Do gun nuts still use the inanimate object debate for gun use?

Posted by: maslow

Why do gun nuts use the stupid inanimate object debate to promote gun ownership of unbalanced proportion?

11 Total Votes


10 votes


1 vote
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
maslow says2016-08-06T21:23:29.6518620Z
I’m reminded of another argument made by gun advocates to succinctly challenge all gun legislation: “Gun control doesn’t work because criminals don’t follow laws.’ I pointed out in an earlier post, that the problem with this argument is that, when iterated out to its logical extreme, it necessitates having no laws at all. We would be forced to live in anarchy if the only laws on the books were ones that everybody always followed. The same is true for the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. Yes, the ultimate cause of any crime is the underlying biochemistry that regulates human decision-making. But this says nothing about how proximate causes, such as firearms, influence said decision-making, or whether or not we should regulate such proximate causes.Guns may not kill people, but gun culture does.
maslow says2016-08-06T21:25:36.3714743Z
The purpose of a firearm is to kill—to kill at a distance, to kill with speed, to kill with maximum lethality. This is a weapon that has been optimized to extinguish life with the minimum amount of effort possible. And, for whatever reason, America has embraced a social norm that explicitly legitimizes these deaths by providing an unending laundry list of excuses whenever one happens: it was the irresponsible parents, the inadequate firearm training, the bad public policy, and so on. But it’s never the gun. And yet, somehow, the U.S. is responsible for 80% of all firearm deaths, 86% of all female firearm deaths, and 87% of all child firearm deaths in the developed world. It’s just a coincidence that we have the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world. That’s a lot of irresponsible parents.
harrytruman says2016-08-06T21:59:30.5723697Z
People should have a right to defend themselves, that's kind of part of being in a "free society." If you want to go somewhere with no liberty move to Venezuela where no one but a tyrannical government has guns, see how you like it...
Heterodox says2016-08-06T22:08:37.9244955Z
@harrytruman, From what I understand (correct me if I am wrong), they can also move to California?
Throwback says2016-08-06T22:14:49.2116355Z
@maslow...You are not taking it to its logical conclusion. You are comparing the banning of firearms, which our constitution specifically protects for a reason, to the outlawing of actions which in and of themselves are prohibited. Firearms are not in and of themselves illegal or harmful to society-in fact they can be quite beneficial to society, and our constitutional framers knew this. "Taking it to its logical extreme" is not the same as outlawing rape, murder, theft, treason, which are not indifferent activities UNTIL banned, as would be the case of banning firearms. That dog won't hunt, as the English professor would say.
maslow says2016-08-06T22:28:10.6447400Z
Throwback: It is blatantly obvious you are clueless about what I said. I did not advocate "no guns" or threaten your freedom to have guns, you Americans are so tunnel visioned that is all you hear if someone dares to say anything about you god damned guns. You can't even fathom any reasonable discussion of the epidemic of violence that all the guns bring by "accident" and constant exposure. And when has a gun wielding citizen stop any significant crime at home or in the community, hmmmmmmmmm? Um about zero. Germany has strict gum laws and we had 57 gun deaths last year in the whole country. I believe America had 301,797. So yeah your argument about guns make America safe are really valid.
Throwback says2016-08-06T22:32:49.9333303Z
@maslow...I will let your assertion that no armed citizen has ever stopped or prevented a violent crime stand for itself. That claim is completely baseless. I have personally witnessed this time and time again myself as a police officer. I really don't see any need to take offense at having been presented with the fact your comparison is a fallacy. I did understand it. Perhaps you didn't.
LucasTheLlama says2016-08-07T01:49:22.6368306Z
Guns are inanimate objects....
reece says2016-08-07T02:33:06.2616486Z
So is a nuke.
Throwback says2016-08-07T02:37:45.1056609Z
So is water. Therefor water should be banned. Or are you suggesting the U.S. should disarm in the face of a growing number of nuclear armed enemies who want to obliterate us? You are kind of making the case for firearm ownership of citizens and nuclear weapon ownership by nations.
reece says2016-08-07T02:39:46.5134143Z
The more powerful a weapon is, the more potential destruction is can cause.
Throwback says2016-08-07T02:42:51.0743448Z
Throwback says2016-08-07T02:43:20.3873085Z
reece says2016-08-07T02:45:57.1561902Z
Water isn't an inherent weapon. But a tool that can weaponize it, is. Developed countries are more stable than the average person.
Throwback says2016-08-07T02:47:55.2021933Z
The last time I checked, no one was claiming a citizen's constitutional right to a nuclear weapon just because it's an inanimate object. You compare firearms to nuclear weapons. Ask any soldier if they are the same thing. You are reaching and it's not working well.
reece says2016-08-07T02:50:39.0499972Z
@Throwback Read what I said again. Maslow is right, you have tunnel vision.
Throwback says2016-08-07T02:51:25.8998451Z
You would then ban weapons. You look silly in rose colored glasses. Again, read some history. Find out why the American populace was encouraged to remained armed. Not to mention the secondary benefit-the criminals aren't the only ones with guns when they are legal.
reece says2016-08-07T02:54:27.9814647Z
@Throwback It was to keep the southern states happy with their slaves.
reece says2016-08-07T02:56:56.1668146Z
Also to help quarrels between freemen.
Throwback says2016-08-07T02:57:22.6319052Z
You two write things and don't understand the implications of your own statements. The nuclear weapon straw man is ignorant and unthinking. It's old and boring. This is about the ownership of a specific inanimate object, a firearm-not nuclear weapons, or mustard gas, or aircraft carriers, or any other stupid straw man. I have had many an attorney try to use the tactics you are using in court-it's always a sign they have lost their case and are floundering. As in court, so here; it bores the hell out of me.
Throwback says2016-08-07T03:00:05.5770387Z
You didn't read any actual history. Nicely done. Since you are now spewing out and out lies about American history, I'll leave you to type your comments in private with one hand while you use the other hand for, whatever it is you do with it.
maslow says2016-08-07T03:06:38.2833906Z
Throwback: In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed a M-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved. Those pesky facts haven't stopped the "arm America more!" crowd from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions. The problem is, the few examples they keep using—in which they depict plain old folks acting heroically and with definitive results—fall apart under scrutiny.
maslow says2016-08-07T03:09:13.8651825Z
And AGAIN throwback you are focused on gun bans and NO ONE has uttered that but you? You are the one who has not got a fucking clue. And if you are in law enforcement, I assume you will be on TV for shooting an un armed citizen with their hands up.
reece says2016-08-07T03:09:18.4039725Z
@Throwback I was appealing to an extreme to make a point. Firearms are a destructive force.
maslow says2016-08-07T03:11:30.3366069Z
Throwback I guess your over 300,000 gun deaths in America are inconsequential to your culture ? It sure as hell doesn't sound like all those armed people make America safe to me?
maslow says2016-08-07T03:15:52.7024523Z
Reece: you made a compelling argument. Throwback doesn't hear anything but, "we are coming for yer gunz" After that his redneck mentality kicks in and he goes deaf. His gun is connected to his penis size somehow by a biological mystery. And his claim to law enforcement is down right scary and nauseating. I thought you country scrutinized your law enforcement more than that? Oh well, shoot 'em up America, it makes for great folly on our news channels over here.
