#BoycottNRA

#902
#902
SLICKYINC said:
No, you said the AR15 is more inherently dangerous than any other weapon.
Click to expand...

Bless your heart. I was asked whether the AR-15 is more inherently dangerous than other weapons. I said yes and supplied an example to make my point. Where did I claim the AR-15 is more inherently dangerous than ANY other weapon?
 
#903
#903
luthervol said:
Are you guys actually this blind or just practicing selective blindness?

The ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is partially reliant on identifying the sources. Why does that scare you guys so much?

If, stolen guns were reported within 48 hours and all legal transfer of gun ownership was reported, guns would be easily traceable. Also many sources of guns for criminals would suspiciously and immediately disappear.
Click to expand...

And you believe criminals will report the weapons they steal? You’re not fooling anyone, looter. You want all guns to be traceable, therefore, when they’re banned, you’ll know exactly where to go to retrieve them.

Maybe you’ll volunteer to confiscate. You won’t be disappointed, I promise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#904
#904
evillawyer said:
I generally agree with that, but it leads to consequences I think you wouldn't like (for example, terrorists kill fewer Americans on an annual basis than many other things, but I think we rightly prioritize addressing terrorism over those other things).
Click to expand...

I guess this is where me and you differ. I don't support measures that try to limit freedom for the sake of more security.
 
#905
#905
Grand Vol said:
Do you believe AR-15s are more inherently dangerous than other weapons?
Click to expand...

evillawyer said:
Yes I do.
Click to expand...

evillawyer said:
Is taking cyanide more inherently dangerous than drinking water? I think we'd all agree that it is. But both can kill you (cyanide if consumed in small amounts; water if consumed in copious amounts). So yes, some things are more inherently dangerous than other things.

As applied to weapons, a slingshot can kill, just as much as an AR-15 can. But the AR-15 is much faster, more powerful and more accurate than a slingshot, meaning that in two identical situations, an assailant with a slingshot is much less likely to kill as many people as an assailant with an AR-15. That's why I would say some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others.
Click to expand...

evillawyer said:
Bless your heart. I was asked whether the AR-15 is more inherently dangerous than other weapons. I said yes and supplied an example to make my point. Where did I claim the AR-15 is more inherently dangerous than ANY other weapon?
Click to expand...

You need to keep up with what you said or at least explain what you really mean. I went ahead and put what you said and your answers to the question here so you can keep up.
 
#906
#906
luthervol said:
Are you guys actually this blind or just practicing selective blindness?

The ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is partially reliant on identifying the sources. Why does that scare you guys so much?
Click to expand...
The sources for weapons that end up in criminals' hands is other criminals.

luthervol said:
If, stolen guns were reported within 48 hours and all legal transfer of gun ownership was reported, guns would be easily traceable. Also many sources of guns for criminals would suspiciously and immediately disappear.
Click to expand...

OK, my gun is stolen and I report it stolen. What is supposed to happen next? Explain to me how me reporting my gun being stolen ends up preventing the next Parkland?
 
#907
#907
CABVOL said:
My bad. I made the assumption that since this thread was about boycotting the NRA, which supports gun owner rights, that your comment concerning the AR15 was in relation to other guns, and therefore, you were stating an AR15 was inherently more dangerous than other guns. My mistake.
Click to expand...

I think the analogy between the slingshot and AR-15 applies with equal force between two gun types, doesn't it? I think you have to accept this. If 15 baddies are charging you, would you rather have a musket or an AR-15 with a bump stock and large magazine capacity? Likewise, if you're looking to kill as many innocents as possible before the cops come, are you choosing the musket or pimped out AR-15?
 
#909
#909
Rasputin_Vol said:
How about this?



Is that better? Will you answer the question now?
Click to expand...

Not much. First and foremost, I do not believe that anything that hurts the NRA is a negative. Quite the opposite, I would tend to view it as a positive.

I believe the NRA has knowingly and purposely misrepresented the gun debate. Just look at how many of you guys believe the objective of the left is to disarm everyone and strip you of your 2A rights. It's complete nonsense that is believed to the core by gun lovers. Why? Largely because of the NRA. The NRA has ONE objective, sell as many guns and paraphernalia as possible. They represent the gun industry, not you.
 
#910
#910
evillawyer said:
I think the analogy between the slingshot and AR-15 applies with equal force between two gun types, doesn't it? I think you have to accept this. If 15 baddies are charging you, would you rather have a musket or an AR-15 with a bump stock and large magazine capacity? Likewise, if you're looking to kill as many innocents as possible before the cops come, are you choosing the musket or pimped out AR-15?
Click to expand...

