The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[whitestone]

Speak for yourself Skippy. :yawn:

hey if you can still hunt thats a good thing,they cant and you know they cant if you can hunt. Now if you can actually hunt then you know that if they cant they will bow,,,

 

[Granite]

That's not a sufficient reason.

There are no sufficient reasons for people like you.:yawn:

 

[elohiym]

There are no sufficient reasons for people like you.:yawn:

Hush, bigot.

 

[Granite]

Hush, bigot.

Stuff it, zealot. I've had it up to here with you death cult nutters. If clutching a gun makes you feel like a patriot, man, hero, or true believer, just maybe you should consider a different hobby. Or therapy. Or both. You bring nothing of value or decency to this discussion.

 

[elohiym]

I've had it up to here with you death cult nutters. If clutching a gun makes you feel like a patriot, man, hero, or true believer, just maybe you should consider a different hobby.

You own a gun, and you have spoken as if you would use it on another person in self-defense.

I am a pacifist who preaches against the death culture, so your characterization of me cannot be true.

You bring nothing of value or decency to this discussion.

The value of another person's opinion is nothing to you unless it supports your twisted world-view. No surprise there.

 

[ok doser]

Washing machines are designed to fill up with water, shake a bit, then pump out the water. If clothes get inside, they could get cleaned.

you're sposed to put them inside??? :doh:

 

[CabinetMaker]

That's not a sufficient reason.

If you are out in public with your shotgun, yes, it is ample reason.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The value of another person's opinion is nothing to you unless it supports your twisted world-view. No surprise there.

Truly ironic statement from you.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

And automobiles are designed to spin their tires. If the tires touch a road, the car can move.

Washing machines are designed to fill up with water, shake a bit, then pump out the water. If clothes get inside, they could get cleaned.

O . . . kay?

Feel better?


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

If your wife or child were shot and killed, would you still feel this way. Think carefully before you answer this question.

How's about you not offer me advice for the time being, 1st off.

Next, please explain to me how this is a meaningful question. Then I'll "think carefully" about your response.

Thanks.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Because to use a knife you must be up close and personal. To use a shotgun you only need be in range of the shot gun.

How far could you throw a knife? Probably as far as a shotgun's effective range?


DJ

1.0
​

 

[elohiym]

Truly ironic statement from you.

Truly moronic statement from you.

 

[Yorzhik]

To this point, you have not said anything that would indicate that you don't want "crazies" to have guns. In other words, you come across as a bit of a monster because we know that "crazies" with guns commit atrocities. We have a fair idea of the personality types that are most prone to do those things and you would let them buy guns.

To this point you have not identified who the crazies are. You act as if that is an insignificant part, simply punting it off to some vague future entity. And you don't see this as a problem. Sure, I look like a monster at the moment to unthinking people like yourself.

Defend your self against what? Just how paranoid are you?

Crazies, the one's you cannot identify.

The same way I know that person is qualified to drive, or sell insurance or cut my hair or provide legal representation or prepare construction drawings are anything else that requires a license. They have had to prove by test and, in some cases, demonstrate, that they are trained to do those things. I see gun ownership as no different.

Not one of these things requires a vague psych eval. And none require more training to evaluate than what I can perform myself.

But further - Your example of cutting hair is a great example. People have gone to jail for not having a license to barber. You'll admit that jailing someone for barbering without a license is wrong, wouldn't you?

IF the police. Note that that is a big if. The main trouble is, our laws are designed to punish, not prevent crime. Laws keep honest people honest but the criminal simply doesn't care.

Punishing criminals before they commit a crime... you'll do psych evals for every crime, logically.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Like when I show you to be an unthinking fool, or an idiot.

Psychiatry has its dark past. But they have learned from from that past. Is it perfect? No. But then, name one institution of man that is.

Some of those things mentioned are being advocated today. It doesn't have a dark past because it's still in the dark ages. Psychology is on institution of man that is so imperfect that your reliance on it is mind boggling.

So sending people to prison for breaking laws is tyrannical because the state takes away Their unalienable right to life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Interesting position.

You are so incapable of understanding what an inalienable right is that continuing is merely me practicing my writing.

In either case, you have never directly answered the question. You just use inflammatory rhetoric to attempt to avoid a direct answer. Which is a very plain statement of your position.

