depends on what kind of danger, if someone is brandishing a firearm or other deadly weapon then my 3 plans would definitely involve a firearm. first you show to try and scare them off, if that doesn't work you shoot them, if that doesn't work you kill them. better than your plan being to cry, piss yourself, and hope they don't kill you. the gun in the hand of a good Samaritan allows them to protect themselves and everyone around them.
I wasn't saying anything about changing opinions, I'm talking about saying "After looking at your profile, no wonder." being an ad hominem and that's it.
Catalyst, you've just come up with a very specific situation in an attempt to derail the message of the OP. Anyone could do that. But in a broader sense, the OP is bang on (no pun intended) because "danger" is such a broad concept. And if a gun is your general plan to deal with ANY danger that comes your way, whatever form it takes, then I agree that YOU are the problem. I've never considered having a gun to deal with those kinds of situations. I've considered a big guard dog or a nice alarm system...but guns? Nah.
A man shot his 4 year old daughter in the face while trying to protect his family from thieves. A gun in the hands of a good Samaritan can be just as dangerous as in the hands of a criminal.
Please, it's not like our opinions are going to change anyway.
The link explained the post further and that's all there is to it. I gave up because I honestly just don't care. His beliefs put on the last straws and I don't debate with people whose beliefs are so...conservative. Normally because it just means nobody's going to listen to each other.
I think FOX News lies, he thinks it's absolutely A-OK and thinks other news lie. So everybody lies, everybody's stupid, let's move on.
Well jeez, you say you're conservative and you think your political system is correct and A-OK but the liberal ones are absolute bullshit? Totally ad hominem! That never happens or is how people naturally think, pfff.
In the situation that you are the attacker. If you have to be the offensive, you are the problem. You are the reason other people need guns to defend themselves. And that's not good.
depends on what kind of danger, if someone is brandishing a firearm or other deadly weapon then my 3 plans would definitely involve a firearm. first you show to try and scare them off, if that doesn't work you shoot them, if that doesn't work you kill them. better than your plan being to cry, piss yourself, and hope they don't kill you. the gun in the hand of a good Samaritan allows them to protect themselves and everyone around them.
then your post is worded poorly, that would be using a firearm to initiate danger not deal with it.
Doesn't make it not true. And lots of people see the relevance in the other side don't and dismiss the opinion just because of their stance.
and what situation then would I be the problem for looking to my gun as a tool for dealing with danger as you say in your post?
Dismissing their opinion because of who they are and the other things they support is an ad homien fallacy.
I wasn't saying anything about changing opinions, I'm talking about saying "After looking at your profile, no wonder." being an ad hominem and that's it.
Catalyst, you've just come up with a very specific situation in an attempt to derail the message of the OP. Anyone could do that. But in a broader sense, the OP is bang on (no pun intended) because "danger" is such a broad concept. And if a gun is your general plan to deal with ANY danger that comes your way, whatever form it takes, then I agree that YOU are the problem. I've never considered having a gun to deal with those kinds of situations. I've considered a big guard dog or a nice alarm system...but guns? Nah.
A man shot his 4 year old daughter in the face while trying to protect his family from thieves. A gun in the hands of a good Samaritan can be just as dangerous as in the hands of a criminal.
OK
luv u bbycakes xoxoxo
For the record, I hate both of you :-P
kidding!
Correct.
Please, it's not like our opinions are going to change anyway.
The link explained the post further and that's all there is to it. I gave up because I honestly just don't care. His beliefs put on the last straws and I don't debate with people whose beliefs are so...conservative. Normally because it just means nobody's going to listen to each other.
I think FOX News lies, he thinks it's absolutely A-OK and thinks other news lie. So everybody lies, everybody's stupid, let's move on.
Either way, I was trying to signify that I was done.
Maybe the original link to what this is referencing to would explain it better than I.
Well jeez, you say you're conservative and you think your political system is correct and A-OK but the liberal ones are absolute bullshit? Totally ad hominem! That never happens or is how people naturally think, pfff.
Then they are the problem, and you're defending yourself. Not quite the same.
In the situation that you are the attacker. If you have to be the offensive, you are the problem. You are the reason other people need guns to defend themselves. And that's not good.
They approve of firearms yet you disagree since you definitely seem like the kind of guy who approves of them?
EDIT: After looking at your profile, no wonder. Especially with Ron Paul, holy shit no god no never no. Goodbye.
Guess I'm okay then. A gun's my fourth option.
"First, second, third and only." - For when just saying "Only" is beneath you.
This is referencing gun control controversy.