Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

This is one more example. Once again; "Saying someone is lying to themself and just saying that person is lying are two different concepts".

And the statement I made is more about saying you have no clue as to what you really believe and are fooling yourself, than anything to do with whether you want to ban guns or not.

Yes that is what you said and this is what I said in reply; "You are correct I did not say that but then again that is not what I was pointing out at the time."

Yes it is what I said and is what I meant to say and I'm still waiting for you to point out where I said you wanted to ban guns.

Oh wait you can't because I NEVER said it.

Thus this continues to be a fine example of your "honest debate" methods.

You make up something that was NEVER said and say that I implied or suggested it, then begin to shadow box with this figment of your imagination. Then force others to spend time denying and trying to prove that they never said, what they never said in the first place.

If this is not true please show me where I actually said you want to ban guns, not where you imagine I might have implied or suggested it but where I actually said it.

That way we can get this discussion back to reality and out of your imagination.

*

And you call my "charges" trumped up? You call what I say am basing it all on lies, innuendo and deceit?

Well at least I base what I say on what you actually have said and not on what I think you might have implied by what you say, like you do. With that in mind, which one of us is more likely to be basing their statements on lies, innuendo and deceit?

Vendetta? You need to get a grip. I mean, I find most of your posts humorous but I haven't found anything you say worth even mild displeasure, let alone mindless hostility and worthy of a vendetta.

See, now that's just funny.

If, as I've pointed out, you would just address what is actually said, instead of what you think was said, I would have few if any complaints about this discussion. But just pointing it out to you seems to upset you.

Try asking and when the person tells you what they mean it would be a pretty good idea to accept their word for it rather than keep insisting that you know better that they do what they mean by what they said.

A good example is your constantly insisting that I implied that you want to ban guns and you keep insisting even though it is something I never said and have repeatedly said that I didn't even imply.

Okay now it's time for you to give examples.

I suppose you consider that by my just repeatedly saying; I never said that you want to ban guns, to be shouting and bluster. but what else can I say went you keep insisting I did without showing proof. Or maybe it is the high-lighting or making the words bigger, that is just an attempt to make it easier to read and perhaps understand what has been said.

Actually what it shows is you just don't listen very well and by the way there is nothing wrong with working out what you want to say. We are not professionals and sometimes have ideas we would like to share that we may not have worked out completely. Someone who interested in the ideas offered and not in trying to crush all opposers, would actually encourage and help others to express themselves but that seems to be a skill you do not often practice.

 

Okay I'll rephrase it.

You're a stupid idiot, does that mean that no one should listen to you?

Does the question mark mean that I'm not calling you a stupid idiot?

 

Guns will NEVER be outlawed in the USA

 

I have already responded to post #817 in the post #838, I have not yet finished my response to post #817.

As for "this stupid animosity driven vendetta to prove I’m a ‘bad’ person", you need to cut back on your Starbucks, because you're starting to get paranoid.

After all, I've no animosity toward you and in no way consider you a "bad" person and feel absolutely no need to prove you are a "bad" person.

I wouldn't mind an actual discussion with you but you seem entirely incapable of such a discussion.

It's like you think everything someone says to you is some kind of a minefield meant to attack you personally and you attack it with blind fury that much of the time has nothing to do what what was actually said, whereas if you would just lay back a little you might find that many in this thread are fun to talk to and are not trying to attack you at all but just would like to talk to you.

 

Americans can no longer trust the police. Today I read about a mentally ill man that was beaten to death by a few cops. Some of our citizens cannot take this much more, when the cops take the law into their hands.

 

Gee, don't do any favors.

Really, that is what the illustration says to you? Interesting.

To me, the illustration merely shows that freedom is not unlimited and thus freedom comes responsibility. So I must say you have a very fertile imagination.

As for your question; so I wonder why shouldn’t there be regulation in place to try and prevent harm with relation to guns?

I don’t know, why not?

As I have already mentioned I do necessarily have anything against gun regulations.

But since this thread is about regulation of guns by banning them in the US, I would have to say I am against that if that is the regulation you are talking about.

 

but you're obviously not reading balbus' posts!

He has nothing against gun owners who follow the law.

He just thinks guns should be against the law.

 

Well there are issues between Old water and Balbus
Hmmm

Making guns against the law is pointless. Heroin . explosives and pot are against the law.
How many stoned peeps watched 9/11 realtime.
As i said.. education . Knowledge and moral integrity. The bannishment of base ignorance.

THIS will make the gun question a moot one.

Boaz

 

By the way

Calling people idiots. No matter how justified.. achieves nothing.

 

OWB

Your evidence that I’m a ‘bad’ person that I ‘twist’ words seems to be based on –

(1) You believing something wasn’t a question which I meant as a question and subsequently changed so that you could understand it was a question, once I understood you had not realised it was meant as a question.

- This was a misunderstanding that was corrected but you just don’t seem to want to let go of it - to the point that you’ll risk been labelled a troll with a very silly and stupid example that sails very close to a banning offence (and yes this is a warning).

(2) That because you never actually used the words I think you want to ban guns in the quote “So no matter how many times you say "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible", those of us who read your posts know the truth, so you are only lying to yourself” you didn’t mean by what you said that you thought I wanted to ban guns.

This is differing of opinion, if you didn’t actually mean to imply you thought I was lying then I think it was a very badly constructed sentence. And I must point out that in subsequent posts you have not just suggested but stated that you think I’m in favour of a ban, and there is the suggestion that you’ve probably done for some time.

