Here's you first statement:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Here's your latest take on it:
If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.
Can you spot the difference?
The first one was in response to jman who, I believe, is an American. I wasn't part of that discussion.
The last is in response to me and you are now qualifying your initial statement with "if your culture is..." and "you have likely never..."
For just a moment, let's ignore the qualification you made about the anti-gun culture because it raises other questions you have yet to address and focus on the fact that your first comment had no qualifications whatsoever. The message was clear: If you haven't fired a gun, your opinion of them is invalid.
Did you or did you not mean what you wrote?
Then, of course, I saw the comment and replied. We went a few rounds, me wanting to know who was qualified or not and you seemed to be thinking I was discussing banning guns when all I wanted was to find out whose opinions about guns were valid, in your opinion. I asked this but you never answered:
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?
You didn't answer this one. I still don't know if that mother has a valid opinion or not, in your view.
And I tried finding out what other areas you'd define similarly, and why. What things do you need to have tried in order to hold a valid opinion of them? Where do you draw the line and why?
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?
But you've not answered those either, you've only moved the goalposts re your original statement. You now want to include anti-gun culture as a qualifying statement ("if your culture is anti-gun, your opinions aren't valid", basically).
Which is interesting. I come from a country that is not particularly anti-gun. We don't quite have the number of guns per household that you do, but we certainly aren't anti-gun and until fairly recent events, there wasn't much controversy surrounding the issues. Meaning that since I have also fired a gun, my opinions of them should be perfectly valid, don't you think?
Because it can't be that it's me specifically, right? It can't be that I've been anti-gun on this board on many previous occasions, right?
Or is it that you only think 'mericans are allowed an opinion? Is it that simple?
Let's try this again. Who is allowed an opinion and why? If you now choose to include culture in your definition, why does that matter? Why do you need to be from a pro-gun culture to hold a valid opinion? Tell me what the difference is.
And by all means, finally address that question about my fictional school shooting victim's mum.
