what motivates a man to be anti-gun?

[goandykid]

Clemson357: Dogs are similar to cats in that they both have four legs

Goandykid: Yes, but cats meow and dogs bark

Clemson357: That really isn't relevant, what I am trying to illustrate here is that dogs and cats both have four legs

Goandykid: Yes, and I said your analogy is a bad one because cats meow and dogs bark

Clemson357: I am not asserting that cats are the same as dogs. I am directing analogy at one specific point, the fact that they both have four legs.

Goandykid: Yes. I admit that your analogy is correct. I admit that the point you are making is true. I admit that your analogy illustrates the single and only point you are trying to make. However, your analogy is a bad one because cats meow and dogs bark. The fact that you can't come up with a better analogy means you are stupid.

As hilarious as that last post was, it was another failed post at discrediting my original point.

Is it that hard to fathom MY point? Can YOU wrap YOUR brain around it? You took an everyday occurrence and tried to compare it to something that almost never happens. That is my point Einstein. Dale did the exact same by taking your shitty analogy and using it to make his point of apples and oranges. You are losing respect by the post here.

 

[clemson357]

Great. Point taken Einstein. A crack addict almost never breaks into a home. You are correct. It is much more common for a person to drive a car. I concede this. Yet it adds absolutely nothing to the debate, and does not affect the POINT OF THE ANALOGY, which was to illustrate that guns and cars both have legal applications. Guns and cars do both have legal applications, this is a fact that everyone can concede, and yet we will discuss how often crack addicts break into homes as if it has some bearing on the issue. Our next item for discussion: cars come in lots of colors and guns generally come in only black and gray.

 

[goandykid]

Those are ridiculous comparisons, of course if you regress the argument as far down and to the smallest detail possible it becomes ridiculous. I don't think for 2 seconds you don;t see the difference between the 2. And, of course you blame it on the person, I have no problem with people having guns, i see no need for assault rifles or something that can mowdown an entire schoolyard in 5 seconds. Tell me how having a gun that can fire 100 rounds in 60 seconds is necessary for any of the 2.5 million instances where someone uses a gun legally to defend themselves each year. I used to hunt, still own 2 hunting rifles, and went clayshooting last year. All good times, and all safe. I don't feel having an assault rifle or any weapon with that capability is safe...I do bet it is fun, though.

I'm not even going to respond to your last, repetitive post. Dale already did. Several times.

 

[clemson357]

Do you want to discuss which colors cars come in? That has about as much bearing on the issue as your other point.

I have seen them in red, yellow, blue, green, burgendy, orange, black, white, purple, grey, silver, brown, and gold. Isn't that interesting?

 

[goandykid]

Do you want to discuss which colors cars come in? That has about as much bearing on the issue as your other point.

I have seen them in red, yellow, blue, green, burgendy, orange, black, white, purple, grey, silver, brown, and gold. Isn't that interesting?

WOW, you really don't read others' posts.

 

[goandykid]

So plutonium should be readily available to any group of people since it can be used for nuclear power, which is legal? No, it is regulated to prevent an idiot from getting their hands on it, which is sort of the point of most laws.

Case and point, noone found your analogy to be halfway decent.

 

[goandykid]

There are an infinitely higher number of circumstances where it is legal to go from point A to point B than to kill.

...

 

[goandykid]

Read much?

 

[clemson357]

goandykid, you get a star on your paper! Cars are used often and crack addicts break into homes rarely, if ever. You get an "A" for effort! Now get back on the short bus with all the other "special" boys and girls.

 

[goandykid]

goandykid, you get a star on your paper! Cars are used often and crack addicts break into homes rarely, if ever. You get an "A" for effort! Now get back on the short bus with all the other "special" boys and girls.

Remember the last thread we argued in and I told you how bad you were at it? Remember when you got flustered b/c you weren't capable of continuing your very simple point, so you lashed out in a hateful manner, making yourself look even more like a complete dipshit?

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.

I don't even have to respond anymore, I can quote MYSELF.

