Gun ownership poll

cgjackson222 · #1 07-15-2022, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

It's a good place to start, since you apparently need help in making a logical argument. I'm sure your side can do it. I'm sure you could read the previous post specifically naming several of the routes to go to use a consistent and logical argument, if you still can't figure out how a logical argument works to make one yourself.

With all of my droning on, I'm sure you can find something to legitimately attack very quickly.

Not every post is an "attack" on you. Was hoping we could potentially find some common ground if you actually feel there are some legitimate ways to further regulate guns. Alas, it was wishful thinking.

G1911 · #2 07-15-2022, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not every post is an "attack" on you. Was hoping we could potentially find some common ground if you actually feel there are some legitimate ways to further regulate guns. Alas, it was wishful thinking.

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

cgjackson222 · #3 07-15-2022, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

G1911 · #4 07-15-2022, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

Your last few posts are complaining that I post too much and insulting me. Which is fine, but yes, attack is the correct word for it.

Congrats, you�ve found a typographical error to hit me with. Double burn.

Mark17 · #5 07-15-2022, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

If you want to engage intellectually, you should understand that reading peoples' well thought out and informative posts is a prerequisite.

It seems you want to argue but are too lazy to read what is posted.

cgjackson222 · #6 07-15-2022, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you want to engage intellectually, you should understand that reading peoples' well thought out and informative posts is a prerequisite.

It seems you want to argue but are too lazy to read what is posted.

Yeah, too lazy to read almost 800 posts. Shame on me.

Let me just quit my job and put my 5 year-old up for adoption, then I'll read your posts.

Mark17 · #7 07-15-2022, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yeah, too lazy to read almost 800 posts. Shame on me.

Let me just quit my job and put my 5 year-old up for adoption, then I'll read your posts.

You have time to post inane comments like this, but not to actually read what is being discussed. As a result, you are contributing very little to the discussion. Just an observation.

G1911 · #8 07-15-2022, 06:52 PM

"I want to engage on the issue seriously, but I won't read the thread or the posts by the people I am claiming I want to engage intellectually with. Logic is a drone. I don't have time to read."

What a clown show lol.

cgjackson222 · #9 07-15-2022, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

You have time to post inane comments like this, but not to actually read what is being discussed. As a result, you are contributing very little to the discussion. Just an observation.

Believe me, I've tried. Rather than go on personal diatribes, I usually cite links to arguments. Here is one that goes through a lot of the arguments that pro-gun rights folks have: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-t...b0666ad0c3cb34

I don't expect you to read it, but by your standard, I guess you have to.

cgjackson222 · #10 07-15-2022, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994 when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Carter08 · #11 07-15-2022, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Stop making logical arguments. This seems neither the time nor the place.

G1911 · #12 07-15-2022, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It�s not hard to do. I�ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I�ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer�s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I�ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won�t read what I�ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest �got ya� yet.

cgjackson222 · #13 07-15-2022, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It�s not hard to do. I�ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I�ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer�s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I�ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won�t read what I�ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest �got ya� yet.

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?

G1911 · #14 07-15-2022, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?

I disagree. Shootings were dropping before the bill, dropped during the bill, and continued down after its sunset and it expired. The statistics are cherry picked and the appeal to popularity is, of course, fallacious. It is, though, quite a stretch, ignoring the rest of your clown show attempt at the dumbest gotcha of this thread, to consider the statement to be Reagan�s, who was losing his mind at this time. It has three signatures, none of whom actually wrote it, and of the 3 Reagan was the only one losing his mind. It�s not really his statement, though Reagan rarely found gun control he didn�t love.

It�s a safe bet that I�ll disagree with most Reagan measures. I do not hold other political views you seem to be operating under the assumption that I do, which you would know if you read the thread. Recurring theme here.

Your appeal to authority is to a man losing his mind. Classic. The jokes about how it takes the braindead to support these measures write themselves.

Going to answer my questions from the last post or just keep firing blanks and ignore each of your misfires?

cgjackson222 · #15 07-15-2022, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I disagree. Shootings were dropping before the bill, dropped during the bill, and continued down after its sunset and it expired. The statistics are cherry picked and the appeal to popularity is, of course, fallacious. It is, though, quite a stretch, ignoring the rest of your clown show attempt at the dumbest gotcha of this thread, to consider the statement to be Reagan’s, who was losing his mind at this time. It has three signatures, none of whom actually wrote it, and of the 3 Reagan was the only one losing his mind. It’s not really his statement, though Reagan rarely found gun control he didn’t love.

It’s a safe bet that I’ll disagree with most Reagan measures. I do not hold other political views you seem to be operating under the assumption that I do, which you would know if you read the thread. Recurring theme here.

Your appeal to authority is to a man losing his mind. Classic. The jokes about how it takes the braindead to support these measures write themselves.

Going to answer my questions from the last post or just keep firing blanks and ignore each of your misfires?

What do you want me say about Reagan's mental state? According to his son, he had Alzheimer's during his first term. Regardless of when he had it, I think the letter he helped pen regarding reducing assault weapons was spot on.

A previous argument for gun control I presented in this thread was about Australia having vastly reduced gun violence with gun reform. But you "refuted" that argument with your own "research" saying that reforms have not reduced gun violence. Basically, you will just believe what you want, regardless of fact. Statistical analysis shows Australia's gun reforms have been effective, regardless of what you have concluded.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set.	Misunderestimated	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	1	01-02-2020 08:50 PM
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership	Throttlesteer	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	49	08-14-2019 02:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items	Sean1125	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-29-2015 10:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs	theantiquetiger	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	08-17-2011 02:43 PM
Scan Ownership	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	12-14-2005 01:10 PM