Conservatism says2016-08-07T04:03:59.0075571Z
Maslow your argument is extremely flawed. You're talking like you understand criminals and believe LAWS will stop criminals. Why don't you have a debate about guns with someone knowledgeable on the topic.
maslow says2016-08-07T04:22:26.5352553Z
Conservatism: My theory is not flawed and you haven't proven it otherwise.
maslow says2016-08-07T04:26:36.6236646Z
Throwback you haven't proved anything except you are a dolt and do not understand the basic question. You still base you "argument" on civilians owning guns and that is not the issue. It is whether the gun culture in America is contributing to the highest violence in the industrial nations and whether or not armed citizens have EVER really helped law enforcement which stats say NO. You have not addressed this all you have done is act upset that I have pounded you hillbilly leanings into the ground. You are not a debater or intelligent or unbiased about this topic so make your own poll and go at it Ringo. I am already sick of your incompetent blathering
Dilara says2016-08-07T04:39:03.9016947Z
Maslow "when iterated out to its logical extreme, it necessitates having no laws at all." Having guns be legal is something law abiding people can benefit from. Having murder or rape be legal is not something law abiding people can benefit from. Here are some cases of guns benefiting law abiding people. Guns are used to kill, injure and scare criminals. They can be used for good but also for bad. This is why they should be harder to get. People should know how to use them and not be irresponsible with them. Guns do make protection easier and they make murder easier. I should also note that 66% of gun deaths in the US are suicides. 75% of gun murders in the US are gang related. There are many reasons for all these gang shootings.
maslow says2016-08-07T04:47:25.6304835Z
Dilara: as usual I can depend on you to read something and not comprehend what it means. "Logical extremes". Referring to the phrase prior to that, "Gun control doesn't work because criminals don't follow laws". A statement made everytime gun control laws are mentioned. So that in logic would negate gun laws, IDIOT. You and THROWBACK don't get the fact that guns are in proximity of emotional, non coping, ill trained people that causes MORE gun fatalities! God how fucking simple can I make it. You are so blinded about having an arsenal at your disposal, you can't even think about it any other rational way. And citizens with guns are ineffectual.
maslow says2016-08-07T04:50:33.2240910Z
Throwback If you indeed were an effective law man you would not want emotional, ill trained, non coping, citizens with weaponry that they are unfamiliar with out in public shooting up at a crime scene confusing who is the perpetrator and who is a "good guy". That is grossly irresponsible on you as a professional. I don't know what type of "law enforcement" you claim to be, but you do not sound like you are well trained, educated and the type of professional I have ever dealt with over there.
Dilara says2016-08-07T04:51:04.8759163Z
Maslow .We have 30,000 gun deaths a year not 300,000. And 20,000 of those gun deaths are suicides. 7000 of the 10,000 gun murders we have are gang related. There are many reasons why Germany has less gun deaths than us. And in my last comment to you I gave several examples of guns being used to prevent crimes in America. Here are some more.[/youtube[/youtube I recommend you skim through these stories and decide if the guns made the heroes safer or not. Guns are used to prevent crimes very often in America. Due to the migrant crime wave Germans and Austrians are applying for gun permits at high rates. Hopefully they'll be able to protect them selves like people here are.
maslow says2016-08-07T04:53:49.5850671Z
Dilara: As usual you are wrong and your resources are not viable, so do not send me a bunch of crap YouTube shit. Okay? People do not need nor want guns like Americans, face it your country is a shit hole.
Dilara says2016-08-07T04:54:24.7755977Z
Throwback Maslow does not know anything about guns, America or crime if she thinks that guns are never used to prevent crime. Guns are used to prevent crime. I gave her several examples. Hopefully she'll skim through them and see for herself why gun rights are important.
maslow says2016-08-07T04:57:13.7461932Z
Dilara Shut up. Name ONE TIME you have used a gun to protect yourself from something real and not a hallucination
Dilara says2016-08-07T04:59:27.1911594Z
Maslow Guns are used to prevent mass shootings.
