At 6/21/07 12:54 AM, JakeHero wrote:
Was it you or the other guy who posts the same thing across threads, complete with the link to the Wikipedia page on it?
Could you be more specific with the wikipedia article? I do have a telepathic link to your brain stem and would know exactly what you mean when you say "same thing" and "wikipedia page" because there's only one page on wikipedia.
So, you've forgotten you posted the link to the Wikipedia article on appealing to emotion, then?
Here we go, your argument posted by WolvenBear in the manner of an idiot that happens to be appealing to emotion while using the lowest common denomenator at the same time.
Okay, so imposing a ban on guns wouldn't disarm law-abiding citizens? By the way, what's the same argument WolvenBear and I use? I mean, I should totally know exactly what you mean off the bat, even if you weren't specific and just vague.
"Gun control disarms law abiding citizens"
"YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG"
Same argument. Sorry if you find this somewhat vague and non-specific, but I guess that's your problem for not having the intellect to think laterally.
By the way, Wolfy, your climbdown by saying it was mockery sounded forced when you were shot down before, so trying it again helps you...how?
Did I say I was quoting you? No? How does it feel to make a redundant excuse for a point?
I misread your post. So sue me.
No, I'll just point out you can't read, so your credibility goes downhill. Sorry.
Great way to miss the point!
I say : "if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands."
You say...some unrelated stuff about ghetto kids.
I was replying to your part about "pussyish."
And I repeat, using a gun is cowardly - a way to desensitise yourself from the fact you're killing somebody which you generally don't get when stabbing etc. It's the easy way to do what should be a hard job.
In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned,
They sure can't! http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wil son20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-ce nter Criminals are really fucked with these gun regulations! I like how you cleverely word it "average burglar" so you won't have to answer for the professional ones and the other violent criminals that do have guns and go unchecked.
And your professional burglar will want to add murder to their sentence, which is 25 years on top of the 10 they'll get...why? Don't be so fucking stupid.
so to get them out of your house you cliterally switch the lights on and they bail. In the US, they panic and open fire.
You do realize how ridiculous this sounds? All of a sudden, criminals are scared of lights in places? I'm pretty sure there are criminals that are willing to maim someone to get what they want in the house.
It's called being afraid as they have been detected, which if you're a criminal you don't particularly want as it leads to arrest, sentencing, prison...you get the idea? Why hang around and risk being identified when you can run for it?
Is basic psychology somehow above you?
Basic psychology there: fight or flight. Take away the tools to fight (with extreme prejudice), you have one option, don't you?
You are also forgetting the facts the burglar could be physically superior to person's whose house they're breaking into or just straight up psychopaths that get their kicks out of killing people.
I repeat, if you risk getting a sentence for burglary, why would you want to add assault or murder to your sentence?
Please, stop regurgitating pro-gun apologistic wet dreams.
Note I talk about reducing the number of death by firearm with proper regulation.
I know this. And I am arguing your regulation would do more harm than good.
No, you're arguing because you can hit reply, despite having nothing to say and/or add. Big difference.
Note I didn't say this would eliminate stabbings, strangulation, asphyxiation, beatings and any of the other myriad of ways people think of to kill each other on such a regular basis.
I didn't inject those into the argument.
"Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?" - JakeHero, 17th June 2007.
You did - charcoal and white.
Yes, I actually make points, while you just copy and paste Generic Idiot's Argument #407.
Correction: I post links and the only outcome, you post hypotheticals without considering variables.
Correction: you post links to the Wikipedia definition of appealing to emotion and random bits on Youtube inbetween reams and reams of incoherant paranoiac's ramblings.
You don't nee dto be incompetent to shoot somebody, you need to be paranoid. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Every person who takes a gun safety course is taught that shooting and asking questions later or not remaining calm is a form of incompetence. So do you believe everyone with a handgun is going to become paranoid?
A good percentile of 15,000 people per year would testify if they weren't, you know, dead due to a paranoiac with a handgun.
A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.
Um, guns ARE inanimate. What you listed isn't a criteria to be considered inanimate.
Do people run into bullets at a fast enough speed to have a fatal wound? Strangely, no. That implies animation, then.
Oh, and how about making it just a bit more difficult for a WEAPON to fall into the hands of somebody who might happen to want to use it repeatedly?
I'm all for that. Backround checks, waiting periods, clean record all I am arguing against is outlawing types of firearms.
Using an article that bitches about the NY Times "editorialising", yet doing it themselves? And if you read the article, you'd note this passage:
"There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls. "
Sorry, isn't that what I've been saying - easy access to guns means any wannabe two-bit gangsta can get a gun and will be stupid with it?
Sorry, a background check may not pick up on their gang history/membership, for the simple reason that a background check on Ted Bundy wouldn't scream "potential serial killer" at you.
This is a generic fallback - indeed all your proposed measures are - yet none of them are remotely foolproof. Come on, Cho shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm (let alone two), but did. Enough people have sat through their waiting periods to get hold of a gun, then used it in the manner it wasn't sold for (although it was designed for). And i's easy to have a clean record before you shoot somebody - Harris and Klebold did, among others.