The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..42~43~44~45~46 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20984 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Well as soon as someone having a nuclear weapon outside of a James Bond villain becomes reality just let me know then we can discuss it.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
The nine year old girl is a victim. The parents who took her to fire automatic guns? No. They aren't victims, they are perpetrators. If the argument is stupidity, then this is at the level of a moderate to severe learning difficulty, in which case I would question the U.S. governmental oversight of LD services. If a mentally challenged couple have children, then where is the state? No, wait, it was perfectly legal for her to fire off an Uzi at a range in the State of Arizona. And presumably the instructor didn't have a learning difficulty either, yes? Otherwise, he wouldn't have had such a responsible job.


If I put my nine year old in charge of an artificially powered lawnmower, I would be the idiot, the ethically culpable party, when their hand or foot got shredded. Sympathy? Well, a lawn mower is designed for mowing grass, so there might be a bit of sympathy. An Uzi is designed for killing lots of things indiscriminately, very quickly, so no sympathy there. So as long as lawnmowers are legal for kids, and swimming pools, let's keep guns out there. Why the heck not? Not sure why Americans need them, to be honest, particularly machine guns, but whatever. Live and let bleed out, is my motto.


I do not feel the instructor had a learning disability. However he was an incompetent instructor. That I believe no one can dispute.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.


I and others have posited a distinction; you feel that it is a distinction without a difference. As I asked last time in some far off abandoned or deleted thread, how do you feel about private ownership of nuclear weapons? Lower rates of death than Uzis. And yet I see a difference because the only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to kill. Even if I say I just like to collect them, or I have it locked up where I guarantee no one will get to it, it's main function is to kill. If you don't see that as a distinction with a meaningful difference then I will drop it; but frankly it is extremely difficult for me to understand a rational person's not being able to see that difference.

To my mind, the 2nd Amendment argument is the strongest pro-gun argument; the one that says basically, whatever else anyone might think, it doesn't matter because that's what the 2nd Amendment says. I think this is basically Danny's position, and though I don't agree with it fully (I think there's room for interpretation there) I think it's the strongest argument you got.


Conversely, I can assume that you and NYC don't see a meaningful difference between a 2-shot Derringer and a nuclear weapon either, as they're both designed to kill.

Evasive. The threshold has already been crossed. You clearly do believe that some weapons should be controlled solely based on their intended purpose.


I think you're the one being evasive. You're trying to put me into the corner that you and NYC painted. I'm pretty sure I don't believe that some weapons should be controlled solely based on their intended purpose. A rather obvious difference between a Deringer and a nuclear bomb is that a nuclear bomb can kill way more people instantly; yet NYC completely obliterates this distinction by arguing that one single person is too many, collapsing the nuclear bomb, the Uzi, and the 2-shot Derringer all into the same category, and you sign onto the dubious logic simply because you like his conclusion.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Boy, you'd think this article was from 'Faux' News!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday......tml?_r=1

"But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference. It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do." (And they're not talking about Uzi's!

"Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males." (I can't believe the racists at the NY Times would even point this out!)

"Mr. Landrieu and Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia are founders of Cities United, a network of mayors trying to prevent the deaths of young black men. “This is not just a gun issue, this is an unemployment issue, it’s a poverty issue, it’s a family issue, it’s a culture of violence issue,” Mr. Landrieu said.

More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence." (Hmmm, do you think that maybe you're focusing on the wrong things?)
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well as soon as someone having a nuclear weapon outside of a James Bond villain becomes reality just let me know then we can discuss it.


I believe Danny's post here should clear up any issues about nuclear weapons. However I think it only fair that if any one here knows a private individual that owns one they should call our attention to it as well as the NSA, FBI, CIA and your congressman. If that is the case I feel we should definitely put an amendment in the Constitution that no private individual can own a nuclear weapon and keep it on his or her property in the United States. Smile So again if anyone knows of this. Please come forward. I believe you will even have the support of the NRA in banning privately owned nuclear weapons. If not I will definitely cancel my membership.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5138 Posts

Profile of landmark
Lobo wrote:
Quote:
a nuclear bomb can kill way more people instantly;

This is intended use. A nuclear bomb in fact--which is your argument--may indeed kill way fewer people than an Uzi. Or a swimming pool.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
The intended use of a 2-shot Derringer - which is your argument - is to kill.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
Lobo wrote:
Quote:
a nuclear bomb can kill way more people instantly;

This is intended use. A nuclear bomb in fact--which is your argument--may indeed kill way fewer people than an Uzi. Or a swimming pool.


Please explain. Smile Do you mean if it is never detonated? The same would hold true if the uzi was never fired or no one ever swims in the pool. Or if one only shot the uzi for fun at a shooting range. Or only shot blanks out of the uzi.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
? what is your point? I think the govt has the right to control derringers, nuclear bombs, crossbows.


Why is that? Are they also killing machines? What about the sharp sticks and clubs? Oops forgot butter knives.

I do agree on the nuclear bombs.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
Cowboys should give all the guns to the Indians so they can throw you all out and burn all the schools.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Aug 28, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
...
Sweet Jesus, can't you get a lesson in logic? Please? You are so ****ing boring and so ****ing wrong. Some might even say "stupid".

Let me give you a clue, a helping hand. What you mean to talk about are p*n*s*s and v*g*n*s. That would be slightly better, but even then it would be the sh***est of all sh***y logical fallacies.
...


Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
...
If all of you " Everyone should be allowed to be allowed to carry whatever weapon they can afford to buy because this is MURICA." can not answer these SIMPLE questions with DIRECT ANSWERS, then they should STFU.
...


