White guy kills multiple people in black church
Dox47 wrote:
Let me ask you again, what do you know about guns? I'm an accredited expert, Raptor has years of experience and a demonstrated knowledge base, AspieUtah backs his contentions up with citations; you make pithy comments... See the problem yet?
Raptor makes pithy comments about liberals being sheep and posts images, AspieUtah is more levelheaded but posts infowars-esque biased sources and you like to cherry pick my statements.I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
Fugu wrote:
it's selling a book on the front page, and the language used throughout the site and the report is partisan, hence it's biased. try again.
Biased does not mean wrong, even if I were to grant you that it is biased, which I am not. Rush Limbaugh is biased, but if he said the sky was blue, I'd believe him.
Also, you use tons of biased language when discussing firearms, much of it lifted directly from the anti-gun movement, so under your "logic" we should all just be writing you off as yet another partisan shill talking out of his ass, not to be taken seriously, which I suppose wouldn't be unreasonable in this particular case.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
it must be really depressing to be so insecure that you need multiple weapons. my condolences Raptor.
Not as depressing as being so thoughtless that you substitute feeble personal attacks for debate.
I've seen nothing in your posts that indicates seriousness. Spewing hyperbole certainly isn't to be taken seriously. You're just not worth anything more than cheap shots......
And citations by virtue of being citations are always factual and totally unbiased, eh?
You're last "citation" that I actually bothered to read, the one about Heckler & Koch, was obviously written by a peacenik about peaceniks with a general beef with the armaments industry in general (go figure ). About all it did for me is make me think about buying another HK.
It was a rather hollow article telling me what I already know, sans the parts that were false, about the company. It did nothing to prove your claim that H&K has neonazi ties.
Name calling? If calling the peacenik author of a peacenik article a peacenik is name calling then I guess i'm guilty as charged.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Fugu wrote:
I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
No, you think this, and you're wrong on it, as anyone who actually works with guns could tell you, and in fact are telling you. You have no knowledge of the subject and merely present your opinions as facts with no supporting argumentation or evidence, despite multiple people with vast experience with firearms, including someone who actually has studied the subject academically and has the degree to prove it, telling you otherwise.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Fugu wrote:
Raptor makes pithy comments about liberals being sheep and posts images.
You accuse me of making "pithy" comments......Quote:
I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
.....then in the same breath make one yourself.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Raptor makes pithy comments about liberals being sheep and posts images.
You accuse me of making "pithy" comments......Quote:
I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
.....then in the same breath make one yourself.that's not a pithy comment.
Raptor wrote:
peacenik peacenik peacenik
Dox47 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
No, you think this, and you're wrong on it, as anyone who actually works with guns could tell you, and in fact are telling you. You have no knowledge of the subject and merely present your opinions as facts with no supporting argumentation or evidence, despite multiple people with vast experience with firearms, including someone who actually has studied the subject academically and has the degree to prove it, telling you otherwise.
Fugu wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
No, you think this, and you're wrong on it, as anyone who actually works with guns could tell you, and in fact are telling you. You have no knowledge of the subject and merely present your opinions as facts with no supporting argumentation or evidence, despite multiple people with vast experience with firearms, including someone who actually has studied the subject academically and has the degree to prove it, telling you otherwise.
Collectibles. I know firearm collectors who specialize in late 1800s firearms. Some of which appear very Steampunk. Now, they probably could be carried and fired even today, but that would damage their value. So, some firearms, at least, are works of mechanical art, and nothing more. Then, they can also serve as forensic examples for firearm designers, armorers and gunsmiths.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
Fugu wrote:
Ok then, what are guns if not weapons? i've asked this at least 3 times and have yet to receive an answer that wasn't semantic dancing.
From the very first paragraph of my first post in this thread that you responded to:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=288062&start=180#p6663679
Dox47 wrote:
*sigh*
Unless there is someone else here with a gunsmithing degree and years of experience in the field, I think I can safely say that I'm the only one here with any actual gun designing experience, and "to kill" is not one of the design parameters, and would be irrelevant if it were, as plenty of things used as weapons were not designed as such. Sure, the majority of guns are designed as weapons and virtually all of them, with the exception of some really odd long range target rifles, can be used as such, but that's no different than any bow or crossbow and a quite a lot of edged weapons. Not that I think the average dead person cares much about whether the implement of their demise was "designed to kill" or not anyway. Really, it's a stupid argument made by people who don't know what they're talking about, one that I've debunked numerous times here as it's mysteriously popular amongst the uninformed, so hopefully we can dispense with it.