I plainly ask you to tell us who the crazies are that you speak of, without resorting to some vague future experts. First you show us how you can identify the crazy that will murder people, and then I can answer the question.

The state routinely removes rights.

Not justly, you idiot.

Societies can and do limit rights.

Not justly, you idiot.

You will have to talk to psychiatrists and sociologists to determine this answer.

If YOU cannot clarify your question, then I'm under no obligation to answer yours. The reason is that I don't think these vague future experts can answer the question. And if you think they can, then how did you evaluate that they actually can?

You need people who are trained to recognize personality disorders and mental conditions that predispose a person towards mass murder.

Great, you just listed nearly everyone in the US.

That is where I would start, talking to those with the training to see what can be done to identify these people before they kill.

No doubt, that is where you would start.

You have. Repeatedly. You couch the second amendment in terms of self defense and state that everybody has the right to self defense. That is an affirmative answer.

It's only an affirmative answer if you are dishonest about the question that needs to be answered first.

And, BTW, I don't couch the 2nd Amendment in terms of self defense. I ignore the 2nd Amendment and realize that the right to self defense comes from God.

There is no logical fallacy. The wife beater fallacy assumes facts not in evidence and misleads people because of that.

Which, of course, since you told us the name of the next crazy that is going to commit mass murder with a gun isn't the same... wait, that last part would be assuming a fact not in evidence. And you are attempting to mislead others into believing I've answered the question without all the facts in evidence.

The question I have asked deals with real world, documented situations.

No it hasn't. There has never been a psych eval that we were sure thwarted a mass murder.

We have seen it over and over and over.

Liar. We've never seen a psych eval that we were sure thwarted a mass murder.

So the question is real, should people who are predisposed towards mass murder have unfettered access to guns? Note that predisposed covers mental conditions, personality disorders, drug dealers, gang members and terrorists. Should all of these people have unfettered access to guns?

Your list just included most everyone in the US.

As noted, its only tyranny if I try to take it away from everybody.

As noted, you are stupid for thinking that. If the state removes a right from a single person, it starts down the road of tyranny. The more people it removes rights from, the more tyrannical it becomes. Under your definition there has never been a tyranny.

I have not and do not advocate that. I have and do advocate for appropriate training and licensing to carry a gun in public and I would like to see a better way to try to identify those people who are most likely to commit an atrocity before they do.

Most likely? You just named just about everyone in the US.

As noted above, it is an actual question based on real world examples and facts.

Liar. We've never seen a psych eval that we were sure thwarted a mass murder.

That doesn't make it a fallacy, that just makes it a very hard question to answer honestly because I am asking you to publicly state your position. You are afraid to do so you use incendiary language to make your self feel better about not answering.

I'm not afraid to answer as soon as you clarify, which is all I've ever asked. And I've never used incendiary language.

If you think there is a more basic question, please, impress us all with your better thinking.

It's very plain. Here is a reminder:

"How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.

"Are you to get in at all?" said the Footman, "That's the first question, you know."

 

[Yorzhik]

And you are perfectly okay with doing nothing to prevent shootings.

This is untrue. You haven't listened to what I've proposed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This is untrue. You haven't listened to what I've proposed.

I haven't read all your lists so I may have missed it. What do you propose?

 

[CabinetMaker]

To this point you have not identified who the crazies are. You act as if that is an insignificant part, simply punting it off to some vague future entity. And you don't see this as a problem. Sure, I look like a monster at the moment to unthinking people like yourself.

I have answered your question several times. Your intellectual inability to understand what I have said is no longer my problem.

Crazies, the one's you cannot identify.

Nor can you. Which makes me wonder how you would identify who need to protect yourself from. Might make an affirmative defense of self defense tough.

Not one of these things requires a vague psych eval. And none require more training to evaluate than what I can perform myself.

That's because none of those things are designed to kill when used as designed and functioning properly. That rather raises the stakes.

But further - Your example of cutting hair is a great example. People have gone to jail for not having a license to barber. You'll admit that jailing someone for barbering without a license is wrong, wouldn't you?[./quote] No. There is a law on the books with proscribed penalties. They broke the law so it is just that they suffer the proscribed penalty. If you want to discuss the reasonableness of the law, that is a different discussion.

Punishing criminals before they commit a crime... you'll do psych evals for every crime, logically.

