Jump to content

Concealed carry = bad


Uncle Punk
 Share

Recommended Posts

most americans who use guns to kill people are black, white, and mexicanese, therefore, only asians should be allowed to own and carry guns. they're the only kind that can be trusted with such responsibilities.

bet you can't prove me wrong

(!!__little%20asian).jpg

I'm sorry, but I know better. I saw Gran Torino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny little man, white peoples are the rulers of the world and have the superior right to kill others that are inferior to them. That is why they pass gun laws that try to affect the poor people to keep them from possessing them. They are working on a way to keep guns away from the over achieving Asians who refuse to stay in the poor demographic, why they won’t get with the program is disturbing.

To answer your Asian persuasion quip, Blacksburg, Virginia, but you knew that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you John for the websters dictionary entry...

Whatever the definition, Corollary does not equal cause.

Case in point:

Everyone with cancer has eaten bread.

Bread causes cancer.

Is bread a corollary factor to cancer? On paper, yes. Does bread cause cancer? Not likely.

Have gun owners killed people? Yes. But owning a gun does not cause you to kill people. I could kill a man with a pen, are we going to start tracking pens as well? I could flip out at work and just start stabbing away with a ball point.

Should we make a Chuck Norris round house kick illegal? It could kill people, and Chuck Norris might freak out one day and start round housing everything.

If you're really concerned about personal safety, then outlaw driving. According to the DOT, 33,963 people died on US roads in 2009. That's just fatalities, that doesn't include accidents with no injuries, or debilitating injuries. Driving to and from work is the most dangerous thing you can do. And you want me to be concerned about a few hundred gun related deaths? From a piss poor statistical survey? Not buying it.

There. I took the liberal bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you John for the websters dictionary entry...

Whatever the definition, Corollary does not equal cause.

Case in point:

Everyone with cancer has eaten bread.

Bread causes cancer.

Is bread a corollary factor to cancer? On paper, yes. Does bread cause cancer? Not likely.

Have gun owners killed people? Yes. But owning a gun does not cause you to kill people. I could kill a man with a pen, are we going to start tracking pens as well? I could flip out at work and just start stabbing away with a ball point.

Should we make a Chuck Norris round house kick illegal? It could kill people, and Chuck Norris might freak out one day and start round housing everything.

If you're really concerned about personal safety, then outlaw driving. According to the DOT, 33,963 people died on US roads in 2009. That's just fatalities, that doesn't include accidents with no injuries, or debilitating injuries. Driving to and from work is the most dangerous thing you can do. And you want me to be concerned about a few hundred gun related deaths? From a piss poor statistical survey? Not buying it.

There. I took the liberal bait.

Bread and cancer is kinda silly is it not. The fact that certain ingredients could have carcinogenic properties does in effect demonstrate that bread causes cancer.

I really love when the gun nuts pull out things like cars kill people, they should be outlawed too. Blah, blah, blah. The fact is that if were were to "outlaw" vehicles our economy would completely collapse. Banning all firearms would not. So your point is somewhat silly.

The gun lobby cannot say the issue is Black & White in one statement and in another say it's all shades of gray. That's probably why they are lumped in with the religious right. If you are going to interpret a, article or book you have to include all parts. Not cherry pick the things you like.

Edited by RC51 John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bread and cancer is kinda silly is it not. The fact that certain ingredients could have carcinogenic properties does in effect demonstrate that bread causes cancer.

I really love when the gun nuts pull out things like cars kill people, they should be outlawed too. Blah, blah, blah. The fact is that if were were to "outlaw" vehicles our economy would completely collapse. Banning all firearms would not. So your point is somewhat silly.

The gun lobby cannot say the issue is Black & White in one statement and in another say it's all shades of gray. That's probably why they are lumped in with the religious right. If you are going to interpret a, article or book you have to include all parts. Not cherry pick the things you like.

If I taught debate and philosophy I would use this as a textbook example of poor debate skills. You didn't actually engage/refute any of the claims I made, but merely dismissed them as silly without providing any proof to support your counter argument.

Secondly, attacking the illustration of a point, and not the point itself is akin to a "slippery slope" or "straw man" argument. The bread/cancer statement was an illustration to show the poor statistics used to support overturning conceal and carry. Instead of engaging the actual argument by providing better facts, you attacked the example.

You might have had better luck using "I know you are, but what am I."

I think ^ he fell hook line and sinker, nice bait John. :)

I haven't had a good OR knock down, drag out in awhile. I figured this would be a good one.

Edited by dorifto240
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...