• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house

theplaydrive said:
None of this has anything to do with anything I've said.
Click to expand...

You asked 'why is it so hard for people to admit that a gun can make a situation worse?' And, I showed you how your assumption was wrong:

Anonymous1776 said:
You can also die from an overdose of water. I'm not saying guns make people magically infallible. I'm saying they save lives more often than not in life threatening situations. And, that government doesn't have a right to make that determination for individuals. It is the individual at risk, not the government.
Click to expand...

In other words, since everything has the potential to 'make a situation worse,' it is an invalid argument to use against guns.
 
Anonymous1776 said:
You asked 'why is it so hard for people to admit that a gun can make a situation worse?' And, I showed you how your assumption was wrong:

In other words, since everything has the potential to 'make a situation worse,' it is an invalid argument to use against guns.
Click to expand...
And I'm not arguing against guns. That's the ****ing point. I pointed out that guns can make a situation worse or better and people threw a hissy fit.
 
tessaesque said:
I'm not saying it's new, but it being common place does not mean it's "normal". That kind of reactionary behavior is being bred within these groups. Instead of shrugging and saying, "it happens all the time," perhaps we should be addressing the why.

I used to work in an area of Dallas referred to as "Red Bird". It's southern Dallas, just southwest of one of the scariest areas of the city, and it is largely populated by african americans. I would drive an extra 10 miles out of my way at lunch if I wanted to sit down somewhere to eat because I would often get stared at and jeered at by the area residents at the stores and restaurants near the office. I had one guy tell me to turn around and get back in my car because, "we don't want no white bitches in here". I once asked the cashier at an area store how her day was and the response I received was "white bitch, what would YOU know about my life?"

So I'm well aware that the hostility exists. But I'm not so sure we have to simply accept it because it exists.
Click to expand...

This sounds like the area my brother, one of his Army friends, and I were in when we were in Dallas looking for a hotel after going to Six Flaggs for the day. My brother was practically led out of the BK in the area before he was even able to ask for anything. And this was before he decided to dress like a woman in public.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
He said that insurance was "a fear based industry." You looking up the definition shows that you either a) purposefully didn't comprehend what he said or b) were unable to comprehend what he said. What does his opinion that insurance is "a fear based industry" have to do with the definition? One would have to look at the insurance industry itself and how it operates, not a dictionary.
Click to expand...

His comment was intentionally obtuse, so my answer was appropriately flippant. Insurance is not based on fear, but rather on risk assessment. This applies whether you're carrying fire insurance in case your house burns down or carrying a gun in case trouble decides to find you. While Tettsou presumes to know the mind of every legal gun owner, I can assure you that an individuals reasoning for taking their personal protection into their own hands is as varied as the people themselves. His assertion that anyone carrying a gun is a coward is trolling, at best.
 
theplaydrive said:
And I'm not arguing against guns. That's the ****ing point. I pointed out that guns can make a situation worse or better and people threw a hissy fit.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a straw-man argument, then, as you were responding to me when you asked 'why is it so hard for people to admit that a gun can make a situation worse?' I never suggested anything of the sort, but did point out that the observation is largely irrelevant. It seems you agree when you admit things can go either way.

The bottom line is that the people should decide if and how to protect themselves, not government.
 
Tettsuo said:
Too bad we aren't back in those days, then your comment would have some relevance.

People carry guns out of fear. Plain and simple. You're not brave because have a gun. This entire notion that strength is related to a firearm sickens me.
Click to expand...

People call for the disarming of America out of fear; not the other way around. Those looking for the proper tools through which they can protect life, liberty, and property are not doing so out of fear; but rather out of commitment to keep their freedom.
 
Anonymous1776 said:
Well, that's a straw-man argument.
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman argument. That is the first and only point I've been making the entire time. If you thought that I was making another argument, then every response you've made to me has been irrelevant to what I've been posting. Perhaps you entered a conversation that you hadn't been following.
 
roguenuke said:
This sounds like the area my brother, one of his Army friends, and I were in when we were in Dallas looking for a hotel after going to Six Flaggs for the day. My brother was practically led out of the BK in the area before he was even able to ask for anything. And this was before he decided to dress like a woman in public.
Click to expand...

Good thing ya'll didn't go Goff's Hamburgers:




The guy was a loon. He eventually bought a statue Lenin and put it out in front of his place.
 
Ikari said:
People call for the disarming of America out of fear; not the other way around. Those looking for the proper tools through which they can protect life, liberty, and property are not doing so out of fear; but rather out of commitment to keep their freedom.
Click to expand...
That's where you're wrong. I'm not calling for disarming America. I'm simply voicing an opinion that guns do not automatically help when you have an intruder/s.

Do I think it would better if that were the case? Yes. Guns make weak people strong and brave. Brave men do not need guns to be brave as the gentleman in the article proved. That was a true display of strength and courage.

But in regard to this particular incident, I simply stated that having more firearms floating around in the general populace would not be a good thing. The situation in the article would be ended rather badly if more of them had guns (good and bad).
 
Tettsuo said:
That's where you're wrong. I'm not calling for disarming America...
Click to expand...

No, it's just the law abiding citizens you want to see disarmed. Criminals, police and soldiers can all keep their guns, right? That's right about where you lost all credibility. I can quote your specific words, if you'd like.
 
theangryamerican said:
His comment was intentionally obtuse, so my answer was appropriately flippant. Insurance is not based on fear, but rather on risk assessment. This applies whether you're carrying fire insurance in case your house burns down or carrying a gun in case trouble decides to find you. While Tettsou presumes to know the mind of every legal gun owner, I can assure you that an individuals reasoning for taking their personal protection into their own hands is as varied as the people themselves. His assertion that anyone carrying a gun is a coward is trolling, at best.
Click to expand...
What exactly about my comments were obtuse?
Where did I claim to know the mind of anyone? In fact, it was you and others that made erroneous claims about liberals and myself being a victim. Pure fantasy.
If you believe I said anyone carrying a gun is a coward, you'll need to copy and paste that for us. If so, I'll apologize.
 
theangryamerican said:
No, it's just the law abiding citizens you want to see disarmed. Criminals, police and soldiers can all keep their guns, right? That's right about where you lost all credibility. I can quote your specific words, if you'd like.
Click to expand...
Please quote it. Quote the entire post so it's not out of context.
 
Anonymous1776 said:
Nope. I followed your response to me just fine . . . Nice try though.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a try. You engaged me in the midst of a conversation with Oscar and I responded to you within the context of that conversation appropriately. You also implied that I was arguing against gun use which I haven't been at all revealing the fact that you had no idea what my position was.

Hint: When you enter a conversation that two other people are having, figure out what they're talking about before you respond. I don't need to waste my time responding to someone who doesn't even know what I'm arguing.
 
theplaydrive said:
Hint: When you enter a conversation that two other people are having, figure out what they're talking about before you respond. I don't need to waste my time responding to someone who doesn't even know what I'm arguing.
Click to expand...

Hint: I read everything related to the conversation and responded appropriately. If there's something you feel I misunderstood, feel free to debate. You are just muddying the waters now as you retreat from your flawed arguments. Next . . .
 
Tettsuo said:
What exactly about my comments were obtuse?
Click to expand...

You intentionally tried to portray insurance as "fear based" in order to further your opinion that people only carry guns out of fear. Intentional misrepresentation is pretty obtuse, if you ask me.

Tettsuo said:
Where did I claim to know the mind of anyone? In fact, it was you and others that made erroneous claims about liberals and myself being a victim. Pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

By accusing all gun owners of only carrying guns for one reason, fear, you presume to know the thought process of anyone who picks up a weapon in self-defense. :shrug: this isn't exactly hard to follow here. When you speak in generalities, you'd better be able to back them up.

Btw, you are in fact incorrect, if you believe I called anyone a victim or attacked anyone's political bias in this thread. However, since you like playing the quote game, feel free to post any excerpts of mine from this thread that you believe support your baseless accusation.

I'll wait.

Tettsuo said:
If you believe I said anyone carrying a gun is a coward, you'll need to copy and paste that for us. If so, I'll apologize.
Click to expand...

Most recently, you threw out this little gem:

People carry guns out of fear. Plain and simple. You're not brave because have a gun. This entire notion that strength is related to a firearm sickens me.
Click to expand...

