(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas
773 replies, posted
What are you even on about? We already know you can shoot people non-lethally, but you're acting like you've shown me it's impossible. In my dichotomy we have come to "it is very difficult to shoot people non-lethally", which means we should have higher standards. I honestly don't think I'm being dishonest, but you can project whatever you want, especially since insults have been your focus pretty much every time I see you lol
New drinking game, do a shot every time he says "higher standards"
What am I supposed to write out a fucking legal bill for you? I already said it could take up after the driver's licensing system...
If this is your take away, you are being dishonest with yourself at the very least.
There is no trainable way to make people shoot non lethally. There is no reliable way to do this.
I have literally said these words verfuckingbatim in this thread and you ignored them to continue to repeat yourself ad naueum.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge anything you don't like, doesn't mean that what you continue to say is correct.
I don't want to waste my time on this anymore because you have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you will not learn, or even attempt to entertain ideas that you don't already call your own. It's asinine for anyone to spend another minute on this discussion with you.
You're retreading the same points that 10 pages ago, we debunked. You don't think that's the case, but that's because you didn't read.
Okay, now explain how that will work and prevent situations like this to the degree you think it will? I mean if you'd use your head, licences don't exactly keep people from causing accidents or mowing down crowds of people, now do they? It isn't a magical cure-all like tourniquets.
This doesn't mean anything. It's not specific, and it doesn't stipulate how you're going to train people to reliably incapacitate people in non lethal ways with lethal weapons.
You're saying "We'll do the impossible" and getting mad when we tell you to shut up and be pragmatic.
So now it is impossible to TRAIN people to shoot non-lethally. Okay, so then, like I've already said, many pages ago, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to shoot people non-lethally, effectively. So then, that means guns are dangerous as all fuck, and if you don't think that means we should have a licensing system like we have on cars, then wtf?
If you're wrong you'll what? Repeat yourself for 23 pages like this whole thread is evidence of?
You are wrong, you've demonstrated it with ignorance and naivate over and over again in this very thread.
The fuck do you mean "If I'm wrong"? You are fucking wrong.
I'm sorry, and you told me I'm not reading? I gave you a dichotomy where it was possible it was actually IMPOSSIBLE to non-lethally shoot people. Then, it is very difficult to use a gun responsibly because it turns you into judge jury executioner, so it should have higher standards!
I should also like to mention that in a way we DO have a licensing system on firearms, federally it's for carrying handguns openly and concealed, but each state varies in what you need licenses and tax stamps for, but that's basic knowledge.
It's always been impossible. Coydog in his failed attempt to demonstrate this linked the Swedish police, who, despite training to not kill people, still kill people. You look at this and think that we all advocate magdumping(Which we've disputed), or going for headshots(Which no one has advocated) so, in all honesty, how are you not dishonest when you reply to us with an imagined argument in our backpocket? You keep saying "So you guys think this" and the fact is, every single time, you're making up a fucking strawman to argue against because you refuse to even read what's said to you.
Your concept of "higher standards" is childlike in its thinking, frankly.
Do you have something personal against me because I have a very nuanced position on gun ownership or something? You realize I think people should be able to own any type of gun they want, even rocket launchers or LMG's (with some restrictions on where you can keep them, probably). I don't necessarily like guns myself, but they're an item that people enjoy, and I value freedom. However, I do think that because of their danger they should be regulated.
What does "Higher standards" mean? A navy seal cannot use their gun to reliably non lethally shoot someone, who can own a gun in your fantasy world?
Your view on gun ownership isn't nuanced, it's childish and frankly fairly dangerous and your completely lack of knowledge on the fact that we DO have regulations for guns and also think people should just own ROCKET LAUNCHERS tells me volumes about the kind of person we're talking to.
Sorry, but if you don't think that saying I want gun control but I also want free access to all sorts of weaponry (with some restrictions) is at least, in some sense, nuanced, then YOU are dishonest.
Lol grow up dood. You've been proven wrong over and over so no matter how many times you beat that dead horse youre still gonna be wrong.
Nobody has any interest in proving you wrong for the umpteenth time. Grow up, act like an adult, and take youe lumps.
Wait...why shouldn't people be able to own rocket launchers? If they are trained properly in it, and use it only when proper, and don't cause illegal damage (much like a gun), then...what? It obviously can't be in the home, which my restrictions would likely be that it needs to stay at a range.
That's not nuanced, that's pretty much the basic thought any of us has in regards to gun control.
I just posted proof that shows that firing a bullet up can kill, lets not gamble on "it might not", it's absolutely not something to do at all
>won't cause illegal damage IT'S A ROCKET LAUNCHER, IT'S EXPLOSIVE, what the hell is wrong with you
No one is attacking you over your positions on gun control. Youre being criticized for your complete inability to grasp basic concepts and your willfull ignorance over basic subjects.
Quit acting like a 6 year old who isn't getting their way and maybe people wont treat you as such.
An argument based on "It's probably safe" isn't an argument at all
Yeah, pretty hard to find a place to legally use a rocket launcher, but doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to use it if they want to...wtf?
You could always non-lethally explode your house robbers
just strategically shoot them
Do i REALLY need to explain to you how, despite whatever magical super-training and licensing you'd give someone, there's a reason why EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY UNPREDICTABLE are REGULATED and why civilians and ranges DON'T HAVE THEM?
The problem is that there are two things. It is possible, actually, to non-lethally shoot someone. You guys have said it many many times yourselves. The problem is, however, that it is impossible to train people to reliably do that, at least if you want to keep access to firearms open to the general public. In that case, and I definitely agree with it, guns are incredibly dangerous and give people the ability to be judge, jury, and executioner (because they won't even try to reduce chance of death), so the standards should be higher. If we disagree on that last point, then that's fine, I don't really care, democracy will decide where we go on that.
You're posting from the US, they're your cops too so how about you off that high horse.
That first round being blanks shit will only result in Police getting killed since it delays their lethal response. If they gotta draw their gun then non lethal Is out of the question.
I like how you're still posting here even though you said that you didn't want to "run in circles".
You've picked enough cherries i think we can make a jam now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas
