Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOKC
Ah - got it. One anecdotal example is valid proof of your belief that guns should be outlawed, and yet an anecdotal example of someone saving his life with a gun is not a valid reason for them to be allowed.
|
Try as you may and spin as you will I will not allow you to get away with such deception.
The one anecdotal example was to refute your stupid claim.
I don’t believe guns should be outlawed.
Try to debate intelligently and honestly and address the points that people make and the words they use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOKC
There was no intent to insert spin crisis. I don't consider your example to be indicative of "mayhem" caused by private gun ownership, but merely criminal behavior.
|
Criminal behaviour resulting from a person with a gun who overreacted to a relatively harmless situation. Exactly what I said. I consider it to be an example of mayhem when people shoot at each other from their cars. So do others.
Mayhem:
• the willful and unlawful crippling or mutilation of another person
• havoc: violent and needless disturbance
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
In fact I nailed it really!
But then again facts never stand in the way of what you consider to be real.
Writhe on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOKC
You keep saying "if he didn't have the gun, blah blah blah" as if he wouldn't have it if they were illegal to own. This of course overlooks the plain simple reality that criminals, by their very nature, ignore laws. People intent upon harming others are not going to be stopped from doing so just because it is illegal to own a gun.
|
Your use of the term criminal is
ambiguous. If we define it as someone who has committed a crime whether or not they are found guilty then this guy may not have been a criminal until he fired that first shot. It is irrelevant anyway. It was a person with a gun in his car and he used it in response to a trivial situation out of all proportion to the fact he thought the guy in the other car was a hippy. In the state he lives he can carry a gun in his car. The type of person he appears to be should not have access to a gun but he can. He may not be able to again if he is caught but now it is too late. He has shot someone. The guy didn’t just ignore a law. He lost the plot. You try to mix everything up in some dumbarse simpleton notion that
"criminals, by their very nature, ignore laws" What
nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOKC
The rest of your post is merely the same inane blather you've vomited up before.
|
Meaning you either
1. Don’t understand it.
2. Cant mount a sensible counter argument.
3. Cant produce a spin.
4. Lose.