Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[JimC]

There is a law in this thread.

No Gallstones-Aspire post, in either direction, contributes anything of value whatsoever to the debate...

[aspire1670]

There is a law in this thread.

No Gallstones-Aspire post, in either direction, contributes anything of value whatsoever to the debate...

*Facepalm*
You finally spot there is indeed a law in this thread and then you fail to identify it correctly.

[Gallstones]

There is a law in this thread.

No Gallstones-Aspire post, in either direction, contributes anything of value whatsoever to the debate...

Duh.

[Seth]

I don't suppose it bothers many of you, but a thought anyway. I wonder if you know how aggressive, violent and prone to solving problems with force American's seem to much of the rest of the world.

Which penchant has pulled your sorry ass out of a fascist crack more than once hasn't it? Hypocrite.

[Gallstones]

You may as well give up, BG - she has a deep emotional commitment to her precious guns which no amount of rational argument or evidence will ever shift...

Who has a deep emotional commitment to something precious?

You keep either misunderstanding what my commitment is to, or intentionally misrepresent it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't suppose it bothers many of you, but a thought anyway. I wonder if you know how aggressive, violent and prone to solving problems with force American's seem to much of the rest of the world.

Which penchant has pulled your sorry ass out of a fascist crack more than once hasn't it? Hypocrite.

Actually, only one fascist crack. World War 1 didn't involve fascism, but monarchic colonialism, and allegiance to Britain was not on account of any sort of moral superiority or any suggestion that the Germans and Austrians were fascistic or evil. It had to do with German attacks on neutral vessels and ultimately on American vessels. The Germans were trying to slow down American trade with the Allies, and that culminated with the Zimmerman Telegram which was intercepted and made public, pushing public opinion against the Krauts.

[Gallstones]

Bigoted and saturated with personal bias and judgementalism whatever you choose to name them.

Hmmm.

Gallstones,

Methinks that you are trying to evade the issue by ascribing personal motives to my views. I hold my views because they are the rational views to hold, based on the data available.

• Yeah right.

I realise that you do not want to look squarely at the data and the obvious conclusions, because those conclusions do not fit with your emotion based illogic. Nothing unusual there.

• 

Most people think with their gonads, rather than their brain, and are unable to separate personal desire from rational thinking.

Bringing gonads into it now.
Are these rational, data based and unemotional gonads?

The USA has by far the greatest murder rate out of all developed countries - 4 times as high in most cases. It also has the highest gun ownership of all developed countries. Nearly two thirds of all US murders are done with firearms (mostly hand guns). The conclusion is obvious. Guns are the problem, and mostly hand guns. You cannot face this simple fact because you have an atavistic love of guns. Your emotions get in the way of clarity of thought.

• 

I disagree with and reject your desire. Isn't that clear enough?
Everything else is just the packaging.

[Blind groper]

I disagree with and reject your desire. Isn't that clear enough?

No.

This is a debate. A debate requires fact based argument. Not mere opinion or emotion based conclusions.

[Coito ergo sum]

I disagree with and reject your desire. Isn't that clear enough?

No.

This is a debate. A debate requires fact based argument. Not mere opinion or emotion based conclusions.

No it doesn't.

[Blind groper]

No it doesn't.

If you want to be taken seriously, it does.
Of course, any such debate includes a lot of people who post things purely for humor. If genuinely funny, those posts are valued (at least by me). Either way, those posts are not taken seriously.

There are also heaps of posters who write down unsupported opinion. I certainly do not take them seriously, and totally lack respect for their posts.

[Gallstones]

I disagree with and reject your desire. Isn't that clear enough?

No.

This is a debate. A debate requires fact based argument. Not mere opinion or emotion based conclusions.

You seem always to sport this attitude that you are some kind of definer of acceptable conduct and enforcer of that conduct.
How's that working out?

[Gallstones]

No it doesn't.

If you want to be taken seriously, it does.
Of course, any such debate includes a lot of people who post things purely for humor. If genuinely funny, those posts are valued (at least by me). Either way, those posts are not taken seriously.

There are also heaps of posters who write down unsupported opinion. I certainly do not take them seriously, and totally lack respect for their posts.

And yet you can't stop yourself from replying to them.

I bet you are a real blast at parties.

[Blind groper]

And yet you can't stop yourself from replying to them.

Very true.

The reason I partake in these debates is mostly for my own amusement. That goal is regularly achieved. I even get to do quite a bit of laughing at the ridiculous things said by the less rational posters.

[Gallstones]

Massad Ayoob on Stand Your Ground Law

[mistermack]

What a twat.

How come they are ALWAYS twats?

I think if you choose to carry a gun, and shoot an innocent person, you should be shot yourself. Only fair.