Gun control debate (merged)

#26,001
#26,001
luthervol said:
So you have no problem with "little boy butt splitters" being written on the packaging of condoms and that being their marketing angle?
Click to expand...
I’ll bite.

Head splitting a violent attacker is defensible use. Or clearing vegetation, the most common use.

I can’t think of a circumstance in which “splitting a little boy’s butt” - with or without the namesake condom - is defensible or legal.

Perhaps you’ve a hypothetical I haven’t considered, though -?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#26,002
#26,002
NCFisher said:
I’ll bite.

Head splitting a violent attacker is defensible use. Or clearing vegetation, the most common use.

I can’t think of a circumstance in which “splitting a little boy’s butt” - with or without the namesake condom - is defensible or legal.

Perhaps you’ve a hypothetical I haven’t considered, though -?
Click to expand...
So you do have a problem with that being written on the packaging?
 
#26,004
#26,004
luthervol said:
So you do have a problem with that being written on the packaging?
Click to expand...

No; that marketing strategy will ensure you’re not in business long. It won’t induce one person who’d not rape a child to do so, nor would a label saying “NOT for splitting little boy butts” prevent someone who would.

For some, there’s seems no logic tortured enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Orangeslice13
#26,008
#26,008
NCFisher said:
No; that marketing strategy will ensure you’re not in business long. It won’t induce one person who’d not rape a child to do so, nor would a label saying “NOT for splitting little boy butts” prevent someone who would.

For some, there’s seems no logic tortured enough.
Click to expand...
Well then to the surprise of no one and the complete relief of us both, we simply have different views on the matter.
I would imagine (or at least hope) that if that condom became the most popular condom and was known to be used in the majority of child molestations, some would slowly change their views on the continued legality of the marketing strategy.
 
#26,010
#26,010
luthervol said:
Well then to the surprise of no one and the complete relief of us both, we simply have different views on the matter.
I would imagine (or at least hope) that if that condom became the most popular condom and was known to be used in the majority of child molestations, some would slowly change their views on the continued legality of the marketing strategy.
Click to expand...
So we agree that the guns……uh, condoms are not the problem, it’s the use by some that are the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and GroverCleveland
#26,011
#26,011
Orangeslice13 said:
So we agree that the guns……uh, condoms are not the problem, it’s the use by some that are the problem.
Click to expand...
We agree that that is a meaningless distinction. That's like saying land mines are not the problem, it's the use of land mines.
Meth is not the problem, it's the use of meth.
Racism is not the problem, it's the manifestation of racism.
Completely meaningless!
 
#26,015
#26,015
luthervol said:
We agree that that is a meaningless distinction. That's like saying land mines are not the problem, it's the use of land mines.
Meth is not the problem, it's the use of meth.
Racism is not the problem, it's the manifestation of racism.
Completely meaningless!
Click to expand...
To be clear, you believe the existence of these things is the problem, not their usage, manifestation or implementation? Just want to understand what you're saying.
 
#26,016
#26,016
luthervol said:
Well then to the surprise of no one and the complete relief of us both, we simply have different views on the matter.
I would imagine (or at least hope) that if that condom became the most popular condom and was known to be used in the majority of child molestations, some would slowly change their views on the continued legality of the marketing strategy.
Click to expand...
Such a dumb argument. Make something illegal because it's the most popular? Also, tell us again what percentage of mass shootings are carried out using whatever condom gun category you are referring to (AR15, rifle, semiautomatic, etc). Make sure to check the stats first, though.
 
#26,017
#26,017
Jackcrevol said:
Hate to tread here, guy shoulda never owned a gun.

Interesting, the judge mustve set bail at a reasonable amount. I mean, how do you know? If guy doesnt have an illustrious vest of convictions, how do you know?

Perhaps a psych eval?
Click to expand...
This needs to head to the PF before it goes much further.

I'll just say that if you're inching toward psych evals as a gate to owning a gun, you need to be very careful when it comes to inaliable rights. How about we give psych evals and IQ tests before allowing to vote. Our current political state proves that voting is more dangerous to the masses than individual gun ownership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GiggerVol
#26,019
#26,019
Orange_Crush said:
This needs to head to the PF before it goes much further.

I'll just say that if you're inching toward psych evals as a gate to owning a gun, you need to be very careful when it comes to inaliable rights. How about we give psych evals and IQ tests before allowing to vote. Our current political state proves that voting is more dangerous to the masses than individual gun ownership.
Click to expand...
I'm passing on further discussion.
 
#26,020
#26,020
luthervol said:
We agree that that is a meaningless distinction. That's like saying land mines are not the problem, it's the use of land mines.
Meth is not the problem, it's the use of meth.
Racism is not the problem, it's the manifestation of racism.
Completely meaningless!
Click to expand...


None of those are in the constitution with the clear message of “shall not be infringed”. Well land mines would be debatable.
 
#26,021
#26,021
GroverCleveland said:
To be clear, you believe the existence of these things is the problem, not their usage, manifestation or implementation? Just want to understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly the existence of those things increases the chances that they will be used in a harmful way. As the existence increases, the probability that they will be used in a harmful way increases.
 
#26,022
#26,022
luthervol said:
We agree that that is a meaningless distinction. That's like saying land mines are not the problem, it's the use of land mines.
Meth is not the problem, it's the use of meth.
Racism is not the problem, it's the manifestation of racism.
Completely meaningless!
Click to expand...
That’s just Fing stupid and in no way is the same thing as a gun or condom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, 85SugarVol, C-south and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top