Holy S*** - Muslim Gun Nutter In MY CITY Threatening Christians

[helltoupee]

Is there though in practical terms? The chances of losing your life or someone you care about to a stranger with an automobile is infinitly higher than with a firearm. Do you also wax ad nauseum on martial arts forums about the need for enhanced restraints , or speed governors , or universal breathalyzers , or raising the driving age and upping training requirements? Do you even think twice about just how dangerous it is to be surrounded by 100 strangers capable of ending your life in a second either accidentally or intentionally when you're around the general driving public? I doubt you do any of those things , partly because you have an fear that is the definition of irrational, your risk / action assessment is all outta wack here , and partly because youve grown to consider the dangers of the automobile to be the cost of doing business, whilst the private ownership of firearms is something that adds an element of risk to your life ( however small ) and no PERSONAL benefit. Youve no skin in game , and thats how we get back to " take THAT guys stuff please , will someone think of the children! "

I don't have a fear of guns at all. Nor do I think that people shouldn't be allowed to own as much. So you can go blow down some other straw house.

False equivalence:

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetrated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

 

[ehtheist]

I don't advocate taking people's guns.

But your comparison that both trucks and guns are the same thing is absolutely idiotic.

Try going hunting using your truck as a projectile and see how many buck you can kill.

Your insistence that I am arguing that trucks and guns are the same thing is ludicrous. My second post in this thread was that there are no true equivalencies. Frankly, from an ontologically standpoint, I view the whole position of any two things being "the same thing" as a fundamental fallacy brought on by lack of close analysis of the particulars of the situation. We try and approximate things as "same" based on what we decide are reasonable grounds of comparison but there is no true sameness in the world at all - just approximations based on various degrees of lack of attention to existing distinctions.

This all being said, it is simply a truth that both guns and trucks that they are tools with a wide variety of designs and functions, many of which do not include killing people. Do you deny this? Are there not countless models of guns out there which were not designed to kill people, and instead made with things like hunting, farming, and recreation in mind? Those *can* be used to kill people and that's the whole point - much like trucks, many guns are items designed to fill roles other than killing people that can be misused. There is an obvious point of comparison here.

Your whole "try and kill a buck with a truck thing" is just silly. I could say "try and go hunting with a land mine" - which is designed for killing/maiming - and it wouldn't be effective in the role of my 45-70 either. Does that mean that it is not an effective tool for killing? Your whole argument is "Since a gun is an effective tool for killing people at a distance and a truck isn't, obviously we shouldn't compare the two." The problem is that an automobile is a deadly weapon. A truck has proven, recently, to be an effective tool for terrorism and killing boatloads of people and there has even been a repeat performance. That a soldier couldn't replace his assault rifle with a truck/claymore mine/stick of dynamite/combat knife/katana/whatever doesn't mean that an item isn't an effective tool for killing people when used/misused. Your example seems to say "Well, you couldn't kill a buck with a truck so there is no comparison and we shouldn't talk about banning trucks"... Again, I couldn't kill a buck with a claymore mine - nor would claymore mines fill the role of an assault rifle in combat. Is this an argument for making claymores available to people then?

If you want to continue this discussion, lay off rhetorical showpiece cases and argue, in detail, why a truck, a tool which can be misused for killing people, is different than a gun which is misused for killing people? I'll check in later.

 

[freaky]

It's fine that he has permits for them but the fact that he said "be scared" that's a threat in itself. I'm sure he's on the popos radar or should.

 

[helltoupee]

If you want to continue this discussion, lay off rhetorical showpiece cases and argue, in detail, why a truck, a tool which can be misused for killing people, is different than a gun which is misused for killing people? I'll check in later.

Your whole post contradicts itself. At first you acknowledge differences, but then you add the above.

Yes they are both tools that can be used to kill something. It doesn't mean that a gun, a landmine, a truck, a knife, or a pencil, all of which can be lethal, can be used in the same manner, with the same mobility, the same lethality per second, from the same distance, etc etc etc. There is a difference in order of magnitude.

If you can't see the difference then you should do as I said. Tell the military to get rid of their guns and just drive trucks into battle.

It's that simple.

 

[Bald1]

Read his facebook page. He posted a few videos from the event (the "be scared" one was as he was leaving) and said he was interested in what this anti-islam (how it was reported) event was and to see who went. Basically he seemed appalled that it was a family event and a book promotional exploiting the fear of muslims.
Of course you have to wade through all the posts of people threatening to kill him and calling him a goat fucker to read it all.

I wonder if he would be just appalled after going to a mosque where they preached from the opposing perspective? Anti democracy and pro jihad speech is more common in mosques than anti Islam sermons in churches, I wager. After all, the department of silly hats is encouraging Catholics to embrace their fellow people of the book.

 

[Greoric]

Having over 300 million firearms in circulation in the US is just part of freedom!!! WOOO!!!!!! Seriously though.

It's much better than having one million centralized in one group's hands.

 

[Greoric]

Lol @ trying to parlay this shit into a commentary on the dangers of "lax" gun laws.

South Dakota is one of the safest states in the union.

It's consistently in the bottom ten states in terms of murder rates.

Coincidentally, other states with lax gun laws and high gun ownership such as Iowa, Main, Vermont, Utah, and Idaho are also almost always in the bottom 10.

It's almost like there is a vastly stronger correlation between large urban centers and concentrations of poverty stricken minority populations and murder rates than with gun ownership rates or gun laws.

You drop 10,000 guns off in Vermont and you won't see a fraction of the increase in crime you'd see if you handed out 1,000 guns in New Orleans.

