Truck Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2016, 02:15 AM
RE: Truck Control
(15-07-2016 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 06:29 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  When a gun kills 100 people it's not a misuse it's not being used for evil it's being used to do exactly what it's designers interned it to be used for killing huge numbers of people as quickly as possible. Anyone not using guns to kill huge numbers of people are the ones misusing the gun

Utter bullshit. Only military arms are designed and made for that purpose.

with respect this doesn't change my point in the slightest ALL guns are military arms from the fire lances of china to it's export to Arabia and the Europe to the present day it is and will always be a weapon the fact it's been and being used apart from it's martial heritage changes it's true use none the slightest

Quote:on the other hand no one at Buick was thinking hey we can use this to kill huge numbers of people with this. They were thinking of transporting shit so using it otherwise is a misuse. And if it were a great instrument of death you wonder why our armies have not thrown away there guns and ride out and try to run over there Isis oh yeah because guns are better at killing people.

Armored vehicles are designed to be able to do precisely that.

And again with respect again this don't change my point trucks and car are and always will be a method of transport the fact it's been and is being used apart from it's origins as a method of transport is irrelevant to the abuse of using it as such

kindest regards

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 02:21 AM
RE: Truck Control
[Image: Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
16-07-2016, 02:26 AM
RE: Truck Control
(16-07-2016 02:21 AM)Banjo Wrote:  [Image: Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.jpg]

Banjo you lovable scampHeart

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
16-07-2016, 02:44 AM
RE: Truck Control
(15-07-2016 04:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nobody wants to ban knives because it is obvious to everyone knives do more good than harm. That might be true of guns too but I am afraid to make that argument. I think a lot of people on this forum would be bothered by some tough questions.

Heywood,

The guns, trucks, knives argument is an example of 'reductio ad absurdum'. This is a common argument in philosophy, in which we follow an idea to its logical conclusion, which can be absurdity; in this case we might end up banning anything even slightly dangerous. It is also sometimes called the 'slippery slope argument'.

As it happens, the argument is not particularly against gun control in the present context. The force of the argument here is more about banning or controlling things, and the trade off between freedom, usefulness and public safety.

So, if we go down the route of banning or licensing dangerous things we might end up licensing a pair of nail scissors! In fact there is already an age requirement of 18yrs to buy a pair of nail scissors here in the UK, and I believe that some airlines have banned them in hand luggage. That's beginning to sound absurd to me.

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dworkin's post
16-07-2016, 03:39 AM
RE: Truck Control
(16-07-2016 12:46 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:51 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Way to truncate a quote so the context is different.

Happy with your cheap shot?

The context of WHY you own guns does not change that you own guns and are thus, by definition, a gun owner.

I didn't say I wasn't a gun owner. I said I don't consider myself to be a gun owner and went on to explain why I don't think of myself as an owner of guns. To me they are heirlooms and nothing more.

You were just being a shitstain douchebag like you always are that's all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 03:41 AM
RE: Truck Control
(16-07-2016 03:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I didn't say I wasn't a gun owner. I said I don't consider myself to be a gun owner and went on to explain why I don't think of myself as an owner of guns.

So, you own guns?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
16-07-2016, 03:51 AM
RE: Truck Control
which logically makes you a gun owner same as i inheriting my grandmothers scotty makes me a dog owner because you know i own a dog but of course he's just an heirloom i don't think of myself as dog owner

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
16-07-2016, 03:59 AM
RE: Truck Control
(16-07-2016 03:51 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  which logically makes you a gun owner same as i inheriting my grandmothers scotty makes me a dog owner because you know i own a dog but of course he's just an heirloom i don't think of myself as dog owner

Yes technically I am a gun owner. I never said I wasn't. I said I don't think of myself as a gun owner. Do you ever exceed the speed limit in your car? If you have you are a law breaker. Do you think of yourself as a law breaker? Probably not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 04:06 AM
RE: Truck Control
(16-07-2016 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 03:51 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  which logically makes you a gun owner same as i inheriting my grandmothers scotty makes me a dog owner because you know i own a dog but of course he's just an heirloom i don't think of myself as dog owner

"Yes technically I am a gun owner. I never said I wasn't. I said I don't think of myself as a gun owner"

irrelevant what you said or believe changes nothing your a gun owner"


"Do you ever exceed the speed limit in your car? "
nope don't own a car


If you have you are a law breaker. Do you think of yourself as a law breaker? Probably not.
if i did id most certainly be a law breaker because you know i broke a law

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 04:10 AM
RE: Truck Control
(16-07-2016 02:44 AM)Dworkin Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 04:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nobody wants to ban knives because it is obvious to everyone knives do more good than harm. That might be true of guns too but I am afraid to make that argument. I think a lot of people on this forum would be bothered by some tough questions.

Heywood,

The guns, trucks, knives argument is an example of 'reductio ad absurdum'. This is a common argument in philosophy, in which we follow an idea to its logical conclusion, which can be absurdity; in this case we might end up banning anything even slightly dangerous. It is also sometimes called the 'slippery slope argument'.

As it happens, the argument is not particularly against gun control in the present context. The force of the argument here is more about banning or controlling things, and the trade off between freedom, usefulness and public safety.

So, if we go down the route of banning or licensing dangerous things we might end up licensing a pair of nail scissors! In fact there is already an age requirement of 18yrs to buy a pair of nail scissors here in the UK, and I believe that some airlines have banned them in hand luggage. That's beginning to sound absurd to me.

D.

I like your argument, but I think there is some validity to the fact that guns are designed to kill living things while nail scissors are not. I look at it this way. I am from the US so I am looking at it in the context of the 2nd amendment. A citizen has a right to own a musket. However a citizen does not have a right to own a thermonuclear weapon. Somewhere between musket and thermonuclear weapon is a line which delineates what a citizens should be allowed to own and what they shouldn't. I don't pretend to know where that line is.

How powerful an armament a citizen is allowed to own is something that needs to be determined by a collective decision of the society. I hold no animosity against those who claim an AR-15 is too powerful a weapon. I hold no animosity against those who claim it isn't. Whatever my society decides is good for me. Right now they have decided an AR-15 is okay to own. If they change their mind, I'm good with that too. I really am indifferent because guns are not important in my life. I have no desire to own them, and I don't feel threatened by them(except in my youth when the cops drew their weapons against me on a couple of occasions.....thankfully I am white and consequently didn't get shot).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: