My Gun Control Plan [W:1271]

Celebrity · Sep 25, 2016

Crimefree said:
It would be lunacy to call your "This is your favorite strawman, isn't it?" a question. It's a statement. I understand that you are so ignorant as to not know this.

No, it's a question. It would be lunacy to call it anything other than a question.

Crimefree said:
Do not lay your beliefs at my door. My position is quite clear.

Do not lay your beliefs at my door. My position is quite clear.

Crimefree said:
I used deadly water to expose your propagandistic and unjustified use with guns. I guess that was beyond your comprehension. It is delusional to think guns cause people to do anything, seriously delusional and that is your delusion and paranoia.

False, you used deadly water to imply that my analogy was incorrect. Water is not a weapon, therefore your false assertion fails to prove that I was incorrect. Moreover, I used the example of levees to show that, because water is deadly, we implement controls to try to safeguard against death.

Crimefree said:
Unevidenced claim based on paranoia. Just answer the question. What makes guns deadly but not water, matches, bats, knives......

Crimefree, this is a debate. I realize that not just anyone can participate in a debate. Some DP members such as yourself do not want a debate. You appear to want to read a particular answer to make you feel better about your beliefs. If you feel that the answer I have given is not sufficient, you may argue that I am incorrect, or concede the debate. You have ignored my (evidenced) point that firearms are in fact, deadly weapons, and made a feint at explaining away your trivialization of violence by claiming that your words are somehow my fault. But you have not shown that measures should not exist which we call gun control. Gun control should and does exist for the reasons mentioned.

Crimefree said:
Oh! my goodness now you are claiming complete crap. Water is equally as deadly as guns which are made for a huge variety of purposes. It makes no difference to the dead which they were killed with. Why are you trying to trivialise the lives of those lost to drowning which includes many toddlers and children.

We are discussing firearms. Because you are committing the fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem, I think it is you who is trivializing the lives of those lost to guns, water, matches bats and knives. You brought those things into the discussion and you did so sarcastically. However, you have yet to actually address my point that firearms are deadly weapons. The concept that water is equally as deadly as a firearm does not change the fact that firearms are weapons, nor does it change the fact that firearms are deadly. Although it is more or less common knowledge, I already did the five minutes of research necessary to prove that this is in fact the case. For more information about a lethal weapon, or the words "deadly" and "weapon," read post #1369.

Crimefree said:
Projection and paranoia, The discussion was on firepower and the .50 BRM in machine gun form is intended for light armour vehicles which are too tough for conventional infantry arms. You have a sick train of thought.

No, Crimefree, I do not have a sick train of thought. No, Crimefree, the discussion is not about firepower and the .50 BRM in machine gun form. The discussion is about gun control and the fact is, heavy assault weapons are controlled weapons. You should understand that, unless you believe they should not be controlled weapons, then the only purpose that they serve in this discussion is as an example in contrast to weapons which are not currently banned. I am not the one fetishizing machine guns.

Crimefree said:
We have gun control because deluded halfwits demand it as they are frightened of citizens with arms.

We have gun control because people don't understand how or when to use guns. If a society encourages sociopaths to misuse their weapons, should the law change, or should the society change? There may be deluded halfwits who demand gun control, but there are also deluded halfwits who oppose gun control, like two sides of the same coin.

Celebrity · Sep 25, 2016

Crimefree said:
Thank you for confirming my point. I know what they mean

According to the definition, a firearm is a lethal weapon. Unfortunately, this does not confirm your point in any way.

flogger · Sep 25, 2016

Celebrity said:
According to the definition, a firearm is a lethal weapon. Unfortunately, this does not confirm your point in any way.

The simple truth is that too many of your countrymen are anamoured of the idea of killing and can't actually wait for that opportunity to happen . They think that this is a good thing because it qualifies their otherwise repressed manhood . This is what essentially differentiates the US from any other developed nation

Celebrity · Sep 25, 2016

flogger said:
The simple truth is that too many of your countrymen are anamoured of the idea of killing and can't actually wait for that opportunity to happen . They think that this is a good thing because it qualifies their otherwise repressed manhood . This is what essentially differentiates the US from any other developed nation

And womanhood.

flogger · Sep 25, 2016

Celebrity said:
And womanhood.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of American womanhood would be more than happy to see guns purged from your society altogether given they have no puny peckers needing compensated for !

Fledermaus · Sep 25, 2016

flogger said:
The simple truth is that too many of your countrymen are anamoured of the idea of killing and can't actually wait for that opportunity to happen . They think that this is a good thing because it qualifies their otherwise repressed manhood . This is what essentially differentiates the US from any other developed nation

Ah, the insults some sling when they have.nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

Celebrity · Sep 25, 2016

flogger said:
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of American womanhood would be more than happy to see guns purged from your society altogether given they have no puny peckers needing compensated for !

No, however they should also control their guns and their genitals, and not impose upon other people in a lethal manner.

blaxshep · Sep 26, 2016

flogger said:
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of American womanhood would be more than happy to see guns purged from your society altogether given they have no puny peckers needing compensated for !

Are you kidding women gun owners are the fastest growing group today.

It's funny when you think about it, one little American woman could take out your entire police force. :lamo

Crimefree · Sep 26, 2016

Celebrity said:
According to the definition, a firearm is a lethal weapon. Unfortunately, this does not confirm your point in any way.

You are delusional. There is no discussion with you as comprehension is not possible. Repetition as gun control advocates seem to think will not maker it true. Now either you are going to offer evidence of your claim or it is refuted. I suggest you seriously think twice before repeating your refuted crap again.

Full Definition of firearm: Webster

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

Definition of firearm in English: Oxford

firearm
noun

A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.~~Collins

noun a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

A firearm is a portable gun - a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles, often driven by the action of an explosive force.~~Wiki

Crimefree · Sep 26, 2016

Celebrity said:
No, it's a question. It would be lunacy to call it anything other than a question.

It's a rhetorical question to the affirmative statement you made. You ask a question after making an affirmative statement, "This is your favorite strawman,". Only a person with little understanding of the English language would think that a question.

Do not lay your beliefs at my door. My position is quite clear.

Would just once like to enumerate your statements with some form of substance instead of babbling to yourself incomprehensibly. Care to point out my belief you claim. Do not forget to QUOTE to back it up.

....... Water is not a weapon, therefore your false assertion fails to prove that I was incorrect.

Water most certainly like guns, knives, swords axes..... can be used as a weapon. You are so far out of it I'm not wasting my time. Either learn to think or I am done.

Moreover, I used the example of levees to show that, because water is deadly, ....

Water is not deadly, few things are save the electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber and hangmans noose.

You appear to want to read a particular answer to make you feel better about your beliefs. ...

Text removed for limits

See there you go babbling again projecting all over the place and not one shred of evidence just accusation you BELIEVE to be true.

As for you claim of proof did you read this
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/258430-my-gun-control-plan-w-1271-a-post1066352465.html#post1066352465

You have ignored my (evidenced) point that firearms are in fact, deadly weapons, .....

Your so called evidence was dealt with. I have again just give 4 definitions of firearms and the words deadly or lethal occurs nowhere within them.

But you have not shown that measures should not exist which we call gun control. Gun control should and does exist for the reasons mentioned.

I cannot think of a single provable reason they should exist. You cannot in the hundreds of thousand applications find one successful application of gun control you can prove. Would you like to comment on the statistical significance of that? See if you can get Flogger to give you a statistically significant list since he claims it must exist.

We are discussing firearms. Because you are committing the fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem,.....

I do not have to lie and claim falsehoods as I will demonstrate. No lives have ever been lost to guns. You cannot explain to me how a single life could possibly be "lost to guns"

You brought those things into the discussion ......

I'm sure you now can see that is a lie.

The concept that water is equally as deadly as a firearm does not change the fact that firearms are weapons,

Sure they are just like knives, axes, bows, swords, rock stick and water are. I never said they were not

nor does it change the fact that firearms are deadly.

