assault weapon ban

[RageBeoulve]

Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?

Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?

IIRC, he was already diagnosed with mental issues and wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, that's why he stole his moms guns.

And obviously he killed people because he had aspergers, according to the police and other "professionals".

[Scrapheap]

We're a dangerous lot.

Perhaps the government should keep track of us. 

[RageBeoulve]

We're a dangerous lot.

Perhaps the government should keep track of us. 

It won't matter if we vote yes or no. The masses don't actually matter, we're just made to think we do. We toil and toil so that the disgustingly rich can live bazillions of tiers above us like gods.

Sometimes they throw crumbs from their table, and that is what we survive off of.

[odeon]

You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.

I did see that, but you also said this:

If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.

So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?

Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?

And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?

I read back to the beginning of the thread, that was more of  troll response to a troll.

Anywho, you live in a very anti-gun part of the World, therefore you are taught that guns are evil machines of death when in actuality, they are inanimate objects that happen to be the mechanism of a controlled explosion that releases a metallic projectile and nothing more. Those that have fired a weapon know that, and those that have not only know what they have been told.

Seriously? This is your argument?

Do you have anything whatsoever to back this up with other than your preconceived notions about what we must have been taught in this godforsaken part of the world?

Firing a gun didn't change a thing for me, you know, beyond a realisation that the kick was different from what I thought and that target shooting with a pistol is more fun I imagined it would be. See, believe it or not, us backwater folks are perfectly capable of understanding that guns are inanimate objects. We know that guns do not kill on their own, nor do they magically take over their owners and make them commit horrible deeds.

I also know that toys do not come to life when I sleep and that there are no monsters under the bed (not that I'd ever stick my head down there).

Now, let's get back to what one needs to have tried to be allowed an opinion, according to you.

Again, your opinion is colored by your culture, therefore it is biased towards the "guns are evil machines of death" position.

So you keep saying. Have anything to back that up with? Besides it fitting better with your non-existent argumentation, I mean.

Did I accuse mainland Europe of being backwoods, no. In most instances, it collectively has a better quality of life than the US. However, the draconian gun control laws in Europe color the opinions of the citizens.

Also, the other issues you bought up are irrelevant in a thread regarding gun control.

I'm discussing this:

If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.

I'm trying to find out what other areas you would define in this way, and if so, why? I'm not discussing my opinions about guns, nor am I particularly interested in what Europeans think of them, I'm trying to find out how you define this thing and why, because I don't know why. I can't see any rational reason to do so.

You keep avoiding the issue, you keep deflecting. It's not about what I think of guns, it's not about what Europeans think of them. This is wholly about why you think it's necessary to have fired a gun to be allowed an opinion about them. You have not bothered to answer which other areas you'd define similarly, in spite of me offering examples, and you have not addressed the apparent contradictions I've quoted above.

I'm starting to think that you've only lately realised just how big that foot in your mouth is. Or worse; you've still not seen that it's there but you are puzzled because this thing isn't going the way it should.

Btw, "backwater folks" etc was sarcasm. You might want to look it up.

[odeon]

Guns are objects and have no morals, so they're not evil, but this doesn't change the fact that guns make it easy for crazy and dangerous people to kill others.

Have you fired a gun?

[odeon]

I do tend to be pro control and will readily agree that Michael Moore did more to convince me than did Charlton Heston,

Did Michael Moore also influence your opinion on 9/11??

chogh, cough...   the guy is a hack and a liar.

9/11 itself or George W? He did little to change my views re the former and merely confirmed what I already thought of the latter. It was a good film but didn't have the power of Bowling for Columbine.

Had power in the same sense that Triumph of the Will had power??

and yes, the comparison is fair, they're both propoganda films.

Not saying it isn't. It does make a compelling case, though. And yes, that is indeed what I mean. It's a very good film. It's well made, it's well written and it has a very clear message.

Moore's 9/11 film was not bad but it lacked the drive that Columbine had.

Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy

I see controversy. I see accusations and Moore's replies. I can understand that his opinions are controversial and not everyone will agree, but if you are to call him a liar, I do think you need more than a Wikipedia overview.

Although my guess is that if you provide a Hitchens quote and I counter with a Moore reply, none of us will be the wiser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms

Heston's feelings were hurt by the ending and Locheed tried to downplay what they do? Free rifle for a new bank account sequence was compressed? Yes it was, but that's not the point. It never was. You have to do better.

The film is, as you say, a propaganda film, and a wildly successful one at that. It is very well made and it convinces. That's the whole point. It may not be to your liking but it's a bit simplistic to dismiss Moore as a hack and a liar. He is neither.

It's been years since I've seen Bowling for Columbine and after that steaming pile of shit I couldn't be arsed into watching anything he directed. I'd have to endure the torture of watching it again to pick it apart, point by point.

If you were able to pick it apart, point by point, others would have, too, and it would all be out there. There is a controversy and there always was, but it's not as easy as that. You may not like it but it is not fiction.

[odeon]

Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?

Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?

IIRC, he was already diagnosed with mental issues and wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, that's why he stole his moms guns.

