riffraff Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 30 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: No, you're not understanding, The study doesn't prove guns make the US unsafe, that was the conclusion "they" jumped to. You can't compare ONE benefit of carrying a firearms with ALL the negatives. I'll try dumb this down in a way that hopefully you can understand. You seem like a cannabis user so lets put it this way. The Pro marijuana crowd has stated that ONE benefit of marijuana is that it can help control epileptic seizures, The anti marijuana crowd thinks it shouldn't be legal, so they often compares ALL the negatives about marijuana use (brain development + Breathing problems + increased impaired driving etc). They try to use this as evidence as to why marijuana helping control epileptic seizures is not justifiable enough to for all the risks. Statistically with how the anti crowd presents data, they are correct. But what's missing is that marijuana helping control epileptic seizures isn't the only benefit the pro crowd believe comes from use, there are many other benefits that are being ignored. So the stats are utterly useless and simply misleading. Because no pro gun advocate believes the ONLY purpose of a gun is to prevent mass shootings, they also believe it can prevent crime, assault, murders, and rape. https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm Which it's proven to https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm Wrong, https://cssa-cila.org/rights/ten-myths-about-gun-control/ I think this is mostly sarcasm....you don't really think that all people who smoke weed are dumb right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 52 minutes ago, riffraff said: I think this is mostly sarcasm....you don't really think that all people who smoke weed are dumb right? Heck no, some of my most intelligent friends smoke weed, although they don't tend to be the most successful financially. I wasn't intending to imply smoking weed with being dumb. They were two separate statements, perhaps I should have used a paragraph, although I thought a period would suffice. But the intent was to give him something that he'd be able to relate to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: No, you're not understanding, The study doesn't prove guns make the US unsafe, that was the conclusion "they" jumped to. You can't compare ONE benefit of carrying a firearms with ALL the negatives. I'll try dumb this down in a way that hopefully you can understand. So you are saying because you are clearly intellectually superior to someone (in this case @RUPERTKBD) that you need to modify your explanation to a simpler (dumber) way in order for someone to see it your way as that is clearly the only option? Just like in the hockey discussions with you, did it ever occur to you that perhaps another option has validity? In this case, the raft of innocent people dying for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time is beyond something anyone can condone. Perhaps if you had a loved one taken from you in something so senseless, you would stop surfing the internet for pro-gun articles and instead start thinking about a world where something as precious as the gift of life was given more respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 36 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: So you are saying because you are clearly intellectually superior to someone (in this case @RUPERTKBD) that you need to modify your explanation to a simpler (dumber) way in order for someone to see it your way as that is clearly the only option? Nope not at. I'm was pointing out that he clearly wasn't understanding the point so I attempted to simplify is so that he could. He has nothing to do with being intellectually superior, it has to do with not understanding whats at hand. I just read Adobe Acrobat 6 For Dummies and in no way would anyone account that with being intelligent. Quote Just like in the hockey discussions with you, did it ever occur to you that perhaps another option has validity? No because validity implies logically or factually sound, which i clearly showed how it wasn't. Quote In this case, the raft of innocent people dying for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time is beyond something anyone can condone. Perhaps if you had a loved one taken from you in something so senseless, you would stop surfing the internet for pro-gun articles and instead start thinking about a world where something as precious as the gift of life was given more respect. So because life is precious does that mean we need to make irrational and uneducated decisions that affect a large number of innocent people? I'll i'm pointing out that if we are going to do something there should be actual merit to it, there needs to be a fair discussion around things. Not someone misrepresenting data, jumping to conclusions and stating "this is how things need to be". . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 8 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: So you are saying because you are clearly intellectually superior to someone (in this case @RUPERTKBD) that you need to modify your explanation to a simpler (dumber) way in order for someone to see it your way as that is clearly the only option? Just like in the hockey discussions with you, did it ever occur to you that perhaps another option has validity? In this case, the raft of innocent people dying for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time is beyond something anyone can condone. Perhaps if you had a loved one taken from you in something so senseless, you would stop surfing the internet for pro-gun articles and instead start thinking about a world where something as precious as the gift of life was given more respect. Really? You think that based on his ability to hurl insults and engage in strawman arguments (Neither I, nor the Vice article specified "mass shootings") that his claim of "intellectual superiority" is justified? I'd have to disagree. Does it strike you as particularly "intelligent" to resort to insults? Does it seem "intelligent" to claim a source is biased and then offer content from gunowners.org as "proof" that your claim is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JV77 Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 On 11/7/2017 at 12:00 AM, Lancaster said: Guns represents freedom in a somewhat primal sense. It allows you to protect yourself and your family from the criminal element or from the overreach of certain groups. It doesn't matter if you're 4'7 or 7'4, a man or a woman, a bodybuilder or frail..... a firearm is the ultimate equalizer. I like guns, I think everyone should have some training with firearms. That being said, I think of firearms as a very very powerful tool... and as the saying goes, "Great power comes with greater responsibility". Firearms locked and kept in a strong safe, ammo stored properly, muzzle control, etc. Personal responsibility trumps any regulations IMO. Of course, I'm think of myself as a sane, rational and law abiding individual. Just always disappointed that there are morons, gangbangers and evil/insane people out there ruining it for the rest of us. Thing is in USA you almost have to have a gun with for protection because there are so many guns out there. We have crime here and shootings, I have never felt the need for a gun and never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.