If students had guns would the 'terrorist' have been shot dead in under a minute?

[stconquest]

3 minutes ago, Albatross said:

If you are asking if I ever openly admitting concession in an debate on this forum before the answer is "yes", plenty of times. If you are asking me to admit defeat to you over illogical and asinine arguments as to why people should not have guns you will will not get the concession as using the mistakes or crimes of others will never, in any life time, justify punishing the people at large.

I made no argument about gun control here.

Quote

Overall, you seem to have an obsession with being right and others being wrong as this isn't the first time you've brought this up toward me.

I have never asked you if you have ever admitted being wrong before this occurrence.
 

Are you wrong yet?

[Misanthrope]

All this gun talk reminded me of this video because I always lose my shit on the gun fire:

 

 

[Albatross]

Just now, stconquest said:

I made no argument here about gun control.

I have never asked you if you have ever admitted being wrong before this occurrence.
 

Are you wrong yet?

 

What is there to be wrong about? I said "admit defeat to you over illogical and asinine arguments", not "admit defeat over your illogical and asinine arguments". Is this how you "win" debates?

 

And not here, sure, and you shall find no words from me stating that you have. I asked you a question because it is clear you are asking me if I ever admitted to defeat here and now for a reason (as you quoted me over a gun related issue) or are bringing it up based on previous discussions we had about gun control (of which many you reacted poorly towards). Unless, of course, you want to admit that you just randomly spit things out...?

[drqi]

I think that at very least we should regulate guns as much as we regulate cars, so you should need a license.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Albatross said:

What is there to be wrong about? I said "admit defeat to you over illogical and asinine arguments", not "admit defeat over your illogical and asinine arguments". Is this how you "win" debates?

 

And not here, sure, and you shall find no words from me stating that you have. I asked you a question because it is clear you are asking me if I ever admitted to defeat here and now for a reason (as you quoted me over a gun related issue) or are bringing it up based on previous discussions we had about gun control (of which many you reacted poorly towards). Unless, of course, you want to admit that you just randomly spit things out...?

What are my illogical and asinine viewpoints on gun control?  Please remind me.  I have such a hard time remember things.

[Albatross]

Just now, stconquest said:

What are my illogical and asinine viewpoints on gun control?  Please remind me.  I have such a hard time remember things.

It's like you don't even read....

[stconquest]

13 minutes ago, Albatross said:

It's like you don't even read....

 

26 minutes ago, Albatross said:

If you are asking if I ever openly admitting concession in an debate on this forum before the answer is "yes", plenty of times. If you are asking me to admit defeat to you over illogical and asinine arguments as to why people should not have guns you will will not get the concession as using the mistakes or crimes of others will never, in any life time, justify punishing the people at large.

 

Overall, you seem to have an obsession with being right and others being wrong as this isn't the first time you've brought this up toward me. You also never really argue anything legitimately, you just...well...babble.  <<projection

 

[Albatross]

Just now, stconquest said:

 

 

I carefully prepositioned my "to" before "you" for a reason. It changes the meaning of the entire message. In this instance, I asked if you wanted me to admit defeat "overall" to you in this subject, not that I was asking if you wanted me to admit to defeat to you in particular.

 

EDIT

 

See? This is what I was talking about. You never really argue anything in a debate. You might throw in a post here or there, scattered, but overall  you morph the discussion into something else entirely or you just spam. If you don't intend to engage me in proper debate, don't engage me to troll me or beat around the bushes.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Albatross said:

I carefully prepositioned my "to" before "you" for a reason. It changes the meaning of the entire message. In this instance, I asked if you wanted me to admit defeat "overall" to you in this subject, not that I was asking if you wanted me to admit to defeat to you in particular.

Funny, but I don't recall ever asking you to admit defeat to me in any way?  I simply asked if you have ever admitted being wrong.  A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

 

To be clear, I was asking if you have ever been wrong when arguing something here and actually addressed your error on the open platform.

 

Example: 

 

A member refers to arming a class of college students as potentially dangerous... and for good reason. 

 

You reply by twisting the perspective of the statement to indicate that the member was calling the whole of society violent and homicidal.

 

That is a "strawman" argument.

 

Were you wrong to twist the member's argument, or is that how you debate?

 

[Misanthrope]

58 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

90% of concealed carry permit holders have been through voluntary training to improve there own ability to handle, make judgement and ultimately understand when, where, and how to use it. Its the 10% that has unfortunately not made this choice to do so.

1) If it's voluntary how are you going to asure me it's 90%? I'm sure 90% of gun owners say or believe they had sufficient training and understand the responsibility but that's just fucking meaningless without a strict standard, regulation and enforcement.

 

2) So you qualify 10% of people who haven't been compelled to go through that just "unfortunate" ?

 

3) You know I'd like to see what would happen if 10% of the population driving a car or vehicle was not compelled to go through training, getting a licence and a vehicle registration. Highways would be literal motherfucking death traps. They're already fucked up even with compulsory training and registration many idiots slip through and get to drive when they shouldn't I can't imagine if millions could just ram other commuters and mow down on foot civilians cause "What? I made sure I knew how to drive: I play GTA V!"