Well how deadly is this little fact. Number of smalls arms ammunition fired in WWII per man killed = 250,000

That does not seem to be very deadly at all and war is not playing around.

Would you say that refutes your claim?
.

I already did the five minutes of research necessary to prove that this is in fact the case. For more information about a lethal weapon,....

I'm not going to explain your error. I would be wasting my time. Just call it a leap of faith. Making up your own definition is not proof.

No, Crimefree, I do not have a sick train of thought. You should understand that, unless you believe they should not be controlled weapons, .....I am not the one fetishizing machine guns.

Anyone who wants to take guns away from the victims of crime is sick, when they claim it will make citizens safer. Nor will one gun control advocate weep for the children killed in the death zones they created. Sick aberrants of society without any doubt.

We have gun control because people don't understand how or when to use guns.

Zero thought again. The obvious measure is accidental deaths. All 500 of them per year. Would you say that claim has been refuted?

If a society encourages sociopaths to misuse their weapons, should the law change, or should the society change? ...

You really are delusional.

Then the problem is socio-paths......... follow the dots and see where they lead. It is not possible they lead to guns. You already stated who was responsible SOCIETY.

There are ONLY deluded half wits who demand gun control for the reasons I have given. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence it serves any useful purpose to citizens.

Celebrity · Sep 26, 2016

Crimefree said:
It's a rhetorical question to the affirmative statement you made. You ask a question after making an affirmative statement, "This is your favorite strawman,". Only a person with little understanding of the English language would think that a question.

And yet, you literally just called it a question before denouncing it as a non-question.

Crimefree said:
Would just once like to enumerate your statements with some form of substance instead of babbling to yourself incomprehensibly. Care to point out my belief you claim. Do not forget to QUOTE to back it up.

Crimefree said:
Celebrity said:

Did I say that guns were responsible?

Click to expand...

Do not be asinine if you claim guns kill people then they are responsible. Should we speak of delusional again?

Instead of answering my question, you immediately deflect and assert your (incorrect) belief that people are asinine and that I am delusional.

Crimefree said:
Water most certainly like guns, knives, swords axes..... can be used as a weapon. You are so far out of it I'm not wasting my time. Either learn to think or I am done.

Water can be used as a weapon? Really? So the deadly water in the ocean is a "thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" or "a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest," when boating accidents occur?

No, Crimefree, unless you wish to bring your belief in a Creator into the discussion, then water is not a man-made weapon. Drownings that occur in the ocean are not thought of as a crime in the same way that illicit use of a firearm is, because firearms are weapons and the ocean is not. Water is only a weapon in the most obscure sense. To that end, firearms and water are only similar in the danger that exists, not their common features of design or tactical use.

Crimefree said:
Water is not deadly, few things are save the electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber and hangmans noose.

Incorrect, as can readily be seen in the case of drownings, water is "causing or able to cause death."

Crimefree said:
As for you claim of proof did you read this
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/258430-my-gun-control-plan-w-1271-a-post1066352465.html#post1066352465

Can you be more specific? I have already decisively refuted one of your claims from that post, in my post #1377.

Crimefree said:
Your so called evidence was dealt with. I have again just give 4 definitions of firearms and the words deadly or lethal occurs nowhere within them.

As was your ignorance dealt with by my definitions. The absence of "deadly" or "lethal" from the definition does not show that firearms are not deadly or not lethal. A firearm can be and often is used as a deadly weapon in a crime, a time of war, or to hunt. If I look up the definition of water, and in that definition cannot be found the word "drown," does that mean that one cannot drown in water? No, that is not what the definition of water means. The definition of water is used to describe water, not list all potential uses and functions of water. Hey, Crimefree, I just checked the Wikipedia article and nowhere in the entire article about water does it mention "drown."

Kind of like how the Wikipedia article for firearm mechanically describes a weapon, but doesn't describe in length how it is used to kill.

Celebrity · Sep 26, 2016

Crimefree said:
I do not have to lie and claim falsehoods as I will demonstrate. No lives have ever been lost to guns. You cannot explain to me how a single life could possibly be "lost to guns"

Is this your favorite strawman?