 

[clemson357]

Andy, I really am sorry that you cannot understand the concept of an "example." It is simple for most, but apparently I took that for granted. Apparently it is not sufficiently clear to give an example of a legal defensive use of a gun. This confuses chimps, parrots, first graders, and you. Next time I will just come out and say what I mean, as examples can be confusing.

 

[goandykid]

Andy, I really am sorry that you cannot understand the concept of an "example." It is simple for most, but apparently I took that for granted. Apparently it is not sufficiently clear to give an example of a legal defensive use of a gun. This confuses chimps, parrots, first graders, and you. Next time I will just come out and say what I mean, as examples can be confusing.

Mind if I ask your age there, clemson? I'm glad you brought up chimps, this way I don't have to transition into your predictability in a debate. Let's not forget:

Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
- Bullet Tooth Tony

The sad thing is, I was having a solid conversation with Wit and Albob before you brought your blind conservative self back into the thread. You lashed out rudely as you do in so many threads, turning a conversation into a shithole.

To be completely honest, not a jab, I feel like you have anger problems. You are consistently the only one on IM who turns threads into arguments. It's a shame you can never take a step back an realize another view or point, and after I try and drill it into your brain, you turn into an asshole.

Honestly, a shame. You seem like you could be a half way decent human being outside of IM. The fact that you keep bringing up your original point instead of focusing on the new one is not taking you anywhere.

 

[clemson357]

I am 24. I have a mechanical engineering degree and in May I will graduate from law school. What the fuck do you do?

I really don't care what your opinion is of me. To be honest I do get angry when people are incapable of grasping simple concepts. You have not added one single substantive point to this thread. In fact, you admitted that you are not well informed on the issue of gun control. You show up here and start pointing out things that are absolutely trivial, and then insult me as if your commentary is intellectual. Yes, it is not often that a crack addict breaks into a home and the homeowner has to kill them, congratulations you have spent the last four pages of this thread reiterating the painfully, mind-numbingly obvious. I used A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION as an EXAMPLE of a defensive gun use, and that is beyond your grasp. You cannot understand why your observation that the hypothetical does not occur frequently is completely irrelevant. That concept is simply beyond you.

 

[Witmaster]

you guys are making me dizzy

 

[clemson357]

Did you know guns don't come in lots of colors, and cars do?

 

[Mista]

http://www.mrarms.com/colors.html

 

[clemson357]

 

[goandykid]

I am 24. I have a mechanical engineering degree and in May I will graduate from law school. What the fuck do you do?

I really don't care what your opinion is of me. To be honest I do get angry when people are incapable of grasping simple concepts. You have not added one single substantive point to this thread. In fact, you admitted that you are not well informed on the issue of gun control. You show up here and start pointing out things that are absolutely trivial, and then insult me as if your commentary is intellectual. Yes, it is not often that a crack addict breaks into a home and the homeowner has to kill them, congratulations you have spent the last four pages of this thread reiterating the painfully, mind-numbingly obvious. I used A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION as an EXAMPLE of a defensive gun use, and that is beyond your grasp. You cannot understand why your observation that the hypothetical does not occur frequently is completely irrelevant. That concept is simply beyond you.

firearm usage vs car accidents

armed robbery vs 2 car collisions

My fucking point was that you made driving your car sound just as normal as crack addict robbery. I have held back from serious cursing or insulting towards you so as to not drop into your pointing and swearing type of arguing.

But no, fuck YOU clemson, you fail to understand MY simple comment on your joke of a fucking point. You bring up your same god damn jabs every god damn post, and it's wearing on me.

I started insulting?!?!?! Are you REALLY this fucking retarded?? Not only did you open up our argument by calling me supremely unintelligent, but your own fucking thread is based off of an article bashing people with my views.

You are an ignorant, offensive, blindly conservative joke of a debater, and I'm ashamed to even by associated by thread w/ you at this point.

I have never met anyone as big of an asshole as you, and infraction or not, I completely mean that.

 

[goandykid]

http://www.mrarms.com/colors.html

 

[goandykid]

you guys are making me dizzy

I think he's still angry from when I took a shit on him in the Olbermann thread.

 

[clemson357]

My fucking point was that you made driving your car sound just as normal as crack addict robbery.

