At 4/21/11 09:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
I never said guns were specifically made to harm. Guns were made to shoot a projectile into a target and to cause harm to that target. That is their purpose, plain and simple. The reason they can be used as deterrence is because their purpose is to cause harm.
OK, but what other deterrence doesn't fall into the same category? If I use a knife or a sword made to defend me...the purpose remains. The blade was made to cut through (usually) meat, and sometimes bone. If it is a sword or a long dagger I bought to protect me, the purpose of making it was to inflict bodily injury, and the intent of me harnassing it is to inflict bodily injury.
There is simply no deterrent that isn't covered by this.
There is no reason to be blind or naive here. Harm is the intended purpose of guns plain and simple. That does not necessarily mean guns are bad, as there are numerous uses where the harm or threat of harm does good.
Well, if we wish to be real...
The intended purpose of guns varies from gun to gun. The starting gun has no potential for harm. Paintball guns are for sport and people deliberately get shot for fun. Target guns are intended to shoot targets. While hunting rifles are intended to kill animals, that is their purpose.
What else can we remove from society because it has no practical purpose beyond harm? Swords? "Excessive" knives? Nascar? Weapons of any kind?
Even most people who buy a gun don't WANT to use it. They have it for protection. And the vast majority of guns are NOT used to cause any harm to anything (sorry, we're not including paper targets, as that's ridiculous). So the numbers alone hurt your case, and the various ways in which guns are used that have zero potential of harm hurts your case.
At 4/21/11 07:40 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE !!! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK !!! I'm not talking about MY FEELINGS !!! I'm talking about how FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, SOCIAL FACTORS AND YOUR FUCKING BRAIN COMES IN THE PLAY WHEN IT'S TIME TO USE A WEAPON !!! Jesus... man, I'm really feeling that I'm wasting my time with this! Statistics are shit unless you know how to read them right. Statistics =/= arguments. Use them like that in ANY University work, and you are fucking screwed !!!
Idiots do tend to get aggravated talking to me...as I call them idiots and dismiss their idiocy without much comment. If you'd like to argue a point other than "guns are bad, m'kay?" I'll give you a shot. But as long as we are debating your personal feelings and dismissing statistics (and that is indeed what you are doing), I will continue to write you off as an imbecile.
You started that useless name calling shit... fucking hypocretical jerk...
Did I? Well, no. It turns out I didn't. After putting forward lots of facts and arguments, you came in spouting half-retarded theories about nothing. In fact, the quote I responded to started with:
That's a flawed logic no matter how true your facts are...
In other words, no matter whether the person was right or wrong...you rejected their logic. I did address ALL of your arguments in some detail. I went into C&C laws. I talked about the rates of crime after adopted. I went into the crime rates in England after the ban started. While I will admit that I didn't write volumes...I DID address your points. The closest I can be said to insulting you was:
:: Really, explain me how it works, cause I really fail to understand.
What was the response?
You know what... if you are going to play the fucking smart-ass with me, I'm not reading your post. You are obviously biased, and I was merely just sharing my opinion on a matter I really don't know that much, and asking for questions.
You are not stating facts. You take stupid statistics,
Did I curse at you or call you a smart-ass? Well, no. Did you instead refuse to read ANY of my response and lie through your teeth claiming I provided no facts? Well, yes. Was my somewhat mocking response taking that into account? Well, yes. Duh.
So, you didn't read my post...but I stated no facts.
Pardon me if I don't take that criticism with anything but mockery. Idiot.
HAHAHAHAHA intellectual superior !!! HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! I've went back in this thread and read your posts and realised that you didn't ever use fucking statistics... My original post was not even intended to you... and now you are going apeshit, thinking that you are smart. If you really were, you would stop claiming it. Intelligent people, don't try to put other down with countless Ad Hominem "fake" arguments, they talk about the real matter
Well, I am certainly smarter than you. Not that that means I'm brilliant or anything. But I am clearly more intelligent than you. While I have mocked you as a moron...you're a moron. I've reread your debates too. You specifically refuse to counter any assertion I have made. Indeed, you simply say "statistics are stupid". I do call you names, but I have backed up every claim I have made. You simply say you are right, and if the facts disagree, the facts are stupid.
If you'd like to be taken seriously, address the argument. Because if you're claiming I never used factual arguments in this thread...you're a fucking retard. Compare your treatment with that of Iron Hampster, who is just as wrong as you, but isn't a complete idiot and a jackass to boot.
But, in all fairness, perhaps I worded it poorly and you misunderstood?
I took the opportunity to claim I had perhaps inarticulately worded my argument and said the fault may lie with me inadequately arguing my case. Because IH may be wrong, but is generally respectful. The only time I can see I mocked him was when he said that an 80 year old woman should just outrun a youthful mugger.
Compared to you who I routinely mock as a mental midget. The fault is with you. You're a terrible debater, and a prideful fool...not to mention a raging asshole. Do your mea culpa and maybe I'll be nice to you again.