So...anyone carrying a gun is doing so out of fear. You gave no other alternatives. They are hoping that the gun will give them some sort of "strength." That's what your words say, right?

…which brings us to the earlier quote:

BTW, only cowards rely on guns to make them strong.
Click to expand...

Now let's look at your views together. So people only carry guns out of fear, to appear stronger. People who rely on those guns to appear stronger are actually cowards. According to your logic citizens who carry guns, do so because they are actually cowards.

I'll wait patiently for the apology you promised.

Tettsuo said:
Please quote it. Quote the entire post so it's not out of context.
Click to expand...

I prefer no one except police and the armed forces have guns. Since that can't be the case, I'd prefer very few guns as opposed to more guns being in public circulation...
Click to expand...

I'm not going to humor you by posting the whole thread. The statement stands alone, there's nothing else required to interpret that.
 
Anonymous1776 said:
Hint: I read everything related to the conversation and responded appropriately. If there's something you feel I misunderstood, feel free to debate. You are just muddying the waters now as you retreat from your flawed arguments. Next . . .
Click to expand...
You have 35 posts and you've already proven to be someone who congratulates himself for not knowing what the hell he's talking about.

My argument has always been: guns can be good or bad and that's it's stupid to deny that. Please explain what's flawed about that and also explain why you assumed that I was arguing against gun use earlier.
 
Tettsuo said:
That's where you're wrong. I'm not calling for disarming America. I'm simply voicing an opinion that guns do not automatically help when you have an intruder/s.

Do I think it would better if that were the case? Yes. Guns make weak people strong and brave. Brave men do not need guns to be brave as the gentleman in the article proved. That was a true display of strength and courage.

But in regard to this particular incident, I simply stated that having more firearms floating around in the general populace would not be a good thing. The situation in the article would be ended rather badly if more of them had guns (good and bad).
Click to expand...

They guy in the article? The one who got chased into his home, his home broken into, beaten with a blunt weapon, a gun held to his head, and if not for the mere coincidence of the police having responded quickly enough most likely dead and who knows about his family. That guy?

You seem to want people to play the good little victim and if luck is on their side, perhaps they can live. But not everyone thinks like that. Others would rather have the ability to protect their own tomorrow, to choose their own lot in life and not forced to suffer the slings and arrows of victim-hood. The whole "pray you don't get killed" method of defense is flimsier than the Bears offensive line.
 
theangryamerican said:
You intentionally tried to portray insurance as "fear based" in order to further your opinion that people only carry guns out of fear. Intentional misrepresentation is pretty obtuse, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Here's exactly what I stated....

Nice twisting there. Fire, flood and theft insurance doesn't require you to kill someone. Prattling on about what you would do if that were you is just fantasy and empty bravado.

Insurance is a fear based industry. That's a fact.

What's obtuse about that? Exactly, nothing. Either you didn't understand it or your back to creating strawmen to be pissy about. It's tiresome and boring.

By accusing all gun owners of only carrying guns for one reason, fear, you presume to know the thought process of anyone who picks up a weapon in self-defense. :shrug: this isn't exactly hard to follow here. When you speak in generalities, you'd better be able to back them up.
Click to expand...
Read my signature line. Fear isn't a bad thing and you're not a coward if you feel it. Our discussion was about people carrying a firearm for protection. They are carrying it out of fear.. thus they have to protect themselves from something that hasn't even occurred. How this is confusing to you is beyond me.

Btw, you are in fact incorrect, if you believe I called anyone a victim or attacked anyone's political bias in this thread. However, since you like playing the quote game, feel free to post any excerpts of mine from this thread that you believe support your baseless accusation.
Click to expand...
In that was I incorrect and apologize for the accusation.
Most recently, you threw out this little gem:
So...anyone carrying a gun is doing so out of fear. You gave no other alternatives. They are hoping that the gun will give them some sort of "strength." That's what your words say, right?

…which brings us to the earlier quote:

Now let's look at your views together. So people only carry guns out of fear, to appear stronger. People who rely on those guns to appear stronger are actually cowards. According to your logic citizens who carry guns, do so because they are actually cowards.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no apology to give as you simply don't understand. I don't consider a person feeling fear a coward. That's your own person interpretation.

