assault weapon ban

[odeon]

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?"

[Scrapheap]

Read what I wrote. There's plenty of controversy.

No, there's no controversy, just Michael Moore spinning a web of lies that are based on grains of truth. When confronted with the fact that he has spun the facts, he plays his second best game, Muddy the waters.

Here is a reply from Michael Moore: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine.

I find some of his closing comments especially illuminating and interesting:

The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero.

I find this very interesting. Could this be only hyperbole?

Yes it is only hyperbole, that's what MM does, he's a propagandist.

[RageBeoulve]

Okay. I will make a claim then. If someone has never fired a gun, never been exposed to one, has no idea how they work, what they're really for, how to use them (they don't know a goddamn thing of relevance to the issue at hand), then yes. They have no place trying to be a part of this debate.

I'm not pointing any fingers here, but i've met people like that. They're idiots. <insert stop liking things I don't like .jpg here. Quite related>

[TA]

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?"

I will admit that that was a blanket statement and Rage said it better than I could have, and yes you were correct, I do not express myself that well.

[odeon]

Read what I wrote. There's plenty of controversy.

No, there's no controversy, just Michael Moore spinning a web of lies that are based on grains of truth. When confronted with the fact that he has spun the facts, he plays his second best game, Muddy the waters.

There is a lot of controversy, in the minds of Hardy and others who quote each other in the links you provided. I believe Moore addressed most of the comments. Quite a bit more to what he is saying than a few grains of truth. Why else would your lot be so upset?

And more importantly, why else would the NRA not act the way they've done before and after? We are talking about a film that is over ten years old. The NRA has not grown softer since.

Here is a reply from Michael Moore: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine.

I find some of his closing comments especially illuminating and interesting:

The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero.

I find this very interesting. Could this be only hyperbole?

Yes it is only hyperbole, that's what MM does, he's a propagandist.

I see. He's the one with the hyperbole while the gun lobby is fighting the good fight, forever parrying? I very much doubt it so unless you have definitive proof of something or the other, we will have to disagree and accept that there is a controversy.

Again, the film is not new. The discussion about it is not new.

[odeon]

Okay. I will make a claim then. If someone has never fired a gun, never been exposed to one, has no idea how they work, what they're really for, how to use them (they don't know a goddamn thing of relevance to the issue at hand), then yes. They have no place trying to be a part of this debate.

I'm not pointing any fingers here, but i've met people like that. They're idiots. <insert stop liking things I don't like .jpg here. Quite related>

So what's your response to my fictional teen mum? Sorry, your opinion does not count?

[TA]

I will take a bite at the question at hand, now that statements have been clarified.

"I'm sorry you lost your son, a violent sociopath killed him, not a weapon alone."

[odeon]

Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.

See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.

And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.

[TA]

Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.

See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.

And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.

I would not make light of her loss, but I would fight tooth and nail to see that she does not have a hand in punishing everybody for the actions of one.

[Icequeen]

Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.

See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.

And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.

I would not make light of her loss, but I would fight tooth and nail to see that she does not have a hand in punishing everybody for the actions of one.

Agreed...and if that makes me seem heartless, so be it.

Society is not guilty...an individual should be accountable for their own actions.

[odeon]

It would be irrational to blame an inanimate object, of course. But in my example, it would be reasonable to blame the loophole in the law and try to make sure it couldn't happen again.

I mean, let's face it. Why else are there licenses to carry a gun if not to make sure that the people that do are reasonably balanced individuals and of age?

[Calavera]

I'd like to see one crazy guy use a dagger to kill a good bunch of random kids just because he hated his own mother.

I'd also like to see that PTSD old man try to kill a car driver with just a dagger just for entering his driveway.

Fact is guns make it really easy for dangerous people to kill, and if that isn't good reason for stricter regulations concerning gun possession, then I don't know what is.

[Calavera]

Oh, and I shot someone with a rifle once during my vacation in Lebanon.

Does that count as me having a right to an opinion now?

[skyblue1]

Oh, and I shot someone with a rifle once during my vacation in Lebanon.

Does that count as me having a right to an opinion now?

It may show you as irresponsible

[TA]

It would be irrational to blame an inanimate object, of course. But in my example, it would be reasonable to blame the loophole in the law and try to make sure it couldn't happen again.

I mean, let's face it. Why else are there licenses to carry a gun if not to make sure that the people that do are reasonably balanced individuals and of age?

The carry license issue(mainly a US issue), some like it, some don't.

The fact of the matter is, if you cannot be responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, then why the hell should you own one?