It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you an ideological robot?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

If you ignore the missing fact that criminals dont follow laws it appears you are not representing the full arguement to yourself for consideration, or are ignoring it to misrepresent the view you argue against.

So yes. You may be a robot.

Proliferation isnt the risk. The risk is criminals who are armed. Since guns exist they will have one. Therefore i need one.


But the 2nd Ammendment ensures that you will always be outnumbered. It doesn't make you, or anyone else, safer.

Nor does disarming the public mean disarming law enforcement, whose guns will always outnumber those of the criminals who take up arms.

In other countries of the world, possession of a firearm without an official approval, means immediate arrest, confiscation and detention, even if the firearm is locked up and hidden away. The possession without approval is criminal by definition, even if it is never discharged and/or not involved in the commission of a crime.

If a criminal is found to be in possession of a firearm, their sentence is increased and it is treated as a more serious crime.

edit on 21/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: chr0naut

My reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural).

That's a flawed premise. The law doesn't arm anyone. We could burn every law on the books, and there will still be guns. We could make a million gazillion laws banning guns, and there will still be guns. Guns -- and people with guns -- exist independent of laws.


In the US, guns are manufactured and sold according to demand. Reduce the demand and fewer guns will be manufactured and their prices will rise as the viability as an industry looses economies of scale.

Buy-back and destruction of firearms, as has been done in Australia, reduces the total numbers of guns and therefore their availability.

Making the possession of an unapproved firearm a criminal offense, removes some of the desirability of possessing a firearm and removes the threat of those criminals who are caught with one in their possession, along with their firearm.

These things integrate together to make things safer in the 'big picture' overview.

The 2nd Amendment enables shootings and doesn't make anyone safer, in much the same way that a literal interpretation of an eye for an eye would blind us all.



As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.
Simple math? No. Again, a flawed premise. A gun is a thing... an inanimate object... Guns do not fire by themselves. I could have a million gazillion guns and it doesn't mean I will ever fire even one of them a single time. Someone else can have one gun and shoot it a million gazillion times. The numbers mean nothing in and of themselves. But if we outlaw guns, then we can be sure that only outlaws will have guns, and I don't like that ratio.


No, you are framing it as only you against the criminals, which is entirely unrealistic.

Law enforcement have a reason to be armed and therefore would be. That would not change. They already out-gun the criminals and that also wouldn't change.

The 2nd Amendment makes it easy for criminals to acquire, keep and carry guns. It tilts the firepower 'ratio' towards the criminals. Making it harder for criminals to attain, keep and carry firearms shifts the ratio towards law enforcement.

Yeah, guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill people (it's an established fact).

I know this is a bit of a stretch, but consider that a fire requires heat, air and fuel to continue to burn. Removing any one element puts out the fire.

Now we apply this to 'people with guns', we can't remove the people, 'cause that's us, but we can remove the guns and, like magic, no one can get shot!

Eggs don't soufflé by themselves, but you take away all the eggs and you don't get any soufflé, do you?


So it's not about quantity, it's about proportion: Are we going to deny people the proportionate use of force to defend themselves?

Does this mean I am an ideological robot for not accepting their view or that I am the opposite for understanding the emotionalism of their response.
Well, let's see... your premise is flawed, so your conclusions are flawed. And therefore so too is your judgment of the "emotionalism" of your ideological opponents' response.

You tell me: Is your perspective flawed due to ideology? Or ignorance?


No, my premise isn't flawed for the reasons I just explained.

You are the one robotically spouting slogans like "Guns don't kill people", as if they made rational sense in the argument over firearm safety vs firearm proliferation.

edit on 21/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

What does law enforcement do, other than investigate who killed me? I dont see value in placing protective expectations in am agency that is generally pretty clear that the responsibility for protecting you is yourself. And that their role is investigating and prosecuting crime

When a criminal chooses to have a gun, then i need one too. I cannot rely on someone else to drive across town in time to save me.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

In terms of ideology, I find that there are both good and bad ideas from most bipolarly argued sides.

