10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Sevvania]

I could also make the case that, because I was well taught how to drive I won't have a car accident because I am always careful. Doesn't mean I won't get into a car accident ever.

It's much easier to have a car accident than a gun accident, because when you operate a car, you're almost invariably around other people who are doing the same, where a delayed reaction, misjudgement, or random event which you have no control over can lead to (a) high speed collision(s).

When you operate a firearm, you're generally not surrounded by people who are shooting beside you, in front of you, behind you, and in your general direction. You're generally not on a public road, but on private property. If you abide by three or four basic rules, the safety of yourself and those around you is almost guaranteed. The same is not true for cars.

[Uxupox]

TBH this kind of attitude feels like as paranoid as those most extreme arguments for gun ownership for self-defence.

It is the truth though, I mean look at New Zealand, they are pretty much a nation with similar standards of living and a somewhat similar culture, the only difference is their population doesn't carry around guns in their pants, don't get me wrong there are people there who still love guns and stuff like that, but when you are found out to be carrying a gun, you'll be treated in the same way a Jihadist would be treated while carrying a bomb in downtown Washington D.C.

So if I have a gun I am advocating for murderer and rape in New Zealand?

[BK117B2]

It's a failure of the US as a country that people feel so in fear of their surroundings that a gun is not simply considered a luxury item by many but a necessity to ensure their safety. The entire nation should see that as an embarrassment.

Why should it be embarrassing to acknowledge that our country shares the same problem as the rest of the countries: that some people choose to attack others?

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

It is the truth though, I mean look at New Zealand, they are pretty much a nation with similar standards of living and a somewhat similar culture, the only difference is their population doesn't carry around guns in their pants, don't get me wrong there are people there who still love guns and stuff like that, but when you are found out to be carrying a gun, you'll be treated in the same way a Jihadist would be treated while carrying a bomb in downtown Washington D.C.

So if I have a gun I am advocating for murderer and rape in New Zealand?

Assuming you don't have the proper documentation, then yes, yes that is the case.
I mean if the Tsarnaev brothers said to Boston prior to the bombing, hey we got these bombs, but don't worry they won't go off till the end of the race, would you still go knowing it's there but then leave before it exploded?

[BK117B2]

The fact is that you still are not answering me. Why pretend like you've already done it rather than just actually do it?

How could confiscating personal property not be accrately described as a punishment?

the idea that not letting people have weapons openly is a punishment is a fallacy

i am actually just going to copy + paste my post from last page verbatim (it fits perfectly, how strange) in the hopes you will see how fucking stupid this entire thing was

So you still prefer straw men to actually responding to posts.

That's your fault.

[Alyakia]

the idea that not letting people have weapons openly is a punishment is a fallacy

i am actually just going to copy + paste my post from last page verbatim (it fits perfectly, how strange) in the hopes you will see how fucking stupid this entire thing was

So you still prefer straw men to actually responding to posts.

That's your fault.

it's not a strawman you are now literally calling it punishment in the above posts

has anyone ever told you that you're no where near as smart as you think you are?

[BK117B2]

That sure is a lot of typing just to avoid answering. Let me know if you ever have anything to actually say

The fact is that you still are not answering me. Why pretend like you've already done it rather than just actually do it?

How could confiscating personal property not be accrately described as a punishment?

i hate to go caps but NOW WE ARE AT THE SAME FUCKING POINT WE WERE 2 PAGES AGO BACK WHEN WE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS POINT BECAUSE WE ALREADY FUCKING KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE IT BUT YOU DECIDED TO WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME WITH THIS BULLSHIT

So you are again making up falsehoods about what you know. I notice the fact that you still refuse to answer even a simple question in favor of whining, creating straw men, and then whining some more about the results of your own choices

[Uxupox]

So if I have a gun I am advocating for murderer and rape in New Zealand?

Assuming you don't have the proper documentation, then yes, yes that is the case.
I mean if the Tsarnaev brothers said to Boston prior to the bombing, hey we got these bombs, but don't worry they won't go off till the end of the race, would you still go knowing it's there but then leave before it exploded?

Might as well get arrested for trying to defend myself. I PLEAD GUILTY YOUR HONOR.

[BK117B2]

So you still prefer straw men to actually responding to posts.

That's your fault.

it's not a strawman you are now literally calling it punishment in the above posts

has anyone ever told you that you're no where near as smart as you think you are?

Ah, so you were choosing to operate under the dumb assumption that gun control = confiscating property.

You have no one to blame for that other than yourself

[Alyakia]

i hate to go caps but NOW WE ARE AT THE SAME FUCKING POINT WE WERE 2 PAGES AGO BACK WHEN WE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS POINT BECAUSE WE ALREADY FUCKING KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE IT BUT YOU DECIDED TO WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME WITH THIS BULLSHIT

So you are again making up falsehoods about what you know. I notice the fact that you still refuse to answer even a simple question in favor of whining, creating straw men, and then whining some more about the results of your own choices

how about this: we know you were about to make it because you literally just made it 5-6 posts above.

the answer is no. now this is the hard part. do not make the argument that not letting people have guns is punishment (like you did above) or else you will have proven me completely right (again). have fun!

[Alyakia]

it's not a strawman you are now literally calling it punishment in the above posts

has anyone ever told you that you're no where near as smart as you think you are?

Ah, so you were choosing to operate under the dumb assumption that gun control = confiscating property.

You have no one to blame for that other than yourself

"How could confiscating personal property not be accrately described as a punishment?"

oh my fucking god i am seriously at wits end with this ridiculous charade

yeah you decided to talk about fucking chairs or some shit in the middle of a goddamn gun thread no way was the personal property obviously a reference to guns

[Alvecia]

You know, every argument I've seen you in you accuse the other of attacking a straw man.

