Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And that is up to the individual to decide what their own particular need for a gun is....Not yours.
Mines a little more specific, limit to those on that side here arguing with me. I could list you each by name if you like (I might include those post silly ass **** on my Facebook page).
I said nothing to which your answer applies. :shrug:
Sure you did, go back a re read it again, then come on back and reply intelligently please.
Who give a **** what you put on your Facebook? Is that supposed to frighten someone into not responding to your dumb ass **** or something? What a childish response.....:lol:
No fear and hyperbole.
If you remove suicide and killing friends and family (accidentally or otherwise) citizens use guns even less, face even less gun need situations, and have no obligation to tackle any if the dangerous situations police do.
So in essence, you have decided to place more value on the lives of gun crime victims than on responsible adults that have used them for self defense. You believe in the zebra version of self defense. A crocodile can only eat one of us, as long as it isn't me, i'm OK with it. You fear the sheepdog more than you fear the wolf. And BTW, if you do not feel you do not have the obligation to help, that is the biggest difference between us. I feel I do have an obligation because I understand exactly what the limitations and capabilities of law enforcement are. A lot of friends and co workers (law enforcement) have said the same thing. They are historians with guns.
So then why not allow me to decide which tools best suit me to meet my obligation? What exactly do you fear/question?I've said nothing like that. Not a single thing. You still have the right to have a weapon.
Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above. This is not about whether you can have a gun to protect yourself, but whether you face the same challenges as police officers.
So then why not allow me to decide which tools best suit me to meet my obligation? What exactly do you fear/question?
Absolutely. I should have the choice to use whatever weapons the typical police officer has to choose from.Would you suggest there is to be no limitations on your choice?
So you support wasting crisises? Me, I prefer to learn from them, make changes needed, and improve.
If that were true, liberals would have banned automobiles long ago and continued to support prohibition.
I've said nothing like that. Not a single thing. You still have the right to have a weapon.
Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above. This is not about whether you can have a gun to protect yourself, but whether you face the same challenges as police officers.
Wrong, and why does this have nothing whatsoever to do with what I said?
There have been many more deaths involving alcohol and automobiles than mass shootings with guns. But liberals love their cars and alcohol.
The problem with this argument is a couple of logical fallacies, one of which being appeal to authority. No one disagrees that a law enforcement officer faces challenges that most suburban, middle class citizenry don't. One factor is that LEO's are tasked with putting themselves in 'high risk' situations, in order to do their jobs. However, with the expansion of the inner cities migrating outward into the suburbs along with it comes the crime associated with the inner cities. Police are often out manned, and under equipped to handle the increase in crime, and often warn that Police are not there to actually prevent crime from happening, but rather to investigate, and bring to justice after the incident the perpetrator of said crime. It is for that reason that we have the right, not granted by man, but inherent to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. If you think you can do that without a firearm, more power to you. But the argument that I, a legal citizen, that follow's the law, and doesn't commit crime shouldn't have a gun because you don't think I need it, is laughable, and should be ignored.
Redress said:So you support wasting crisises? Me, I prefer to learn from them, make changes needed, and improve.
Which still has nothing to do with what I said or the gun control debate for that matter. Inane references to things that have nothing to do with the topic are not really relevant.
First, I've made no appeal to authority.
because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit — either probabilistic or statistical — the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have speaking to TD who disputes what you just said about the police and the person who brought up knowing police.
I merely noted I did as well.
I then noted actual objective numbers.
Nor do I argue you can't have a gun.
I have repeated this many times.
The debate is can the government restrict which guns.
No fear and hyperbole.
If you remove suicide and killing friends and family (accidentally or otherwise) citizens use guns even less, face even less gun need situations, and have no obligation to tackle any if the dangerous situations police do.
Your post was about wasting a tragedy or crisis, so 30 school children is a tragedy but over 1 million per year is acceptable, please give us your definition for crisis or tragedies.
And now you are just putting words in my mouth. Get back to me if you are ever interested in honest debate.
Now when you assert:
"Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above."
Clearly that fits the definition of the fallacy.
To which you attempted to trump his own appeal to authority with one of your own...Doesn't make it any less a fallacy.
Which was wrong.
Actually, you only said that you had provided objective numbers....IRRC, those numbers you provided from a controversial study were in dispute themselves, so instead of making your case you just continued to say "nuh uh" and take on face value that the stats were correct, and objective. A dishonest tactic BTW.
Only because you have NO power to make such a reality. Based on your stated reasoning I think that any reasonable person would have to conclude that you would argue that if you had the power to make such a reality.
If you repeat a lie often enough it still does not become a fact, although you may like to think differently.
Yes, and can you lay out to me what you think the term "shall not infringe" means in legal terms?
that's crap. every time a cop draws his weapon its documented. Many times with non leo's there are no reports
and you still ignore the initiator-non-initiator difference
why don't you just come out and say what we all know you believe
you think honest law abiding citizens cannot be trusted with the same self defensive weapons we give civilian police officers
No. One reason says I have friends in police work, and the other says so does he, but the points to objective evidence, there is not an appeal to authority. You are mistaken. My argue,ent is not build on who we both know or their opinion.
And no, the numbers are not disputed by anyone. Those who argue dispute the conclusions, making excuses fir why those dead shoud not be counted. But he numbers themselves are not disputed.
And no, no reasonable person makes wild leaps about something I have neither sad nor implied. In fact I have stated the exact opposite.
And if "shall not infringe" were the only words, asking that question might make sense. But even the courts have interpreted the other words to all for some limitations. Precedence matters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?