As an example, although I understand that the average gun nut really believes that they are safer and more free because of weapons proliferation, I can't rationally accept the position.

My reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural). As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.

Does this mean I am an ideological robot for not accepting their view or that I am the opposite for understanding the emotionalism of their response.


perhaps understanding your reasoning might help to understand your position. Could you explain how me owning more guns would equate to a better chance of me getting shot?


You are nearly twice as likely to die by your own gun than to be killed by someone else.

Gun violence in the United States From Wikipedia

Gun ownership tied to three-fold increase in suicide risk - Fox News Health


“It is often said that people would kill themselves anyway, even if they didn't have access to guns,” Dr Nestadt said. “There is an entire body of research that tells us that is simply not true.” He pointed to previous research which found 71 per cent of people acted on suicidal thoughts within an hour of having them. “If there is no gun around, many people won’t have the means to follow through on those impulses, or would use a less lethal method with a much greater chance of survival,” Dr Nestadt said. “Suicide is an impulse and can only be carried out by firearm if there is a gun in the drawer. Any barrier you can put up can work.”

from the article, Suicide rates boosted by easy access to guns, researchers say - The Independent (emphasis is mine)


edit on 21/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

What does law enforcement do, other than investigate who killed me? I dont see value in placing protective expectations in am agency that is generally pretty clear that the responsibility for protecting you is yourself. And that their role is investigating and prosecuting crime

When a criminal chooses to have a gun, then i need one too. I cannot rely on someone else to drive across town in time to save me.


Perhaps in the US, but I thought law enforcement enforced laws (like the ones that say you shouldn't shoot at people).



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Just out of curiosity, what is an "average gun nut"?

Just so I can figure out whether I'm a below or above average gun nut.

Y'all keep using that phrase "gun nut" like it's supposedly an insult, or something?

Why not try "red neck gun nut"? That might work at bein' an insult worthy of consideration...though I doubt it.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JBurns

When I took debating in high school, this was a basic premise, that one could not effectively debate an issue if one could not understand the opposition's position. Not what we think of their position, but their actual position. To do any less is to debate against a phantom. If you don't understand their position, how can you argue against it? You can't.

But the problem isn't that people cannot understand the opposing argument; the problem is that people refuse to address the opposing argument. People love to argue strawman arguments. Probably because it's much easier than to address the real problems inherent in any position. Because nothing is perfect. So we argue what is easiest to argue. And get nowhere.

And because we don't want to see the problems inherent in our own position. So we deflect and distract.


In high school and college debate practice we often didnt just try to understand the opposition's position; but also didnt know which side of the debate we would be on until it was time to debate.

You didnt have to know the opposing point of view you also had to be able to defend it as if it was your own because you might draw that straw.

It would become clear quickly which people where "ideological robots" (as the OP puts it) because they would be the ones losing the debate more often.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

Just out of curiosity, what is an "average gun nut"?


Let's see, hmm, a gun nut is an NRA member, goes to 'Gun Shows, owns several weapons, has never been hunting, has a favorite handgun (statistically a Ruger) and does not work in a role where a gun is in any way useful (like law enforcement or farming).

Like an SUV nut is someone who always buys and drives large off road vehicles but lives in a city, has never been 'off road' and is unlikely to ever do so.




Just so I can figure out whether I'm a below or above average gun nut.

Y'all keep using that phrase "gun nut" like it's supposedly an insult, or something?


I've personally only previously used the phrase the once on ATS, I think? But I'll use it several times in this post, if you like.

Also, I was talking about those who specifically have a great affection for firearms - 'gun nuts' in my parlance. It wasn't an insult that I applied to just anyone, I was talking about actual gun nuts.


Why not try "red neck gun nut"? That might work at bein' an insult worthy of consideration...though I doubt it.


Some gun nuts might be red necks, but I wasn't talking about that specific sub group, just about gun nuts in general. Where gun nuttiness alone is the defining characteristic.



edit on 21/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Now you're moving the goal post. Your original claim:

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

My reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural). As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.

