• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gun Control: The Conversation

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Ah, the "nut-huh, YOU did it!" argument. AND the single instance equates to ALL instances argument, in the same post.
I presented no argument in this thread.
Merely pointed out that your complaint is a two way street.
One you are guilty of.
Of course, you ran tail tucked from the other thread right after being called out on it.

It is not any fault of mine that you flat out refused to support your proposed law with anything other than claiming I think that unless it will be 100% effective laws should not be proposed.

So you go right ahead and keep thoroughly demonstrating the very thing you whine so much about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Curious George

Veteran Member
Your desire to play with guns endangers the lives and well-being of the humans you live among and with. That's why they have the right to tell you that you can't play with guns. Just like your right to drive drunk endangers the lives and well-being of the humans you share the roads with, and so they have the right to tell you that you can't drive drunk. Most of us understand this need for restricting our behaviors for the sake of our fellow humans by the age of 5 or 6. But here in the U.S., thanks to 100 years of commercial advertising and grotesque pandering by politicians, many grown ups still can't accept being told what they can and can't do by their fellow humans, through the mechanism of government. You appear, here, to be one of them.
I am not sure whether you read what i wrote, comprehended what I wrote, or if you just saw letters and thought this is my chance to rant again.

But sure, let us ignore what I said and address this other emotional tirade of yours...

Your desire to play with guns endangers the lives and well-being of the humans you live among and with.
Why do you think I have a desire to play with guns, let alone assume that imagined desire that you believe i possess endangers anyone?

Just like your right to drive drunk endangers the lives and well-being of the humans you share the roads with, and so they have the right to tell you that you can't drive drunk.
Several issues with this. I can drive drunk on my own property. Driving is not a fundamental right. Banning drinking while driving is a ban on the harmful activity. Owning a gun is not a harmful activity.

Most of us understand this need for restricting our behaviors for the sake of our fellow humans by the age of 5 or 6. But here in the U.S., thanks to 100 years of commercial advertising and grotesque pandering by politicians, many grown ups still can't accept being told what they can and can't do by their fellow humans, through the mechanism of government. You appear, here, to be one of them​

That is a jump in logic. In fact, that is such a jump that i would call it irrational and illogical. This statement is demonstrative of your emotional boas in this conversation. This statement makes me question your capacity to have a rational conversation on this topic.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I read the news today....oh boy
about unlucky guy who got shot and died

but it seems he was told NOT to run
and got shot as he re-entered his vehicle

out standing warrants mentioned

now we have protestors jumping up and down on cars

if that was MY car......guess what.....
 

PureX

Veteran Member
It is not any fault of mine that you flat out refused to support your proposed law with anything other than claiming I think that unless it will be 100% effective laws should not be proposed.
Of course it is. The whole reason for your "request" was to create a pointless rabbit hole to deflect the focus away from real issue of effective regulation. That rabbit hole being that the one specific instance of gun violence that you chose represents all instances of gun violence. Which is patently foolish, and irrelevant to a reasoned discussion of effective gun regulation. Then to add stupidity to the foolishness, you present the fact that I didn't take your bait as an excuse to dismiss the whole discussion about effective gun legislation.

These are standard tactics I see used ALL THE TIME by gun advocates. They are exactly what I'm talking about when I point out that the gun fetish is being driven by emotionalism to the point of logic-blindness. A trait also common to addiction.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
some months ago....some young kid ended up defending himself
with an assault rifle

I remember the crowd chasing him
and when they caught up......someone died trying to take the gun
someone else pulled their own weapon....but got shot

I wonder how that turned out
 
Last edited:

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
some months ago....some young kid ended up defending himself
with an assault rifle

I remember the crowd chasing him
and when they caught up......someone died trying to try the gun
someone else pulled their own weapon....but got shot

I wonder how that turned out
that was after he had just murdered another person by shooting them in the back
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Why do you think I have a desire to play with guns, let alone assume that imagined desire that you believe i possess endangers anyone?
Because you are stooping to absurd lengths to defend what you perceive to be everyone's right to play with guns. Also, the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the logic, facts, and statistics that have shown us for at least 50 years or more that bringing a gun into the home INCREASES the likelihood that someone in the home, or nearby, will be the victim of gun violence. They do not make us safer. This is a fact. But it's a fact that the gun fetishists and the corporate lobbyists and advertisers cannot reconcile, and so will ignore, reject and dismiss by any and all means. As you seem to be intent on doing. So this is why I assume you must be a gun fetishist, yourself. But all I have are the words you post, to go on. So maybe you're just pretending to be one. Who knows?
I can drive drunk on my own property. Driving is not a fundamental right. Banning drinking while driving is a ban on the harmful activity. Owning a gun is not a harmful activity.
This an absurd retort. Typical of the gun fetishists. First, the problem with drunk driving is both bad decision-making and bad physical reaction and control. So, being drunk increases the likelihood that you will leave your property and become a danger to others. And for another, the car doesn't fly off in whatever direction it happens to be pointed at a thousand feet per second when you touch the accelerator. Which will almost immediately cause it to become a very serious and unjustifiable problem for everyone around you. And third, you need an automobile to live in most areas of the country, now days. They are not unnecessary, voluntary play toys. Conversely, in most areas of the country, you do not need a gun to live. Such that owning them IS an unnecessary, voluntary 'pleasure'.
"Most of us understand this need for restricting our behaviors for the sake of our fellow humans by the age of 5 or 6. But here in the U.S., thanks to 100 years of commercial advertising and grotesque pandering by politicians, many grown ups still can't accept being told what they can and can't do by their fellow humans, through the mechanism of government. You appear, here, to be one of them"​

That is a jump in logic. In fact, that is such a jump that i would call it irrational and illogical. This statement is demonstrative of your emotional boas in this conversation. This statement makes me question your capacity to have a rational conversation on this topic.
Please explain to me, in detail, what part of my statement you find "irrational and illogical", and how you came to that determination. I did the same for you, above, now it's your turn.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Of course it is. The whole reason for your "request" was to create a pointless rabbit hole to deflect the focus away from real issue of effective regulation.
Just can't help yourself can you?
Still trying so hard to dictate to me my motives...

