Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Any day now we should reach the critical mass of gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens" where we become safe


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

It’s simple. 
 

You have made several assertions. 
 

You have been asked to supply supporting evidence. 
 

You have refused and tried to shift the burden of proof. 
 

I have provided you an article explaining that what you attempted is a logical fallacy. 

You appear to be unhappy about being called out for being this dishonest  

You continue to writhe around like a night crawler on a fishing hook. 

I provided the source of the CDC study that Colion breaks down in his analysis of the study.  Now tell me where he lied or STFU. I can go around like this all week. I'm  call you out on your bullshit. If you call a guy a liar you need proof. Give me proof. I stand by the data that you call a lie. Should be easy. Put your money where your mouth is or admit defeat. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, El Luchador said:

I provided the source of the CDC study that Colion breaks down in his analysis of the study.  Now tell me where he lied or STFU. I can go around like this all week. I'm  call you out on your bullshit. If you call a guy a liar you need proof. Give me proof. I stand by the data that you call a lie. Should be easy. Put your money where your mouth is or admit defeat. 

Try reading the Burden of Proof article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

So it should be super easy to state a specific statement that isn't true. You don't get to make assertion  of a lie and not say what the lie or truth  is. Seams like the short and easy way to settle it. Just provide the facts. Spoiler alert,  it won't happen,  but you guys will continue to attack the source and have no merit behind your assertion. When you call someone out you better know something.

If you are actually interested in learning something about Classical Logic, the non-NRA sort, so you don't look so foolish:

An original short story by Lewis Carrol: 
https://web.mat.upc.edu/rafael.cubarsi/intro/What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.pdf

The distilled version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles

Note: Lewis Carrol's real name was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.  He was a respected mathematician and one of the preeminent logicians in history.  I realize that doesn't compare to having a YouTube channel, but...

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

If you are actually interested in learning something about Classical Logic, the non-NRA sort, so you don't look so foolish:

An original short story by Lewis Carrol: 
https://web.mat.upc.edu/rafael.cubarsi/intro/What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.pdf

The distilled version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles

Note: Lewis Carrol's real name was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.  He was a respected mathematician and one of the preeminent logicians in history.  I realize that doesn't compare to having a YouTube channel, but...

This isn't a discussion on logic ,it's about gun control.  Now claims we're made about lies being told. List the lies and the truth.  Simple request.  If you know enough to say something is a lie it should be because you know the truth. So stating both should be easy. Now make another irrelevant point to keep from being responsible for your words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

This isn't a discussion on logic ,it's about gun control.  Now claims we're made about lies being told. List the lies and the truth.  Simple request.  If you know enough to say something is a lie it should be because you know the truth. So stating both should be easy. Now make another irrelevant point to keep from being responsible for your words. 

Yeah, boy.  From your standpoint, I can certainly see how this is true.  One of my (original) sayings seems apropos here:   There are people for whom Logic is not a close friend.  Not even a casual acquaintance.  Deal me out.

“There's none so blind as they that won't see.”

― Jonathan Swift

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BerniePragle said:

Yeah, boy.  From your standpoint, I can certainly see how this is true.  One of my (original) sayings seems apropos here:   There are people for whom Logic is not a close friend.  Not even a casual acquaintance.  Deal me out.

“There's none so blind as they that won't see.”

― Jonathan Swift

So nothing to  add? Just self aggrandizing.  

So let's summarize this thread. It is logical to make an accusation, and not back it up with any specifics. Then put the burden of proof on the guy who you say is lying but not tell them what they're lying about and there for can't prove it isn't a lie, then talk about Logic and burden of proof. Then fluff each other as if you guys just rocked it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Is her life more valuable than mine? If a bad thing justifies all regulation then are you prepared to give up all rights? Or do you just want other to give up theirs?

In a manner of speaking it is.  We are partially responsible for her well being.  2A rights are limited like everything in life.  Time to impose limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

In a manner of speaking it is.  We are partially responsible for her well being.  2A rights are limited like everything in life.  Time to impose limits.

We have limits. We also have rights. Freedom requires responsibility.  If you take guns away you will be as successful as the war on drugs and the people will be victims at a much higher rate. We know this from the huge amount of self defense uses of guns that will result in more harm not less when taken away. We also know a government that doesn't fear it citizens doesn't need to consider them. You will be ruled not represented. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

We have limits. We also have rights. Freedom requires responsibility.  If you take guns away you will be as successful as the war on drugs and the people will be victims at a much higher rate. We know this from the huge amount of self defense uses of guns that will result in more harm not less when taken away. We also know a government that doesn't fear it citizens doesn't need to consider them. You will be ruled not represented. 

There is space between no guns and sane, federal laws.  We have enough people giving up their representation due to gerrymandering and campaign financing,  we wouldn't want more of that.

We can all agree we need fewer slaughtered innocents.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

We have limits. We also have rights. Freedom requires responsibility.  If you take guns away you will be as successful as the war on drugs and the people will be victims at a much higher rate. We know this from the huge amount of self defense uses of guns that will result in more harm not less when taken away. We also know a government that doesn't fear it citizens doesn't need to consider them. You will be ruled not represented. 

Yeah, that's why gun violence happens at the same rate worldwide.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

We have limits. We also have rights. Freedom requires responsibility.  If you take guns away you will be as successful as the war on drugs and the people will be victims at a much higher rate. We know this from the huge amount of self defense uses of guns that will result in more harm not less when taken away. We also know a government that doesn't fear it citizens doesn't need to consider them. You will be ruled not represented. 

Is there physical pain associated with your attempts at cognition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread is completely asinine and so disingenuous it hurts my head.  Between the name calling and the "post your proof"..."no you post your proof"...and my favorite..."that isn't true because they don't list their source".  All of these types of statements are indicative of people not wanting to have an open and honest conversation.  Was just talking about this with my son and parents yesterday...people seriously don't want to have open and honest conversations about guns and mass murder.  We all are fed the opinions about guns and murders by completely and 100% biased information...and no one wants to open their minds to look at things from a different point of view.  First off EVERYON agrees sensless killing is terrible and needs to stop.  But one side isn't ready to have a conversation that the big bad gun isn't the root cause of the problem nor is the big bad AR15 an assault weapon nor a weapon of war (I'd take my dad's semiautomatic .284 rifle over an AR15...can have the same capacity with a much larger bullet and stopping power)...thos on the other side also need to open their minds to discussions about gun laws...not bans, but sensible gun laws.  But EVERYONE needs to have the discussion around mental health and self-accountability/responsibility and being held responsible (aka., parenting!), which to me is what is completely eroding in this society.  

So, name calling and the back and forth of I know you are but what am I solves nothing, so if anyone wants to have an open conversation and is ready to learn others point of view, I'd love to have that conversation.  And here is a start, if someone post something that you don't believe, or agree with, go look up the information yourself, saying the ownness is on the person who posted it to back it up is the first sign you are not at a point to have an open and honest discussion.

  • Fire 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...