Crimefree said:
I'm sure you now can see that is a lie.

Well, I certainly didn't bring them into the discussion. Didn't you bring those things into the discussion?

Crimefree said:
Would you say that refutes your claim?

No, I would say that something which is marginally deadly (such as inferior technology in the hands of a soldier with antique training) is still deadly.

Crimefree said:
I'm not going to explain your error. I would be wasting my time. Just call it a leap of faith. Making up your own definition is not proof.

More projection on your part. I clearly linked to the legal definition of "lethal weapon," back in post #1369. According to that definition,

A gun, sword, knife, pistol, or the like, is a lethal weapon, as a matter of law, when used within striking distance from the person assaulted.

Crimefree said:
Anyone who wants to take guns away from the victims of crime is sick, when they claim it will make citizens safer. Nor will one gun control advocate weep for the children killed in the death zones they created. Sick aberrants of society without any doubt.

Go ahead, prove it. I'm waiting to see how this is not just your ideology, but logically substantive as well.

Crimefree said:
Zero thought again. The obvious measure is accidental deaths. All 500 of them per year. Would you say that claim has been refuted?

I disagree. It is not at all clear in what way the obvious measure is accidental deaths, the fact that the deaths were accidental does not make them less deadly, nor does the number of deaths make it less deadly. Death is about the most clear, real world example of what deadly means.

Now that I have pointed out the numerous flaws in your argument, and provided a reasonable alternative, would you agree that your points have been refuted?

flogger · Sep 27, 2016

blaxshep said:
Are you kidding women gun owners are the fastest growing group today.

Yet still represent a very small percentage of the population

Casper · Sep 27, 2016

flogger said:
Yet still represent a very small percentage of the population

Not really, but hey make whatever wild statements you want.

Crimefree · Sep 27, 2016

Celebrity said:
Is this your favorite strawman?

Idiotic unreferenced and undemonstrated response ignored. If you want me to respond state write something comprehensible

Well, I certainly didn't bring them into the discussion. Didn't you bring those things into the discussion?

Did I say you brought them into the discussion? A nice strawman that and used to deflect from my claims, FAIL. Do you concede to my claim? Are you feeling guilty or something? All I am doing is answering your foolish assertions. You will note each time I have to satisfy your refusal to accept facts. I made my claims and have backed them up. If guns are deadly so is water. You have not proven anything with your wild assertions but your belief refuses to allow you to accept that fact. You state "if used with intent" shot down by your own claim. The item is not deadly or lethal until it is used.

Refuted

No, I would say that something which is marginally deadly (such as inferior technology in the hands of a soldier with antique training) is still deadly.

Incomprehensible and not based on any known facts. I have no idea what you are trying to claim. If you do repeat in understandable form.

More projection on your part. I clearly linked to the legal definition of "lethal weapon," back in post #1369. According to that definition,

Lethal weapon is a TV series or a construction of two words, adjective and noun. I gave you the definition of a gun there is no mention of lethal or deadly. That comes from your attachment of the word lethal. You have DELIBERATELY constructed it. It is as valid as deadly water, deadly matches, deadly sword, deadly spider.

Refuted

Now I put spider in there to illustrate a point all spiders are not deadly in fact very few are and they are only deadly if you get BITTEN. A gun is only deadly if somebody is shot with it. A gun cannot be deadly even if covered by the most powerful contact poison. It requires an action made by human intervention to cause it to be fired. Basic physics I know is beyond you as your belief will reject it. No object is lethal by itself. You even state yet cannot see that it must be used with that intent. This is worse than teaching cavemen how to plough. When are you going to be able to make logical conclusions?

Go ahead, prove it. I'm waiting to see how this is not just your ideology, but logically substantive as well.

Quote Originally Posted by Crimefree
Anyone who wants to take guns away from the victims of crime is sick, when they claim it will make citizens safer. Nor will one gun control advocate weep for the children killed in the death zones they created. Sick aberrants of society without any doubt.

