| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 05:50 superstartran wrote: 1.63 per 100k is pretty much nothing You were previously very insistent that 0.3 per 100k is an epidemic. I can quote your posts if you need me to. You were extremely sure that anyone who thought that 0.3 per 100k was not an epidemic was, in your words, "an idiot". | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9023 Posts
Even if it were 100% white, his comparison would make no more sense. There are white gangs in Scotland, counting all of homicides in one country vs just one demographic in another does not make it seem like there isn't a problem. It only makes it seem like he doesn't see other ethnic groups as equal citizens, a 'not my problem' mantra. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8606 Posts
ask 100 randoms on the street that arent members of the nra "what is a guns purpose" and every single one of them would say "to inflict lethal damage" or something along those lines. how deluded can you get | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On May 28 2018 08:36 evilfatsh1t wrote: i dont get sst's claim that the nra doesnt view guns as a tool for killing. like wtf????? ask 100 randoms on the street that arent members of the nra "what is a guns purpose" and every single one of them would say "to inflict lethal damage" or something along those lines. how deluded can you get I think this is an Australian viewpoint. I'm not saying that as a criticism, but if we did your experiment in Australia you would likely be correct, and if you did your experiment in the USA or a fair number of other places, you would be wrong. Most people I know who target shoot have never shot a living thing and think it's very unlikely they ever will. Of course, there are a fair number of people here who would answer similarly to your prediction as well. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9023 Posts
On May 28 2018 08:49 micronesia wrote: I think this is an Australian viewpoint. I'm not saying that as a criticism, but if we did your experiment in Australia you would likely be correct, and if you did your experiment in the USA or a fair number of other places, you would be wrong. Most people I know who target shoot have never shot a living thing and think it's very unlikely they ever will. Of course, there are a fair number of people here who would answer similarly to your prediction as well. They could target shoot with air guns. What is the purpose of the difference in lethality between firearms and air guns, if not damage? I guess entertainment would be an acceptable answer, but even that extra entertainment comes from the thought of what it can do, no? There's not much else there. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 08:49 micronesia wrote: I think this is an Australian viewpoint. I'm not saying that as a criticism, but if we did your experiment in Australia you would likely be correct, and if you did your experiment in the USA or a fair number of other places, you would be wrong. Most people I know who target shoot have never shot a living thing and think it's very unlikely they ever will. Of course, there are a fair number of people here who would answer similarly to your prediction as well. Target shooters do not mean they're not a tool for killing. For target shooters proficiency with the tool is its own reward but that doesn't change the purpose. A chess board would be a good example of a tool that has been created purely to be used to demonstrate proficiency with the tool itself. A gun is to killing as a pen is to writing/drawing. Sure, both calligraphy and target shooting exist, but in neither case are they the purpose of the instrument. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On May 28 2018 09:05 KwarK wrote: Target shooters do not mean they're not a tool for killing. For target shooters proficiency with the tool is its own reward but that doesn't change the purpose. A chess board would be a good example of a tool that has been created purely to be used to demonstrate proficiency with the tool itself. A gun is to killing as a pen is to writing/drawing. Sure, both calligraphy and target shooting exist, but in neither case are they the purpose of the instrument. You are changing the issue. evilfatsh1t made the dubious claim that if you asked 100 randoms what the purpose of a gun is that every single one of them would say to inflict lethal damage, or something along those lines. I pointed out that his assertion is likely true (or close to true) in Australia and very untrue in the U.S. If you wan't to have a discussion about what the purpose of guns are, you can, but I did not enter it and do not plan to (although it's been discussed here before many times). | ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 09:08 micronesia wrote: You are changing the issue. evilfatsh1t made the dubious claim that if you asked 100 randoms what the purpose of a gun is that every single one of them would say to inflict lethal damage, or something along those lines. I pointed out that his assertion is likely true (or close to true) in Australia and very untrue in the U.S. If you wan't to have a discussion about what the purpose of guns are, you can, but I did not enter it and do not plan to (although it's been discussed here before many times). Just to clarify my understanding, are you drawing a distinction here between the question of what the purpose of the tool is and what people would say the purpose of the tool is if asked? I made the assumption that you disagreed with the former, and responded supporting the former. Were you accepting his point about the purpose of the tool and only noting that people would probably get it wrong when asked? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On May 28 2018 09:13 KwarK wrote: Yes. The issue was about what random people think or would say, not what the actual purpose of a gun is.Just to clarify my understanding, are you drawing a distinction here between the question of what the purpose of the tool is and what people would say the purpose of the tool is if asked? I made the assumption that you disagreed with the former, and responded supporting the former. I personally expressed no agreement or disagreement with what the purpose of a gun is. I apologize if I implied a position when discussing target shooters.Were you accepting his point about the purpose of the tool No. and only noting that people would probably get it wrong when asked? See above.My input was prompted by an invalid defense of of a position that, if you don't agree with it, makes you deluded. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On May 28 2018 09:41 KwarK wrote: If I were to say "1+1 is 2, ask anyone" presumably you'd also disagree. Feels a little pedantic to me if you're not interested in disputing the core question. No I would not disagree. Most people, whether it be in the USA or for example, Australia, would agree. You did not take a controversial statement and then insist that pretty much everyone agrees with it, and anyone who doesn't is deluded. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 09:43 micronesia wrote: No I would not disagree. Most people, whether it be in the USA or for example, Australia, would agree. You did not take a controversial statement and then insist that pretty much everyone agrees with it, and anyone who doesn't is deluded. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/terrence-howard-thinks-1x1-2-has-a-secret-system-called-terryology-and-spends-17-hours-a-day-making-10502365.html Some people are deluded. You can find delusional people who disagree with anything. Even whether guns are a tool for killing things. 1+1 = 2 and guns are tools for killing. If you want to argue against either then feel free to do so. But it feels pedantic to jump in and object only on the grounds that not everyone would agree if asked if you're not willing to dispute the claim itself. Whether or not everyone would agree isn't central to the issue. There are always some people delusional people. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On May 28 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/terrence-howard-thinks-1x1-2-has-a-secret-system-called-terryology-and-spends-17-hours-a-day-making-10502365.html Some people are deluded. You can find delusional people who disagree with anything. Even whether guns are a tool for killing things. I'll withdraw the accusation of use of 'delusion' and yield to you your right to consider a large chunk of this country's population as delusional, but you should acknowledge that the point I was calling out was not valid. If half of Americans think the Earth is flat, am I really justified if I say, "What! The NRA thinks the Earth is flat!? That's delusional! I mean, if I asked 100 random people, all of them would say the Earth is not flat!"? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 09:51 micronesia wrote: I'll withdraw the accusation of delusion and yield to you your right to consider a large chunk of this country's population as delusional, but you should acknowledge that the point I was calling out was not valid. If half of Americans think the Earth is flat, am I really justified if I say, "What! The NRA thinks the Earth is flat!? That's delusional! I mean, if I asked 100 random people, all of them would say the Earth is not flat!"? I refuse to accept that half of Americans don't know that guns are used for killing things. If they've been exposed to a television then surely they'll have seen a gun used to provide the potential for lethal force, whether used as a threat or killing someone. Even if they just saw Looney Toons or Bambi or whatever, it's still pretty clear what guns do. Americans know that guns are a tool for killing. Some might add that they're a tool for killing the bad guys, like when a cop or a soldier use them. Some might add that they can be used for defence, like letting weaker people kill evil strong people. Some might say that the threat of killing can be used in many situations. Some might say they only use them for killing animals for food. But you're going to have a consensus that the high speed projectile that comes out of the end of it around the same time it makes the noise is pretty dangerous and that the dangerous projectile is a feature, not a bug. Pull trigger, make bang, thing comes out, that's bad for whatever the thing hits. People know this, even Americans. I don't think a large chunk of this country are delusional. But apparently you do. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On May 28 2018 10:02 KwarK wrote: I refuse to accept that half of Americans don't know that guns are used for killing things. I support your decision to refuse to agree with that straw man argument. Most Americans know that guns are used for killing things. Possibly 100/100 randoms. I don't think they would respond to the original question the way it was asserted though. 50-75% might. edit: We don't have valid data to point to here so it's really just a matter of agreeing to disagree once it's clear what the disagreement even is. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On May 28 2018 10:05 micronesia wrote: I support your decision to refuse to agree with that straw man argument. It's really, really unclear what it is you actually think here. Could you try to express your views on the issue a little more clearly? I'll happily concede the pedantry of "not everyone when asked will answer that way" because that's true of any statement, no matter how self evident it may appear. But beyond that pedantry I honestly still don't know if you disagree with the premise of guns being a tool for inflicting lethal damage, as it was originally phrased. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8606 Posts
On May 28 2018 10:05 micronesia wrote: I support your decision to refuse to agree with that straw man argument. Most Americans know that guns are used for killing things. Possibly 100/100 randoms. I don't think they would respond to the original question the way it was asserted though. 50-75% might. edit: We don't have valid data to point to here so it's really just a matter of agreeing to disagree once it's clear what the disagreement even is. im not sure why youre arguing that 100/100 people probably wouldnt answer exactly how i said they would. it wasnt really my main point.... as kwark has been pointing out, the point of my statement was that the NRA's claim (or maybe its just SST's claim) that guns "are not a tool for killing" is ridiculous. even more hilarious is the fact that these guys are supposed experts and they are the main body in relation to firearms. the 100/100 example was merely a hyperbole to make my stance. even in australia i could probably find some idiot who thinks guns are for entertainment | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 28 2018 10:17 Sermokala wrote: Is the argument we're having over the argument that guns are "only a tool for killing"? I don't think so; mostly it's just a typical highly pedantic argument that's happening; quibbling over some precise word choices, and nothing more. the important thing is we finally get a page without startran. | ||
| ||
|
|
Code For Giants Cup
Online Event
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
