- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 85,137
- Reaction score
- 78,189
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Incorrect, my statements stand, as you know.This has been proven false, as you know.
Incorrect, my statements stand, as you know.This has been proven false, as you know.
We couldn't do that around "firearms" but can around "weapons"?I already answered that, I mentioned having a more open societal discussion once the framing is set in a way where people can agree on a problem definition.
but they've been proven false. You know this, so why lie?Incorrect, my statements stand, as you know.
I already answered that, I mentioned having a more open societal discussion once the framing is set in a way where people can agree on a problem definition.
you keep arguing with me as I am doing thatWe couldn't do that around "firearms" but can around "weapons"?
Let's start. Define the "problem".
Ok, lets say we're past firearms/weapons.you keep arguing with me as I am doing that
I would prefer it to be collaborative as well.
![]()
I haven't lied yet. I fully believe I am correct here.but they've been proven false. You know this, so why lie?
When you state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons" that is a lie. It is a lie, because you've been shown that they are not. Posting without knowing it's false, is just ignorance. Posting it after you know it's false, is a lie.I haven't lied yet.
And your belief has been shown to be proven false.I fully believe I am correct here.
How to get society to come to some sort agreement on what to do with weapons.Ok, lets say we're past firearms/weapons.
What problem are we collaboratively working to solve?
Incorrect, that is their essential nature.When you state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons" that is a lie. It is a lie, because you've been shown that they are not. Posting without knowing it's false, is just ignorance. Posting it after you know it's false, is a lie.
Incorrect.And your belief has been shown to be proven false.
Do you think this is possible?How to get society to come to some sort agreement on what to do with weapons.
Incorrect, that is their essential nature.
There are some narrow exceptions, but those are narrow and do not alter the previous statement in any fundamental way.
Incorrect.
For decades I have listened to the stories of my family, friends, and customers. I often apply the old "what would I have done" in that position. Particularly with the knife attacks. I'm curious if a gun would have helped.
What I look for.....would a gun have changed things for the better? Did you anticipate the attack in other words did you see it coming? If not why. Was it a lack of situational awareness? Was the attack perfectly timed or executed? Stuff like this. I use it to better myself AND to help my customers. Besides selling guns, I give firearm training classes. We cover situational awareness in one part. These events both good and bad are educational.
I will not judge you.
Much lol.
as you've been shown, the CDC conducted a study and found that defensive use of firearms is around 500,000 times per year.
The alternative is more social breakdown.Do you think this is possible?
So far only two alternatives have been mentioned. A single trap shooting rifle and a gas powered device that uses CO2 which is an entirely different technology (paintball).How many are designed exclusively as weapons? If they aren't designed to exclusively be weapons, then you deciding what is their "essential nature" is as I alluded to in the beginning. Choosing one facet and arbitrarily claiming that defines the whole.
It's really only a slight variation on the idiotic argument that the only purpose of a gun is to kill. In fact, I believe that was exactly your jumping off point in the thread.
that didn't quite answer my question. Given the vast gulf in viewpoints, I don't see any chance of a compromise being reached.The alternative is more social breakdown.
So far only two alternatives have been mentioned. A single trap shooting rifle and a gas powered device that uses CO2 which is an entirely different technology (paintball).
This statement is a lie, and has been proven so.Incorrect, that is their essential nature.
It's a proven lie to state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons"There are some narrow exceptions, but those are narrow and do not alter the previous statement in any fundamental way.
Incorrect.
you posted a study by the CDC that said their previously published study was wrong? lolAs I have show you, this is bullshit.
It's reality. Your poor attempt at trolling does not change reality.Complete and total bullshit.
Frankly it is a stupid, very stupid post.
that didn't quite answer my question. Given the vast gulf in viewpoints, I don't see any chance of a compromise being reached.
you posted a study by the CDC that said their previously published study was wrong? lol
It's reality. Your poor attempt at trolling does not change reality.
incorrect.This statement is a lie, and has been proven so.
It's a proven lie to state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons"
So you don't have a study published by the CDC, that retracted the study the CDC published which shows 500,000 defensive use of firearms?why are you so adverse to truth?
that might be the casethat didn't quite answer my question. Given the vast gulf in viewpoints, I don't see any chance of a compromise being reached.