Prove WHAT? Try not to post incomprehensible requests as I shall just ignore them. What do you need proof of?

I disagree. It is not at all clear in what way the obvious measure is accidental deaths, the fact that the deaths were accidental does not make them less deadly, nor does the number of deaths make it less deadly. Death is about the most clear, real world example of what deadly means.

The measure of incompetence is "accidental" results. Stupidity is termed accidental in such cases.

Refuted

Now that I have pointed out the numerous flaws in your argument, and provided a reasonable alternative, would you agree that your points have been refuted?

Again I do not see one single point you have refuted. All you have claimed has no impact at all.

You cannot animate metal, give powers of influence to objects, claim objects made people do something or blame objects for the actions of people without making a lot of mistakes. People who do that are probably not in control of all their faculties.

Crimefree · Sep 27, 2016

Celebrity said:
And yet, you literally just called it a question before denouncing it as a non-question.

Your flapping around grasping at straws is amusing. A rhetorical question is not a question see if you can figure out why. I'm tired of spoon feeding you.

Instead of answering my question, you immediately deflect and assert your (incorrect) belief that people are asinine and that I am delusional.

Do not be asinine if you claim guns kill people then they are responsible. Should we speak of delusional again?

Which part of you question or claim was not answered or addressed?

Water can be used as a weapon? Really?

Yes. More often than not used in crowd control.

So the deadly water in the ocean is a "thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" or "a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest," when boating accidents occur?

I have absolutely no idea what this mind movie of yours is about. It does seem to me though that it is built out of straw.

No, Crimefree, unless you wish to bring your belief in a Creator into the discussion, then water is not a man-made weapon.

Never claimed it was, can you see the straw sticking out from it?

Drownings that occur in the ocean are not thought of as a crime in the same way that illicit use of a firearm is, because firearms are weapons and the ocean is not. Water is only a weapon in the most obscure sense. To that end, firearms and water are only similar in the danger that exists, not their common features of design or tactical use.

You seem to have turned that mind movie into an epic.

Incorrect, as can readily be seen in the case of drownings, water is "causing or able to cause death."

Sigh!!!!!!!!! Again how did water cause this death? Explain it exactly leaving no part out in purely logical and physical terms.

Can you be more specific? I have already decisively refuted one of your claims from that post, in my post #1377.

If you have made a claim see my post quoting it to see where it was refuted.

As was your ignorance dealt with by my definitions. The absence of "deadly" or "lethal" from the definition does not show that firearms are not deadly or not lethal.

Repetition will not make it so.

A firearm can be and often is used as a deadly weapon in a crime,

Read it and weep. USED AS A DEADLY WEAPON does not make it one.

a time of war, or to hunt. If I look up the definition of water, and in that definition cannot be found the word "drown," does that mean that one cannot drown in water? No, that is not what the definition of water means. The definition of water is used to describe water, not list all potential uses and functions of water. Hey, Crimefree, I just checked the Wikipedia article and nowhere in the entire article about water does it mention "drown."

I believe my reference to water was if guns are deadly so is water. So far I do not see you refuting that as neither are deadly. All your dancing around has not made the slightest difference.

Kind of like how the Wikipedia article for firearm mechanically describes a weapon, but doesn't describe in length how it is used to kill.

It's a definition of firearm. My goodness that is really paranoid

Queequeg · Sep 27, 2016

futurepresident said:
33,000 people die every year because of gun violence. It's easier to get a gun than it is a car. Ar-15's are being sold at Walmart. Something needs to be done this is my plan

1. Close the gun show loophole
there's no reason that just because weapons are being sold at a gun show that background checks shouldn't be required. This seems like common sense at this point.

2. Impose stricter background checks
People on the terror watch list shouldn't be able to purchase firearms. People with a history of mental health issues shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms. It should be much more difficult to get a permit to purchase and carry a firearm from where I can obtain a permit in 22 states online.