I'm not fitting any of my weapons with a bump stock if I'm relying on it for self defense. But that is neither here nor there. You cleverly chose to contrast an AR with a musket? Why did you do that?
 
#911
#911
evillawyer said:
You certainly know, when you get in a car and get on the road, that you are engaging in an activity that others may be engaging in while incapacitated or impaired. That doesn't mean that you've assumed the risk in a legal sense (where it's a defense), but you've knowingly chosen to engage in an activity with others that places your life at risk.

If a kid is playing on a playground and gets caught in crossfire and is killed, I think it'd be a stretch to say he knew the potential risks of going to the playground.
Click to expand...

So when you enter a gun free zone you assume the risk some criminal is going to shoot you and you accept the case of not being able to shoot back?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#912
#912
luthervol said:
Not much. First and foremost, I do not believe that anything that hurts the NRA is a negative. Quite the opposite, I would tend to view it as a positive.

I believe the NRA has knowingly and purposely misrepresented the gun debate. Just look at how many of you guys believe the objective of the left is to disarm everyone and strip you of your 2A rights. It's complete nonsense that is believed to the core by gun lovers. Why? Largely because of the NRA. The NRA has ONE objective, sell as many guns and paraphernalia as possible. They represent the gun industry, not you.
Click to expand...

Do you agree or disagree that american citizens should have the same technology as our government as far as firearms are concerned?
 
#913
#913
Squints said:
And you believe criminals will report the weapons they steal? You’re not fooling anyone, looter. You want all guns to be traceable, therefore, when they’re banned, you’ll know exactly where to go to retrieve them.

Maybe you’ll volunteer to confiscate. You won’t be disappointed, I promise.
Click to expand...

How insanely stupid.

Criminals will not report the guns they steal. The person who legally owned them and had them stolen from him should certainly report them stolen....wouldn't you think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#914
#914
luthervol said:
Not much. First and foremost, I do not believe that anything that hurts the NRA is a negative. Quite the opposite, I would tend to view it as a positive.

I believe the NRA has knowingly and purposely misrepresented the gun debate. Just look at how many of you guys believe the objective of the left is to disarm everyone and strip you of your 2A rights. It's complete nonsense that is believed to the core by gun lovers. Why? Largely because of the NRA. The NRA has ONE objective, sell as many guns and paraphernalia as possible. They represent the gun industry, not you.
Click to expand...

OK, lets not assume that. But what was said earlier was that they want to partially hold someone responsible for not reporting a gun stolen from them that is later used in a crime.
 
#915
#915
Grand Vol said:
Well, that's your first mistake, LG alter.

But if we are to use the car analogy, I would say a high performance sports car is more dangerous than your run of the mill Toyota. Because in untrained hands, it poses not only a danger to the driver, but to other drivers on the road. And even when mastered, still poses a risk because of the desire to "open up" and go way over the speed limit. Which can cause hazardous conditions to others drivers when weaving in and out of traffic.

The analogy is not unfounded.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm

Not so sure. He CAN form a coherent argument. Don’t agree with all the premises but it’s coherent.
 
#917
#917
SLICKYINC said:
You need to keep up with what you said or at least explain what you really mean. I went ahead and put what you said and your answers to the question here so you can keep up.
Click to expand...

Here's what you accused me of arguing:

"No, you said the AR15 is more inherently dangerous than any other weapon."

There's a difference between "Is the AR-15 more inherently dangerous than other weapons," which is what I was asked, and "Is the AR-15 more inherently dangerous than any other weapon."

You see the difference, or must I spill more virtual ink on this distinction?
 
#918
#918
evillawyer said:
Bless your heart. I was asked whether the AR-15 is more inherently dangerous than other weapons. I said yes and supplied an example to make my point. Where did I claim the AR-15 is more inherently dangerous than ANY other weapon?
Click to expand...

Not all other weapons just some thought right? Because I absolutely known my ARs are not my most dangerous weapon.
 
#920
#920
evillawyer said:
Here's what you accused me of arguing:

"No, you said the AR15 is more inherently dangerous than any other weapon."

There's a difference between "Is the AR-15 more inherently dangerous than other weapons," which is what I was asked, and "Is the AR-15 more inherently dangerous than any other weapon."

You see the difference, or must I spill more virtual ink on this distinction?
Click to expand...

So you're hung up on the word ANY?
 
#925
#925
SLICKYINC said:
So you're hung up on the word ANY?
Click to expand...

Well, it makes a big logical difference.

This is really just the difference between more and most. If one thing is more dangerous than another thing, it doesn't follow that that thing is the MOST dangerous thing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top