[Albatross]

Just now, stconquest said:

Funny, but I don't recall ever asking you to admit defeat to me in any way?  I simply asked if you have ever admitted being wrong.  A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

 

To be clear, I was asking if you have ever been wrong when arguing something here and actually addressed your error on the open platform.

 

Example: 

 

A member refers to arming a class of college students as potentially dangerous... and for good reason. 

 

You reply by twisting the perspective of the statement to indicate that the member was calling the whole of society violent and homicidal.

 

That is a "strawman" argument.

 

Were you wrong to twist the member's argument, or is that how you debate?

 

You can't be serious...asking me if I have ever admitted that I am wrong or to defeat on a subject is the same thing. You asked if I was wrong (or admitted to it), I just used a different word instead of "wrong" when I replied. The context remains the same.

 

I didn't twist his argument. I was pointing out how asinine the argument was that students shouldn't have guns for the crimes of others or off the insinuation that they can't possess guns because they make mistakes, because the later of which heavily implies that most people are homicidal or violent or mentally unstable at the very least. If his intent isn't to say that students shouldn't have guns because they're mostly volatile or very likely to commit harm, then he's implying that students shouldn't carry guns because of the crimes of others. Both of which are terrible arguments and wrong.

 

edit

 

From now on I'm just going to ignore the parts of your post that aren't related to the discussion (e.i skipping spam).

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

1) If it's voluntary how are you going to asure me it's 90%? I'm sure 90% of gun owners say or believe they had sufficient training and understand the responsibility but that's just fucking meaningless without a strict standard, regulation and enforcement.

 

2) So you qualify 10% of people who haven't been compelled to go through that just "unfortunate" ?

 

3) You know I'd like to see what would happen if 10% of the population driving a car or vehicle was not compelled to go through training, getting a licence and a vehicle registration. Highways would be literal motherfucking death traps.

1) Voluntary - as in addition to the required minimum by local laws to acquire a concealed permit.

2) It is unfortunate.

3) I never attended a drivers education course and was not required to when I was 18.

 

I wont draw a picture here as I have had this conversation before, in this forum.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, SansVarnic said:

1) Voluntary - as in addition to the required minimum by local laws to acquire a concealed permit.

2) It is unfortunate.

3) I never attended a drivers education course and was not required to when I was 18.

 

I wont draw a picture here as I have had this conversation before, in this forum.

Let me guess: mandatory registration and regulation will lead to confiscation? Because that's the only argument people in favor of no gun control have: "They're gonna take away my guns!" 

 

Ultimately other arguments are mostly a straw man: gun control doesn't means that there shouldn't be armed civilians, just that it should be careful and vigilant screening but it would result in more citizens able to fire back. 

[stconquest]

18 minutes ago, Albatross said:

You can't be serious...asking me if I have ever admitted that I am wrong or to defeat on a subject is the same thing. You asked if I was wrong, I just used a different word instead of "wrong" when I replied. The context remains the same. .

 

I didn't twist his argument. I was pointing out how asinine the argument was that students shouldn't have guns for the crimes of others or off the insinuation that they can't possess guns because they make mistakes, because the later of which heavily implies that most people are homicidal or violent or mentally unstable at the very least. If his intent isn't to say that students shouldn't have guns because they're mostly volatile or very likely to commit harm, then he's implying that students shouldn't carry guns because of the crimes of others. Both of which are terrible arguments and wrong.

 

Making a mistake does not imply that one is violent or homicidal, you implied that... wrongfully.

 

If the 60K students that attend OSU all carried guns, how many accidental occurrences of firearm discharge would there be? 

 

Out of those accidents, how many would involve someone getting hit with a bullet?

 

Out of the people getting hit, how many would lose their lives?

 

See, in your fantasy world the answer is that no accidents would occur.  That is asinine and illogical... and fucking unrealistic.

 

Even if the number was one total death, that number could be avoided by simply not arming the class.  A total of one death might seem irrelevant to you, but it would not be to his/her family and friends.

[Albatross]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Let me guess: mandatory registration and regulation will lead to confiscation? Because that's the only argument people in favor of no gun control have: "They're gonna take away my guns!" 

 

Ultimately other arguments are mostly a straw man: gun control doesn't means that there shouldn't be armed civilians, just that it should be careful and vigilant screening but it would result in more citizens able to fire back. 

Well for me: I'm only opposed to harsh gun control that restricts my access to it as a legal and innocent civilian yet actually don't impact the people its supposed to (criminals etc). So basically I'm fine with gun control, so long as it isn't too extreme or impedes on my rights.

 

I'm never heard that "registration" argument before though.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Albatross said:

Well for me: I'm only opposed to harsh gun control that restricts my access to it as a legal and innocent civilian yet actually don't impact the people its supposed to (criminals etc). So basically I'm fine with gun control, so long as it isn't too extreme or impedes on my rights.

Degrees of gun control are always a welcome debate for gun control proponents. It's only gun control opposition that want no restrictions. And honestly is an inherently inconsistent position for anybody to hold unless they're also a very fringe Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist as well.