3. Ban heavy assault weapons
This is my largest point. The only weapons that should be legal to own are 1. Handguns with a magazine capacity of 10 or less 2. That can hold 6 shells or less 3. single shot hunting riffles. There is no reason a private citizen needs an AR-15 heavy assault weapons are used for one purpose and one purpose only to kill and to kill efficiently they have no place in domestic America.

Those are my 3 main points for my gun control plans.
Your thoughts?

1. Gun Show Loophole.
As others have pointed out here, the gun shows I have attended were limited to licensed sellers who are required to process the same paperwork required in a brick and mortar store. Perhaps there are less formal markets where that is not required but I have never been to one. Over the years, I have sold guns to friends and neighbors without processing paperwork. Perhaps that should end with all transfers handled by FFLs.

2. Stricter Background Checks
I have no problem with that if the data was available. You have probably heard that most mental health professionals do not upload their client records to some central data base. Creating a centralized "Nut List" certainly has pejorative overtones which could get those professionals into difficulties with their patients. It takes a court to determine sanity. Clearly, those who have been adjudicated as incompetent should not be buying guns. It seems clear enough that those persons on the so-called "No Fly" list should be barred from purchasing a gun. However, there has to be a reasonable way to clear one's name in the event of error. I do not know about obtaining a CCW license on-line. My state, New Mexico, has a fairly rigorous process including finger printing and clearance through the NCIC. That seems only right.

3. Ban Heavy Assault Weapons
There was a time when I felt no civilian needed a firearm which required metallic cartridges. If it was good enough for Boone and Crocket, it is good enough for you!
Times have changed and the breakdown of social order is ever on some people's minds. Perhaps they watch too many zombie apocalypse shows? Or, they could have just lived through the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In any event, the government should not be in the business of determining what it takes for people to feel secure in their own homes and businesses. The consequences of misusing that freedom should be swiftly applied and proportional to the incident. I have never owned or fired an AR15. I am of the M1 era and have owned my share of those. Woe unto ye who face a trained marksman so equipped. That holds only eight rounds. Should they also be banned?

This is a good discussion and should continue. There needs to be changes in gun ownership. Not sure how but reasonable people need to keep on working on it.

TurtleDude · Sep 27, 2016

Queequeg said:
1. Gun Show Loophole.
As others have pointed out here, the gun shows I have attended were limited to licensed sellers who are required to process the same paperwork required in a brick and mortar store. Perhaps there are less formal markets where that is not required but I have never been to one. Over the years, I have sold guns to friends and neighbors without processing paperwork. Perhaps that should end with all transfers handled by FFLs.

2. Stricter Background Checks
I have no problem with that if the data was available. You have probably heard that most mental health professionals do not upload their client records to some central data base. Creating a centralized "Nut List" certainly has pejorative overtones which could get those professionals into difficulties with their patients. It takes a court to determine sanity. Clearly, those who have been adjudicated as incompetent should not be buying guns. It seems clear enough that those persons on the so-called "No Fly" list should be barred from purchasing a gun. However, there has to be a reasonable way to clear one's name in the event of error. I do not know about obtaining a CCW license on-line. My state, New Mexico, has a fairly rigorous process including finger printing and clearance through the NCIC. That seems only right.

3. Ban Heavy Assault Weapons
There was a time when I felt no civilian needed a firearm which required metallic cartridges. If it was good enough for Boone and Crocket, it is good enough for you!
Times have changed and the breakdown of social order is ever on some people's minds. Perhaps they watch too many zombie apocalypse shows? Or, they could have just lived through the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In any event, the government should not be in the business of determining what it takes for people to feel secure in their own homes and businesses. The consequences of misusing that freedom should be swiftly applied and proportional to the incident. I have never owned or fired an AR15. I am of the M1 era and have owned my share of those. Woe unto ye who face a trained marksman so equipped. That holds only eight rounds. Should they also be banned?

This is a good discussion and should continue. There needs to be changes in gun ownership. Not sure how but reasonable people need to keep on working on it.

easy solution: if a civilian police agency has access to a certain type of firearm, so should other civilians.