I think the straw man is your straw man.

[BK117B2]

So you are again making up falsehoods about what you know. I notice the fact that you still refuse to answer even a simple question in favor of whining, creating straw men, and then whining some more about the results of your own choices

how about this: we know you were about to make it because you literally just made it 5-6 posts above.

the answer is no. now this is the hard part. do not make the argument that not letting people have guns is punishment (like you did above) or else you will have proven me completely right (again). have fun!

So your answer to multiple questions, not all of which were yes or no, is "no"

How did you think that made any sense?

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Assuming you don't have the proper documentation, then yes, yes that is the case.
I mean if the Tsarnaev brothers said to Boston prior to the bombing, hey we got these bombs, but don't worry they won't go off till the end of the race, would you still go knowing it's there but then leave before it exploded?

Might as well get arrested for trying to defend myself. I PLEAD GUILTY YOUR HONOR.

Well in New Zealand there is nothing to defend yourself from, unless you think that nature and unarmed civilians are a threat, in which point you are probably physically weak and should stay at home or better, in a hospital.
Seriously, guns kill people, since they were invented just for that purpose, to hurt, maim, injure or kill anything, guns have never healed anyone, only hurt or kill such was the point of their creation, so I tend to stay away from people who own them, you know just in case they're not of sound mind (which statistically speaking is becoming a recurrent occurrence in the States lately).

[Alyakia]

how about this: we know you were about to make it because you literally just made it 5-6 posts above.

the answer is no. now this is the hard part. do not make the argument that not letting people have guns is punishment (like you did above) or else you will have proven me completely right (again). have fun!

So your answer to multiple questions, not all of which were yes or no, is "no"

How did you think that made any sense?

this entire argument has been over your punishment question

can you literally not read your own posts?

[BK117B2]

You know, every argument I've seen you in you accuse the other of attacking a straw man.

I think the straw man is your straw man.

There are a few people here who have a bad habit of creating those. Obviously not something over which I have any control

[BK117B2]

So your answer to multiple questions, not all of which were yes or no, is "no"

How did you think that made any sense?

this entire argument has been over your punishment question

can you literally not read your own posts?

So you still will not answer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your argument that it is a punishment is quite unreasonable.

Trying to minimize the ownership of guns so that some idiot doesn't get their hands on a gun is hardly comparable to putting innocent people at risk.

You're being dishonest by claiming that your straw man is my argument.

Why don't you try responding to my actual post? Why won't you answer me question?

I already did.

I don't think it is a punishment to regulate weapons.

[Alyakia]

this entire argument has been over your punishment question

can you literally not read your own posts?

So you still will not answer.

the answer is no. it was a yes/no question. i literally gave you answer. go back and read.

[BK117B2]

Ah, so you were choosing to operate under the dumb assumption that gun control = confiscating property.

You have no one to blame for that other than yourself

"How could confiscating personal property not be accrately described as a punishment?"

oh my fucking god i am seriously at wits end with this ridiculous charade

yeah you decided to talk about fucking chairs or some shit in the middle of a goddamn gun thread no way was the personal property obviously a reference to guns

It wasn't a reference to anything. I was going to discuss firearms after settling a couple basic issues, but you were so unwilling to answer or discuss my statements that we never got to that part.

[Alvecia]

You know, every argument I've seen you in you accuse the other of attacking a straw man.

I think the straw man is your straw man.

There are a few people here who have a bad habit of creating those. Obviously not something over which I have any control

If you say so. Just be aware that the more you shout straw man the more it looks like you are the one avoiding the question.

[Alyakia]

"How could confiscating personal property not be accrately described as a punishment?"

oh my fucking god i am seriously at wits end with this ridiculous charade

yeah you decided to talk about fucking chairs or some shit in the middle of a goddamn gun thread no way was the personal property obviously a reference to guns

It wasn't a reference to anything. I was going to discuss firearms after settling a couple basic issues, but you were so unwilling to answer or discuss my statements that we never got to that part.

we went straight to that part. but you decided you had to waste pages not bothering on the off chance i am actually literally north korea.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

The fact that there is a risk it might happen puts it at odds with what I have to prove.

I only have to make a case for a risk to exist, not that there are statistics.

I could also make the case that, because I was well taught how to drive I won't have a car accident because I am always careful. Doesn't mean I won't get into a car accident ever.

Just because their is a risk of something happening doesn't mean it does happen. The risk of what you propose is incredibly low, because most people can control themselves to not go homicidal (evidenced by the fact that their are only about 12,000 homicides in a nation of 310,000,000).

Only? With that statistic you could depopulate the Vatican every year.

[Sevvania]

Well in New Zealand there is nothing to defend yourself from, unless you think that nature and unarmed civilians are a threat, in which point you are probably physically weak

The weak have as much a right to self-defense as anyone else.

Seriously, guns kill people, since they were invented just for that purpose, to hurt, maim, injure or kill anything, guns have never healed anyone, only hurt or killm such was the point of their creation

Guns can kill people. Guns can also protect people. They can also be used in olympic sporting events or backyard plinking. They can be used to clear build-up in kilns, they can be used to signal distress, they can be used to obtain food and control pests. The notion that a gun can only kill is not based in reality.

[BK117B2]

So you still will not answer.

the answer is no. it was a yes/no question. i literally gave you answer. go back and read.

It is singular. There were multiple questions. I'm not sure why you're getting confused by this easy concept