Guns or not Guns

[Nintii]

Interesting, it’s a “yes” and a “no” ... it’s true that you don’t need to own a firearm to know it’s benefits.

You don’t have to put your hand on a stove in order to know that it burns.

But a teacher or mentor with experience is a better instructor than one who only theoretically knows of the dangers.

 

I have seen the difference between people who are learned from books or instruction and those with practical experience ... experience always has

the edge.

And while the dangers or benefits of firearms does not lay in theory or arguement alone but in staggering amounts of practical experience, the arguement

for or against them is not going to win the day but rather the education on the usage and misusage of the instrument.

 

Just like smoking, present the pro’s and cons and then you decide.

And if and when the majority of people decide to say "No" then it will be no, but until that day while it’s still yes, educate people.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

What have I "done before?" Asked people to stop taking the route of making a claim of experience and ignoring any facts or statistics? You are seriously going to suggest that what I am doing is a cop out?

 

This is probably going to be the last time now, but let me explain a bit more carefully.

 

You do not need to send me documents. You shouldn't be sending me documents. That is the entire reason you can't use experience as your sole evidence on an anonymous internet forum. Because no one can prove your experience is valid. It is that simple.

 

I will ask a few questions to you. I hope you answer them this time.

 

Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true?

 

Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it?

 

By the way I actually AM a general. True story. My experience is greater then yours so I am instantly right. No need for this topic anymore, everyone move along :whistling:

Yes, it is a cop out because I actually have replied to you. And you don't need to explain things "carefully" because I already understood everything you said. You can get down off the horse. I read all your posts, and have replied specifically to what I thought required replying to.

Everyone here is talking of their experiences. Have you jumped on their cases? No. Mine? yes. Okay, fine. I can actually prove what I say, it's just that I won't to you because you are unworthy of that consideration. If anyone knows the field of which I am speaking as an expert, they will know I'm speaking the truth in my examples. You don't. I already knew that but tried, with my examples, to lead you to a greater understanding of the matter. Didn't work. At least I tried.

You want to dismiss my experience and the examples I've given that actually rather prove I know what I'm talking about. If you were experienced in this matter, you would hear the truth of what I'm saying, in for example, self-defense matters. You don't know me, you are not an expert in these matters, and that's why you're relying on this as a cop out.

Example: you said guns were of no use in a self-defense situation unless against a gun armed opponent. I, as a reply, proved you wrong with a very clear example.

Saying you're a general is just being a smartass, implying I'm a liar when I am most certainly not. I haven't called you a liar, yet you continue to do the same to me. You've said naive and not very intelligent things (experience does not equal fact, for example, when experience actually is the basis of fact) but I'm not calling you a liar. At most, I've called you inexpert, which in these matters you have shown yourself to be by not knowing a gun's capabilities and uses in life-threatening situations.

 

 

[hoofhearted4]

If anything, gun owners' opinions ought to be valued far less in this debate.

 

What?! how can you possibly come to that conclusion!?

[marharth]

What have I "done before?" Asked people to stop taking the route of making a claim of experience and ignoring any facts or statistics? You are seriously going to suggest that what I am doing is a cop out?

 

This is probably going to be the last time now, but let me explain a bit more carefully.

 

You do not need to send me documents. You shouldn't be sending me documents. That is the entire reason you can't use experience as your sole evidence on an anonymous internet forum. Because no one can prove your experience is valid. It is that simple.

 

I will ask a few questions to you. I hope you answer them this time.

 

Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true?

 

Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it?

 

By the way I actually AM a general. True story. My experience is greater then yours so I am instantly right. No need for this topic anymore, everyone move along :whistling:

Yes, it is a cop out because I actually have replied to you. And you don't need to explain things "carefully" because I already understood everything you said. You can get down off the horse. I read all your posts, and have replied specifically to what I thought required replying to.

Everyone here is talking of their experiences. Have you jumped on their cases? No. Mine? yes. Okay, fine. I can actually prove what I say, it's just that I won't to you because you are unworthy of that consideration. If anyone knows the field of which I am speaking as an expert, they will know I'm speaking the truth in my examples. You don't. I already knew that but tried, with my examples, to lead you to a greater understanding of the matter. Didn't work. At least I tried.

You want to dismiss my experience and the examples I've given that actually rather prove I know what I'm talking about. If you were experienced in this matter, you would hear the truth of what I'm saying, in for example, self-defense matters. You don't know me, you are not an expert in these matters, and that's why you're relying on this as a cop out.

Example: you said guns were of no use in a self-defense situation unless against a gun armed opponent. I, as a reply, proved you wrong with a very clear example.