Celebrity · Sep 27, 2016

Crimefree said:
Idiotic unreferenced and undemonstrated response ignored. If you want me to respond state write something comprehensible

Idiotic unreferenced and undemonstrated response ignored. If you want me to respond, write something comprehensible.

Crimefree said:
Did I say you brought them into the discussion? A nice strawman that and used to deflect from my claims, FAIL. Do you concede to my claim? Are you feeling guilty or something? All I am doing is answering your foolish assertions. You will note each time I have to satisfy your refusal to accept facts. I made my claims and have backed them up. If guns are deadly so is water. You have not proven anything with your wild assertions but your belief refuses to allow you to accept that fact. You state "if used with intent" shot down by your own claim. The item is not deadly or lethal until it is used.

Did I say you said I brought them into the discussion? My point is not your strawman. Let's review. A strawman is when I falsely attribute an argument to you. You brought those things into the discussion, my point is valid and it is not a deflection. In fact, you are the one who is deflecting. I already showed that guns and water are both deadly. Are you really conflating the adjective "deadly" with the noun "weapon?" They are two different things. A firearm is a deadly weapon, while water is deadly, but not a weapon. You have yet to refute a single one of my points.

Crimefree said:
Incomprehensible and not based on any known facts. I have no idea what you are trying to claim. If you do repeat in understandable form.

I can't improve your reading comprehension. Sorry if you failed to understand what I wrote in a clear and concise English.

Crimefree said:
Lethal weapon is a TV series or a construction of two words, adjective and noun. I gave you the definition of a gun there is no mention of lethal or deadly. That comes from your attachment of the word lethal. You have DELIBERATELY constructed it. It is as valid as deadly water, deadly matches, deadly sword, deadly spider.

So now you're actually blaming me for the definition? I brought information here and when you fail to understand what it means, you assume your shortcoming proves me wrong. It does not.

Once again, when the definition does not explicitly rule out "lethal" or "deadly," that means that it could still be lethal or deadly. The definition does not say that firearms are "not deadly," now does it? That's because they are deadly.

If I look at a blueprint of a gun, where on the blueprint can I find the words "deadly" and "lethal?" The fact of the matter is, a mechanical description of the gun does not necessarily include these words. Your confirmation bias is not a refutation of my logic. I guess it just shows your intellectual bias due to your emotional attachment to firearms.

Celebrity · Sep 27, 2016

Crimefree said:
Now I put spider in there to illustrate a point all spiders are not deadly in fact very few are and they are only deadly if you get BITTEN. A gun is only deadly if somebody is shot with it. A gun cannot be deadly even if covered by the most powerful contact poison. It requires an action made by human intervention to cause it to be fired. Basic physics I know is beyond you as your belief will reject it. No object is lethal by itself. You even state yet cannot see that it must be used with that intent. This is worse than teaching cavemen how to plough. When are you going to be able to make logical conclusions?

I have made many logical conclusions, yet you have apparently failed to perceive them. Here's a logical conclusion I'm sure we can both agree upon. If there is a deadly spider, would we like to call an exterminator or pest control? In the same way that we control deadly spiders, we control deadly weapons and deadly water with levees. I'm not sure what part of this discussion requires physics, though I suppose that could be attributed to logic being far beyond your ability.

Crimefree said:
Prove WHAT? Try not to post incomprehensible requests as I shall just ignore them. What do you need proof of?

And here we have clear evidence that you either cannot or will not prove your ideology. Because it is your belief, not your argument that claims that guns should not be taken away from people. And you know what? I actually agree with you. I don't think guns should be taken away from crime victims. But what about victims of crime who are felonious criminals themselves? That does not seem to be an altogether uncommon circumstance. Oh hey, look, the NRA supported "relief" of felons. Now criminals can have guns, too.

Crimefree said:
The measure of incompetence is "accidental" results. Stupidity is termed accidental in such cases.

This is your response? Seriously? :lol:

No, you have not refuted the fact that death is a possible consequence of a deadly accident.

Crimefree said:
You cannot animate metal, give powers of influence to objects, claim objects made people do something or blame objects for the actions of people without making a lot of mistakes. People who do that are probably not in control of all their faculties.

