Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Obama 'backs assault weapons ban'

441 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, facts are valid arguments

Not when used nonsensically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not when used nonsensically.

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

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So tell me... how long do you intend to stare at a gun until you realize it is nothing but a gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I think this is true. But the problem arises when the issue is as polarized as it has become. Just as the NRA has become entrenched and is steadfastly fighting against ANY infringement - no matter how slight - of gun ownership, so has the left in general become rabid in their push to take away the right to possess firearms altogether. There is no easy middle ground and history has proven that if precedent is set it WILL be used to incrementally take more rights away. What happened in CT happened for many reasons and NONE of them will be given serious consideration except the role of firearms in the slaughter. THAT is part of the fight between left and right on display. The act of actually taking away gun rights in this country could lead to a real, bloody, civil war. It's THAT serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
history has proven that if precedent is set it WILL be used to incrementally take more rights away.

But, history hasn't proved that at all. There are plenty of countries with much more strict gun control and no one has been incrementally taking away more rights....

Yes there were some countries where it did happen, but there are many more where it didn't.

So tell me... how long do you intend to stare at a gun until you realize it is nothing but a gun?

Read the rest of my posts in this thread. I'm not going to bother repeating myself a third time.

If you're truly arguing that since guns don't kill people, therefore criminals and psychos should have just as easy access to guns as everyone else then I can't help you. If you believe they shouldn't have easy access, then you're contradicting the very premise of your argument that "guns don't kill people".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nukes don't kill people" - the slogan of the National Nuclear Weapons Association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nukes don't kill people" - the slogan of the National Nuclear Weapons Association.

Nukes don't self explode. Guns don't self shoot. They require a human finger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nukes don't self explode. Guns don't self shoot. They require a human finger.

Which is why everyone should be allowed to own nukes, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why everyone should be allowed to own nukes, right?

Lets ban burgers, fries, pizza etc. since obesity is killing everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why everyone should be allowed to own nukes, right?

wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets ban burgers, fries, pizza etc. since obesity is killing everyone.

The slight difference is that you are killing yourself, which, while frowned upon, is not considered as criminal as killing somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets ban burgers, fries, pizza etc. since obesity is killing everyone.

You can pry them from my cold dead hands. Just like my nukes.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong.

So tell me... how long do you intend to stare at a nuke until you realize it is nothing but a nuke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness. This thread has devolved hasn't it.

*agrees with Tiggs about the burgers, fries, pizza, etc.*

Why is it always extremes? Yes or No. All or nothing.

Is ANYONE capable of self control and responsibility?

Killed some one? Sugar made me do it.

Morbidly obese? Outlaw - moderate by law - fat.

Jeesh.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tell me... how long do you intend to stare at a nuke until you realize it is nothing but a nuke?

i'll let you know when i'm done stareing.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness. This thread has devolved hasn't it.

Well, a little.

I think that regardless of your position on banning assault rifles (and I personally think that's a bad idea, as it happens) - the whole "Guns don't kill people" argument is absurd.

Nukes don't kill people. Drones don't kill people. Tanks don't kill people. Assault Helicopters don't kill people. Guns don't kill people.

If they didn't, then the military should stop wasting their time and money buying them.

Seriously.

*agrees with Tiggs about the burgers, fries, pizza, etc.*

Well, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a little.

I think that regardless of your position on banning assault rifles (and I personally think that's a bad idea, as it happens) - the whole "Guns don't kill people" argument is absurd.

Nukes don't kill people. Drones don't kill people. Tanks don't kill people. Assault Helicopters don't kill people. Guns don't kill people.

If they didn't, then the military should stop wasting their time and money buying them.

Seriously.

Oh, I agree. That is basically what I meant. Banning isn't the answer.

It just makes me crazy with the "____ made me do it." crap that is prevalent these days.

Well, obviously.

And tatertots.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slight difference is that you are killing yourself, which, while frowned upon, is not considered as criminal as killing somebody else.

In that case, ban Forceps that kill babies. Now lets hear how you justify that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, ban Forceps that kill babies. Now lets hear how you justify that one.

Hold the doctor holding the forceps responsible for not using the properly.

I don't get the connection here...

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold the doctor holding the forceps responsible for not using the properly.

I don't get the connection here...

Nibs

Well, if he admitted that you have to blame the doctor he would by extension have to admit that the fault of gun damage should be put on the door of the gun owner.

It is called: logical disconnect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if he admitted that you have to blame the doctor he would by extension have to admit that the fault of gun damage should be put on the door of the gun owner.

It is called: logical disconnect.

:) Ah, ok.

Logic fail.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:nw: Oh noes. Not a logic fail :nw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.