Dilara says2016-08-07T05:01:04.1938248Z
"and if you are in law enforcement, I assume you will be on TV for shooting an un armed citizen with their hands up." Nice generalization.
maslow says2016-08-07T05:02:18.9192618Z
LIAR.Such actions in chaotic situations don't just put the well-intentioned citizen at risk, of course. According to Robert McMenomy, an assistant special agent in charge in the San Francisco division of the FBI, they increase the danger for innocent bystanders. (Exhibit A: the gun-wielding guy who came really close to shooting an innocent person as the Tucson massacre unfolded.) They also make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to do their jobs. "In a scenario like that," McMenomy told me recently, "they wouldn't know who was good or who was bad, and it would divert them from the real threat."
maslow says2016-08-07T05:07:54.4973151Z
THROWBACK: A long time ago, I suggested a new logical fallacy, a reverse, if you will, on the argumentum ad populum fallacy, in which ideas are rejected solely because they are unpopular. I’ve seen many people arguing this recently and I thought I ought to expand and expound on my ideas. Therefore, I present the “stupid people are stupid” fallacy for your approval. Ultimately, the heart of this fallacy, and it applies specifically to human behavior, is that the individual will reject any idea as inherently unworkable in any social situation because “stupid people are stupid”, or, that people make foolish decisions and therefore, holding anyone accountable to any standard which they might not choose themselves, is useless.
reece says2016-08-07T05:25:14.1206524Z
reece says2016-08-07T05:41:16.8964240Z
@Throwback What If I told you Jesus actually more looked like this
Throwback says2016-08-07T05:59:58.7537958Z
I'd say that's probably close.
reece says2016-08-07T06:56:28.8081879Z
I'm proud of you.
Throwback says2016-08-07T07:00:34.4037108Z
For which?
Dilara says2016-08-07T18:11:57.2976645Z
Maslow. Anti gun laws can negativity effect law abiding people. Anti rape laws don't. I support laws that make them harder for mentally ill or criminal people to get. I just don't think they should be banned. You made many ignorant statements. You say that citizens with guns are ineffectual. Not true. I have gave you several examples of guns in America being used by citizens to stop crimes. Here is a case where an elderly man shot an intruder who kicked in his door. Here is a case where a college student scared two intruders away and saved her boy friend with a gun. Here is a case where a man with a concealed gun stopped a shooting. Here is a case where a man prevented a robber by puling out his hand gun. Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=VFT_2ZOgVQg Here is a case where an armed farmer chased three thieves from his farm. There have been several cases where citizens with guns stopped or prevented mass shootings. Recently in S C a man tried to shoot up a bar but a man with a concealed gun shot him and stopped the shooting. Police can't often come i time so it was good tat in these cases there were armed people who could stop the shootings. These are all local news stories showing cases where guns in America were used to prevent crimes. Since Germany is experiencing a migrant crime wave maybe its law abiding citizens could use some guns. People in Germany are now applying for guns at high rates so they can protect them selves from terrorist attacks and migrant criminals. I have never used a gun to protect my self and hopefully I won't ever need to. But other people in America have used guns to protect them selves.
Dilara says2016-08-07T18:12:54.4876311Z
Reece. Whats wrong with deporting illegal immigrants?
Dilara says2016-08-07T23:00:49.6592905Z
Maslow is just mad that she lost the argument. I gave her facts that prove her wrong so she's lashing out. She doesnt want to read what I wrote because she does not want to be wrong. All she has are ad hominen attacks while me and throwback have actual facts. Maslow is an aggressive, hostile, intolerant person who can't handle facts that don't fit her narrative. I hope she has fun being a victim of a migrant criminal and not having a gun to defend her self.
Dilara says2016-08-07T23:04:03.0693303Z
Facts that don't fit your narrative are not harassment. This is your way of compensating for a weak argument.
Throwback says2016-08-07T23:07:16.6566301Z
I just got another personalized friend request from my pet stalker, maslow. She really does love me!
maslow says2016-08-07T23:13:34.3449923Z
Throwback is a immature TROLL. He has no coping skills. He claims to be a grown man in Law Enforcement, but no Law Enforcement would take someone with such a low threshold to "stress" or he would be shooting people for sticking their tongues out at him. He is not very bright, you can tell in the grammar he uses, the context, and syntax. He has no problem solving skills and has had little to no exposure to different cultures, creeds, races, or ethnic groups. I have tried to reason with him but his temper tantrum gets worse. This escalation is certain proof of child like behavior, not that of a man and certainly not that of a professional law man who has been trained to deal with a diverse public. I don't know what this "person's" problem is except his real identity lies in his gun obsession and his inability to discuss anything pragmatic about guns safety. He is dangerous to himself and to Debate.Org. I will not communicate with him further and it appears Debate.Org is not going to do anything about him harassing me.
Throwback says2016-08-08T00:03:37.1168377Z
@maslow....A 4th friend request from my pet stalker? Wow ;)
Throwback says2016-08-08T02:05:51.8630878Z
@maslow....To address the OP's convincing argument in favor of her position, she refers to me as a troll. So, you post a poll and, in the description, as well as your lead off comment, you clearly stake out a position. You quickly have your a$$ handed to you, thus proving the a$$ hander is a troll. If you can't take the heat....
Dilara says2016-08-08T02:27:30.4041212Z
Maslow. You're the one using ad hominen attacks while Throwback is using facts and logic. You're being immature, not him. You seem to have had little exposure to different ideas and you are very intolerant of them. I gave you facts that didn't fit your agenda and you lashed out and called me names. If anything you're dangerous. DDO is not going to do anything about Throwback harassing you because he didn't harass you.
maslow says2016-08-08T04:09:24.1273125Z
Dilara since you have decided to join in with throw back I am reporting you as well.
maslow says2016-08-08T04:19:35.1946500Z
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Throwback says2016-08-08T04:23:57.8157285Z
You have a difficult time admitting error and defeat, don't you Mr. Trump. I'm sure Dilara is as frightened as am I. I have faced some fearful situations before; none compares to the fear of repercussions from you for destroying your argument.
maslow says2016-08-08T04:30:00.3909285Z
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.Everyone's heard it, a lot of people believe it, and some even think it settles the whole gun control debate. (After all, that’s why it’s the NRA’s slogan, and why people brandish it on bumper stickers and post it endlessly on facebook.) Others, however, think the argument is terrible. Interestingly, however, I can’t find a solid consensus regarding what exactly is wrong with it. Some think it begs the question, others think it equivocates, still others think it merely oversimplifies the issue. Consequently, especially as a logician, I think it’s an argument worth some examination. So let us turn to the argument itself: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” The first thing to notice is that the argument has no stated conclusion. What follows? Since the argument is usually given in the context of a discussion about gun regulation, by gun advocates, I assume the conclusion has something to do with that. But what exactly? That there should be no gun regulation at all? That there should not be more gun regulation than there is? That the increase in mass killings done with guns is irrelevant to whether or not there should be gun regulations? Who knows? And an argument without an obvious conclusion is hardly an argument at all.In any event, it doesn't matter because no conclusion about gun regulation logically follows from these two statements. To understand why, let me articulate the difference between ultimate, intermediate, and proximate causes. Consider the words you are looking at right now. What "caused" the words to appear as they are appearing to you right now? You might say that I, the author, did – but that is not the whole story. The whole story is long and includes my fingers typing on a keyboard, the creation of an MSWord document, me posting the words on my blog, etc. There is a long "causal chain" standing between my intention to type these words and the emission of light from your screen to your eyes. The causal chain starts with me – I am the ultimate cause. Other subsequent links in the chain—my typing, Justin’s postings, your clicking—are “intermediate causes." And the light emitting from your screen is the proximate cause—the thing or event most immediately responsible for your current experience.The argument under consideration clarifies that, when it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes – the end of a causal chain that started with a person deciding to murder. But nothing follows from these facts about whether or not guns should be regulated. Such facts are true for all criminal activity, and even noncriminal activity that harms others: The ultimate cause is found in some decision that a person made; the event, activity or object that most directly did the harming was only a proximate cause. But this tells us nothing about whether or not the