So, explain how that comment now means that you were including suicide by firearm, because that is not getting shot, that is shooting one's self. Also, suicidal tendencies are mental issues, not firearm issues. Blaming the chosen tool is ignorant, regardless if that tool makes it easier to act on the mental issue of suicidal thoughts.

Not to mention that your cited study was ONLY in Maryland and ONLY used the difference in suicides between rural areas and urban areas to formulate their claim that the correlation equals causation. Little bitty Maryland cannot responsibly be used as a microcosm of the entire nation...unless you are just trying to justify your claim after moving goal posts.

Stop moving the goal posts if you want to be taken seriously. Stop calling people gun nuts if you want to be taken seriously. Stop citing tiny studies and equating them to national or global indicators if you want to be taken seriously. Stop refusing to respond to people who actually link to statistics and argue stats that can actually be used to represent the nation if you want to be taken seriously.


originally posted by: chr0naut

... I thought law enforcement enforced laws (like the ones that say you shouldn't shoot at people).


Well, considering that this isn't "Minority Report," we can't predict when people will shoot someone (which is against the law, unless it's justifiable by exceptions to said laws, such as self defense). What do you expect, law enforcement to show up at a future crime scene and just wait to pounce on the shooter right before it happens?

If you want to be taken seriously, be realistic.


originally posted by: chr0naut

Let's see, hmm, a gun nut is an NRA member, goes to 'Gun Shows, owns several weapons, has never been hunting, has a favorite handgun (statistically a Ruger) and does not work in a role where a gun is in any way useful (like law enforcement or farming).


So, what you're saying is that: (1) You're automatically a gun nut if you're an NRA member; (2) If you go to gun shows because you like to see what's new out there, you're a gun nut; (3) You're a gun nut if you own more than one weapon; (4) You must be a hunter or have hunted before in order to own a firearm and not be a gun nut; (5) If our lifestyle or profession doesn't "require" a firearm in your view, we are a gun nut.

Okay, so one question: Do you even take yourself seriously? That is a serious question, because there is so much ignorance (willful, IMO) in your claims and approach to gun ownership in the U.S. that it's borderline satire.

Is it satire? #seriousquestion



Some gun nuts might be red necks, but I wasn't talking about that specific sub group, just about gun nuts in general. Where gun nuttiness alone is the defining characteristic.

And you can't even get the characteristics right. In your view, only farmers, hunters, and cops are not gun nuts--well, and non-gun owners, I would suppose (even though some obsess over owning and shooting them, but for differing reasons do not act on those obsessions).

The silliness is strong within you.

This thread is about ideological robots, and you, sir, fit the shoes perfectly concerning firearms. At least you own it with apparent pride. More power to ya, I guess.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

What does law enforcement do, other than investigate who killed me? I dont see value in placing protective expectations in am agency that is generally pretty clear that the responsibility for protecting you is yourself. And that their role is investigating and prosecuting crime

When a criminal chooses to have a gun, then i need one too. I cannot rely on someone else to drive across town in time to save me.


Perhaps in the US, but I thought law enforcement enforced laws (like the ones that say you shouldn't shoot at people).


How does that work, logically?

Im sitting at home 30 miles from the nearest town and someone tries to break in, or a panhandler walks onto the property. How does LEO enforce any law when they have a half hour drive just to get there?

If anyone can explain to me how law enforcement can prevent crime, im all about making them responsible for my safety. But ill want to sue them when they fail.

The alternative: im all too happy to take personal responsibility for my own safety, and allow law enforcement to actually just enforce the law by investigating and prosecuting.

Bear in mind: laws don't prevent crime. They enumerate punishment for crime. To enforce the law is simply to punish violators. Im not really wanting to wait for someone to violate me before I leap to my own defense.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I do hunt, proud NRA member, own dozens of firearms (all legal), carry at least one handgun daily. My favorite gun is not a Ruger (although they're nice), It is a Glock or seconded by the M&P series

But hey, I appreciate your candor and your honest discussion of this topic. Even though our POV's are diametrically opposed to one another



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
If you change the topic of a discussion to something irrelevant to the original topic just to put forth (yet again) your inflammatory opinion on the irrelevant topic you might be an ideological robot.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: chr0naut

Now you're moving the goal post. Your original claim:

originally posted by: chr0nauta reply to: JBurnsMy reasoning is that the same law that arms them, also arms their potential opponents (plural). As there is only one of them and there are numerous potential opponents, no amount of proliferation will make them safer. The more guns, the more likely that they will be shot, so the safety issue goes the other way. It is simple math.
So, explain how that comment now means that you were including suicide by firearm, because that is not getting shot, that is shooting one's self.


