Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

People still die from smoking. If we are okay with people slowly killing themselves with cigarettes, shouldn't we be okay with people killing themselves quickly with a gun? 

Maybe. But they are two completely different scenarios you are comparing. Many people who choose to kill themselves quickly with a gun do it as a result of a quick, and highly irrational decision. That's not the case with smoking at all. 

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And guns are a useful tool. That's why they are used by police and the military. Does this mean we should ban all guns and all alcohol. Only allow them for their useful purpose? 

Well, again, I do NOT support gun bans. What I would like to see is that people are trained, tested and licensed for the tool. A semi truck is a useful tool, but only those who have been trained, test and licensed to operate one can operate one. The same should occur with guns. And I'm also not opposed to requiring the people to obtain a license to buy and consume alcohol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Hypocrisy. 

You admit you won't advocate for something that you know would be better for your own health. But, you criticize others?

Also, smoking pretty much guarantees a negative return, gun ownership does not. 

Smoking is delicious to many. Since you guys like analogies so much, think of it like cheesecake or Cheesy Poofs. A pleasant consumable with potential downstream health consequences for the consumer and society as a whole.

And there is a not so subtle difference between abstaining and advocating against something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Not really. I think you're smart enough to see how this thread has progressed. There is one person in here that doesn't want any changes to gun regulations. I've made a lots of suggestions. I don't own an assault rifle. Yet, we are lumped together. 

How many people here have advocated for changes to gun laws? And how many have just criticized gun owners and hunters. It's pretty easy to identify one group. The other not so much. 

Yes really. Unfortunately you've proven you are not smart enough to see the difference. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Maybe. But they are two completely different scenarios you are comparing. Many people who choose to kill themselves quickly with a gun do it as a result of a quick, and highly irrational decision. That's not the case with smoking at all. 

Well, again, I do NOT support gun bans. What I would like to see is that people are trained, tested and licensed for the tool. A semi truck is a useful tool, but only those who have been trained, test and licensed to operate one can operate one. The same should occur with guns. And I'm also not opposed to requiring the people to obtain a license to buy and consume alcohol. 

And when someone misuses alcohol, how do we prevent them from obtaining it? 

We have systems in place now that prevents a percentage of the population from getting guns. (even if it needs to be tweaked further)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

And when someone misuses alcohol, how do we prevent them from obtaining it? 

As has been said numerous times in this thread and others, the goal is to reduces incidents, not eliminate incidents, as elimination is impossible to achieve.

Requiring licensing for purchasing and consuming alcohol would reduce incidents. 

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

We have systems in place now that prevents a percentage of the population from getting guns. (even if it needs to be tweaked further)

It needs improved. Banning them goes to far. Required training, testing and licensing would significantly help reduce incidents to that of other developed countries. There is no reason we should be experiencing multiple times higher levels of incidents than other developed countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Yes really. Unfortunately you've proven you are not smart enough to see the difference. 

No. For your (and other's) assumptions to be correct about myself and SC, is saying that we don't want to see a decrease in mass shootings. Which we know is false.

The issue is that we all have different approaches on how to fix the problem. However, those that are not gun owners believe theirs is the absolute correct way and that everyone else is working against them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

As has been said numerous times in this thread and others, the goal is to reduces incidents, not eliminate incidents, as elimination is impossible to achieve.

Requiring licensing for purchasing and consuming alcohol would reduce incidents. 

It needs improved. Banning them goes to far. Required training, testing and licensing would significantly help reduce incidents to that of other developed countries. There is no reason we should be experiencing multiple times higher levels of incidents than other developed countries. 

I'll leave it at this. Take this up with some of the other posters here. It seems that our opinion is different from what they want. However, they don't attack you for your approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

No. For your (and other's) assumptions to be correct about myself and SC, is saying that we don't want to see a decrease in mass shootings. Which we know is false.

The issue is that we all have different approaches on how to fix the problem. However, those that are not gun owners believe theirs is the absolute correct way and that everyone else is working against them. 

That is all well and good, but has nothing to with your inability to see the difference between people who oppose and people who won't advocate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'll leave it at this. Take this up with some of the other posters here. It seems that our opinion is different from what they want. However, they don't attack you for your approach. 

