It's the Devil's Advocate Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
yesit'sloaded wrote:


Statistics show that guns in civilian hands only results in crime and that more guns only raise levels of crime.
Click to expand...

Hell, “Statistics” show that people that Carry their weapons Concealed… have more gun snatching events/attempts than those that Open Carry.

Bwaahahhaaaa!

So much for statistics.
 
Stevie-once again they are used for either killing or practicing to kill.
Click to expand...
Oh no you don't. Do you think I use my compensated Mark IV for defense? If I was practicing to kill, I would be using the same gun at the ranges and pin shoots that I carry. Not hardly, so that don't wash.
 
Stevie-Ray said:
Oh no you don't. Do you think I use my Comped Mark IV for defense? If I was practicing to kill, I would be using the same gun at the ranges and pin shoots that I carry. Not hardly, so that don't wash.
Click to expand...

The D.A. :evil: is either unable or unwilling to recognize that sport shooting is analogous to fencing: a discipline largely divorced from its martial ancestry, despite some overlap in developed skill sets.
 
CCW permit holders are on file so no wonder they don't commit crimes, If a policeman followed everyone there would be no crime.
 
We already established that guns are for killing. Since a bowling pin is roughly the size of the human vital zone, you are indeed practicing for skills used in killing with a gun.
 
yesit'sloaded said:
CCW permit holders are on file so no wonder they don't commit crimes, If a policeman followed everyone there would be no crime.
Click to expand...

Incredibly poor argument. Ever heard of repeat offenders? How about convicted felons and sex predators?

Not only is your second statement questionable, but it falls decidedly outside the realm of reality.
 
It is not wrong to kill as long as all other options are exhausted and you are in personal danger.
Click to expand...

In this event does it then matter to you if I kill with a Gun, vs. a knife, club, car, hands, spear, (fill in the blank).???


Without guns most threats could be escaped or fought off by a group of people.
Click to expand...

Well now,....thats an interesting and novel idea. Living 24/7 in a "group" so that we can fight off a threat. Hmmmm, that sounds logical. Actually, it sounds like an "Old folks home". Now there is a group to be afraid of. Sorry, but that suggestion "just don't hunt"!


Situational awareness is key if you are armed or not.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A little tough to do while you're sound asleep, but I agree otherwise. And I know a BG would NEVER wait until I was sound asleep to enter my home.

If a criminal knocks you out with a brick, having a gun just leads to an armed criminal.
Click to expand...

With situational awareness the "criminal" will be looking down the barrel of my gun long before he gets to "knock me out with a brick". Maybe that wasn't so good an argument for you.
 
Last edited:
Wheeler44, you fail to mention that in this country, people are the most dangerous animal to other people. Decent people need firearms in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals.
Click to expand...
I guess I inferred as much when I asked when civilization would be civil.

You could use the modernized bow. Why do you need to kill more food when the stores are full of it. You could also raise your own animals.
Click to expand...
kinda have to answer with a shotgun blast these three points. Could raise animals but then I'd have to sit around protecting them from wild animals. Could go to a store I guess but that kinda defeats the whole purpose of livin' on the frontier ya know drivin' fer two days to get groceries and such. About the bow see below.

Just about anybody can pull a trigger, how many can draw back a 75 pound bow?
Click to expand...
So here you kinda shot yourself in the foot (pun intended) you infer that the bow is a weapon that takes greater strength and skill to use than a firearm. So why are you limiting my ability to defend myself and the hypothetical animals I have to raise (because, well, see above) and the ability of my family members to defend themselves to 1000 year old technology just because you are a scarety cat? I don't relish the idea of shootin' a 1000 plus pound grizzly with a bow in the middle of the night.

I think that now you are just plumb talkin' crazy, tryin' to get decent folks riled up. Tell you what come up here to my hypothetical frontier and visit some of the hypothetical natural beauty and get yourself chased by a hypothetical bear and i'll take you hypothetically shootin' and you can see how much hypothetical fun it is. Hypothtically speakin' o'course.

Wheeler44
 
yesit'sloaded said:
We already established that guns are for killing. Since a bowling pin is roughly the size of the human vital zone, you are indeed practicing for skills used in killing with a gun.
Click to expand...

You've already posited your argument, which is a far cry from it being established as such. Guns were for killing. Whether that is their statistically greatest use in the U.S. is highly doubtful.

So if I shoot at really large or really small targets I'm not practicing killing skills? I don't follow your logic here.

Skills for killing a stationary target by hitting a specific location with a gun are similar to skills for sport shooting. Does that make the aim (pardon the pun) of the disciplines the same? Sport shooters are not practicing to kill someone; the commonality of certain skills in both instances just mean that they might be improving such dual use skills incidentally.
 
Alright I give it up. I can't continue spewing this filth. Yall did good. Just remember I'm a crazy gun nut too so this was only a drill. Next time they will be meaner, pro criminal, and talk about the good of the children.

Reasons I had to stop myself:
My entire "removing guns will stop crime" was a petitio principii, also known as begging the question

Fallacy of Accident is all over the place.

I could no longer continue using solid logic, all it would have taken was mere straws to destroy my entire argument entirely.
 
I am for banning firearms for civilian use because of the ability to harm multiple people in a short period of time and the distances at which it can be done.
Click to expand...

If the Jews had that ability during the Holocaust, then a lot of them wouldn't have been turned into air pollution or ground fertilizer. All citizens should have that ability.
 
You betcha, thats why I like mine to be able to kill the most people from the longest range should it ever come to that. (still working on the sniper machine gun concept)
 
I really want to know where the antis are coming from. I had to try hard and even then I was grasping at straws by the tenth post.
 
Because I am a free man and not a serf.
Because being a free Man, I made a promise for life, to defend my country from Tyranny from within and without.
Firearms are my tool of choice to defend my nation. Don't you want to be protected?
 
yesit'sloaded: Kudos to you. This was a good exercise for all...

One thing I'd pose....In your arguments, you assign an inanimate object (the gun) a singular purpose, yet you assign multiple purposes to other inanimate objects (knives, bows, etc.)

Inanimate objects don't have a purpose on their own. To have a purpose, a person must put the object to a specific use. A gun is for killing only if I kill with it. Does that mean the purpose of a computer monitor is for killing if I beat someone to death with it? No. Does it mean that, by firing three shots while lost in the wilderness to call for help, that the gun isn't being used against its purpose? No. WE as human beings give things purpose by our actions. And, by holding fast to your position that a gun's only purpose is killing, it says more about your use of that particular object than how others use it.

Good job.... :D
 
By the end I was about to cry into a corner while bleating guns are bad guns are bad. It is so hard because the position is just so wrong to begin with. Criminals will always have guns, it's a fact. Guns don't kill anyone by themselves, it's a fact. No other handheld weapon can counter a gun past about 50 yards, it's a fact. The police don't teleport in to save people, it's a fact. Hunting animals with a gun is arguably the only way to take them humanly (I only say arguably the only way because of bows). It's just not a position that can be defended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Second Amendment discussion (kinda long)
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
5K
freewheeling
F
P
  • Locked
A New Understanding Derived From Heller
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
res1b3uq
R
J
  • Locked
The 1st Amendment is an absolute right.
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
TX1911fan
T
D
  • Locked
Arizona's New Bill has some Odd Opposition..
Replies
23
Views
1K
kda
K
A
  • Locked
Federal appeals court strikes down California's ban on high-capacity magazines
Replies
8
Views
484
danmc
danmc
Back
Top