Now what Rocket is trying to say if anyone can get his posts is that, Getting rid of guns will do nothing and wont effect us, Other than making most people that are entertained by guns (Most people are entertained more than violent) mad and angry, "We don't need to kill people" Bullshit. We fight wars for power, With guns, There isn't much of any other way. Either way, We will find a way to kill people.
WHO SAID I WAS HUMAN? I'LL KICK THEIR ASS!
Originally Posted by Felepeno
Now what Rocket is trying to say if anyone can get his posts is that, Getting rid of guns will do nothing and wont effect us, Other than making most people that are entertained by guns (Most people are entertained more than violent) mad and angry, "We don't need to kill people" Bullshit. We fight wars for power, With guns, There isn't much of any other way. Either way, We will find a way to kill people.
> We fight wars for power, With guns, There isn't much of any other way.
>Either way, We will find a way to kill people.
This is called a "contradiction"
Presenting opposite arguments.
> Other than making most people that are entertained by guns (Most people are entertained more than violent) mad and angry
This is called "third party fallacy"
Attempting to appeal to some mythical third party without use of citations
> Getting rid of guns will do nothing and wont effect us
This is just a statement without anything to back it up
> "We don't need to kill people" Bullshit.
Suddenly calling bullshit for no particular reason? You need guns so you can fight wars? Are you American by chance?
> Now what Rocket is trying to say
Did you just construct a new fallacy? "Appeal to the "fallacy fallacy" fallacy"?? Because an argument is poorly argument it is right?
Needless to say, your post is completely illogical and makes 0 sense.
-----
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
Again immortal both of my posts said it was a hyperbole, I've not comtradicted myself there. And also this should just be an intuitive thing, I shouldn't have TI explain a hyperbole to even someone with an extremely low intelligence. also if you want to see my argument then refer to my original post. And if you'd take a look at our armed forces almost all of our weapons are or are based off of some form of firearm. So a ban on guns would almost completely disarm us, aside from some missiles and knifes. And you come in here and do the exact same thing as you're accusing TheFelepeno of doing.
Are you serious? No one is saying to ban guns in military. Since when did military need carry permits to carry guns? They don't, they are military.
Not that it makes a difference, you are American so the only thing your military does is invade people and kill them. How would it be bad for USA not to be able to randomly destroy other countries?
You shouldn't intentionally use logical fallacies in ANY discussion.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
How do you even feel ok to say this? I've backed up everything I've said
Nope, you have not made a single citation on your ridiculous assertions.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
Never said you pull a gun on a mugger.
OK JUST TO BE SURE: You advocate guns because you want muggers to be better armed?
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
And didn't say it for the second part of the quote.
I don't need to post "real information" to prove that banning guns would "put us back to the dark ages"
I never said that either.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
it could in fact raise death rates and set us back to the dark ages in terms of weaponry and warfare
Wrong again! You did in fact say that!
If you make a claim, back it up in facts, those are the rules of this board. If you don't like it, go play in offtopic where you can claim whatever you want without facts.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
That was originally a hyperbole, but that needs to be pointed out to you.
You shouldn't be proud of failing to communicate.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
I've backed myself up plenty, you just can't seem to read.
Nope, you have made no such citations about time travel due to gun ban, nor about people being more likely to fight back against a knife.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
You've done the same thing "It wasn't a blatant insult, it was an accurate description." which was a quote about me which was exactly as off-topic as anything Felepeno has written.
Nope, Felepeno posted completely offtopic without any content. I posted on topic with a response to his offtopic comment. Just be grateful that I even dignified him with a response.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
Not my whole argument, go back and read it.
I have no idea how you connected this to the dark ages
I never did connect that to the dark ages.
No, that LITTERALLY is your whole argument. And after you made that argument, you said we would be sent to the dark ages if we banned guns.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
Those were two almost completely unrelated statements you put out context when you made the quote.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
Also just counted immortal, I've said dark ages 4 times 2 of them quoting you, 1 time explaining I originally meant it as a hyperbole, and 1 time in my original statement being used as hyperbole about how eliminating guns would set back our modern day warfare, your whole argument has been about something I never said.
Nope, they are consecutive sentences.
The two arguments you are making are;
1. The US military needs guns so they can go invade countries and slaughter people
2. Muggers need guns or people might fight back
At this point I MUST ask you; are you trolling?
Last edited by ImmortalCow; Oct 15, 2012 at 05:22 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Do you really take what I'm saying as time travel? Really? Really?!?! The closest we have to time travel is to stay traveling at extremely high speeds, if I meant time travel I WOULD SAY TIME TRAVEL! And I've been working under the impression that when you say gun ban you MEAN TOTAL GUN BAN, not "oh let civilians use primitive weapons, but lets give our militaries hige-end long range weapons.". And the be grateful you dignified him with a response comment just makes yo ulook like a narcissistic, egotistical, fool.
If it weren't illegal to shoot some people, the world would be a lot emptier.
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
Do you really take what I'm saying as time travel? Really? Really?!?! The closest we have to time travel is to stay traveling at extremely high speeds, if I meant time travel I WOULD SAY TIME TRAVEL!
Really, that is the part of my post you decide to reply to?
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
And I've been working under the impression that when you say gun ban you MEAN TOTAL GUN BAN, not "oh let civilians use primitive weapons, but lets give our militaries hige-end long range weapons.".
Maybe if you read the OP you would know that no one is talking about a total gun ban.
Civilians have no need to employ weaponry of any kind. I do not advocate civilians arming themselves with swords or whatever other primitive weapons you are referring to.
USA has some deep deep problems, these need to be addressed, not covered over by allowing civilians to have guns, and then brushing aside all homicides as "oh they are just stupid people".
Originally Posted by rocketman1515
And the be grateful you dignified him with a response comment just makes yo ulook like a narcissistic, egotistical, fool.
Aw, trying to use big words to make big flames, cute
Are you shitting me Immortal, Did you actually read any of my post, That is ridiculous! You want some citations?
From (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
* A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership:
He you go your hi-nest
* In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons:
Protection Against Crime 67% Target Shooting 66% Hunting 41%
-----
Sorry about the hard to read statistics, They used to be charts.
-----
Now out of those reasons for using those guns, I don't see 1 person in that saying that they are homicidal, Now given that's a poll alright. But looking at it from a different point, 107% said that the gun is for TARGETSHOOTING and HUNTING, Which in my eyes i essentially see as ENTERTAINMENT the other 67%, Is Protection! BOY I WONDER WHAT ELSE WOULD WE USE!
From (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
* A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership:
Category
Percentage Owning
a Firearm
Households 42% Individuals 30% Male 47% Female 13% White 33% Nonwhite 18% Republican 41% Independent 27% Democrat 23% [9]
Now knowing immortal this isn't enough because according to his "great wisdown" he will say "this has no use in the word *stubborn face* errrrrggghhhhh"He you go your hi-nest
* In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons:
Protection Against Crime 67% Target Shooting 66% Hunting 41%
-----
Sorry about the hard to read statistics, They used to be charts.
-----
Now out of those reasons for using those guns, I don't see 1 person in that saying that they are homicidal, Now given that's a poll alright. But looking at it from a different point, 107% said that the gun is for TARGETSHOOTING and HUNTING, Which in my eyes i essentially see as ENTERTAINMENT the other 67%, Is Protection! BOY I WONDER WHAT ELSE WOULD WE USE!
Last edited by Felepeno; Oct 16, 2012 at 03:04 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
WHO SAID I WAS HUMAN? I'LL KICK THEIR ASS!