And what, if anything, is contingent on the frequency of crack addict robberies? Why does it matter whether it is normal or not? It is an EXAMPLE of something that is frequent: legal defensive gun uses. They occur 2.5 million times per year.

The fact that I can concede your point and it affects nothing shows that you are arguing something that is trivial. Trivial, it means inconsequential, irrelevant, not bearing on anything, completely disengaged from the issue at hand, meaningless. Your point means nothing.

And yes, cars are driven more than 2.5 million times per year. I'll concede it before you even point it out.

 

[goandykid]

And what, if anything, is contingent on the frequency of crack addict robberies? Why does it matter whether it is normal or not? It is an EXAMPLE of something that is frequent: legal defensive gun uses. They occur 2.5 million times per year.

The fact that I can concede your point and it affects nothing shows that you are arguing something that is trivial. Trivial, it means inconsequential, irrelevant, not bearing on anything, completely disengaged from the issue at hand, meaningless. Your point means nothing.

And yes, cars are driven more than 2.5 million times per year. I'll concede it before you even point it out.

Your concession doesn't make it trivial, it makes it a fact that you're analogy was bad and then discredited. You can say it's as trivial as you want, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[clemson357]

LMFAO.

"I said a cat meows and a dog barks. Therefore your point that they both have four legs is bad and discredited."

 

[clemson357]

Answer one simple question:

What difference does it make that crack addict robberies are infrequent?


The point of the analogy was to illustrate that guns can be used by civilians to kill, and this is legal. I gave one example. The fact that this example is infrequent means nothing. My point remains, and it is uncontradicted.

 

[goandykid]

LMFAO.

"I said a cat meows and a dog barks. Therefore your point that they both have four legs is bad and discredited."

"A dog sprinting up and biting me in the nuts, then tearing them off and feeding them into a meat grinder, then somehow using its front two paws to serve my grinded nut sack to small children after lacing it w/ LSD is jsut as big of a problem as car accidents."

 

[clemson357]

You are assuming that I am making an argument about crack addicts. You simply cannot understand that this is not the case. It is beyond you. You aren't smart enough. One hypothetical, however infrequent it might be, was used as an example of a larger issue and this is something that your brain can't comprehend.

 

[clemson357]

Gun ownership is a constitutional right. It is up to the legislature and the courts to determine how far that goes.

Remember that no constitutional right is absolute--life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, free expression---all of that has legislative or judicially imposed limits. Same thing goes for gun ownership.

However, I find the article Clemson posted to be a bit demeaning. The author sets up a straw man argument and then emasculates the straw man.

The author is like Dale's example #1 and she's taking on example #2.

A liberal that supports gun rights??? This might be a first.

I like the article because of its dry humor. It is a little bit demeaning, but I think that is appropriate. There are plenty of people out there who want to restrict gun liberty regardless of any impact on crime. These people, in my experience, generally don't have appreciation for the concepts which this nation was founded on, such as liberty. This is not true for all anti-gunners, but it is for a fair percentage. And for those people, I think the tone of the article is appropriate.

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

 

[brogers]

Speaking 100% practically..

Banning guns only removes them from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Those who commit crimes already have demonstrated they do not respect the law, why do people think they will suddenly decide to respect this new law regulating guns?

Oh yeah, and with those lovely gun laws, gun-carrying criminals will become bolder, considering the probability of being shot by someone they are trying to mug/rob/maim/whatever is drastically lower than it was previously.

 

[clemson357]

I agree 100%. I would say probably half of all guns in the US right now are completely unregistered. There is no way you could confiscate them all. Even if you could, do you know how many thousands of pounds of illegal drugs are smuggled into this country every year? Yet drugs can be detected by dogs and guns can't; if stripped of their oil they smell like any other piece of metal. Guns would still be readily available to anyone willing to break the law. All a prohibition would do is suceed in disarming the victims of crime.

 

[ZECH]

I think what most people don't realize is that IF they ever succeed in banning guns, it is only the first right we are going to loose. The government can then tell us what to do in every aspect of our lives and we can do nothing about it.