I was answering JBurns specific direct question in the second post, not appending to the previous post. The subject was slightly different. It isn't moving the goal posts to answer someone's question that went outside the specific topics previously discussed. Can you understand that?


. Also, suicidal tendencies are mental issues, not firearm issues. Blaming the chosen tool is ignorant, regardless if that tool makes it easier to act on the mental issue of suicidal thoughts.


I wasn't blaming the tool, nor was I suggesting that suicidal tendencies do not have a psychological aspect. I was, as you most reasonably suggested, pointing out that access to a firearm makes suicidal impulses easier to act on.

You actually also made my case that Gun ownership enables suicide on impulse, because it is a rational conclusion.


Not to mention that your cited study was ONLY in Maryland and ONLY used the difference in suicides between rural areas and urban areas to formulate their claim that the correlation equals causation. Little bitty Maryland cannot responsibly be used as a microcosm of the entire nation...unless you are just trying to justify your claim after moving goal posts.


I included three linked sources which collated statistics from numerous reliable sources other than the Maryland study. Definitely the overall suicide by firearms statistic from the Wikipedia link, was national.

It would appear that you are cherry-picking what you choose to see in my responses.


Stop moving the goal posts if you want to be taken seriously.


I clearly didn't do that. It's a straw man argument on your behalf.


Stop calling people gun nuts if you want to be taken seriously.


But gun nuts really exist and I was referring to them. Are you suggesting that there are no gun nuts?


Stop citing tiny studies and equating them to national or global indicators if you want to be taken seriously.


Sure, a study or two may be small, but they were not my only supportive source. You ignored the whole country figures I also linked to.

Anyway, it is also not invalid to apply the results of studies of a smaller population, to that of a larger one in the absence of more comprehensive data. Such statistical analysis is a standard procedure in science and mathematics and has a history of being a fairly reliable indicator of larger data sets.


Stop refusing to respond to people who actually link to statistics and argue stats that can actually be used to represent the nation if you want to be taken seriously.


When have I done that?



originally posted by: chr0naut... I thought law enforcement enforced laws (like the ones that say you shouldn't shoot at people).
Well, considering that this isn't "Minority Report," we can't predict when people will shoot someone (which is against the law, unless it's justifiable by exceptions to said laws, such as self defense). What do you expect, law enforcement to show up at a future crime scene and just wait to pounce on the shooter right before it happens?


No, I don't expect that.

But you assume a world where it is easy for criminals to acquire, keep and carry firearms, (a situation such as you have now in America) will remain.

The average druggie looking to support their habit through theft, or other opportunistic criminal, will be disarmed by legislation banning access to guns.

Sure, a few hardened criminals will still have guns, but if the mere possession of an illegal gun means an automatic jail term, there will be fewer of those, too.


If you want to be taken seriously, be realistic.

originally posted by: chr0nautLet's see, hmm, a gun nut is an NRA member, goes to 'Gun Shows, owns several weapons, has never been hunting, has a favorite handgun (statistically a Ruger) and does not work in a role where a gun is in any way useful (like law enforcement or farming).


So, what you're saying is that: (1) You're automatically a gun nut if you're an NRA member; (2) If you go to gun shows because you like to see what's new out there, you're a gun nut; (3) You're a gun nut if you own more than one weapon; (4) You must be a hunter or have hunted before in order to own a firearm and not be a gun nut; (5) If our lifestyle or profession doesn't "require" a firearm in your view, we are a gun nut.