The reason for the request is to see if you can explain how your proposed law would have prevented any of the things you think it will prevent.
Something you STILL have not even attempted to do.


That rabbit hole being that the one specific instance of gun violence that you chose represents all instances of gun violence.
And when you admitted you do not know a damn thing about that particular case I flat out asked you to pick and choose from the last 500 cases....
And still nothing but crickets from you....

Which is patently foolish, and irrelevant to a reasoned discussion of effective gun regulation.
Asking you to pick and choose from the last 500 gun related cases is "patently foolish, and irrelevant"?
why would you even propose a law if you feel that inadequate about it?

Then to add stupidity to the foolishness, you present the fact that I didn't take your bait as an excuse to dismiss the whole discussion about effective gun legislation.

You honestly think that proposed law is the "whole discussion about effective gun legislation"?
A discussion that YOU, not I, ran from tail tucked?

These are standard tactics I see used ALL THE TIME by gun advocates.
You see them even when they are not there...
I posted a link to the "discussion" you ran away from.
All anyone needs to do is go there and see for themselves how it is YOU whoo made the bold false accusations against me in that thread just like you are doing in this thread.

They are exactly what I'm talking about when I point out that the gun fetish is being driven by emotionalism to the point of logic-blindness. A trait also common to addiction.
Rather difficult to take you seriously about gun control when you flat refuse to talk about gun control...

You spend all your time attacking your strawmen and whining about being called out about it.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
It seems as though we are going to have to handle this one step at a time...

Please explain to me, in detail, what part of my statement you find "irrational and illogical", and how you came to that determination. I did the same for you, above, now it's your turn
Sure

You wrote:
Most of us understand this need for restricting our behaviors for the sake of our fellow humans by the age of 5 or 6. But here in the U.S., thanks to 100 years of commercial advertising and grotesque pandering by politicians, many grown ups still can't accept being told what they can and can't do by their fellow humans, through the mechanism of government. You appear, here, to be one of them"
You have stated that I appear to be a person who can't accept being told what I can and cannot do by my fellow humans through the use of government, because i disagree with you on one topic.

This is not a logical coherent conclusion. It does not flow from my position that I cannot accept laws that restrict my actions. Nor does it make sense to conclude that i do not accept any laws because I do not accept one. Because you have jumped to a conclusion that does not follow from my position, you have made both an illogical and irrational statement.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Because you are stooping to absurd lengths to defend what you perceive to be everyone's right to play with guns.
What absurd lengths?

Also, the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the logic, facts, and statistics that have shown us for at least 50 years or more that bringing a gun into the home INCREASES the likelihood that someone in the home, or nearby, will be the victim of gun violence.
I have not refused to accept any statistics. I have merely objected to people trying to use statistics to say things that those statistics don't actually say. I have also objected to people conveying ideas of researchers without acknowledging the biases and limitations that the very researches they are quoting acknowledge.

They do not make us safer. This is a fact.
No, that is opinion. I expect logical rational people to understand the difference between opinion and fact.
But it's a fact that the gun fetishists and the corporate lobbyists and advertisers cannot reconcile, and so will ignore, reject and dismiss by any and all means.
Is it them or the person who cannot distinguish fact from opinion that "cannot reconcile?"
As you seem to be intent on doing. So this is why I assume you must be a gun fetishist, yourself. But all I have are the words you post, to go on. So maybe you're just pretending to be one. Who knows?
Perhaps you can break down what a gun fetishist is and what of mine words lead you to conclude that i am one.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Comparable in what ways? In homicide rate, suicide rate, or in whether a certain law is passed? Yes to the two former; no to the latter most.
Gun violence and death, and society as a whole. Like those who want to arm teachers. Our country should not look like some Middle Eastern country where the threat of an extremist attack can be high. We should look more like Canada, England, Australia, France, and other Western nations that are safe and not plagued with gun violence.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Gun violence and death, and society as a whole. Like those who want to arm teachers. Our country should not look like some Middle Eastern country where the threat of an extremist attack can be high. We should look more like Canada, England, Australia, France, and other Western nations that are safe and not plagued with gun violence.
This reads as derogatory towards the middle east. Also, i am all for reducing gun violence. I don't think that is an unreasonable end. I might however think there are unreasonable means towards that end.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
This reads as derogatory towards the middle east. Also, i am all for reducing gun violence. I don't think that is an unreasonable end. I might however think there are unreasonable means towards that end.
It's not my fault they have a very serious problem with violent religious fanatic, even supporting it at the state level in some instances.
This is what happened when they gave Israeli teachers guns
We shouldn't be like that. We shouldn't strive to be like that. We should strive to be better. We should at least reach the par for a 21st century Western nation. Instead, gun nuts are insisting looking at the violence of just Western nations isn't accurate or fair because we have to include Brazil. Why? It's violent, very corrupt, not a good place, and we are supposed to include it so we don't look so bad? We should be like everywhere else that doesn't know gun violence as a daily reality. Not engaging in a race to the bottom like the many Republicans, Conservatives, and the NRA want.
 
Top