"Mental issues" beyond AS?

[Scrapheap]

Had power in the same sense that Triumph of the Will had power??

and yes, the comparison is fair, they're both propoganda films.

Not saying it isn't. It does make a compelling case, though. And yes, that is indeed what I mean. It's a very good film. It's well made, it's well written and it has a very clear message.

Moore's 9/11 film was not bad but it lacked the drive that Columbine had.

Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy

I see controversy. I see accusations and Moore's replies. I can understand that his opinions are controversial and not everyone will agree, but if you are to call him a liar, I do think you need more than a Wikipedia overview.

Although my guess is that if you provide a Hitchens quote and I counter with a Moore reply, none of us will be the wiser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms

Heston's feelings were hurt by the ending and Locheed tried to downplay what they do? Free rifle for a new bank account sequence was compressed? Yes it was, but that's not the point. It never was. You have to do better.

The film is, as you say, a propaganda film, and a wildly successful one at that. It is very well made and it convinces. That's the whole point. It may not be to your liking but it's a bit simplistic to dismiss Moore as a hack and a liar. He is neither.

It's been years since I've seen Bowling for Columbine and after that steaming pile of shit I couldn't be arsed into watching anything he directed. I'd have to endure the torture of watching it again to pick it apart, point by point.

If you were able to pick it apart, point by point, others would have, too, and it would all be out there. There is a controversy and there always was, but it's not as easy as that. You may not like it but it is not fiction.

It IS out there, just google "bowling for columbine lies" and you'll get plenty results.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm

http://bowlingfortruth.com/category/documentary/bowling-for-columbine/

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf

http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573

http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/archives/moore010504.html

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?24454-Long-and-thorough-list-of-lies-in-Michael-Moore-s-quot-Bowling-for-Columbine-quot

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html

http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html

Need more deconstruction of Michael Moore's lies??

[Calandale]

We're a dangerous lot.

Perhaps the government should keep track of us. 

What the hell makes you think they don't?

All that DHS money has to be wasted on something.

[RageBeoulve]

We're a dangerous lot.

Perhaps the government should keep track of us. 

What the hell makes you think they don't?

All that DHS money has to be wasted on something.

Secret wars around the world, area 51, keeping a bajillion embarrasing secrets secret, convincing people to watch shit like honey boo boo.

[TA]

You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.

I did see that, but you also said this:

If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.

So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?

Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?

And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?

I read back to the beginning of the thread, that was more of  troll response to a troll.

Anywho, you live in a very anti-gun part of the World, therefore you are taught that guns are evil machines of death when in actuality, they are inanimate objects that happen to be the mechanism of a controlled explosion that releases a metallic projectile and nothing more. Those that have fired a weapon know that, and those that have not only know what they have been told.

Seriously? This is your argument?

Do you have anything whatsoever to back this up with other than your preconceived notions about what we must have been taught in this godforsaken part of the world?

Firing a gun didn't change a thing for me, you know, beyond a realisation that the kick was different from what I thought and that target shooting with a pistol is more fun I imagined it would be. See, believe it or not, us backwater folks are perfectly capable of understanding that guns are inanimate objects. We know that guns do not kill on their own, nor do they magically take over their owners and make them commit horrible deeds.

I also know that toys do not come to life when I sleep and that there are no monsters under the bed (not that I'd ever stick my head down there).

Now, let's get back to what one needs to have tried to be allowed an opinion, according to you.

Again, your opinion is colored by your culture, therefore it is biased towards the "guns are evil machines of death" position.

So you keep saying. Have anything to back that up with? Besides it fitting better with your non-existent argumentation, I mean.

Did I accuse mainland Europe of being backwoods, no. In most instances, it collectively has a better quality of life than the US. However, the draconian gun control laws in Europe color the opinions of the citizens.

Also, the other issues you bought up are irrelevant in a thread regarding gun control.

I'm discussing this:

If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.

I'm trying to find out what other areas you would define in this way, and if so, why? I'm not discussing my opinions about guns, nor am I particularly interested in what Europeans think of them, I'm trying to find out how you define this thing and why, because I don't know why. I can't see any rational reason to do so.

You keep avoiding the issue, you keep deflecting. It's not about what I think of guns, it's not about what Europeans think of them. This is wholly about why you think it's necessary to have fired a gun to be allowed an opinion about them. You have not bothered to answer which other areas you'd define similarly, in spite of me offering examples, and you have not addressed the apparent contradictions I've quoted above.

I'm starting to think that you've only lately realised just how big that foot in your mouth is. Or worse; you've still not seen that it's there but you are puzzled because this thing isn't going the way it should.

Btw, "backwater folks" etc was sarcasm. You might want to look it up.

And, i'm not discussing the other issues you bought up. If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.

No foot in mouth comments, I keep engaging you without allowing you to bait me into a corner.

[Jack]

Quote pyramids.

[Calandale]

Quote pyramids.

A game we can all play.

[Scrapheap]

Quote pyramids.

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

[Calandale]

Quote pyramids.

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

1. You have to quote anything you can think of.

Quote pyramids.

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.