proximate cause in question should be regulated or made illegal.Obviously cars should not be illegal, but notice that this has nothing to do with the fact that they are proximate causes. Of course, they should be regulated; I shouldn't be allowed to go onto the highway in a car with no brakes. But all of that has to do what cars are for (they are not made for killing people), what role they play in society (it couldn't function without them), etc. It's a complicated issue—one to which pointing out that that cars are merely proximate causes to some deaths contributes nothing. So clearly the argument under consideration, and any other argument that merely points out that guns are proximate causes (e.G., "stop blaming the guns and start blaming the person") is fallacious. Since people can't seem to agree on what fallacy such arguments employ, I would like to give a name to the mistake I have identified within them: "the fallacy of mistaking the relevance of proximate causation."So, should all guns be illegal? After all, like the bazooka, they do make killing people in mass easier to accomplish. Then again, like cars, using them for mass murder is not their intended function. Most people agree that they should at least be regulated (at the least, most think that all gun sales should require a background check). But how strictly should they be regulated? Perhaps very strictly. After all, states with stricter gun regulations have fewer gun related deaths. Then again, there may be philosophical issues related to the protection of liberty that trump such utilitarian concerns. It’s a complicated issue. And that’s my point: It’s a complicated issue. There are lots of relevant factors involved, but the fact that guns are proximate causes isn't one of them. So the next time quotes the NRA slogan, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," in an attempt to end a discussion about gun control, do me a favor: point out that they have “mistaken the relevance of proximate causation,” pause briefly to enjoy the confused look on their face, and then patiently explain the fallacy to them.So for about the Third time this is a detailed explanation of my stance on the inanimate object argument, of which NO ONE on this comment site has answered nor understood all went straight to taking away guns all the way to people not having guns to protect yourselves...None of which is relevant to the topic. So if one of you..Anybody..Has the comprehension skills of a fifth grader perhaps you can read this thoroughly and answer the question at hand and not go off on a Republican tirade TrumpaLumpas.
maslow says2016-08-08T04:35:20.5191016Z
AGAIN my argument in great detail has been presented, have you mustered up the bravado to actually read and comprehend it's content and offer a VIABLE retort?
Throwback says2016-08-08T04:36:42.1544249Z
Just more of the same condescending, self important nonsense. The only difference is that you have now succeeded in being verbose as opposed to concise. Congratulations! If I don't respond in the future to you who have posted hate filled, profanity laced friend requests to me, will you still love me?
Heterodox says2016-08-08T15:33:49.5189461Z
@maslow Is your issue with guns or with deaths? Because if you only look at gun related deaths and not other causes of deaths, it makes me think your issue is with guns.
maslow says2016-08-08T20:10:40.3552475Z
Heterox: My issue is exactly what was said in my paragraph: The inanimate object argument about guns. So no it isn't about death or actually the "gun" issue..It is the inane debate gun nuts use about a gun being an inanimate object.Now this has been said at least four times on this post, the title of the post reveals this and I have had several post rebuking the subject matter to others on the subject matter, so tell me...What is so hard about understanding the subject of this post. Common sense tells me that either you people cannot read and comprehend or you are so blinded by your gun owning fears you cannot discuss a simple matter without going Trumpian. I am done with this topic because not one person has had the ability to understand the topic but to rattle on about how civilian gun owners are wild west saviors of the public since your law enforcement is so woefully inept. Thank you for your interest, but not in this topic you do not get.
