Many of the manufacturers themselves (theres like two dozen) call them assault rifles.
Even if true, that doesn't answer the question.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
what do the manufacturers and the gun folks know that we dont exactly?
If you admit you don't know what the criterion for something is, don't use it in an argument.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But lets reverse the question. Are you implying that all guns are the same?
I will buy a gun and shoot myself before I say something so ****ing ignorant.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
So then you are good on bans as long as there is a "set of underlying criteria" right?
That is not what he said, he's challenging you to define the criterion so that your claims may be shown to be consistent.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But they are represented FAR more often then they even occur statistically.
In MASS SHOOTINGS, which is already a statistical outlier!
Originally Posted by I. Rex
So that doesn’t work. If it was just about statistics they should only show up in 3% of mass shootings (at best) based on the numbers you provided.
If you completely eradicate the agency of the shooter and their intellectual ability to choose weapons so as to optimize the results with the amount of effort they're willing to put into it!
It's no ****ing mystery why people who want large numbers of people dead choose guns with large numbers of bullets!
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And no, "they are popular because they are popular" isnt a very helpful response.
It is literally the answer to your question. AR-15s, by their design and price-point, appear in greater number because they are greater in demand.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Their shootability.
Hahahahaha.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But thats not enough. There is some association with them in particular that makes mass shooters want to use them especially. I still want to know what and why that is.
It's because they're POPULAR! OH MY GOD.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Stop dancing.
"Analogies which show my arguments are absurd is dancing."
Originally Posted by I. Rex
The concept that the NRA would never want to officially publish anything that announced it was in a support of a ban on a firearm is hardly a reach.
I never suggested it was.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Their number one scare tactic is the "slippery slope" prospect of one ban leading to another and to another after all.
"'Legal precedents' are a scare tactic."
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And its interesting to me that someone who distrusts the government's motivations and competence so often seems to be implying here that the NRA is all puppies and unicorns
You know, it's a ****in' effort not to knee-jerk react to your obvious partisan slander by seeing the NRA as a put-upon victim, but that's really what you're doing here. You don't need to lie about Hitler, Hitler is plenty bad enough as it is, STOP MAKING ME DEFEND HITLER.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
just wants to innocently and with absolutely no ulterior motive defend the rights of people to buy lots and lots and LOTS of guns but that has nothing to do with making money for the gun manufacturers and thereby power for themselves.
Of course it is. But, because you're endlessly dishonest in a way that takes my breath away; your criticism isn't merely that the NRA advocates policies which make them money, it's that
they bankroll dead children.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Its just an incidental aspect of them doing the right thing by making it super easy for any lunatic to buy a gun, no matter how powerful, any time they feel like it. As long as they "carry it safely".
Just like a knife,
just like a car,
just like literally every other ****ing thing under the ******* sun that could conceivably be used as a weapon.
By your logic, the man at OfficeMax who sells you a pen is responsible for the toddler you stab in the throat with it.
BY YOUR LOGIC. Your inability to comprehend these 3 simple words in conjunction with each other constitutes the entire gap between both sides of this debate: You are oblivious to the logical and legal precedents you are setting, and likewise your propositions are consistently reducible to absurdity. Every. Single. Time.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
This from you. If you don’t like the word "coded" then replace it with "selected" if that helps.
Your choice of words is secondary to the intent. Your intent remains unchanged, and your intent is to be intellectually dishonest about your opponent's positions. It doesn't matter what language or words you use to express this intent.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But if you have a hard time with this concept then Im assuming you also have a hard time with any form of advertising or marketing because its exactly the same thing.
****ingggggg WHAT.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
They are just choosing their publicly expressed language very carefully. Can you blame them really?
Not all advertisements are
attempts to read malicious intent into the motives of their competitors!
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Every word I said in that quote is absolutely accurate. Feel free to prove it otherwise.
"Accurate" here meaning "dripping in a obvious and deceitful use of language". I'm not going to explain why "on the dead bodies of first graders" is ****ing bull****, it's already been explained to you.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Where did I suggest that exactly?
