who can have weapons and who can't (criminals and psychos) despite the fact that "guns don't kill people". This brings me to my point: The saying "Guns don't kill people" is nothing but a meaningless catch-phrase which is ill-suited as an argument against gun control. Why? Because despite saying that guns should not be controlled because they're inanimate objects, everyone agrees that for the safety of others, criminals and psychopath should not have easy access to guns.

[aztek]

Stellar, on 14 January 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

So then you are controlling who can have weapons and who can't (criminals and psychos) despite the fact that "guns don't kill people". This brings me to my point: The saying "Guns don't kill people" is nothing but a meaningless catch-phrase which is ill-suited as an argument against gun control. Why? Because despite saying that guns should not be controlled because they're inanimate objects, everyone agrees that for the safety of others, criminals and psychopath should not have easy access to guns.

but guns don't kill ppl, criminals and psychopaths do. you said it yourself.
they are the once who you need to control. they kill with guns, knifes, cars, hammers.....

yes, guns are inanimate objects, but it doesn't mean it is not potentially dangerous, it takes a person to commit a crime, guns don't do it themselves.
it is just common sense you keep it from ppl willing to use them improperly, just like matches and kids. doesn't mean everyone else has ill intent.

Edited by aztek, 14 January 2013 - 02:27 AM.

[Stellar]

aztek, on 14 January 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

but guns don't kill ppl, criminals and psychopaths do. you said it yourself.

And you said yourself that, despite the saying, these people should not be able to get easy access to weapons.

Quote

it is just common sense you keep it from ppl willing to use them improperly, just like matches and kids. doesn't mean everyone else has ill intent.

And that's what gun control is: its an effort to prevent certain dangerous people from obtaining a gun that they may use to kill people with.

[aztek]

Stellar, on 14 January 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

And that's what gun control is: its an effort to prevent certain dangerous people from obtaining a gun that they may use to kill people with.

i,m pretty sure we already do that, limit guns to ppl like that, criminals\felons are not allowed to legally buy it. or posses it,

[Stellar]

aztek, on 14 January 2013 - 03:17 AM, said:

i,m pretty sure we already do that, limit guns to ppl like that, criminals\felons are not allowed to legally buy it. or posses it,

So then do you agree that "guns don't kill people" is not really an argument but rather a meaningless catch phrase?

[aztek]

Stellar, on 14 January 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

So then do you agree that "guns don't kill people" is not really an argument but rather a meaningless catch phrase?

absolutely not, it is a fact.
they don't kill, neither do knives, cars, sticks.....,

[Stellar]

aztek, on 14 January 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

absolutely not, it is a fact.
they don't kill, neither do knives, cars, sticks.....,

I didn't ask if it was a fact, I asked if you think its a valid argument against gun control.

"The Earth is round" is also a fact, and its just about as valid an argument as "guns don't kill people" is.

Edited by Stellar, 14 January 2013 - 03:46 AM.

[acidhead]

Stellar, on 14 January 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

I didn't ask if it was a fact, I asked if you think its a valid argument against gun control.

"The Earth is round" is also a fact, and its just about as valid an argument as "guns don't kill people" is.

"The Earth is round" isn't a fact bud.

...but to apply your analogy when viewed from a distance it appears round.  

How far away or closely must an individual stare at a gun until they realize it kills people all by itself?

Edited by acidhead, 14 January 2013 - 04:04 AM.

[aztek]

Stellar, on 14 January 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

I didn't ask if it was a fact, I asked if you think its a valid argument against gun control.

well, facts are valid arguments

Edited by aztek, 14 January 2013 - 04:28 AM.

[Stellar]

acidhead, on 14 January 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

"The Earth is round" isn't a fact bud.

...but to apply your analogy when viewed from a distance it appears round.  

How far away or closely must an individual stare at a gun until they realize it kills people all by itself?

Are you here to look for an argument or do you have a purpose? It is a fact. Its a common and accepted way of describing the Earth and you full well knew the meaning behind it. You are quite aware that round was used synonymously for spheroid in this case.

[Stellar]

aztek, on 14 January 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

well, facts are valid arguments

Not when used nonsensically.

[aztek]

Stellar, on 14 January 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

Not when used nonsensically.

or more like when they don't fit your theory,

Edited by aztek, 14 January 2013 - 04:44 AM.