You asked jman if he had ever fired a gun and, when asked why that is relevant, said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Sure, when pressed you later tried to qualify that statement, water it down a bit, by adding how culture matters, how your opinion can not be seen as credible, etc, but your first statement left little doubt about what you meant.
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
I am not answering those questions.
I know.
You are again blatantly ignoring the fact that I said it was personal opinion, surprise, you can disagree with an opinion.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm calling you out over your own words. Or are you saying that you actually meant something else?
Now, of course the above is your opinion only, seeing that you wrote it and you aren't exactly expressing anything approaching a universal truth here, but you started out with no qualifiers, nothing to give your words another context; your intention when replying to jman was clear. Only later did you water it all down by rambling about anti-gun cultures and so on.
Also, you are taking everything out of context, spinning words, etc.
Really? Where?
I'm trying to understand your *opinions*, by asking questions and offering a few hypotheticals to give them context. It's hardly irrelevant to explore where you draw the line or how you think this thing works.
You said my credibility was on the line, more like my opinion is being scrutinized.
Your words are being scrutinised. Yes, it does affect your credibility, if you can't back up your words. This is I2. Deal with it.
Also, you asked Calavera if he had fired a weapon.
Remember when I suggested you to look up that thing, sarcasm? You might want to do that now.
If he has not, I would not give his opinion as much merit as I would give someone who has, the same applies to all.
So based on this I'm guessing that you wouldn't give the teen victim's mum in my example much merit unless she'd fired a gun?
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
I'm can't help wondering how you'd phrase it to teen mum here. "Sorry, you really need to try a gun. It will change your world view. See the big picture. Oh, and where are you from, anyway?"