I mean as ‘evidence’ to prove my supposed wrong doing its not exactly overwhelming is it? And I’m sorry to say that your pettiness in the pursuit of proving my supposed wrong for all your denials does seem driven by personal animosity.

 

OWB

So let’s get this straight anyone that doesn’t agree with you on how low the level of gun control should be actually wants a total ban on guns?

I’ve already answered this question before – I think this is the problem you are not interested in a debate only in trying to score points.
To repeat – “I do not believe in prohibition, but neither do I believe in dangerous deregulation.

To me things need to be properly regulated. The ideas behind such regulatory policies are based on risk to individuals and society. For example – lets us look at private car ownership.

There are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns.

People have to have a driving licence, and they only get a driving licence if they have passed a driving test. There are bars on people with a medical complete that may cause them to loose control of a vehicle (e.g. epileptics) or otherwise be of danger to other road users or pedestrians (sight defects). We remove licences from those that we deem unfit to hold one (e.g. drunk drivers). People have to have a tax disc and current insurance and driving without is illegal.

Then there are the rules of the road, which side of the road to drive. how to turn left or right, how to conduct at traffic lights or crossing points.

The car manufacturer also has a number of regulations to make sure the car is safe and a user has to have a yearly certificate of road worthiness to make sure it is still safe and driving without one is illegal.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

To me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.

Now according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns”

*

And in what way am I supposedly abrogating gun owner’s rights?

(Abrogate - To abolish, do away with, or annul.)

So you are not even implying here you are telling me I want to ban guns.

Now I’ve always wanted more regulation of guns than you and you’ve always known that…

 

OWB

Where someone else is physically hurt with malicious intent.

A hearing similar to a drink driving case. A person caught drink driving still has the licence removed even when they haven’t yet maimed or killed anyone.

The driver maybe innocent of causing a serious crime but the licence is still taken away.

 

OWB

Thank you - as I’ve mentioned before the problem with many that hold the pro-gunner stance is that they only see the ‘gun issue’ and seem to put little though to the bigger picture.

Thank you again - As I’ve said I think the problem with guns is not so much the guns but the attitudes and mentality of those that support the pro-gun stance. It seems to me that it is this mentality that sidetracks people from seeking alternative means of dealing with social, economic and political problems.

And thank you again – As has been pointed out many times I’m not an American, you may really need the ‘holistic approach’ but it is Americans that must try and put it in place and as I’ve repeatedly said it seems to me that many Americans don’t because they have the mentality and attitudes that seem to underpin the pro-gun stance.

And again thank you – I’ve contended that many pro-gunners don’t seem interested in alternatives or even show hostility toward them. As far as I know you have not actually showed any interest in the discussion of socio-economic problems and how to tackle them, however you show a hostile toward different approaches none the less.

 

Roo

Thank you for once again backing up what I’ve been saying, I’ve said many times that the problem is that many pro-gunners see any move to better regulate guns to limit the possibility of harm as really about banning them. That fear and paranoia get in the way of thought.

 

Thanx, that explains everything. I don't know how I missed it.

 

If you believe the way Balbus does, the question mark at the end of that sentence mark means that I did not call him an idiot.

 

Your believing that I'm trying to prove you are a "'bad' person" is an example of your twisting what is being said. Because I have said that is not what I am doing and have said that I do not believe you to be a "'bad' person".

This is another example of your twisting what has been said. I never said that is wasn't a question. What I was pointing out is that the parenthetical statement at the beginning of your question was a statement of fact, that the question was asked about. Much like the example that I gave you; "You're a stupid idiot, does that mean that no one should listen to you?" Which according to your reasoning does not call you a stupid idiot, because of the question mark at the end.

Although you have "corrected" it, you still bring it up, see your point #1 above and now because you keep bringing it up, I'm going to get banned because I reply to it. The truth is that if you stop bringing it up, I will stop replying to it.

The question I have is; who is really the troll and should be banned, the person who keeps bring it up or the one who replies to it?

 

banning guns in the US won't do anything to curb crimes.

I do believe in certain controls to at least make it more difficult for those bent on doing bad to get guns.

 

Well, if we want as many people shot as in Norway, let's outlaw guns! Criminals will have the guns because they are the only ones who care!

 

The real problem here is that you are seeing everything in black and white and will not acknowledge that there is a lot of variations in between; I don't want guns banned and I want guns banned.

My statement would would allow for the the thought that; your repeated statement that "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible" does not agree well with your somewhat draconian calls for more repressive gun control measures which would still greatly interfere with "gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible", without going to the point of actually calling for a gun ban.

As I have already pointed out several times; saying that someone is lying and saying that someone is lying to themselves are two different concepts. So why do you keep saying; "you thought I was lying"? To me this seems to be another example of your inability to understand the nuances of the English language, which complicates attempts to communicate with you.

As for this; "I must point out that in subsequent posts you have not just suggested but stated that you think I’m in favour of a ban"; I must ask you to provide proof of this, because I do not believe that you think you are in favor of a ban and thus would have not have reason to actually state you are in favor of a ban.

So my statement that: “So no matter how many times you say "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible", those of us who read your posts know the truth, so you are only lying to yourself”, was a call for you to review how honest you are being with yourself when you say; "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible", rather than any implication that you wanted a ban on guns.

Again your own seeming paranoia keeps you from understanding what is going on.

Again, I have no "personal animosity" toward you and I'm not particularly interested in proving that you are engaged in some kind of "wrong doing".

The only reasons I'm doing this is because you actually asked for it and in hopes that you will stop doing things that interferes with the free flow of communication, so we can have friendly discussion even though we may disagree.