Unless there is someone else here with a gunsmithing degree and years of experience in the field, I think I can safely say that I'm the only one here with any actual gun designing experience, and "to kill" is not one of the design parameters, and would be irrelevant if it were, as plenty of things used as weapons were not designed as such. Sure, the majority of guns are designed as weapons and virtually all of them, with the exception of some really odd long range target rifles, can be used as such, but that's no different than any bow or crossbow and a quite a lot of edged weapons. Not that I think the average dead person cares much about whether the implement of their demise was "designed to kill" or not anyway. Really, it's a stupid argument made by people who don't know what they're talking about, one that I've debunked numerous times here as it's mysteriously popular amongst the uninformed, so hopefully we can dispense with it.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Dox47 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Ok then, what are guns if not weapons? i've asked this at least 3 times and have yet to receive an answer that wasn't semantic dancing.
From the very first paragraph of my first post in this thread that you responded to:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=288062&start=180#p6663679
Dox47 wrote:
*sigh*
Unless there is someone else here with a gunsmithing degree and years of experience in the field, I think I can safely say that I'm the only one here with any actual gun designing experience, and "to kill" is not one of the design parameters, and would be irrelevant if it were, as plenty of things used as weapons were not designed as such. Sure, the majority of guns are designed as weapons and virtually all of them, with the exception of some really odd long range target rifles, can be used as such, but that's no different than any bow or crossbow and a quite a lot of edged weapons. Not that I think the average dead person cares much about whether the implement of their demise was "designed to kill" or not anyway. Really, it's a stupid argument made by people who don't know what they're talking about, one that I've debunked numerous times here as it's mysteriously popular amongst the uninformed, so hopefully we can dispense with it.
Unless there is someone else here with a gunsmithing degree and years of experience in the field, I think I can safely say that I'm the only one here with any actual gun designing experience, and "to kill" is not one of the design parameters, and would be irrelevant if it were, as plenty of things used as weapons were not designed as such. Sure, the majority of guns are designed as weapons and virtually all of them, with the exception of some really odd long range target rifles, can be used as such, but that's no different than any bow or crossbow and a quite a lot of edged weapons. Not that I think the average dead person cares much about whether the implement of their demise was "designed to kill" or not anyway. Really, it's a stupid argument made by people who don't know what they're talking about, one that I've debunked numerous times here as it's mysteriously popular amongst the uninformed, so hopefully we can dispense with it.
Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Raptor makes pithy comments about liberals being sheep and posts images.
You accuse me of making "pithy" comments......Quote:
I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
.....then in the same breath make one yourself.that's not a pithy comment.
Yes it is.
1. Any gun can be a weapon. Several of mine were purchased for that very purpose.
2. Any gun can be used to make a statement of force but sometime that's what is needed.
3. Any gun can be a defensive tool. If you shoot a person who is going to shoot you before they shoot you (or even after) it's a defensive shooting.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Raptor makes pithy comments about liberals being sheep and posts images.
You accuse me of making "pithy" comments......Quote:
I know that guns were designed to be weapons, to present lethal intent/a statement of force, not to be defensive.
.....then in the same breath make one yourself.that's not a pithy comment.
Yes it is.
1. Any gun can be a weapon. Several of mine were purchased for that very purpose.
2. Any gun can be used to make a statement of force but sometime that's what is needed.
3. Any gun can be a defensive tool. If you shoot a person who is going to shoot you before they shoot you (or even after) it's a defensive shooting.
Raptor wrote:
3. Any gun can be a defensive tool. If you shoot a person who is going to shoot you before they shoot you (or even after) it's a defensive shooting.
Yes and the families of Anders Brevik, Martin Bryant, Adam Lanza and Dylan Roof's victims are really pleased that these killers had access to high powered weapons and did not have their civil liberties restricted by only having access to a bread knife to kill their hapless multiple victims.
cyberdad wrote:
Raptor wrote:
3. Any gun can be a defensive tool. If you shoot a person who is going to shoot you before they shoot you (or even after) it's a defensive shooting.
Yes and the families of Anders Brevik, Martin Bryant, Adam Lanza and Dylan Roof's victims are really pleased that these killers had access to high powered weapons and did not have their civil liberties restricted by only having access to a bread knife to kill their hapless multiple victims.
Let me guess; you want us to impose a draconian gun ban that will be less effective and cost more lives in the long run than the "war on drugs" just so you can feel all warm and secure waaay over there in the Land of Oz.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
This thread has stopped being about the Charleston attack.
Discussions on gun laws and gun availability belong in the PPR section of WP.
Thread locked.
_________________
BOLTZ 17/3 2012 - 12/11 2020
Beautiful, sweet, gentle, playful, loyal
simply the best and one of a kind
love you and miss you, dear boy
Stop the wolf kills! https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeact ... 3091429765
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Where are the black people in Shogun? |
17 Mar 2024, 8:46 am |
Thieves break into church for... tea and biscuits |
20 Jan 2024, 8:17 pm |
Do you often tell white lies about your life? |
15 Apr 2024, 6:50 pm |
Just Two Northern White Rhinos Remain; An IVF Breakthrough |
24 Jan 2024, 5:20 pm |