Saying you're a general is just being a smartass, implying I'm a liar when I am most certainly not. I haven't called you a liar, yet you continue to do the same to me. You've said naive and not very intelligent things (experience does not equal fact, for example, when experience actually is the basis of fact) but I'm not calling you a liar. At most, I've called you inexpert, which in these matters you have shown yourself to be by not knowing a gun's capabilities and uses in life-threatening situations.

Calling me a smart ass isn't very nice. I said that to prove my point, and you didn't really counter that at all.

 

I am not a general, but I do work for a gun store.

 

You did not prove I was wrong with an example by the way, read my reply to that.

 

Ill just start reposting my questions until you reply to them then since you are having a hard time not ignoring the big parts of my posts.

 

Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true?

 

Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it?

 

If you think guns do not do anything without a person, you also think nukes are harmless without a person correct?

Edited February 11, 2012 by marharth

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Calling me a smart ass isn't very nice. I said that to prove my point, and you didn't really counter that at all.

 

I am not a general, but I do work for a gun store.

 

You did not prove I was wrong with an example by the way, read my reply to that.

 

Ill just start reposting my questions until you reply to them then since you are having a hard time not ignoring the big parts of my posts.

 

Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true?

 

Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it?

 

If you think guns do not do anything without a person, you also think nukes are harmless without a person correct?

You're being a smartass when you say you're a general implying I'm doing the same. That's being a smartass and calling me a liar.

First you say you want evidence, then you don't, then you do. You won't accept what I say without proof/evidence, yet you don't want evidence.

I don't see anyone else here having to backup personal history or claims, such as Ginnyfizz or Syco21 for two recent examples, when they talk of past experience.

Once again, I am speaking of things I actually can back up and prove it......I just won't to you, marharth.

Try to read what I said next time. And again, look at the example I gave last time to see how I have replied to you in the past.

I think I'm done "talking" to you. You ignore every example I've given, even repeating them, and here I am once again actually replying to you and actually answering your questions.

 

 

 

 

[marharth]

Calling me a smart ass isn't very nice. I said that to prove my point, and you didn't really counter that at all.

 

I am not a general, but I do work for a gun store.

 

You did not prove I was wrong with an example by the way, read my reply to that.

 

Ill just start reposting my questions until you reply to them then since you are having a hard time not ignoring the big parts of my posts.

 

Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true?

 

Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it?

 

If you think guns do not do anything without a person, you also think nukes are harmless without a person correct?

You're being a smartass when you say you're a general implying I'm doing the same. That's being a smartass and calling me a liar.

First you say you want evidence, then you don't, then you do. You won't accept what I say without proof/evidence, yet you don't want evidence.

I don't see anyone else here having to backup personal history or claims, such as Ginnyfizz or Syco21 for two recent examples, when they talk of past experience.

Once again, I am speaking of things I actually can back up and prove it......I just won't to you, marharth.

Try to read what I said next time. And again, look at the example I gave last time to see how I have replied to you in the past.

I think I'm done "talking" to you. You ignore every example I've given, even repeating them, and here I am once again actually replying to you and actually answering your questions.

No its not being a smart ass. I am not even calling you a lair. I simply do not think personal experience is valid if you can not prove it, that is all.

 

You just did the exact same thing you said was a cop out. If you don't want to answer my questions I think everyone here can see why.

Edited February 11, 2012 by marharth

[ginnyfizz]

I don't see anyone else here having to backup personal history or claims, such as Ginnyfizz or Syco21 for two recent examples, when they talk of past experience.

[Syco21]

If you think guns do not do anything without a person, you also think nukes are harmless without a person correct?

A nuclear bomb doesn't stop being radioactive in the absence of an operator telling it to be radioactive. But a nuclear bomb isn't going to detonate without an operator telling it to do so.

[Lisnpuppy]

Interesting, it's a "yes" and a "no" ... it's true that you don't need to own a firearm to know it's benefits.

You don't have to put your hand on a stove in order to know that it burns.

But a teacher or mentor with experience is a better instructor than one who only theoretically knows of the dangers.

 

I have seen the difference between people who are learned from books or instruction and those with practical experience ... experience always has

the edge.

And while the dangers or benefits of firearms does not lay in theory or arguement alone but in staggering amounts of practical experience, the arguement

for or against them is not going to win the day but rather the education on the usage and misusage of the instrument.

 

Just like smoking, present the pro's and cons and then you decide.

And if and when the majority of people decide to say "No" then it will be no, but until that day while it's still yes, educate people.

 

Best post I have seen in this thread. Too bad NOT ONE OF YOU READ IT!

Now as this has gone straight to hades in a handbasket...I am closing this thread as it is not longer (if ever it was) a debate.~Lisnpuppy