People who run to guns for FEAR that someone will storm their home and murder them does so out of FEAR. Insurance as an industry is FEAR BASED, as you purchase it for fear some problem will arise and you will require it.

Just because you have a problem with the word FEAR doesn't mean I do.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
They guy in the article? The one who got chased into his home, his home broken into, beaten with a blunt weapon, a gun held to his head, and if not for the mere coincidence of the police having responded quickly enough most likely dead and who knows about his family. That guy?

You seem to want people to play the good little victim and if luck is on their side, perhaps they can live. But not everyone thinks like that. Others would rather have the ability to protect their own tomorrow, to choose their own lot in life and not forced to suffer the slings and arrows of victim-hood. The whole "pray you don't get killed" method of defense is flimsier than the Bears offensive line.
Click to expand...
How about instead of fantasizing about what I think, you ask me. I don't seem to want anything. I in fact stated quite plainly what I think. Having a gun doesn't not make you safer if everyone has a gun. How is that confusing to you? How is that confusing to anyone here? That man didn't have a gun, was he a victim?
 
theplaydrive said:
You have 35 posts and you've already proven to be someone who congratulates himself for not knowing what the hell he's talking about.
Click to expand...

That's your false assumption. Your oversight or lack of understanding does not translate to my confusion. It's really unimportant at this point. Although, it's clear you'd rather waste everyone's time on such irrelvance. When you have no good arguments against gun rights, you obstruct the thread through baseless accusations of false persecutions.

Try reading back through what I said and show me exactly where I misunderstood you. It's your claim, now prove it or drop it.

theplaydrive said:
My argument has always been: guns can be good or bad and that's it's stupid to deny that.
Click to expand...

I never denied that. It's just another way of saying -- guns don't kill people, people kill people -- a saying common among gun rights proponents.
 
Tettsuo said:
Here's exactly what I stated....

Nice twisting there. Fire, flood and theft insurance doesn't require you to kill someone. Prattling on about what you would do if that were you is just fantasy and empty bravado.

Insurance is a fear based industry. That's a fact.

What's obtuse about that? Exactly, nothing. Either you didn't understand it or your back to creating strawmen to be pissy about. It's tiresome and boring.


Read my signature line. Fear isn't a bad thing and you're not a coward if you feel it.


In that was I incorrect and apologize for the accusation.

Sorry, no apology to give as you simply don't understand. I don't consider a person feeling fear a coward. That's your own person interpretation.

People who run to guns for FEAR that someone will storm their home and murder them does so out of FEAR. Insurance as an industry is FEAR BASED, as you purchase it for fear some problem will arise and you will require it.

Just because you have a problem with the word FEAR doesn't mean I do.
Click to expand...

I only have a problem with your broad, sweeping generalizations and panicked backpeddling. As you so politely told another poster "Man up"

You know what you said, and what you meant, now you're trying to cover yourself. Your trolling needs work. I recommend practicing it on another board. :2wave:
 
theangryamerican said:
I only have a problem with your broad, sweeping generalizations and panicked backpeddling.
Click to expand...
I've not backpeddled... minus accusing you of calling me a victim of course. Which I apologized for.
As you so politely told another poster "Man up"
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with backpeddling or making a broad sweeping generalization. He needed to "Man up" address his hypocrisy about me insulting him yet he felt free to insult me first. Men take responsibility for their words and deeds. Thus... Man the **** up.

You know what you said, and what you meant, now you're trying to cover yourself. Your trolling needs work. I recommend practicing it on another board. :2wave:
Click to expand...
You lost this round and now your calling victory to cover your ass. You need to man up too. At least I was man enough to admit my error. Are you?
 
Anonymous1776 said:
When you have no good arguments against gun rights
Click to expand...
My very first post in this thread was in support of gun rights and I never made a single argument against gun rights. With this single sentence you inadvertently admitted that you didn't read my posts, didn't follow the conversation and are now blaming me for you failure. Good luck with that.

I never denied that. It's just another way of saying -- guns don't kill people, people kill people -- a saying common among gun rights proponents.
Click to expand...
And yet that's been my only argument which you called "flawed".

In sum, you accuse me of arguing against gun rights when I actually argued in support of them and you accused my arguments of being flawed when you agree with them. Complete fail. Try harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom