Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments... (3 Viewers)

[rahl]

You had the opportunity to read this link already. Perhaps you missed it or can't understand it?

When Were Guns Invented? A Brief History of Guns

The first gun was created more than 1,000 years ago, effectively changing warfare - and society - in incomprehensible ways. But do we know who actually made the first firearm?

science.howstuffworks.com

So you can’t explain why you think ancient Chinese inventions have any relevance to modern firearms, many of which specific design is exclusively target practice, refuting your categorical claim. Ok.

 

[dairyair]

So you can’t explain why you think ancient Chinese inventions have any relevance to modern firearms, many of which specific design is exclusively target practice, refuting your categorical claim. Ok.

I don't have to.
The link shows the timelines and the history of guns from point A to point Z.

I am not interested in what some guns are designed for today. I never made any claim about all guns and their usage today.

I only stated the intent for the design of the origin of guns. Designed to kill.

 

[Spock]

I don't have to.
The link shows the timelines and the history of guns from point A to point Z.

I am not interested in what some guns are designed for today. I never made any claim about all guns and their usage today.

I only stated the intent for the design of the origin of guns. Designed to kill.

There is a predictable tendency for gun advocates to make claims that are extreme generalizations intended to misrepresent the positions of others.

 

[RF667799]

Yes. 6 times at least.


You believe cars, bats,.... were designed to kill? If they are, whoever designed them did a very POOR job. He just needed to buy a gun.

No, you must accept that as a consequence of your belief that designed to kill=can be used to kill.

 

[RF667799]

H

The relevance? WTF?

What are you rambling about?
You don't understand why guns were invented? Weird.

The First Guns​

The Chinese attacked the Mongols with fire lances or "flying fire" — arrows fixed with tubes of gunpowder that, when ignited, would propel across enemy lines.

When Were Guns Invented? A Brief History of Guns

The first gun was created more than 1,000 years ago, effectively changing warfare - and society - in incomprehensible ways. But do we know who actually made the first firearm?

science.howstuffworks.com

Speculation.

 

[rahl]

I don't have to.

I mean no, you don’t. But nobody is taking you seriously if you can’t.

The link shows the timelines and the history of guns from point A to point Z.

So what?

I am not interested in what some guns are designed for today. I never made any claim about all guns and their usage today.

Yes you did. It’s why I called you on it.

I only stated the intent for the design of the origin of guns. Designed to kill.

And you can’t establish it as anything other than your speculation. But again, even if ancient Chinese inventions were designed to kill, what does that have to do with modern firearms which aren’t? What’s your point?

 

[rahl]

There is a predictable tendency for gun advocates to make claims that are extreme generalizations intended to misrepresent the positions of others.

 

[dairyair]

H


Speculation.

trolling

 

[dairyair]

I mean no, you don’t. But nobody is taking you seriously if you can’t.

So what?

Yes you did. It’s why I called you on it.

And you can’t establish it as anything other than your speculation. But again, even if ancient Chinese inventions were designed to kill, what does that have to do with modern firearms which aren’t? What’s your point?

I have no intention on being taken serious about something I never stated nor care about

If you don't understand the origin of guns and their intent on being designed, that falls only on you.

 

[rahl]

I have no intention on being taken serious about something I never stated nor care about

Then you probably shouldn’t post about the design of guns.

If you don't understand the origin of guns and their intent on being designed, that falls only on you.

It’s ok. All of the other anti gunners face plant the same way when they start with the “designed to kill” stupidity. Just like you did.

 

[RF667799]

trolling

What you claim is factual, is actually speculation. If it was factual, you would have evidence to prove it. An online article where the author agrees with your speculative opinion is not evidence.

It's more likely you who are trolling by making irrelevant assertions you refuse to support.

 

[dairyair]

Then you probably shouldn’t post about the design of guns.

It’s ok. All of the other anti gunners face plant the same way when they start with the “designed to kill” stupidity. Just like you did.

LOL. I am posting about the intent of the design. Keep up.

That's what the link I gave you several times is all about. The reason the chinese invented the gun.

 

[RF667799]

Then you probably shouldn’t post about the design of guns.

It’s ok. All of the other anti gunners face plant the same way when they start with the “designed to kill” stupidity. Just like you did.