There's no correlation in fact, when you look at a scatter plot of the world's countries and compare gun ownership to homicide rate.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Fuck you OP.

 

[Greoric]

So, you don't believe our lax gun laws have made the world "less safe". OK.

Do you have evidence that they have?

 

[Greoric]

I don't advocate taking people's guns.

But your comparison that both trucks and guns are the same thing is absolutely idiotic.

Try going hunting using your truck as a projectile and see how many buck you can kill.

From what I hear of Texas, nearly one every trip.

 

[Greoric]

I think it's fair to say that all people with a fetishistic relationship to firearms, regardless of race or religion, are probably more likely to act out violently than those without such a relationship.

Or maybe they're just not sheep, and have a constrained view of reality.... one where there are people that want to do some sick sadistic shit out there, so they want the best means to protect themselves.

Of all the non-arguments I get on here for my advocacy against having the state, an accusation for wanting a utopia is right up there. But its actually funny, because here's you; someone with an unconstrained view of reality. Someone that doesn't acknowledge that scarcity is a real thing or that it can just be wished away by a declaration. Someone that thinks there's no legitimate use for a force multiplier like a gun to potentially save your life... You have some significant shit to wade through before reality hits you in the face, friend.

 

[cabal]

The christians should be elect some rappresentatives.

 

[scoopj]

Heartwarming

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Apples: Mechanism designed with the express purpose of killing living things. When used correctly, in accordance with its design and purpose, it will kill.

Oranges: Mechanism designed with the express purpose of transporting people and objects. When used incorrectly, out of accordance with its design and purpose, it can kill.

Hope this helps.

If this were a compare and contrast essay the teacher would be kind to give you an incomplete.

Here's the thing that gets ignored by those trying to deligitimize firearms and their value to society when (accurately) pointing out that the ability to kills is what gives guns the value they have. And that thing is that killing is oftentimes legitimate. Not all killing is a crime. Hunting and self-defense are legitimate purposes, no different than being able to transport oneself (and wares) from place to place. In fact, driving motor vehicles is pretty new compared to those other activities having gone on the entirety of human history. Plus the cars will operate themselves soon and the privilege of driving being extended to the average person will be phased out by technology. Where's the substitute for self-defense on the horizon?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Do you have evidence that they have?

Any opinion on that is an entirely separate issue.

My point - the NRA's role in limiting regulation over gun ownership - stands. And I don't want to see the two matters confused.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

He is threatening a community, you inbread.

that post was sarcasm

 

[ultramanhyata]

Or maybe they're just not sheep, and have a constrained view of reality.... one where there are people that want to do some sick sadistic shit out there, so they want the best means to protect themselves.

Of all the non-arguments I get on here for my advocacy against having the state, an accusation for wanting a utopia is right up there. But its actually funny, because here's you; someone with an unconstrained view of reality. Someone that doesn't acknowledge that scarcity is a real thing or that it can just be wished away by a declaration. Someone that thinks there's no legitimate use for a force multiplier like a gun to potentially save your life... You have some significant shit to wade through before reality hits you in the face, friend.

Jesus... The G-Man, here to shit up another thread.

I have owned firearms. And may well again one day. And I've known a boatload of people over my lifetime who own firearms.

There is a mountain of difference between a person who owns guns, and uses them for hunting and/or personal protection, and a person who obsesses over guns:

Reads about them, takes them to the range regularly, collects them, discusses them online, has bumper stickers about them, wears shirts with references to them, daydreams about them while at work, etc.

Just like there is a difference between people who own cars and gear heads.

These gun obsessed people are those I referred to as "fetishists". I asserted that that category of gun owners are probably more likely to act out violently one day than those who have no significant emotional attachment to firearms.

 

[Greoric]

Jesus... The G-Man, here to shit up another thread.

I have owned firearms. And may well again one day. And I've known a boatload of people over my lifetime who own firearms.

There is a mountain of difference between a person who owns guns, and uses them for hunting and/or personal protection, and a person who obsesses over guns:

Reads about them, takes them to the range regularly, collects them, discusses them online, has bumper stickers about them, wears shirts with references to them, daydreams about them while at work, etc.

Just like there is a difference between people who own cars and gear heads.

These gun obsessed people are those I referred to as "fetishists". I asserted that that category of gun owners are probably more likely to act out violently one day than those who have no significant emotional attachment to firearms.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion, or is that just another opinion because you happened to have an asshole?

 

[Greoric]

Any opinion on that is an entirely separate issue.

My point - the NRA's role in limiting regulation over gun ownership - stands. And I don't want to see the two matters confused.

Well let's be clear, you're not making a point about regulating gun ownership. You're just making a point about controlling people. Afterall, you're not calling for regulating government's gun ownership, are you?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Here's the thing that gets ignored by those trying to deligitimize firearms and their value to society when (accurately) pointing out that the ability to kills is what gives guns the value they have. And that thing is that killing is oftentimes legitimate. Not all killing is a crime.

I DO NOT DISPUTE THIS AND NEVER HAVE.

It's like rat poison. Only a mental patient would argue that rat poison is not produced for the express purpose of killing.

But is it sometimes necessary to kill pests and varmints? Yes. Of course. Hence the need for rat poison!

But isn't it also true that rat poison can be used, either intentionally or unintentionally, to kill someone's beloved pet dog or cat? Even one's toddler or spouse?? Yes. Of course.

Guns are exactly the same. Made to kill. And once in their owners' hands, sometimes the killing is "right", sometimes it's "wrong".

This is what puts poison and guns in an entirely different category than cars, pools, ladders, circular saws, etc.