Responsible gun owner - dead 4yo

[idb]

what amendment in the constitution do cars fall under luddly liar?

you can make death comparisons to show how insecure you about deaths. doesn't mean gun and cars are equal you mentally incompetent anti gun nutter.

It wasn't Luddly that made the comparison

Ludd apparently has no problem with "responsible" drivers who drive drunk.

Or "responsible" drivers who apply makeup while they are driving.

Or "responsible" drivers who text message while they are driving.

Or "responsible" mothers who leave knives on the kitchen counter.

The scariest scenario is that somebody like Ludd is capable of owning a firearm (unless he is a convicted felon, of course).

You lot need to co-ordinate your talking points better.

learn to read. i was using the plural "you" (1st you) to refer to other posters, not luddly.

That's a pretty specific address to Luddly on your part.
You're twisting in the wind trying to explain away resorting to logical fallacies.

 

[idb]

nope, they are all accidents and all cause death. i can't believe you're illogical enough to say the deaths are different because one was by a gun and one was by a car. i doubt their loved ones really care, death is death you hyperbolic anti gun nutter.

you guys don't give a rat's ass about the deaths unless they further your twisted political agenda. further, cars etc...are not protected by the constitution. you keep thinking guns are not, but they are. deal with it.

You don't understand the lack of logic I am pointing out. My premise is that dying is not equal: all death is equal. Yes, death is death. My point was that not all accidents are equal. An accident in one's bathroom that causes death is not the same as an accident with a gun. Bathrooms are a necessary part of life; guns are not. To compare gun accidents with accidents in the course of necessary daily activities is irrational. They do not compare. This is something you seem to be unable to understand.

Not liking guns is not a political agenda, btw. It is what one believes in. Has nothing to do with poltics. So, saying that being concerned with gun deaths is only about politics is very much another logical fallacy.

are you saying that we should all stop doing anything that is unnecessary if it accidentally causes death?

of course it is political, the constitution is involved. you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

The constitution says that you must like guns?

 

[Yurt]

You don't understand the lack of logic I am pointing out. My premise is that dying is not equal: all death is equal. Yes, death is death. My point was that not all accidents are equal. An accident in one's bathroom that causes death is not the same as an accident with a gun. Bathrooms are a necessary part of life; guns are not. To compare gun accidents with accidents in the course of necessary daily activities is irrational. They do not compare. This is something you seem to be unable to understand.

Not liking guns is not a political agenda, btw. It is what one believes in. Has nothing to do with poltics. So, saying that being concerned with gun deaths is only about politics is very much another logical fallacy.

are you saying that we should all stop doing anything that is unnecessary if it accidentally causes death?

of course it is political, the constitution is involved. you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

The constitution says that you must like guns?

you can't read. nothing i said remotely indicates that.

 

[Yurt]

It wasn't Luddly that made the comparison

You lot need to co-ordinate your talking points better.

learn to read. i was using the plural "you" (1st you) to refer to other posters, not luddly.

That's a pretty specific address to Luddly on your part.
You're twisting in the wind trying to explain away resorting to logical fallacies.

ok, next time, just for you, i will say ONE instead of you....

will that help your wee brain understand context?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One thousand unnecessary deaths. Completely unnecessary. BTW, people who need to use name calling have already lost the argument.

accident happens without guns....are those necessary?

You all keep coming up with the same pointless fallacious argument over and over again. You cannot compare the necessary equipage of life to guns. Cars, bathtubs, step ladders, etc. are not the same as guns. Any argument assuming just any kind of household or automobile accident is the same as a gun accident is fallacious because the comparison is not logical.

Come up with something else.

Are swimming pools necessary? Perhaps you would like to compare accidental drownings to accidental deaths by firearm?

As to your need argument, you don't get to decide who needs what anyway. Further as a right I don't need to have a need to own and have firearms.

 

[idb]

are you saying that we should all stop doing anything that is unnecessary if it accidentally causes death?

of course it is political, the constitution is involved. you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

The constitution says that you must like guns?

you can't read. nothing i said remotely indicates that.

