#a gun for every adult

@lostrib: no one wants to creep through your shitty post history, i wanted to see why Hi Def's thread got locked so I looked through the thread and saw the comment you made, I obviously couldn't comment because the thread was locked. It was a stupid comment you made, the most stupid comment I've seen on this forum.

Now I made my opinions on the subject of this thread on the fly, then later I did some research and found that my opinions were misplaced and I admitted so. So what's your problem.? Again why do you feel the need to involve yourself in other people's arguments.? Thegerg is far more intelligent than you he doesn't need your help.

It's a public forum. If you don't want people to comment, then don't post or have your arguments via private message.

@thegerg - do you have a weapon and used it on anyone yet ?

Nope. Was curious about your stance on owning guns.

Of course. But they shouldn't use it freely at will, Its for protection and defense at extreme scenarios not to mow down anyone at slightest provocation ( Shooting a guy who is texting on movie theatre , Shooting a black guy seen in vicinity of ones property, shooting daughters b.f caught in bed ) .

True.

Can't wait until they come out with phasers. Then everyone wins - you get to have a gun, but using it requires it to be on the stun setting!

@thegerg: I posted the definition of opinion, but anyway it says an opinion doesn't have to be based on knowledge or fact.

Thegerg like I said to lostrib, it's not unreasonable or silly assume that more guns in society would lead to more shootings. It was an opinion based on my experience of what people can be like, my opinion wasn't as stupid as you and lostrib like to make out. The fact that I was wrong still doesn't mean it was stupid.

"No. Reread the thread, you seem to be confused"

I'm not re-reading anything, I know what I was talking about, if you was not talking about the same thing then what was you talking about?

@thegerg: @thegerg: "What you've quoted has nothing to do with the relationship I'm talking about. Try to pay attention"

So what relationship was you talking about?

Your just bullshitting now because you can't think of another logical answer to that question other than the truth which is you were talking about the relationship between a man and a gun.

"You're coming to conclusions by assuming a relationship exists between two things"

What two things are you saying I'm coming to conclusions about? It's a simple question .

You like yor opinions based on fact, but the definition of opinion states an opinion does not have to be based on knowledge and fact.

Found this appropriate for this thread. :D

@jasean79: Genius =D

@thegerg: "Anyway, I'm talking about the relationship between your belief that an inanimate object (in this case, a gun) has influence on a person, and murder rates"

That's three things, 1) a person 2) gun influence 3)murder rates, that's a relationship between three things, you said relationship between two things.

For god sake so why couldn't you just admit that in the first place, instead of beating round the bush because when I asked you this question,

"surely you was talking about the relationship between a man and his gun?"

You said,

"No. Reread the thread, you seem to be confused"

When clearly you are talking about the relationship between a man and his gun.

@thegerg: sure

If you mean the incident in Texas, what exactly was wrong with that?

@thegerg: "It's two things:

1) Your belief (one that you came to without understanding or murder rates)

2) Murder rates"

That makes not one gram of sense at all. You said,

"You're coming to conclusions by assuming a relationship exists between two things"

So wouldn't that be my "belief" that lead me to the conclusion that a "relationship exist between two things"? meaning my belief is not one of the two things at all.

So don't give me a load of bull.

I read the dad caught this guy in bed with daughter and asked the girl if she knew him , she plain denied. The guy was reaching for something , dad got scared as if the guy was about to pull out a gun and shot him dead. Thing was that guy was the b.f , full fault with the daughter in denying in first place. But dads fault too, at least find out what the guy was reaching for , but without any delay he shot him point black range.

@thegerg: no it's not, someone comes to a conclusion based on what they believe. No?

If he was afraid for his life, then he had every right to shoot him. He doesn't need to stand there and wait to see if the guy is going to pull a gun and shoot at him

laughable excuse, no offense. Whenever i'm afraid of my life, i've liberty to shoot others HeHe.

Self defense is a laughable excuse?

@indzman: that boy was probably reaching for his pants, and the father shot him for that, I mean what's he doing bursting into his daughters room with a loaded gun. Typical example of using a gun when not needed.

Self Defense ? Was the guy attacking the dad ? Did the guy pulled out a gun ? Or even threw fists or insults at him ? Atleast those were not in the news, news said the guy was reaching for something in his pocket , and BAM dad shoots him. Its like GRAN TORINO ending LOL LOL LOL.

Except he thought it was a stranger who had been sexually assaulting his daughter. He believed he was dangerous and reaching for a weapon

Well the dad is now thinking of how he could have handled the situation other way in prison =P

@thegerg: @ariabed said:

@thegerg: no it's not, someone comes to a conclusion based on what they believe. No?

Yes, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that your belief is one of the two things to which I am referring.

Yes it does have bearing, you said and I quote,

"You're coming to conclusions by assuming a relationship exists between two things"

You already admit a person comes to a conclusion based on their beliefs.

Your giving me a bunch of bull and I'm not having a bar of it, if my beliefs lead me to the conclusion that a relationship exist between two things, then it's impossible for my belief to be one of the two things, no matter what you say.

News didn't say like that , that the guy felt like sexually assualting his daughter. They were just in the room nor the girl cried rape or assault when dad entered. The dad was a ass if you ask my opinion. If he felt the guy was stranger , could have handed him to cops or even beat him up. I'd agree to your post if the girl asked for dads help, nothing of that sort happened.

There was this another case , a guy murders his ranch worker for raping his minor daughter in fit of rage. That too i undersatnd . But in this situation it was tottally unneccessary. Why you think dad got jailed for ?

@thegerg: so what were the two things you was referring to in the quote I quoted you on? You gonna try saying that I'm coming to conclusions based on a relationship between ????? And my conclusions?

War of the trolls GG

@bowchicka07: I guess you don't know what a troll actually is aye?

@thegerg: @thegerg: "You're coming to conclusions by assuming a relationship exists between two things"

It does exist just not on the large scale I thought it would, you said yourself;

"I do believe they can be a threat if they are apt to reach for their gun at the smallest provocation."

"I believe that too. I feel that the number of people that would do that, though, is so small that it doesn't do us much good to talk about them. Someone that would do such a thing needs to see a doctor".

So In that quote you're talking about peolpe reaching for there gun in the slightest provocation, and that the number of people that would do that is low.

How does that not tie in with what I was saying about guns being a bad influence and someone carrying a gun and using it needlessly, and this not happening on the large scale I thought it would.

So you're unable to prove anything. Got it. You can always just be honest and say you're full of shit.

@airshocker: The proof is in your text. What...you don't know when you've made a straw man? Don't know what one looks like? Try Google. Now that said, it doesn't necessarily have to be a straw man provided that you weren't attempting to divert the issue or mislead my position. You may actually believe your conclusion to be sound. Still, all that establishes is that you don't know when you've made a logically unsound argument.

The onus is on you to prove that. I have no idea what text you're referring to as you haven't shown it to me. Why you haven't, I can only assume, is because you actually have no proof and are just talking out of your ass. As per usual.

@airshocker: this position that you claim that I have; that's the text that I'm speaking of.

So why can't you just quote it seeing as you know exactly which bit of text you're referring to.

That would be the mature thing to do.

@airshocker: well we both know so what's the point of me reposting it here?

We both don't know. I still don't recall which post you're exactly talking about. I'm 95% sure I didn't strawman, however.