Mass Shootings in the US

More than that still, hunting and firearms ownership is a way of life. I don't think you would understand but passing firearms down from one generation to another is a right of passage here.
That's great. It doesn't change the fact that shooting for fun is a hobby. I couldn't care less how many guns you own and I don't give a shit what you do with them.

I'm going to give my best set of darts to my eldest.
 
I believe that etiquette dictates the circle jerk happens after the hunt completes, not instead of.

Upsets the hounds, you see.
I got to experience rabbit hunting in NC, with a pack of Beagles. It was interesting to say the least. Carrying a 12 gauge to shoot a few cottontails being pursued by 20 dogs was a bit different then what I am used to. My FIL asked me how we do it in "Wyoomingg". I told him we just shoot them from the porch with a pellet gun.....
 
Indeed. With some demanding that guns are inherently evil and must all be destroyed.

Many aren’t, despite being capable.

Furthermore, the concept is an emotive one, designed to avoid rational discourse.
Is your real name Sheldon..

So many more are aren't they. Why can't you just say it, it matters not either way. You said you had no preference and are only on here to correct logical inconsistencies. This thread is full of pro gun supporters. Why not say it.
 
Is your real name Sheldon..

So many more are aren't they. Why can't you just say it, it matters not either way. You said you had no preference and are only on here to correct logical inconsistencies. This thread is full of pro gun supporters. Why not say it.
If I claim to be pro gun, does that allow you to place me in a pigeonhole and dismiss me? I’ll grant you that I do seem to be arguing with the “anti-gun side” more than “pro-gun”, if you feel it is about sides, but that could simply be that what you perceive as “anti-gun” is being less logical when I tune in.

If it matters not to you, why are you so insistent on using that terminology? Surely you could make just as strong an argument without it?

In some ways, avoiding the emotive (and inaccurate) would make for a stronger case for control of weapons. Trucks and explosives are both controlled, not because of design intent, but because of their capacity to do harm if misused.

Who is Sheldon?
 
If I claim to be pro gun, does that allow you to place me in a pigeonhole and dismiss me? I’ll grant you that I do seem to be arguing with the “anti-gun side” more than “pro-gun”, if you feel it is about sides, but that could simply be that what you perceive as “anti-gun” is being less logical when I tune in.

If it matters not to you, why are you so insistent on using that terminology? Surely you could make just as strong an argument without it?

In some ways, avoiding the emotive (and inaccurate) would make for a stronger case for control of weapons. Trucks and explosives are both controlled, not because of design intent, but because of their capacity to do harm if misused.

Who is Sheldon?
Lets not give the antis any tips please, the hand wringing/for the kids argument does enough damage without them resorting to facts.
 
That suggests that the states are more important than the people. Why should a state have a say if, for example, nobody lives there?

I contend that the majority opinion of the individuals that form the electorate in total, should hold power of decision in national matters like electing a president.
 
If I claim to be pro gun, does that allow you to place me in a pigeonhole and dismiss me? I’ll grant you that I do seem to be arguing with the “anti-gun side” more than “pro-gun”, if you feel it is about sides, but that could simply be that what you perceive as “anti-gun” is being less logical when I tune in.

If it matters not to you, why are you so insistent on using that terminology? Surely you could make just as strong an argument without it?

In some ways, avoiding the emotive (and inaccurate) would make for a stronger case for control of weapons. Trucks and explosives are both controlled, not because of design intent, but because of their capacity to do harm if misused.

Who is Sheldon?
I don't think it's emotive.

Guns were originally designed as weapons. That some choose to use them in a different capacity doesn't alter that fact.

The illogical thing is describing them as tools.

A spade is a tool, even though it can be used as a weapon.

A spear is a weapon that can be used as a tool. But even if nobody used a spear to kill anybody in the past decade, and only ever uses them for target practise or uses them as tools to dig holes, they are still weapons and designed as such.
 
Do you use a weapon designed to kill when hunting, or a tool that looks suspiciously like one?
A firearm is only an extension of the person who wields it. Which could it make it very effective or just a heavy lump of metal and polymer/wood. Not all of them were purpose built to kill people, but can do in a pinch if required.
 
If I claim to be pro gun, does that allow you to place me in a pigeonhole and dismiss me? I’ll grant you that I do seem to be arguing with the “anti-gun side” more than “pro-gun”, if you feel it is about sides, but that could simply be that what you perceive as “anti-gun” is being less logical when I tune in.

If it matters not to you, why are you so insistent on using that terminology? Surely you could make just as strong an argument without it?

In some ways, avoiding the emotive (and inaccurate) would make for a stronger case for control of weapons. Trucks and explosives are both controlled, not because of design intent, but because of their capacity to do harm if misused.

Who is Sheldon?
I don't dismiss anyone on here just because they don't agree with me. You talk about logic but you don't see it in the design and development of the gun as a weopon of war, or a tool for hunting or at a stretch self defence. you continue to say that isn't the objects primary focus. To me the seems a little delusional.

The thing about this subject is that it's very emotive on both sides. The image of dead children being killed at a school is bound to raise an emotional response for some. Whilst the thought that this will prompt controls or confiscation on something some people hold as an intrinsic right, is also bound to provoke a furious response.

I'm not sure how you could take the emotion out of either view.

Ok consider this unemotionally and logically. We have shootings with three major components. A gun, a shooter and a victim (shootee ??). Can we remove the victim, well in a normal society I can't see how. Can we remove the shooter, yes if we are prepared to thoroughly regulate who can have access to a gun, something we seemingly can't achieve. Can we reduce the level of gun distribution and the types of guns and ammunition available to the public. For me that is the easiest option.

For Sheldon, Google is your friend
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top