I think I might be detecting a pattern here. Smile
lunatik
View Profile
Inner circle
2892 Posts

Profile of lunatik
As more and more of these mass shootings are occurring, are we saying that we should be against having armed teachers to possibly save lives by either distracting or taking down the suspect with firepower? Or would the best scenario be that all the teachers are unarmed and one of them has to attempt to tackle the guy while he's shooting as he please's, killing a roomful of children? If you could rewind time, would you rather of had that teacher at Sandyhook be armed with a gun or would you just have let the scene unfold as it did. I think you'd prefer that teacher to be armed to protect those little kids, but I suspect that you're going to throw in an excuse somewhere as to why the teacher shouldn't be armed if they weren't trained. Even if they weren't trained, would you rather have an untrained teacher armed with a firearm be able to defend the students, or just sit there with them and take the bullets?

The more teachers that arm themselves, the greater likelihood of an armed teacher being present and able to confront a shooter rises. It's an odds game, but some of ya'll would probably rather hedge your bets on a football player tackling the guy, eh? Why does the Left almost always have a problem with law abiding citizens being armed? It's usually not them that you have to worry about, it's the NON LAW ABIDING citizens that you have to worry about. Everyone needs to be defenseless outside of their homes if the Left had their way, i.e. no firearms, maybe just be allowed to carry some pepper spray. The bad guys LOVE LOVE LOVE this foolish type of thinking!!

If we strictly look at the this logically, there are a TON more killings with pistols than any rifle (semi, bolt action or full auto) combined in the USA. Yes, half of the mass shooting have had 'assault rifles' involved and it was the high capacity mags that may have facilitated some of the killings, but how many of them were actually full auto? I'd hedge my bets that next to 0. So if we're wanting to make the most effective legislation to save human lives, we should ban all pistols for civilians and reserve them for law enforcement and military only. Maybe the large capacity magazines also? Naw, it's SUPER easy to change a 10 round mag out in a second and continue to fire. But wait a second, the Left doesn't really want to jump on THAT bandwagon, it's more glamorous and captivating to try to ban FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS!!! They don't really care about saving lives, it's all about controlling people, plain and simple.
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5138 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
? what is your point? I think the govt has the right to control derringers, nuclear bombs, crossbows.


Why is that? Are they also killing machines? What about the sharp sticks and clubs? Oops forgot butter knives.

I do agree on the nuclear bombs.

To review where my comments are coming from:

The point Lobo and I are debating is whether the "main purpose of the instrument in question is killing" is an adequate reason to allow govt control. I say yes; he, if I'm characterizing his position accurately, is of the opinion that the main purpose is irrelevant, only the actual numbers of deaths produced is relevant. Thus he thinks it is inconsistent to want to control guns, but not swimming pools.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20984 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Don't add context or balducci will accuse you of parsing words.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Kabbalah
View Profile
Inner circle
1621 Posts

Profile of Kabbalah
"A government that fears arms in the hands of its people...should also fear rope."
"Long may magicians fascinate and continue to be fascinated by the mystery potential in a pack of cards."
~Cliff Green

"The greatest tricks ever performed are not done at all. The audience simply think they see them."
~ John Northern Hilliard
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, tommy wrote:
Cowboys should give all the guns to the Indians so they can throw you all out and burn all the schools.


Do you really think so? They have casinos. Smile Also another day off for the teachers.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 28, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
...
Sweet Jesus, can't you get a lesson in logic? Please? You are so ****ing boring and so ****ing wrong. Some might even say "stupid".

Let me give you a clue, a helping hand. What you mean to talk about are p*n*s*s and v*g*n*s. That would be slightly better, but even then it would be the sh***est of all sh***y logical fallacies.
...


Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
...
If all of you " Everyone should be allowed to be allowed to carry whatever weapon they can afford to buy because this is MURICA." can not answer these SIMPLE questions with DIRECT ANSWERS, then they should STFU.
...


I think I might be detecting a pattern here. Smile


Yes...the pattern being that, NYCTwister belongs in a padded cell.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
? what is your point? I think the govt has the right to control derringers, nuclear bombs, crossbows.


Why is that? Are they also killing machines? What about the sharp sticks and clubs? Oops forgot butter knives.

I do agree on the nuclear bombs.

To review where my comments are coming from:

The point Lobo and I are debating is whether the "main purpose of the instrument in question is killing" is an adequate reason to allow govt control. I say yes; he, if I'm characterizing his position accurately, is of the opinion that the main purpose is irrelevant, only the actual numbers of deaths produced is relevant. Thus he thinks it is inconsistent to want to control guns, but not swimming pools.


Well you say "main purpose ". Let me ask you this. In whose mind is it the main purpose? The reason for asking is that less than .00001% (I made that number up it is probably even less) of all of these firearms that you speak of are used for killing but rather for sport and target shooting and personal defense. So if that is your criteria than you would have to allow these firearms to remain available to the public law abiding citizen of the United States. Unless you have a different agenda. Such as removing all firearms from the private sector. If the "ONLY" thing one could do with one of these firearms is kill innocent people I would have to agree with you. But that is not the case as there are hundreds of thousands of them out there and only a miniscule amount of them are used by nut cases that use them for mass slaughter of the innocent. It is the individual that makes the decision not the firearm itself.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2817 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.


Hunting could be defined as a sport. But when I refer to sport I am referring to target shooting, competing against others.

If in your question 100 people were attacked and the victims had no weapon and as a result the 100 innocent people (those attacked) were killed as opposed to 100 attacks and 2, 5 10 or 20 were killed and the rest survived I do not believe there is much of a debate as to which is the better scenario.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..42~43~44~45~46 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL