Dick's and Hypocrites

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why do some people come into discussion forums, only to dodge around and avoid telling us what they actually think when others try to discuss things with them?

 

[esmith]

Why do some people come into discussion forums, only to dodge around and avoid telling us what they actually think when others try to discuss things with them?

Some of us find that when a discussion starts it usually takes a left turn and we get somewhat disgusted with the whole thing

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is impossible to discuss anything with a anti-gun nutter.

Yeah - the way we present you with facts that are incompatible with your deep-seated beliefs is a real pain in the butt. The way we point out all the real harm that you have a hand in is a huge downer.

 

[esmith]

Yeah - the way we present you with facts that are incompatible with your deep-seated beliefs is a real pain in the butt. The way we point out all the real harm that you have a hand in is a huge downer.

Cherry-picked facts
Facts based on opinion
Convoluted facts
If that's what you want to consider facts, then I guess your right.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cherry-picked facts you mean.

Everyone has facts.
The problem arises when some people think that some statistic is sufficient
without being part of a cogent argument. Moreover, too little attention is paid to
the assumptions behind the statistic, eg, the debunked "18 school shootings in 2018".

But worse yet are their imagined motives for owning guns...with one poster
actually claiming we seek an opportunity to kill someone. And then there are
the ones who repeatedly claim that only men own guns, & that it's about penis
size insecurity. This bespeaks entrenched lack of understanding.

 

[Prestor John]

What's the difference?
If you don't believe that the gay couple are being wedded then it isn't a wedding cake. It's just a fancy cake.

What am I missing here?
Tom

Many Christians believe that they should avoid even the appearance of evil.

A wedding cake is often viewed by society as a symbol or icon of the union of a couple in marriage.

Providing such a symbol may be seen as the encouragement of something they deem "evil."

 

[metis]

If one is in the business of serving the public their product or service, then serve the public. To not make a cake for a gay couple simply because they're gay is pretty much the same as not serving blacks at a lunch counter simply because they're black.

We've been through these types of discrimination before, and it ain't "pretty".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Cherry-picked facts
Facts based on opinion
Convoluted facts
If that's what you want to consider facts, then I guess your right.

Yet you seem remarkably loathe to specify precisely which of his "facts" you feel are any of the above. Strange.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But worse yet are their imagined motives for owning guns...with one poster
actually claiming we seek an opportunity to kill someone.

There's a quote that's stuck with me: "don't tell me your priorities; show me your daytimer and your bank statement and I'll tell you your priorities."

When I see someone who spends a big chunk of his money on deadly weapons, who spends a big chunk of his time on building his proficiency at killing with them, and takes great care to make sure they'll be ready when he wants to use them, my inference - and I think it's very reasonable - that the person assigns a high value on killing if the "right" opportunity presented itself with the "right" person.

This gets covered up with euphemisms like "stopping power" and "neutralizing a threat," but we're still talking about killing.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There's a quote that's stuck with me: "don't tell me your priorities; show me your daytimer and your bank statement and I'll tell you your priorities."

When I see someone who spends a big chunk of his money on deadly weapons, who spends a big chunk of his time on building his proficiency at killing with them, and takes great care to make sure they'll be ready when he wants to use them, my inference - and I think it's very reasonable - that the person assigns a high value on killing if the "right" opportunity presented itself with the "right" person.

This gets covered up with euphemisms like "stopping power" and "neutralizing a threat," but we're still talking about killing.

Like most things, there are healthy levels of interest in firearms, and dangerously excessive interest. I would contend there's nothing wrong with a moderate interest in hunting, especially for people keen to practice ethical hunting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many Christians believe that they should avoid even the appearance of evil.

A wedding cake is often viewed by society as a symbol or icon of the union of a couple in marriage.

Providing such a symbol may be seen as the encouragement of something they deem "evil."

Yet these same Christians will often dismiss second marriages as "evil" or ceremonies of other denominations as "heretical," but we never hear stories about Christian bakers refusing to make a wedding cake for someone divorced from a previous marriage, or a Protestant baker refusing to make a cake for a Catholic, or a Catholic refusing to make a cake for a Mormon "celestial" marriage.

It sure seems to me like bakers' religious tenets only get in the way of a sale when those tenets line up with the baker's homophobia.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's a quote that's stuck with me: "don't tell me your priorities; show me your daytimer and your bank statement and I'll tell you your priorities."

When I see someone who spends a big chunk of his money on deadly weapons, who spends a big chunk of his time on building his proficiency at killing with them, and takes great care to make sure they'll be ready when he wants to use them, my inference - and I think it's very reasonable - that the person assigns a high value on killing if the "right" opportunity presented itself with the "right" person.

This gets covered up with euphemisms like "stopping power" and "neutralizing a threat," but we're still talking about killing.

Since you know nothing of how I spend my money,
your claim is pure prejudicial fantasy.

I can forgive a hoplophobe for being ignorant of the
term "stopping power" not being a euphemism.
To stop is not to cause death, although there is great
risk of the latter. It is actually a defined term which
has been used in tests & studies.
Your fear & loathing of guns is not license to redefine
words for the purpose of ramping up general fear.

Btw, sometimes a result is death without stopping
the assailant.

 

[esmith]

There's a quote that's stuck with me: "don't tell me your priorities; show me your daytimer and your bank statement and I'll tell you your priorities."

When I see someone who spends a big chunk of his money on deadly weapons, who spends a big chunk of his time on building his proficiency at killing with them, and takes great care to make sure they'll be ready when he wants to use them, my inference - and I think it's very reasonable - that the person assigns a high value on killing if the "right" opportunity presented itself with the "right" person.

This gets covered up with euphemisms like "stopping power" and "neutralizing a threat," but we're still talking about killing.

so what is your point

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like most things, there are healthy levels of interest in firearms, and dangerously excessive interest. I would contend there's nothing wrong with a moderate interest in hunting, especially for people keen to practice ethical hunting.

And I've said many times that I'm okay with hunting... and competitive shooting and gun collecting. All of these activities can be done responsibly. It's only "defensive" firearm use that's inherently irresponsible.

Responsible, ethical hunters don't carry around unsecured loaded weapons in public. They don't try to use their weapons when they're disoriented and groggy from just having been startled awake. When they're using their guns, they take measures to ensure the people around them are aware that guns are being used and to ensure that those other people will be safe. They know they're always free to not fire if there's any doubt at all that there might be a problem.

Hunting weapons are still a problem in terms of potential use in suicide or domestic violence, or in terms of the potential for theft or accidents, but we can put measures in place for hunting weapons - e.g. secure storage unloaded with ammo securely stored separately - that address these risks. They don't address those risks perfectly, but they do address them to a significant degree. "Defensive" gun use requires that these reasonable safety measures be compromised: the gun generally has to be kept loaded and easily accessible.

So I see a big difference between "defensive" gun use and the more legitimate and reasonable types of gun use.

 

[esmith]

So I see a big difference between "defensive" gun use and the more legitimate and reasonable types of gun use.

Well, fortunately for us here in the US "defensive" guns are legitimate and reasonable types of gun use.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And I've said many times that I'm okay with hunting... and competitive shooting and gun collecting. All of these activities can be done responsibly. It's only "defensive" firearm use that's inherently irresponsible.

Responsible, ethical hunters don't carry around unsecured loaded weapons in public. They don't try to use their weapons when they're disoriented and groggy from just having been startled awake. When they're using their guns, they take measures to ensure the people around them are aware that guns are being used and to ensure that those other people will be safe. They know they're always free to not fire if there's any doubt at all that there might be a problem.

Hunting weapons are still a problem in terms of potential use in suicide or domestic violence, or in terms of the potential for theft or accidents, but we can put measures in place for hunting weapons - e.g. secure storage unloaded with ammo securely stored separately - that address these risks. They don't address those risks perfectly, but they do address them to a significant degree. "Defensive" gun use requires that these reasonable safety measures be compromised: the gun generally has to be kept loaded and easily accessible.

So I see a big difference between "defensive" gun use and the more legitimate and reasonable types of gun use.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, fortunately for us here in the US "defensive" guns are legitimate and reasonable types of gun use.

Why? Because you say so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, fortunately for us here in the US "defensive" guns are legitimate and reasonable types of gun use.

You and I have different definitions of "fortunately," apparently.

 

[metis]

I just wish that some whom are so pro-gun would even be more pro-living, thus putting our children ahead of a machine who's sole purpose is to kill. IMO, the NRA should be declared a subversive organization because of the utterly deadly stances they have taken thus putting their profits over our children and innocent adults. To me, they are much more a threat to American security that are ISIS and al-Queda combined.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just wish that some whom are so pro-gun would even be more pro-living.....

Apparently you have them all on <ignore>.