Conversation
Notices
-
Of course only a complete moron would think that domestic violence and suicide would evaporate if guns simply went away.
-
In many cases, yes. But I suppose this is the fairy land you live in. You clearly don't read about these things.
-
K......
-
No you're not. You're demonstrating your conclusions to be impermeable by facts.
-
Though you did say "trying", so I'll just say that you're failing hilariously.
-
Also a far cry from your actual statement:
-
"at least these outliers have documented cases, as opposed to the "hundreds of thousands of crimes
-
avoided by gun deterrence" numbers I see thrown around"
-
@nds @johnnynull i think for both, it's very difficult to measure when and why something /doesn't/ happen
-
Yeah, because that logic is similar. Here's your Christ repelling rock.
-
My "value" is that it's assholes that would disarm good, law abiding citizens because they feel icky about guns.
-
Also this is bullshit.
-
Your assertion is that the "good" uses of firearms are nearly urban legend (your quote I reposted). Bullshit.
-
So grow a spine. Take a stance and change your views when you are called on your laughable bullshit.
-
Yep. And most "gun control" is hazard at best. (limiting the number of rounds allowed in a clip as example.) But those are scary facts. #boo
-
Hmmm. Perhaps said another way: if your value is "no death", the *facts* show this to be childlike folly.
-
Haphazard, you buffoon. #autocorrect
-
Or the label of "assault rifles" that make no sense. These are actions taken as a token way of showing "We're doing something".
-
That's because you are completely ignorant and don't care to educate yourself. Also facts.
-
@nds how can u ridicule this when u (assume) believe in an absolute moral standard? such belief must bring you 2 agree cc @johnnynull
-
@nds absolute moral std provides the judgement/values/philosophy though, this ruleset + all facts == solved @johnnynull
-
@nds strawman not good argument, might prefer to point out eg diff 'weights' for considerations in 'utilitarian equation' @johnnynull
-
@nds since i think the root of yr contention w @johnnynull is moral framework that finds any volitional act of death impermissible
-
@nds Not only that, your "social ills" argument is for the most part demonstrative bullshit.
You asserted, like only a complete loony would, that the "bad" uses of guns are legit and confirmed, whilst the "good" uses are almost mere myth. (selection bias much?) I posted links to prove that's utter nonsense. I win.
Then you asked with self-satisfaction about domestic violence, completely ignoring that these occur daily throughout the world without guns. They existed before guns and would continue if guns disappeared tomorrow. The demand to hurt others or oneself still exists. You're not saving lives. I win.
Stunningly you think gun control laws we've employed are good. I've posted in the past about the nonsensical "assault weapons" classification and the useless magazine capacity restriction (This was a video I posted. Twice). You put forth zero effort to learn. Reality wins. You're not saving lives. I win,
By the way, those laws don't really impact your precious domestic violence or suicide concerns. I win.
You note that things other than guns can be used in some instances to deter crime, yet ignore that things other than guns can be used for the above. Solid intellectual consistency. I win.
You have demonstrated that you don't understand how guns work, how violence works, and how rights work. Worse than that, you have demonstrated unwillingness to educate yourself. You are a fool. You are not saving lives. I win.
-
@nds Your "value" is (apparently) Not One Death. I value life and freedom. Your stances do not lead to your goal. So yes, your greatest nemesis, data, can help you in your decision making. But you cuddle up with faith (ignorance) and your stuffed Jeebus doll. That'll keep you safe.
-
Apologies for the misunderstanding.