You being opposed to what I would like to see may contribute to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

You being opposed to what I would like to see may contribute to that. 

If I oppose it because I don't think it will be effective, doesn't equal not wanting to fix the problem. 

I suggest everyone send me $100 to fix the problem. If you choose not to send me the money, then you must be against fixing the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

That is all well and good, but has nothing to with your inability to see the difference between people who oppose and people who won't advocate. 

Kneeling and supporting someone that kneels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

If I oppose it because I don't think it will be effective, doesn't equal not wanting to fix the problem. 

I suggest everyone send me $100 to fix the problem. If you choose not to send me the money, then you must be against fixing the problem. 

Your repetitive use of strawman arguing doesn't help your reputation either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Your repetitive use of strawman arguing doesn't help your reputation either. 

Ah yes. The standard response. 

Where is my $100? What we have is the equivalent of you sending $50, and me saying "that's not enough". I'm for some of the proposed gun regulations. But, people here say "that's not enough". 

I fail to see the difference. And nobody has made a compelling argument yet to convince me. The closest was one poster saying that the majority should rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Ah yes. The standard response. 

Where is my $100? What we have is the equivalent of you sending $50, and me saying "that's not enough". I'm for some of the proposed gun regulations. But, people here say "that's not enough". 

I fail to see the difference. And nobody has made a compelling argument yet to convince me. The closest was one poster saying that the majority should rule. 

Your repetitive behavior of doubling down on your logical fallacies  doesn't help your reputation either. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

Your repetitive behavior of doubling down on your logical fallacies  doesn't help your reputation either. 

Isn't this comment repetitive behavior on your part as well? 

You're not giving any explanation as to why it's wrong. You're just saying it's wrong. Sorry if I don't just take your word for it. I don't get the same courtesy when I say someone else is wrong.

With the echo chamber that is this place, posters here think if a few people just say a poster is wrong, then it must be right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Isn't this comment repetitive behavior on your part as well? 

You're not giving any explanation as to why it's wrong. You're just saying it's wrong. Sorry if I don't just take your word for it. I don't get the same courtesy when I say someone else is wrong.

With the echo chamber that is this place, posters here think if a few people just say a poster is wrong, then it must be right. 

I thought you wanted to know why, despite us both being opposed to gun bans, others don't attack me for my approach. They attack you for the reasons I have recently provided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

I thought you wanted to know why, despite us both being opposed to gun bans, others don't attack me for my approach. They attack you for the reasons I have recently provided. 

Right. You said doubling down on logical fallacies. I've pointed out that nobody gives a compelling reason why it's a logical fallacy. 

It's the same thing as your mother saying "don't sit so close to the TV, you'll ruin your eyesight" or "if you make that face, it will stay that way". She never gave the facts to back up her statements. 

You're not my Mom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Right. You said doubling down on logical fallacies. I've pointed out that nobody gives a compelling reason why it's a logical fallacy. 

It's the same thing as your mother saying "don't sit so close to the TV, you'll ruin your eyesight" or "if you make that face, it will stay that way". She never gave the facts to back up her statements. 

You're not my Mom. 

In the 440 pages of this thread I've read hundreds of overwhelmingly compelling arguments to your claims. 

Your repetitive denial, or ignorance, or whatever it is that blocks those overwhelmingly compelling arguments from registering in your head doesn't help your reputation either. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Who cares how much Beto has?

I have 1 of those listed I guess, but we don't really use it (locks).   I think you are an outlier that has that much security at your house, but I could be wrong.  

that's an interesting topic actually

in urban areas, people use their security don't you agree? 

I live in a rural zone, but my property backs to city .... and I lock my doors but if I don't, I'm not terribly worried, my dog will warn me, and I have a means of defense

If someone broke into your home ... what is your defense ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

If one weapon is a lot more effective at killing people and more likely to cause death by accident, then of course the weapon matters and should be considered as part of the discussion.  

 

any weapon can be effective - I'm telling you if these exceptionally few, violent people who are mass shooters figure out shotguns and buckshot its going to be a blood bath :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

Yes, I lock my doors at night. No, that doesn't have anything to do with guns. Anybody coming into my house or car, is not coming to kill me. They just want to rob me. I would not shoot somebody for robbing me.

you don't know that - maybe its rape they're after, maybe just rob, maybe they murder so there are no witnesses ?

you can only guess but hey, I'm glad you choose security of some sorts to protect yourself and family. I think that's a wise move. 

I choose a level above- a self protection gun. Is that ok ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Still don't get this obsession with how public figures or the rich secure themselves.   

they use high security systems, walls, barriers, even hired security and secure communities ............ and then turn right around and talk about open borders and how American's don't need to have a choice in means of self defense. 

I'd think that would be an obvious view ... its not is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

For the record, I am still an occasional smoker and I would be perfectly fine if tobacco was banned. I would never advocate for it, but I'd certainly be better off for it.

500,000 dead people, 40-50,000 from second hand smoke, billions in health care costs  and you STILL wouldn't ban it .... wow 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

Smoking bans are everywhere now. 

 

guess what ?

gun bans are everywhere too .... did you not know that? 

we even have age laws to buy, and laws saying don't use them to shoot other people etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

In the 440 pages of this thread I've read hundreds of overwhelmingly compelling arguments to your claims. 

Your repetitive denial, or ignorance, or whatever it is that blocks those overwhelmingly compelling arguments from registering in your head doesn't help your reputation either. 

BS. 

First off, there can't be hundreds. That would meant there are 200 different arguments to refute my claims. That's just ridiculous. And quite frankly, representative of how posters like yourself see things working here. 

Secondly, I think you admit that reputation plays a role in how information is processed. The echo chamber would never accept a differing opinion. Even if it's correct. Just because the majority of liberals here hold the same opinion, doesn't means it the correct opinion. It's actually pretty funny to witness. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

500,000 dead people, 40-50,000 from second hand smoke, billions in health care costs  and you STILL wouldn't ban it .... wow 

yeah, wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

guess what ?

gun bans are everywhere too .... did you not know that? 

we even have age laws to buy, and laws saying don't use them to shoot other people etc 

And the gun bans will increase over time, as banning is the only thing the people can do since the 2nd amendment doesn't allow the regulation of guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KCitons said:

BS. 

First off, there can't be hundreds. That would meant there are 200 different arguments to refute my claims. That's just ridiculous. And quite frankly, representative of how posters like yourself see things working here. 

That sounds about right, give or take a few dozen. 

20 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Secondly, I think you admit that reputation plays a role in how information is processed. The echo chamber would never accept a differing opinion. Even if it's correct. Just because the majority of liberals here hold the same opinion, doesn't means it the correct opinion. It's actually pretty funny to witness. 

No need for anyone to admit something that is a social construct. If you want people to take you seriously, establish and keep a good reputation with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

And the gun bans will increase over time, as banning is the only thing the people can do since the 2nd amendment doesn't allow the regulation of guns. 

Which Amendment is protecting cigarettes? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

That sounds about right, give or take a few dozen. 

No need for anyone to admit something that is a social construct. If you want people to take you seriously, establish and keep a good reputation with them. 

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Which Amendment is protecting cigarettes? 

 

None. Which is why they are both regulated and banned a lot. 

Guns can only be banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

yeah, wow

dead people don't matter

gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

None. Which is why they are both regulated and banned a lot. 

Guns can only be banned. 

and when 60 million citizens say no, we're not going to do that .... then what?

arrest 60 million American's ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

 

18 hours ago, -fish- said:

If a restriction decreases the type of violence that it is addressing,

good gawd

you seriously believe that without guns, people won't be violent .... that's unbelievable to me, it really is

 

That’s the opposite of what you quoted.  “The type of violence that it is addressing” specifically excludes all other violence.  You know why?  Because it’s about mass shootings with assault weapons.   

You don’t care what anyone says...you just repeat the same lies and fallacies.  It’s like talking to an NRA cartoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

and when 60 million citizens say no, we're not going to do that .... then what?

arrest 60 million American's ? 

This is one of the reasons I don't support gun bans. 

But while the 2nd amendment is applicable, bans are all the people can do, so they're going to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

/ That’s the opposite of what you quoted.  “The type of violence that it is addressing” specifically excludes all other violence.  You know why?  Because it’s about mass shootings with assault weapons.   

You don’t care what anyone says...you just repeat the same lies and fallacies.  It’s like talking to an NRA cartoon.

 

ok, there are no "assault" weapons ... any weapon can be used to assault people

you do understand that right? 

if you don't, then quit posting, stay submersed in your little world and move on maybe?

there are millions of semi-auto rifles out there - do you want to take them all , kinda like Beto has said?  why or why not? because you know 60% of mass shootings are done with handguns, and if these crazies can't use a semi-auto rifle they'll use shotguns or handguns

then what are you going to do ? ban all those ?  maybe ban all guns is the agenda you follow? can you be honest and say it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

None. Which is why they are both regulated and banned a lot. 

Guns can only be banned. 

Cigarettes aren't banned. They are banned from being used in a certain places. If I take a gun into a school or government building, without ever using it, I could be charged. If I walk into a restaurant with a pack of cigarettes, but don't smoke, nothing happens. 

There is a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

This is one of the reasons I don't support gun bans. 

But while the 2nd amendment is applicable, bans are all the people can do, so they're going to do it. 

I disagree

 

We can stop suckling violent people and say enough is enough - society can say we're not putting up with it anymore. Why can't we do that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Cigarettes aren't banned. They are banned from being used in a certain places. If I take a gun into a school or government building, without ever using it, I could be charged. If I walk into a restaurant with a pack of cigarettes, but don't smoke, nothing happens. 

There is a difference. 

Concealed carry isn't a right. It's a privilege. That's why it can be regulated, and is.

Open carrying a weapon is using a weapon. You don't have to fire it to be using it. Brandishing a weapon isn't firing it either. It's just another form of using it without firing, although one that produces a more extreme result than simply open carrying it. 

Gun bans don't let you use guns, just like smoking bans don't let you use cigarettes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, -fish- said:

That’s the opposite of what you quoted.  “The type of violence that it is addressing” specifically excludes all other violence.  You know why?  Because it’s about mass shootings with assault weapons.   

You don’t care what anyone says...you just repeat the same lies and fallacies.  It’s like talking to an NRA cartoon.

Minus the wit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

any weapon can be effective 

Not true.  You said yourself you couldn't defend your family with a baseball bat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Concealed carry isn't a right. It's a privilege. That's why it can be regulated, and is.

Open carrying a weapon is using a weapon. You don't have to fire it to be using it. Brandishing a weapon isn't firing it either. It's just another form of using it without firing, although one that produces a more extreme result than simply open carrying it. 

Gun bans don't let you use guns, just like smoking bans don't let you use cigarettes. 

Gun bans prohibit possession. Cigarette bans prohibit use. 

Walk into a gun free zone that also bans cigarettes, set a handgun and a pack of cigarettes on the table. Wait to see what you're charged with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

Not true.  You said yourself you couldn't defend your family with a baseball bat. 

sure I could - it'd be way better than nothing

but against someone with a knife? not good 

against someone with a gun? really not good

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

ok, there are no "assault" weapons ... any weapon can be used to assault people

you do understand that right? 

if you don't, then quit posting, stay submersed in your little world and move on maybe?

there are millions of semi-auto rifles out there - do you want to take them all , kinda like Beto has said?  why or why not? because you know 60% of mass shootings are done with handguns, and if these crazies can't use a semi-auto rifle they'll use shotguns or handguns

then what are you going to do ? ban all those ?  maybe ban all guns is the agenda you follow? can you be honest and say it ?

An assault weapon is defined by the legislation that addresses it.   Some may be more inclusive, some less, but they certainly exist, so it’s pointless for you to lie about it.

never in this thread have I proposed a gun ban of any kind, but you lie about that too. It’s just what you do, since your positions are based on lies and fallacies you have nothing else to rely on, except the occasional meaningless anecdote.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

sure I could - it'd be way better than nothing

but against someone with a knife? not good 

against someone with a gun? really not good

 

 

Maybe you could, but definitely not as well as you could with a gun though, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.