Esmeralda said this

Not liking guns is not a political agenda, btw. It is what one believes in. Has nothing to do with poltics.

You disagreed and said that it IS political.

Liking guns or not is a political issue?
How so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution says that you must like guns?

you can't read. nothing i said remotely indicates that.

Esmeralda said this

Not liking guns is not a political agenda, btw. It is what one believes in. Has nothing to do with poltics.

You disagreed and said that it IS political.

Liking guns or not is a political issue?
How so?

Claiming that less then a 1000 accidental deaths a year is serious is political. Claiming no one has a need for a firearm IS political. Remind me when she advocated banning swimming pools and swimming in general? I meaning swimming pools are not necessary and yet more people drown a year in accidents then are killed accidentally by firearms.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Only a liberal nut job like Luddley would call these people "responsible gun owners".

Like calling Ted Bundy "careful with knives", or calling Putin a "peace keeper".

And Luddly thinks it is Not Child Abuse to send kids to public schools which brain wash all individuality out of them.

Why do certain posters ALWAYS resort to outright lies about other posters?

Because they don't have anything else.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

what amendment in the constitution do cars fall under luddly liar?

you can make death comparisons to show how insecure you about deaths. doesn't mean gun and cars are equal you mentally incompetent anti gun nutter.

It wasn't Luddly that made the comparison

Ludd apparently has no problem with "responsible" drivers who drive drunk.

Or "responsible" drivers who apply makeup while they are driving.

Or "responsible" drivers who text message while they are driving.

Or "responsible" mothers who leave knives on the kitchen counter.

The scariest scenario is that somebody like Ludd is capable of owning a firearm (unless he is a convicted felon, of course).

You lot need to co-ordinate your talking points better.

No, it wasn't me who brought up the lame car non-argument.

But without lies about other posters, they don't have anything else to say.

 

[Yurt]

Only a liberal nut job like Luddley would call these people "responsible gun owners".

Like calling Ted Bundy "careful with knives", or calling Putin a "peace keeper".

And Luddly thinks it is Not Child Abuse to send kids to public schools which brain wash all individuality out of them.

Why do certain posters ALWAYS resort to outright lies about other posters?

Because they don't have anything else.

^ irony alert ^

 

[idb]

you can't read. nothing i said remotely indicates that.

Esmeralda said this

Not liking guns is not a political agenda, btw. It is what one believes in. Has nothing to do with poltics.

You disagreed and said that it IS political.

Liking guns or not is a political issue?
How so?

Claiming that less then a 1000 accidental deaths a year is serious is political. Claiming no one has a need for a firearm IS political. Remind me when she advocated banning swimming pools and swimming in general? I meaning swimming pools are not necessary and yet more people drown a year in accidents then are killed accidentally by firearms.

What have swimming pools got to do with guns?
What ARE you going on about?

Esmeralda said that if she doesn't like guns, that's her choice.
I personally respect her right to not like guns...or swimming pools if you like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's see Noodly get upset at responsible swimming pool owners.
Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon ? Deltoid

 

[Yurt]

The constitution says that you must like guns?

you can't read. nothing i said remotely indicates that.

Esmeralda said this

Not liking guns is not a political agenda, btw. It is what one believes in. Has nothing to do with poltics.

You disagreed and said that it IS political.

Liking guns or not is a political issue?
How so?

i never said you had to LIKE guns you fracking simpleton. i said the issue is political. i never said the constitution said you had to like guns. i never said that. i never said that. how many times do i have to tell you that?

she believes her stance is not political, but it is. you cannot like i guns, i don't care. but don't pretend the ISSUE <-- is not political. you first asked if i thought the constitution says you must like guns. nothing i said even remotely indicates that.

once again, so i don't have to repeat myself: guns are a political issue. liking them or not is up to you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

what amendment in the constitution do cars fall under luddly liar?

you can make death comparisons to show how insecure you about deaths. doesn't mean gun and cars are equal you mentally incompetent anti gun nutter.

It wasn't Luddly that made the comparison

Ludd apparently has no problem with "responsible" drivers who drive drunk.