Throwback says2016-08-08T23:39:23.7267783Z
@Heterodox....I'm afraid you are outmatched. Any attempt you make forcefully and intentionally to out dumb the OP will fall short of her instinctive talent. You must surrender the field to the haughty and the educated idiots. We've all seen them-those who think having an education erases a lifetime of inability to think; it does not, but they are unable to understand and accept it because they rely on their education and, well, and education does not erase a lifetime of inability to think. Very stupid people with expensive plaques on their walls.
maslow says2016-08-09T00:38:10.2514500Z
Throwback: your banter is quite impressive. You have been able to broach every topic concerning how you are ever the victim and dodge the real topic with quite some ease and a bit of eloquence. However, the constant barrage of your allure to the pity party is redundant and childish. In effect you have actually said nothing but tried to bully me because i simply bested you about a topic. I freely admit I was mean to you thinking you were being a character. But it took a dark turn quite quickly. You have absolutely no coping skills so your dangerous competitive, "EVERYBODY HAS TO BE ON MY SIDE" little kid views came shining through. So, I am so very sorry Throw back, I no longer wish to engage with you because you have a plethora of personality defects and an insidious hatred for those of us who have worked tirelessly to become highly educated as if that is something bad? Pffft. So Bravo Throwback, your temper tantrum has paid off.
triangle.128k says2016-08-09T05:24:03.1245066Z
@Throwback Nice job at driving this failed troll off the website.
Conservatism says2016-08-09T05:28:14.8333512Z
See ya later, fuckwad.
triangle.128k says2016-08-09T05:46:50.0126916Z
I seriously wonder if maslow was that stupid, or she was just a failed troll.
Throwback says2016-08-09T12:26:01.4770940Z
@triangle.128k....I think both. People who protest so vehemently of your inferior intellect are generally projecting onto you their own failings. Not to mention typical troll behavior-the initial offering in the poll is an attack against all who disagree. Then when one disagrees civilly while obliterating her failed argument, the troll comes out from under the bridge.
reece says2016-08-09T13:59:09.2351231Z
@Throwback Do you know why one of your replies got deleted?
Polyester says2016-08-09T18:28:00.6760168Z
@maslow If you take ANYTHING to the extreme, it becomes lunacy. You're point isn't valid. As for the abundance of guns being a problem, explain Switzerland. 31% to 61% of the households in the country have guns according to the Small Arms Survey (http://www.Smallarmssurvey.Org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.Html). If guns are a problem, then why isn't Switzerland having this problem?
Polyester says2016-08-09T18:28:27.8267530Z
@maslow If you take ANYTHING to the extreme, it becomes lunacy. Your point isn't valid. As for the abundance of guns being a problem, explain Switzerland. 31% to 61% of the households in the country have guns according to the Small Arms Survey (http://www.Smallarmssurvey.Org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.Html). If guns are a problem, then why isn't Switzerland having this problem?
Polyester says2016-08-09T18:28:51.6577972Z
@maslow If you take ANYTHING to the extreme, it becomes lunacy. Your point isn't valid. As for the abundance of guns being a problem, explain Switzerland. 31% to 61% of the households in the country have guns according to the Small Arms Survey (http://www.Smallarmssurvey.Org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.Html). If guns are a problem, then why isn't Switzerland having this problem?
Throwback says2016-08-09T23:02:05.1223914Z
@reece: nope, but if it was supposed to offend me, it didn't. I still slam dunked maslow's position.
reece says2016-08-09T23:15:11.5037725Z
@Throwback You're a confident one aren't you.
Throwback says2016-08-09T23:24:49.3199362Z
Throwback says2016-08-10T03:14:58.3893617Z
@reece....It would appear maslow agrees with that she was bested, and doesn't know how to admit it. And it's not confidence in myself. Her arguments were astoundingly weak. She has been bested in every discussion I have seen thus far. I've been awaiting my daily profanity-laced love letters and have none. Wondering why I am being deprived of her sailor's mouth, I clicked on her name: "maslow's account is no longer active" Peace out, nutjob!
reece says2016-08-19T08:26:08.9794875Z
@Throwback You were probably harassing her.
Throwback says2016-08-19T12:11:40.6713726Z
@Reece: We've gotten over it. That was 10 days ago.
Shelby17 says2018-03-25T04:04:53.4546085Z
Mexico has some of the most strict gun control laws in the world and they have more deaths on average than the US does. Unless you go back in time and make guns not be a thing then there is no getting rid of them and keeping them out of the hands of criminals.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.