They are not being punished. They are not incarcerated, unless committed to a mental institution, nor are they fined. They are restricted from purchasing a gun until they can prove they are not a threat to themselves or others. We do that already.

Like when I show you to be an unthinking fool, or an idiot.

I wouldn't know as you have not accomplished either.

Some of those things mentioned are being advocated today. It doesn't have a dark past because it's still in the dark ages. Psychology is on institution of man that is so imperfect that your reliance on it is mind boggling.

It is currently the best tool we have which makes it the logical place to start.

You are so incapable of understanding what an inalienable right is that continuing is merely me practicing my writing.

There are only three unalienable rights listed in the Deceleration of Independence. The Bill of Rights is a later document created by the people and for the people. As such, we the people have the right to reasonably limit rights.

I plainly ask you to tell us who the crazies are that you speak of, without resorting to some vague future experts. First you show us how you can identify the crazy that will murder people, and then I can answer the question.

See above.

Not justly, you idiot.


Not justly, you idiot.

Yes, Justly.

If YOU cannot clarify your question, then I'm under no obligation to answer yours. The reason is that I don't think these vague future experts can answer the question. And if you think they can, then how did you evaluate that they actually can?

The question is perfectly clear. We have cases of terrorism and mental defect that have been identified as the cause of shootings. Is it reasonable to act to prevent people predisposed toward violence from obtaining guns? Fairly simple.

Great, you just listed nearly everyone in the US.

Only if you are VERY paranoid.

No doubt, that is where you would start.

Of course. You need to have a place to start.

It's only an affirmative answer if you are dishonest about the question that needs to be answered first.

You didn't answer that either.

And, BTW, I don't couch the 2nd Amendment in terms of self defense. I ignore the 2nd Amendment and realize that the right to self defense comes from God.

Ah, its not a constitutional issue for you, it is a religious issue. Please post the scripture for us where God tells us it is okay to use deadly force to protect ourselves and our stuff.

Which, of course, since you told us the name of the next crazy that is going to commit mass murder with a gun isn't the same... wait, that last part would be assuming a fact not in evidence. And you are attempting to mislead others into believing I've answered the question without all the facts in evidence.

There would be facts gather into evidence BEFORE a person loses the right to bear arms. And they could get that right back.

No it hasn't. There has never been a psych eval that we were sure thwarted a mass murder.


Liar. We've never seen a psych eval that we were sure thwarted a mass murder.

I never said there was. That is you tilting at your straw men again.

Your list just included most everyone in the US.


As noted, you are stupid for thinking that. If the state removes a right from a single person, it starts down the road of tyranny. The more people it removes rights from, the more tyrannical it becomes. Under your definition there has never been a tyranny.

We remove rights from people all the time. If there is nothing wrong with removing somebodies right to freedom for breaking laws, there is nothing wrong with reasonably restricting rights of those prone to murder.

Most likely? You just named just about everyone in the US.


Liar. We've never seen a psych eval that we were sure thwarted a mass murder.

Did you have any more success tilting at these straw men?

I'm not afraid to answer as soon as you clarify, which is all I've ever asked. And I've never used incendiary language.

You will never answer the question.

It's very plain. Here is a reminder:

"How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.

"Are you to get in at all?" said the Footman, "That's the first question, you know."

That is the question I have asked. Here, let me break it down for you.

"How am I to get a gun?" asked Yorzhik again, in a louder tone.

"Are you to get a gun at all?" said the People, "That's the first question, you know."

 

[Granite]

I am a pacifist who preaches against the death culture, so your characterization of me cannot be true.

Yet you defend it.

 

[elohiym]

Yet you defend it.

Only in your warped imagination.

 

[Granite]

Only in your warped imagination.

Sure you do. I can't tell if you're trolling or just stirring trouble up out of boredom but so far you've been as staunch for unchecked gun culture as anyone here.

 

[elohiym]

I am a pacifist who preaches against the death culture, so your characterization of me cannot be true.

Yet you defend it.

Only in your warped imagination.

Sure you do. I can't tell if you're trolling or just stirring trouble up out of boredom but so far you've been as staunch for unchecked gun culture as anyone here.

The problem isn't the gun culture but the death culture that I preach against. You have falsely accused me of defending the death culture. Now you are equivocating and claiming it's the gun culture I defend.

The bored troll is you!