I have to say, I really can't argue with that. But then, who is arguing with that nonsense? Are we even discussing this? No, I think this is just your good old "guns don't kill people" strawman. I never animated metal and I didn't blame guns for the actions of people.

Crimefree said:
Your flapping around grasping at straws is amusing. A rhetorical question is not a question see if you can figure out why. I'm tired of spoon feeding you.

Kind of odd that you mention flapping around and grasping at straws. Again, this is just your feeble projection in the face of an argument which you cannot refute.

Crimefree said:
Do not be asinine if you claim guns kill people then they are responsible. Should we speak of delusional again?

Which part of you question or claim was not answered or addressed?

I did not claim that guns kill people, however they are deadly weapons, because they are able to cause death. Did you really think that I claimed otherwise, or is this proof that you have nothing but a strawman?

Celebrity · Sep 27, 2016

Crimefree said:
Yes. More often than not used in crowd control.

Oh good, so we agree that firearms and water are not the same. I certainly wouldn't want to be part of a crowd controlled by guns.

Crimefree said:
I have absolutely no idea what this mind movie of yours is about. It does seem to me though that it is built out of straw.

So now you are just making things up out of thin air, huh? Can't respond to a valid point, can you?

Crimefree said:
Sigh!!!!!!!!! Again how did water cause this death? Explain it exactly leaving no part out in purely logical and physical terms.

Is this a joke? Are you pretending to not understand that water is the cause of death in a drowning? That is the definition of the word "drown." Look it up. Why do people drown? Because of the water that they inhale.

Crimefree said:
If you have made a claim see my post quoting it to see where it was refuted.

If you thought you have made a valid claim, see my post to understand why it does not refute any claim.

Crimefree said:
Read it and weep. USED AS A DEADLY WEAPON does not make it one.

If something is used as a deadly weapon, then yes, in the capacity that it is used as a weapon it is deadly. It's a deadly weapon. Now you're just contradicting yourself.

Crimefree said:
I believe my reference to water was if guns are deadly so is water. So far I do not see you refuting that as neither are deadly. All your dancing around has not made the slightest difference.

I haven't refuted that either is deadly. I have claimed that both are deadly. Why should I refute my own claim? Both water and firearms are deadly.

Crimefree said:
It's a definition of firearm. My goodness that is really paranoid

What is really paranoid?

flogger · Sep 28, 2016

Casper said:
Not really, but hey make whatever wild statements you want.

12% is a small percentage whatever way you slice it

Casper · Sep 28, 2016

flogger said:
12% is a small percentage whatever way you slice it

It is over 20,000,000 people, percentages are nice so long as one discounts the numbers. Those numbers are growing daily. Oh and I would point out while some women may not claim to be a gun owner they are often married to one and even though she may not claim ownership she still can and does use them.

blackjack50 · Sep 28, 2016

Casper said:
It is over 20,000,000 people, percentages are nice so long as one discounts the numbers. Those numbers are growing daily. Oh and I would point out while some women may not claim to be a gun owner they are often married to one and even though she may not claim ownership she still can and does use them.

Yep. My girlfriend isn't a gun owner. She shoots her fathers stuff, my stuff, and she wants a revolver like my dad has. She prefers them because she can't really load my 9.

Casper · Sep 28, 2016

blackjack50 said:
Yep. My girlfriend isn't a gun owner. She shoots her fathers stuff, my stuff, and she wants a revolver like my dad has. She prefers them because she can't really load my 9.

Look around and find something she can shoot and pull the slide back on, my wife is 5'2" and she can use all mine but she prefers her smaller handguns because of use and weight.

My Gun Control Plan [W:1271]

Celebrity

Celebrity

flogger

Celebrity

flogger

Fledermaus

Celebrity

blaxshep

Crimefree

Crimefree

Celebrity

Celebrity

flogger

Casper

Crimefree

Crimefree

Queequeg

New member

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Celebrity

Celebrity

Celebrity

flogger

Casper

blackjack50

Casper