In literally every single post you've ever made on the topic, including the one I'm responding to now.
By all means though, backpedal. BACKPEDAL HARD.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Pretty sure over the course of this thread Ive made it clear more than once that there are reasonable perfectly law abiding gun owners who have never and would never use their gun in a manner I would have an issue with who may have differing views on this. Shoot, I even cited a friend who was a gun owner and HOW I FULLY SUPPORTED HER RIGHT TO HAVE THE GUN. And those "policy proposals" were simply a response to Citizen's question about what are some of things I have thought about in terms of potential changes I feel might be helpful. It wasn’t some manifesto or list of laws Ive been sending to my congressman every two weeks to enact or face my wrath. Ive also made it clear that I definitely don’t have all the answers (oh look zoa! another opportunity for you to selectively quote me so you can take another meaningless cheap pot shot at me as is your normal habit!) but that I believe certain things and Im willing to let people know those things and hear their feedback on it. Of which "yer stupid!" Isnt super helpful by the way. But if it allows you feel superior knock yourself out.
Nowhere in this wall of text do you dispute the claim I put forward. I will repeat it:
"...it's patronizing to suggest that it's the NRA alone, or people brainwashed by the NRA who have any sort of reasonable objection to your policy proposals."
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Democrats are awesome
No, they're not.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
for the NRA! Put a democrat in office and people trip over themselves to buy up all the guns they can for fear that its just a matter of time before he or she declares martial law and takes them all away and then cancels the Fourth of July and makes Christmas officially a muslim holiday. Put a republican in office and gun manufacturers teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure the dems will try to enact laws closing loopholes on background checks and trying to limit access to certain guns but how has that worked for them in the past 40 years or so?
That's a good ****in' question. It's a shame you ask it without any kind of self-awareness.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Originally Posted by Omnizoa
I've taken the effort to not only deconstruct one of your arguments, but do so in so many ways that there is absolutely nothing in the way of salvaging it.
You’ve done no such thing of course.
Not an argument.
Here's your chance to refute all of what I've said in regards to your pitiful defense of "guns are for killing tho". I fully expect you to live down to my expectations by completely missing the point, jabbering on about something wholly unrelated to the consequences I've argued are chiefly relevant to the debate, and still maintaining a smug attitude by the end of it. Go.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Citation.
talking point copied and pasted so often by the same yahoos you say you want me to know you arent one of. And when I pointed all that out
Claiming that an argument has been refuted is not a refutation.
you tie yourself in knots
Projection.
trying to prove how its actually the best analogy ever
Strawman.
Because you have no argument.
about that and show you no no it isnt you (predictably) puff out your chest and go into full "HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT MY POINTLESS SPINNING AND SPUTTERING!!" mode.
Strawman.
Well your attempt to force me to argue over something entirely pointless
Logical consistency isn't pointless.
Logical consistency isn't irrelevant.
hasnt worked yet and wont work in this instance either.
No kidding. You still haven't refuted my argument from consequentialism, by the way. Just reminding you that this is where you should be doing that, but you're not doing that.
Try to bait me all you want with challenges to enter your silly bogus obfuscation zone. Im not buying it. Its all clearly a dance. And Im not interested in asking you questions about every distantly tangential wikipedia post and stupid obscure philosophy citation that has nothing to do with anything in the end. But thanks anyway. Happy to ask you questions when its entirely relevant of course.
****in' amazing self-reinforcing logic there:
"If I don't understand it, it's not relevant, therefor I don't have to understand if it's relevant."
And I already have many times. But spare us your silly fake shock at me not playing your silly argument for argument's sake game, ok? The car analogy is a terrible one
You gave exactly 2 reasons why this is the case (you numbered them):
"1. cars arent designed SPECIFICALLY to kill things like guns are."
I refuted this and you called my arguments "lawyer gobbledygook". That's not argument.
"2. If you say we should only regulate guns the same way we regulate cars"
I didn't say this, therefor your argument is irrelevant.