Okay, so one question: Do you even take yourself seriously? That is a serious question, because there is so much ignorance (willful, IMO) in your claims and approach to gun ownership in the U.S. that it's borderline satire.

Is it satire? #seriousquestion


I was saying that If you fit all of those criteria, you are most probably a gun nut. To not see that, would take a fair bit of denial, but in truth there is a modicum of satire there in those criteria.

But the issue of gun deaths is extremely serious for Americans and seems to be escalating. I'm not just talking about mass shootings, nor am I talking just about gun crime. They are only small parts of the problem:

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts - Vox



Some gun nuts might be red necks, but I wasn't talking about that specific sub group, just about gun nuts in general. Where gun nuttiness alone is the defining characteristic.
And you can't even get the characteristics right. In your view, only farmers, hunters, and cops are not gun nuts--well, and non-gun owners, I would suppose (even though some obsess over owning and shooting them, but for differing reasons do not act on those obsessions).


No, farmers, hunters, those in the armed forces and cops can also be gun nuts, too. It's just that they have a reason to own a gun.


The silliness is strong within you.

This thread is about ideological robots, and you, sir, fit the shoes perfectly concerning firearms. At least you own it with apparent pride. More power to ya, I guess.


I actually prefer being silly to either being shot, or to shooting. It's just my thing.



Oh, I just thought of another criteria for a gun nut - a feeling of inferiority if they aren't packing.



edit on 22/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

What does law enforcement do, other than investigate who killed me? I dont see value in placing protective expectations in am agency that is generally pretty clear that the responsibility for protecting you is yourself. And that their role is investigating and prosecuting crime

When a criminal chooses to have a gun, then i need one too. I cannot rely on someone else to drive across town in time to save me.


Perhaps in the US, but I thought law enforcement enforced laws (like the ones that say you shouldn't shoot at people).


How does that work, logically?

Im sitting at home 30 miles from the nearest town and someone tries to break in, or a panhandler walks onto the property. How does LEO enforce any law when they have a half hour drive just to get there?

If anyone can explain to me how law enforcement can prevent crime, im all about making them responsible for my safety. But ill want to sue them when they fail.

The alternative: im all too happy to take personal responsibility for my own safety, and allow law enforcement to actually just enforce the law by investigating and prosecuting.

Bear in mind: laws don't prevent crime. They enumerate punishment for crime. To enforce the law is simply to punish violators. Im not really wanting to wait for someone to violate me before I leap to my own defense.


In a fairer world, you could offer to give the trespasser some free dental work with a baseball bat if they don't leave. You could also ring the cops afterward and report the trespass, then they could do their thang and protect the community as in the advert.



Of course if everyone can carry a firearm, then the intelligent trespasser would come armed for the trespass. In this instance the baseball bat is less of a deterrent (but still of some value), so do you think you'd be best to use a gun in defense?

You have to consider that the trespasser must rationally assume that you would be armed and would, therefore, have to defend themselves, so they'd probably be prepared to shoot you, before you were even aware of the trespass. In their mind, it's simple self defense.

This gives the trespasser a tactical advantage over you, in that they would be loaded, safety off, aiming and fully prepared to shoot, while you are not yet even aware of the trespass.

In this way, the proliferation of guns ensures that you have no reasonable capability of defending yourself from the criminal and may even be maimed or killed while you are innocently unaware of the threat.

This real-world stuff's nuthin' like them there cowboy movies.

edit on 22/8/2018 by chr0naut because: Sorry Tex, I couldn't resist playing to the stereotype.




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

I do hunt, proud NRA member, own dozens of firearms (all legal), carry at least one handgun daily. My favorite gun is not a Ruger (although they're nice), It is a Glock or seconded by the M&P series

But hey, I appreciate your candor and your honest discussion of this topic. Even though our POV's are diametrically opposed to one another


That's cool, I can hardly be expected to escape from my programmed directives.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I was answering JBurns specific direct question in the second post, not appending to the previous post. The subject was slightly different. It isn't moving the goal posts to answer someone's question that went outside the specific topics previously discussed. Can you understand that?