Or "responsible" drivers who apply makeup while they are driving.

Or "responsible" drivers who text message while they are driving.

Or "responsible" mothers who leave knives on the kitchen counter.

The scariest scenario is that somebody like Ludd is capable of owning a firearm (unless he is a convicted felon, of course).

You lot need to co-ordinate your talking points better.

learn to read. i was using the plural "you" (1st you) to refer to other posters, not luddly.

And yet, you wrote "luddly".

Don't deny it. Its right here in this post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Esmeralda said this

You disagreed and said that it IS political.

Liking guns or not is a political issue?
How so?

Claiming that less then a 1000 accidental deaths a year is serious is political. Claiming no one has a need for a firearm IS political. Remind me when she advocated banning swimming pools and swimming in general? I meaning swimming pools are not necessary and yet more people drown a year in accidents then are killed accidentally by firearms.

What have swimming pools got to do with guns?
What ARE you going on about?

Esmeralda said that if she doesn't like guns, that's her choice.
I personally respect her right to not like guns...or swimming pools if you like.

I suggest you go back and read EVERYTHING she said not just the parts you like. She said there was no need for firearms and so every accidental death was a special tragedy that could be avoided. I repeat there is no need for swimming pools yet more people drown every year then are accidentally killed by firearms, where is her outrage?

 

[westwall]

Only a liberal nut job like Luddley would call these people "responsible gun owners".

Like calling Ted Bundy "careful with knives", or calling Putin a "peace keeper".

And Luddly thinks it is Not Child Abuse to send kids to public schools which brain wash all individuality out of them.

Why do certain posters ALWAYS resort to outright lies about other posters?

Because they don't have anything else.

You mean like you? How many outright lies have you made about me? I can name one right off the bat when you claimed I shopped at wallyworld when I stated quite clearly and many times that I despise the place and DON'T shop there...ever.

Pot meet fucking kettle, you lying sack of festering elephant shit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Let's see Noodly get upset at responsible swimming pool owners.
Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon ? Deltoid

That just makes the same point - keep children safe.

 

[Yurt]

It wasn't Luddly that made the comparison

You lot need to co-ordinate your talking points better.

learn to read. i was using the plural "you" (1st you) to refer to other posters, not luddly.

And yet, you wrote "luddly".

Don't deny it. Its right here in this post.

first sentence says luddly. period/space/return...NEXT sentence different subject....someone compared car deaths and you tried to make cars and guns the same. that shows you clearly have no concept of what a comparison is. you wanted to treat them equally, that is a complete logical fallacy and fails to grasp simple english.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And Luddly thinks it is Not Child Abuse to send kids to public schools which brain wash all individuality out of them.

Why do certain posters ALWAYS resort to outright lies about other posters?

Because they don't have anything else.

You mean like you? How many outright lies have you made about me? I can name one right off the bat when you claimed I shopped at wallyworld when I stated quite clearly and many times that I despise the place and DON'T shop there...ever.

Pot meet fucking kettle, you lying sack of festering elephant shit.

You eat with that mouth?

If I said that and you don't shop there then I was wrong.

Edited to add - I won't be waiting for any of you to admit you made this crap about me out of whole cloth.

 

[Yurt]

Claiming that less then a 1000 accidental deaths a year is serious is political. Claiming no one has a need for a firearm IS political. Remind me when she advocated banning swimming pools and swimming in general? I meaning swimming pools are not necessary and yet more people drown a year in accidents then are killed accidentally by firearms.

What have swimming pools got to do with guns?
What ARE you going on about?

Esmeralda said that if she doesn't like guns, that's her choice.
I personally respect her right to not like guns...or swimming pools if you like.

I suggest you go back and read EVERYTHING she said not just the parts you like. She said there was no need for firearms and so every accidental death was a special tragedy that could be avoided. I repeat there is no need for swimming pools yet more people drown every year then are accidentally killed by firearms, where is her outrage?

exactly....she said that deaths from "necessities" are "different" (read acceptable) than gun deaths because guns are not a necessity.

she has failed to answer my question: should we avoid all activities that are not necessary if accident death results?