Guns don't kill people...

[Robches]

Sam:

In your two posts above you first claim that you did not present anything as true, and then outline one element you find true in the article. Honestly, I do not understand your stance on this. Do you?

It seems to me to be obvious that the reason you linked to this article was because you thought it contained truth. Am I wrong?

[tommy dickfingers]

The pro gun lobby in the u.s compare killing with a gun the same as killing with a car "you wouldn't ban cars if someone was killed by one",a pretty stupid argument really as cars are designed and built to carry people from one place to another and can be misused to harm,whereas a gun is purposefully made to shoot bullets at a target ie to do harm to something.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]In your two posts above you first claim that you did not present anything as true, and then outline one element you find true in the article. Honestly, I do not understand your stance on this. Do you?[/quote]

Yes. It seems you do not.

Tell me, Robches, do you know the difference between thinking something is true and presenting something as 'objectively true'?

[Sam Slater]

And they do not realise that the more guns victims have, the bigger guns criminals feel they'll need. Basically, you create an arms race within society. It's dumb.

Then there's the silly argument that having an armed population protects against government tyranny. All well and good when the constitution was written and the government had muskets. Now they have F22 fighter planes, guided missiles, tanks and apache choppers which means, logically, everyone should have access to the same weaponry.

No. Americans want guns because they like guns.

[Robches]

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]In your two posts above you first claim that you did not
> present anything as true, and then outline one element you find
> true in the article. Honestly, I do not understand your stance
> on this. Do you?[/quote]
>
> Yes. It seems you do not.
>
> Tell me, Robches, do you know the difference between thinking
> something is true and presenting something as 'objectively
> true'?
>

Sam, I do think I know the difference between sophistry and an open discussion. I knew you would try to grind this one down in this way. The point I was making is that you recommended this article because you agreed with it, and believed it to be true. What is your problem in accepting that?

[Robches]

Sam Slater wrote:

> And they do not realise that the more guns victims have, the
> bigger guns criminals feel they'll need. Basically, you create
> an arms race within society. It's dumb.
>
> Then there's the silly argument that having an armed population
> protects against government tyranny. All well and good when the
> constitution was written and the government had muskets. Now
> they have F22 fighter planes, guided missiles, tanks and apache
> choppers which means, logically, everyone should have access to
> the same weaponry.
>
> No. Americans want guns because they like guns.
>

Sam:

I think you have presented your opinion quite clearly. You see no reason for civilians to own guns, and you think Americans are fools to cling to their constitutional rights. That is fair enough, it is your opinion. Clearly, you feel that opinion is supported by the article you linked. That is why you linked to it. you think it is right because you agree with it.

[dave756]

It seems the right to bare arms is seen by so many Americans as being firmly a right given via the Constitution which reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There will therefore be many views on this, hard to say which are right and which are wrong as gun laws are a for or against political argument in the US, but due to the Constitution it follows that looking at and comparing 'lawn darts' 'cars' etc to guns is difficult and that is down to the gun politics/Constitution of the US. What is great about the Constitution is in this case it is held up and a politician who disagrees with it is told well and truly to go fuck themselves and no one can do a dam thing about it.

[Sam Slater]

I have no problem accepting that I believe some points in that article have some truth to them. Dave756 asked me outright and I gave him an example of something I believe to be true. I'm not hiding anything or trying to be sneaky.

It is you that's trying to wriggle your way out of it because you wrongfully accused me, not of believing something as true but as 'presenting something as objectively true'. That's accusing me of saying the article is factual, which I didn't.

[Sam Slater]

But my agreeing with it (broadly) doesn't mean I said it was factual.

[Robches]

Sam Slater wrote:

> But my agreeing with it (broadly) doesn't mean I said it was
> factual.
>


I don't see why you are having such a problem with this. Do you think the facts presented in the article are wrong? I doubt it, or else why link to it? You are tying yourself up in knots over something which does not matter.