Well, to be fair, what you quoted in response to him said nothing about suicide, so you'll have to excuse me if your comment could be interpreted as moving the goal post.

As for JBurns specific direct question--where? I just went through the thread and see nothing about suicide from JBurns.


I wasn't blaming the tool, ... I was, as you most reasonably suggested, pointing out that access to a firearm makes suicidal impulses easier to act on.

Right, you are blaming the tool for the high number of suicides because said tool makes it a bit easier for the suicidal. Your implication was that, without said tool, there would be less suicides. Well, maybe, but that's improvable, but is still focused on the tool.




But gun nuts really exist and I was referring to them. Are you suggesting that there are no gun nuts?


Your definition is subjective and ideologically driven, and as I noted from the start, it shows a severe lack of understanding of the other side, which is what this thread is about.

Also, I never said that a true "gun nut"--someone obsessed over firearms to an unhealthy degree--do not exist. You know that, though, don't you?


Sure, a study or two may be small, but they were not my only supportive source. You ignored the whole country figures I also linked to.

You're correct, I only dealt with the on that you gave prominence to by quoting it in your response. While the others show that there is a correlation between "access to firearms" and deadly suicide attempts, you cannot say at all that the majority of those suicides wouldn't have happened if a firearm was not in the house. The studies are correlative, but are absolutely not decisive on only the access to firearms being the main problem, it's just a facilitating factor.


And you're right, I didn't deny that because I know that it's true, but again, that doesn't mean it's the ONLY REASON why a suicide attempt would be successful--there are too many unknowns to make such a claim true--it just made it a bit easier.



When have I done that?

Well, to me, for starters, in my first response to you. The optics of such an action did not reflect well at the time.


No, I don't expect that.

But you assume a world where it is easy for criminals to acquire, keep and carry firearms, (a situation such as you have now in America) will remain.

It would, because there is no way to rid America of 370-million+ firearms, it's just not going to happen. Nor would laws demanding such stop the influx of illegal arms coming in through the vast amount of borders that we have around our country--almost 9,000 miles of border, to be exact, with more than 4,000 of those miles along coastline.

What you seem to either willfully ignore or just outright disregard because it's not ideologically advantageous to admit, criminals will always have access to firearms, and only the law-abiding citizenry will be affected.


The average druggie looking to support their habit through theft, or other opportunistic criminal, will be disarmed by legislation banning access to guns.

Sure, a few hardened criminals will still have guns, but if the mere possession of an illegal gun means an automatic jail term, there will be fewer of those, too.

Is that a serious comment? Some of the countries in the world that have the highest violent-crime and gun-related crime stats are ones where guns are outlawed. You're no longer being silly, you're being downright "intellectually dishonest," we'll call it.

[quoteI was saying that If you fit all of those criteria, you are most probably a gun nut. To not see that, would take a fair bit of denial, but in truth there is a modicum of satire there in those criteria.
I'm glad that you at least admit to the satire of it. As for the "most probably a gun nut" claim, that again is a subjective ideological claim.


No, farmers, hunters, those in the armed forces and cops can also be gun nuts, too. It's just that they have a reason to own a gun.

Again, a subjective and ideologically driven claim. I could easily argue against that, but it's not worth my time at this point.


I actually prefer being silly to either being shot, or to shooting. It's just my thing.

Oh, so you're like the 99.999999% of Americans, then--even those scary gun owners--huh?



Oh, I just thought of another criteria for a gun nut - a feeling of inferiority if they aren't packing.

Another oft-cited comment that is ideologically driven and ignorant to the motivation of most people who choose to carry a firearm with them. You do yourself zero favors when you talk like this--at least you are consistent in the subjectivity of much of what you say.

Meh--I've spent enough non-recoupable minutes of my life on this topic with you. Best regards. May your subjectivity and ideology win the day! Huzzah!

Please note the Jefferson quote in my signature block. That sums up my ideology about the 2nd Amendment--which just happens to be backed by our constitution, my state laws, my local laws, and myriad judicial rulings.. Your opinion on the matter was simply something to pass the time, but it has lost its entertainment.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join