Originally Posted by Zelda

The point was that they are not necessary. He is criticising Oracle's logic, not gun control. If Oracle had pointed out that guns are less necessary than all the other stuff we are allowed to use and more dangerous relative to this necessity then I think it would have been less likely that Pig would of brought it up.

Originally Posted by Aracoon

Okay this is just almost funny.
All of the things you mentioned here are far more useful than guns excluding tea towels. We wear shoes every day, use cars every day and same generally goes for washing machines and knives. If anything you are being far too general. IMO we don't need guns, and if you argue that we do, please realize how useless guns are for most day to day people.(aside from those who hunt and the police, as well as the military.).

Hell even knives are more useful than guns, the last three places I have worked have used knives every day for cutting food and boxes. Have not seen a gun in a month or two and I'm glad I haven't.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Except I did. I said I don't see a practical application for having to fire more than 1 round at a time in a civilian setting. I then explained how needing to fire more than once in quick succession while hunting is a failure of the hunter, not of the gun.

Pig is taking my post, ignoring the half that explains it, and then generalizing it to take it out of context. I think it's safe to say that Pig performed poor discussion practice with that post.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Except I did. I said I don't see a practical application for having to fire more than 1 round at a time in a civilian setting. I then explained how needing to fire more than once in quick succession while hunting is a failure of the hunter, not of the gun.

Pig is taking my post, ignoring the half that explains it, and then generalizing it to take it out of context. I think it's safe to say that Pig performed poor discussion practice with that post.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Which is exactly the part of your post that I quoted. How can you say "hurr durr he didn't read it" when I quoted it?!?!

How is it possible to even quote something without reading it?

Originally Posted by Oracle

I have underlined every section in my post, which you have quoted yourself, in which I say anything remotely close to "he didn't read it".

Notice how nothing is underlined.

Originally Posted by Oracle

What I did say, and what I will say again, is that you're taking a quote of mine and then either generalizing it or taking it out of context. Either situation would indicate you have read and understood the post, because you're deliberately warping the message to suit your purposes, which requires comprehension of the statement.

Originally Posted by Oracle

I don't see why anybody should really need to be able to fire off 30, 20, 15, 6, or even 2 rounds in quick succession in a civilian environment. Even in hunting. If you don't hit your mark on your first shot, tough luck, I don't want you spraying like a maniac after the fleeing prey in a desperate attempt to not have wasted your entire afternoon stuck in a tree getting eaten to death by mosquitoes.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Originally Posted by Oracle

I don't see why anybody should really need XYZ

This logic is far too general: "if you don't need it, ban it". Should we apply the same to cars, knives, shoes, tea towels, washing machines, etc?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

kek, "ignoring" then. Quoting something directly is a notoriously bad way to ignore it.

Are you ever going to address the argument or just keep making meaningless claims like this? Every quote is literally taken out of context, but it's kind of assumed that if I quote you then you know the context.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Let us notice how "quoting something directly" as defined by Pig is taking a quote that is 3 sentences long and condensing it to a single sentence that no longer contains the specific context, nor any of the reasoning to back it up.

My actual argument presented a premise, that anything beyond a single-shot weapon is not necessary in a civilian environment. It was then followed up by a casually structured supporting claim, that the only real situation in a civilian environment where you might need a quick follow up shot is in hunting, and the need to take a second shot in hunting is a failure of the hunter. As such, the necessity of a multi-round magazine is questionable, since the only need for one is a lack of skill on the part of the user.

All of this was then ignored, as shown by your quotation of my claim, which was condensed to a strawman of "if you don't need it, ban it".


So yes, you really are performing poor discussion practices Pig.

Originally Posted by Oracle

My actual argument presented a premise, that anything beyond a single-shot weapon is not necessary in a civilian environment. It was then followed up by a casually structured supporting claim, that the only real situation in a civilian environment where you might need a quick follow up shot is in hunting, and the need to take a second shot in hunting is a failure of the hunter. As such, the necessity of a multi-round magazine is questionable, since the only need for one is a lack of skill on the part of the user.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

lol I don't know if you are deliberately being dense, but you made the exact same argument again: "if you don't need it, ban it"

Originally Posted by ynvaser

You don't need it

Originally Posted by ynvaser

, having it enables weak nerds to shoot up schools more effectively, therefore there's literally no downside to banning it. The only reason the US still has these lax gun laws is to feed their war machine.