[Energycore]

Well just like you don't get to drive without being certified that you can drive a car well, there should be a restriction so that only people who are able to operate a gun properly, won't miss much and won't panic in the face of trouble are allowed to carry one.

 

And even then, I feel like allowing guns gives another privilege to the rich who can afford it, while making life for those who can't more scary.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Well just like you don't get to drive without being certified that you can drive a car well, there should be a restriction so that only people who are able to operate a gun properly, won't miss much and won't panic in the face of trouble are allowed to carry one.

 

And even then, I feel like allowing guns gives another privilege to the rich who can afford it, while making life for those who can't more scary.

Agree with the first part but the money thing? Most people can own some sort of car and a cheap car is substantially more than a gun (I think)

[Albatross]

Just now, Energycore said:

Well just like you don't get to drive without being certified that you can drive a car well, there should be a restriction so that only people who are able to operate a gun properly, won't miss much and won't panic in the face of trouble are allowed to carry one.

 

And even then, I feel like allowing guns gives another privilege to the rich who can afford it, while making life for those who can't more scary.

I think you might be surprised how many poor people have guns or access to them (and just don't get them for personal reasons). Sometimes they place the value in a gun over other things like a car etc etc, especially if they live in a rural setting or a very poor neighborhood.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Agree with the first part but the money thing? Most people can own some sort of car and a cheap car is substantially more than a gun (I think)

Well actually I don't know prices.

 

But when it comes to poverty, there are all levels. And at least 10% of people in the world make less money than they'd need to eat correctly, do you think they'll be able to save up $100 US for a gun or however much?

1 minute ago, Albatross said:

I think you might be surprised how many poor people have guns or access to them (and just don't get them for personal reasons). Sometimes they place the value in a gun over other things like a car etc etc, especially if they live in a rural setting or a very poor neighborhood.

Perhaps you're right, and perhaps they need it more than people who live in well kept and secure neighbourhoods. I will withdraw my opinion until I find out about prices

[Clanscorpia]

22 hours ago, manikyath said:

 

This is the first thing I saw and it is very well spoken :thumbsup:

[Zodiark1593]

2 minutes ago, Albatross said:

I think you might be surprised how many poor people have guns or access to them (and just don't get them for personal reasons). Sometimes they place the value in a gun over other things like a car etc etc, especially if they live in a rural setting or a very poor neighborhood.

Some rural places, even in California, are well away from any sort of towns or cities. I've been to one of these towns, it very much resembles a stereotypical "southern" town. Law enforcement presence is also virtually non-existent, limited only to the ocassional forest Ranger that happens to be passing through. 

 

Having some means of defending yourself would be recommended out there, not because the townsfolk are hostile (because they're not), but because no one is likely to come to your aid if you get into trouble. 

[SansVarnic]

17 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Let me guess: mandatory registration and regulation will lead to confiscation? Because that's the only argument people in favor of no gun control have: "They're gonna take away my guns!" 

 

Ultimately other arguments are mostly a straw man: gun control doesn't means that there shouldn't be armed civilians, just that it should be careful and vigilant screening but it would result in more citizens able to fire back. 

Well since I did not point to that in anything I said Ill let you continue to draw your own fantastic conclusion.

I am supportive of regulation but not to overbearing extent that it has come to today.

Your response is waaaay off base. Pro gun people are not for no gun control, and they certainly do not have a singular argument.

You need to re-evaluate your view on this subject and educate yourself better. If you want to know and understand my stance on this subject do a search of the forum for the following two words - SansVarnic, firearms. There are several/dozens of response by me on this subject. Enjoy.

[Albatross]

Just now, Energycore said:

Well actually I don't know prices.

 

But when it comes to poverty, there are all levels. And at least 10% of people in the world make less money than they'd need to eat correctly, do you think they'll be able to save up $100 US for a gun or however much?

Perhaps you're right, and perhaps they need it more than people who live in well kept and secure neighbourhoods. I will withdraw my opinion until I find out about prices

Well I'm pretty poor and even I have access to weapons and I've seen people buy rifles for all sorts of purposes and barely even have a house to call their own (they hunt for food etc etc).

 

For prices, I think you'll find that differs state by state or even by city, but I could buy a Remington rifle for $100-120 here new at Wal-mart on "lesser models" and way less used at like a flee market or something. A Remington 597 would cost about $150-180new  etc etc. And here in Kentucky, flee markets are plentiful and usually packed by several isles full of guns for dirt cheap compared to brand stores and whatnot. And a lot of those people are pretty poor (like driving tractors down roads to stores 'cause they can't afford a car (as well) poor).

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

You need to re-evaluate your view on this subject and educate yourself better. 

"I'm not gonna dignify this with an actual answer!"

 

Literally the next post:

 

"Lol you just assume my position I fucking refused to state at all incorrectly! Oh there's so much egg on your face now!"

 

So really you're fooling absolutely nobody: if you decline to state a position and someone ridicules you for it, you can't then come around and say that your position was incorrectly assumed, it was your stupid fucking choice to do the whole "I'm too cool for this" exit only you were easily drawn back into a discussion to make sure we all know you were not as ridiculous as I assumed.

 

Well good: on gun control, you're not. On actually engaging people, you're worst than I though.