In total, you presented 2 arguments. One was irrelevant, the other was refuted. Your claim that "the car analogy is terrible" does not stand up to scrutiny, therefor my claims are sustained.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
and we both know that.
False. You believe it, I do not.
And Ive already fully shown you exactly why.
False. You've provided 2 fallacious justifications.
But then we both know you didn’t need me to even do that.
False. Your propositions require justifications.
You just are now bent on taking on the challenge of proving yourself right no matter what. Truth and relevance be damned!
And thus ends the wall of text that should have included a refutation of my arguments in defense of the car analogy, but does not, and in fact does exactly what I expected you to do: Miss the point, ramble off-topic, and assert intellectual superiority.
I am so proud of you.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Maybe you should follow your own advice then eh?
Predictable baseless retort. Back it up with something, I'm getting bored.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Because you are the poster child of acting like you know everything and being condescending toward everybody else who dares threaten your desperate need to be superior at all costs. You havent spent one second of your time on this site showing any amount of humility ever. But I have, in this very thread, asked others WHY certain guns are such a top choice for mass shooters because "I DON’T KNOW". Or WHY legislation just seems to go nowhere because "I DON’T GET IT". So your move... Try showing some humility or just continue being a d bag and pretending you know everything and continue trying to intimidate others that don’t bow down to that notion in every post you make. Whacha gonna choose?
How convenient that you "have humility" when it means asking leading questions which feed your pre-established narrative.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Yep, sorry for letting people shooting children force emotion out of me. What a puss I am! Why cant I be indifferent and contrary just for the fun of it like you?!
Why can't you care about children without forfeiting your intellectual integrity? It's a ****in' problem, dude.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Why must terrible preventable things that continually happen to children cause me to generate any sort of emotion at all? And then to turn around and feel support for them when I see them on TV?? What a rube!
What a puppet of legacy media. You're trying to shame me for not being as gullible as you when a political organization shoves sad children in front of the camera.
If CNN comes out tomorrow and claims a straight white male used an AR-15 to kill ten trillion disabled transgender black toddlers, I'M STILL not going to trust them at face value.
****in' shocker. I guess I'm just a callous emotionless ******* then.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Ah! And I see now that you’ve had your tantrum about me
Which you've mostly skipped because if it didn't describe you accurately you could have argued against it.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
(what, no "Im sorry"?)
No, because you don't even address my arguments.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Well don’t get too excited because as I noted all of your rambling on this point does not overturn the simple notions I pointed out already that cars are currently regulated more than guns.
Which is irrelevant.
In literally no way does this overturn a single thing I said.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And that guns are designed to kill and cars are not.
Which I refuted extensively and you had no answer for.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Now, dance dance DANCE little mouse!
After you're done evading.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Try in vain to disprove those points with verbal web winding and micro point distractions! But, again, Im not biting.
And this is why I think you're the most reprehensible person on this website; because you admit, well after the fact,
that you're not even receptive to arguments in the first place.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
What is obviously obvious remains obvious and isnt some huge illusion bubble you have popped with your oh so superior intellect and logic gymnastics.
You heard "mental gymnastics" somewhere and thought that sounded clever, huh?
EDIT: Ah, donniedarko just used it. Figures.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But lines have already been drawn. Legally. Constitutionally even.
I'm not the law. Or the Constitution.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
So why are some lines ok but not others?
That's what Yoda and I have been asking you repeatedly.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
It cant work if its not currently in place!
In other news, "Socialism has never been tried!"
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Were you with me before 2004 when it expired and heard me say we need more bans on top of this ban?
You're telling me that you wouldn't legislate to stop mass shooters with
revolvers and pump-action shotguns? I don't believe you.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Do you agree with this?
Whether I agree with the claim or not is irrelevant to the fact that you've resolutely failed to falsify it honestly.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
(you seem to love to bring up stuff as new that Yoda generally has brought up and called me on already and that we have then discussed. Not surprising I guess...).
That's because Yoda is a hell of a lot more forgiving than me.