All I see for evidence of their claim about "design intent" is reference to what some of the first guns were used for.

So once again, their argument is that "designed to" is defined as "can be used to".

 

[dairyair]

What you claim is factual, is actually speculation. If it was factual, you would have evidence to prove it. An online article where the author agrees with your speculative opinion is not evidence.

It's more likely you who are trolling by making irrelevant assertions you refuse to support.

LOL. I provided support.
You just can't comprehend what the link states.

 

[rahl]

LOL. I am posting about the intent of the design. Keep up.

You are posting about your speculation. You can’t prove it. But you take speculation about ancient Chinese inventions and apply them categorically to firearms today. And that never goes well for you anti gunners.

That's what the link I gave you several times is all about. The reason the chinese invented the gun.

Nobody cares about your speculation. Make a point about what you think ancient Chinese inventions has to do with firearms today.

 

[RF667799]

LOL. I am posting about the intent of the design. Keep up.

That's what the link I gave you several times is all about. The reason the chinese invented the gun.

Perhaps you can link to the actual inventor explaining his intent.

Until then, all you have is the idea that what some guns were used for = what guns were designed for.

 

[RF667799]

LOL. I provided support.
You just can't comprehend what the link states.

Maybe you don't understand that a link to a speculative opinion isn't evidence of any fact, except that someone else shares your speculative opinion.

 

[Spock]

What you claim is factual, is actually speculation. If it was factual, you would have evidence to prove it. An online article where the author agrees with your speculative opinion is not evidence.

In other words, "fact" is just two people who have the same opinion, by your reasoning.
Why do you think a spear, atlatl, or bow and arrow become tools for survival?

It's more likely you who are trolling by making irrelevant assertions you refuse to support.

I doubt that a level of proof exists to change your opinion on anything that you have ordained to be true.
In my experience with your style of discussion, you refuse to substantiate your opinions and expect opposing claims to be presented with an unrealistic level of "proof". Substantiation can exist in many forms and very often is as simple as recognizing that firearms are necessary for firearm violence. Arguing about the agency of firearms is disenguous evasion.

 

[RF667799]

In other words, "fact" is just two people who have the same opinion, by your reasoning.

No. I didn't say anything like that. I said that two people having the same opinion does NOT make that opinion a fact.

Why do you think a spear, atlatl, or bow and arrow become tools for survival?

Lots of things can be used as "tools of survival".

I doubt that a level of proof exists to change your opinion on anything that you have ordained to be true.
In my experience with your style of discussion, you refuse to substantiate your opinions and expect opposing claims to be presented with an unrealistic level of "proof". Substantiation can exist in many forms and very often is as simple as recognizing that firearms are necessary for firearm violence.

Who has argued differently? All I have seen is agreement with that claim, which is manufactured to be true.

Skateboards are necessary for skateboard violence. Do you recognize the truthfulness of that?

Arguing about the agency of firearms is disenguous evasion.

Quit baby talking as if firearms have agency. They don't, and there is no argument about that.

 

[Spock]

No. I didn't say anything like that. I said that two people having the same opinion does NOT make that opinion a fact.



Lots of things can be used as "tools of survival".



Who has argued differently? All I have seen is agreement with that claim, which is manufactured to be true.

Skateboards are necessary for skateboard violence. Do you recognize the truthfulness of that?

Quit baby talking as if firearms have agency. They don't, and there is no argument about that.

My observations have been substantiated.

 

[RF667799]

My observations have been substantiated.

Somebody else believes in magic guns that have agency?

 

[CLAX1911]

That's funny!

Anything to avoid argument I suppose.

 

[Spock]

Somebody else believes in magic guns that have agency?

The consequence of firearms in death and injury in American society is a preventable tragedy that will never be solved by the denialism you have promoted.

 

[CLAX1911]

So. you have fabricated a mythology about the anti-tyrant effect of firearms. You have forgotten that civilian firearms are more often used for crime, accidental death, suicide, and vigilantism.

That's absolutely false civilian farms are very very rarely used for crime accidental death suicide and vigilantism. It's not even 1% by your inflated numbers.

Oh, spare use the histrionics. You are demonstrating only NRA propaganda victimization.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why do you think that 100,000 episodes of firearm violence is acceptable?

Why do you think owning guns causes this?