Interesting
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Murder-weapons are part of your persuit of happyness?
Your loaded characterization does not alter what I said - pursuit of happiness.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
In that case, simpy stop whining about the deaths by shooting each year; just a choice you guys take for you own happyness.
That does not follow. Living on a beach that is sure to be hit by a hurricane is pursuit of happiness but it doesn't preclude people from feeling sorrow when the house is lost. Watching cars whiz around a track 500 times is pursuit of happiness but it doesn't preclude sorrow when someone dies. And, as I already mentioned, owning a dog is something that many people specifically refer to making them happy but it doesn't preclude sorrow and shock when even mild manner dogs manage to maim or kill someone.
jschell wrote:
Your loaded characterization does not alter what I said - pursuit of happiness.
How does a weapon, strictly to end others' life, give you happiness?
jschell wrote:
Living on a beach
Your gun is not a natural cause.
jschell wrote:
And, as I already mentioned, owning a dog is something that many people specifically refer to making them happy but it doesn't preclude sorrow and shock when even mild manner dogs manage to maim or kill someone.
Is that your defense? "People can own deadly rocks, so don't take my automatic rifle that makes me happy"?? You're allowed to; but you're not allowed to whine about the consequences. Enjoy your choice :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
Just asking because the Netherlands allows gun ownership for both of those so I am curious what "need" those fulfill?
The Netherlands does not allow assault rifles. Hunting is only allowed in certain area's for restricted periods, and there certainly is NO need to hunt with a gun here. Besides what is and isn't allowed, there's also a difference in what is generally available.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The Netherlands does not allow assault rifles. Hunting is only allowed in certain area's for restricted periods, and there certainly is NO need to hunt with a gun here. Besides what is and isn't allowed, there's also a difference in what is generally available.
However none of that changes what you said or what I responded to. You said "Normal people don't need a gun like that." And again the Netherlands allows guns. Don't matter what the context is, what type of gun it is or that it is limited until you explain why there is a "need". On the other hand, myself, I could certain understand that some people in the Netherlands want to hunt. Just something that they enjoy and the government allows them to partake of that enjoyment without having any "need" at all.
-
jschell wrote:
Your loaded characterization does not alter what I said - pursuit of happiness.
How does a weapon, strictly to end others' life, give you happiness?
jschell wrote:
Living on a beach
Your gun is not a natural cause.
jschell wrote:
And, as I already mentioned, owning a dog is something that many people specifically refer to making them happy but it doesn't preclude sorrow and shock when even mild manner dogs manage to maim or kill someone.
Is that your defense? "People can own deadly rocks, so don't take my automatic rifle that makes me happy"?? You're allowed to; but you're not allowed to whine about the consequences. Enjoy your choice :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
How does a weapon, strictly to end others' life, give you happiness?
How does owning a Lamborghini that one cannot come close to running at top speed bring someone happiness? How does jumping off a cliff with a parachute or even worse a wing suit bring someone happiness? For that matter how does taking a trip to ride every roller coaster or visit every baseball park bring someone happiness?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Your gun is not a natural cause.
That of course has nothing to do with it. Are you claiming that people that engage in food eating contests are doing something "natural"? What about beauty pagents? Or ski jumping - did I miss the genetic pool because I wasn't born with very long narrow feet?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Is that your defense? "People can own deadly rocks, so don't take my automatic rifle that makes me happy"??
You seem to be under the impression, from your personal projections to me, that I am defending my right to own a gun. You are incorrect. It is a general defense. And you are attempting to claim that some how the vast, really vast, number of nonsensical things that people do that make them happy are some how "better" simply because it does not involve a gun.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The Netherlands does not allow assault rifles. Hunting is only allowed in certain area's for restricted periods, and there certainly is NO need to hunt with a gun here. Besides what is and isn't allowed, there's also a difference in what is generally available.
However none of that changes what you said or what I responded to. You said "Normal people don't need a gun like that." And again the Netherlands allows guns. Don't matter what the context is, what type of gun it is or that it is limited until you explain why there is a "need". On the other hand, myself, I could certain understand that some people in the Netherlands want to hunt. Just something that they enjoy and the government allows them to partake of that enjoyment without having any "need" at all.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
How does a weapon, strictly to end others' life, give you happiness?
How does owning a Lamborghini that one cannot come close to running at top speed bring someone happiness? How does jumping off a cliff with a parachute or even worse a wing suit bring someone happiness? For that matter how does taking a trip to ride every roller coaster or visit every baseball park bring someone happiness?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Your gun is not a natural cause.
That of course has nothing to do with it. Are you claiming that people that engage in food eating contests are doing something "natural"? What about beauty pagents? Or ski jumping - did I miss the genetic pool because I wasn't born with very long narrow feet?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Is that your defense? "People can own deadly rocks, so don't take my automatic rifle that makes me happy"??
You seem to be under the impression, from your personal projections to me, that I am defending my right to own a gun. You are incorrect. It is a general defense. And you are attempting to claim that some how the vast, really vast, number of nonsensical things that people do that make them happy are some how "better" simply because it does not involve a gun.
jschell wrote:
How does owning a Lamborghini that one cannot come close to running at top speed bring someone happiness? How does jumping off a cliff with a parachute or even worse a wing suit bring someone happiness? For that matter how does taking a trip to ride every roller coaster or visit every baseball park bring someone happiness?
So your adrenaline comes from killing weapons? One more reason to get those things of the street :)
jschell wrote:
And you are attempting to claim that some how the vast, really vast, number of nonsensical things that people do that make them happy are some how "better" simply because it does not involve a gun.
That's not a claim, that's a statistical fact, backed by several funerals.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
How does owning a Lamborghini that one cannot come close to running at top speed bring someone happiness? How does jumping off a cliff with a parachute or even worse a wing suit bring someone happiness? For that matter how does taking a trip to ride every roller coaster or visit every baseball park bring someone happiness?
So your adrenaline comes from killing weapons? One more reason to get those things of the street :)
jschell wrote:
And you are attempting to claim that some how the vast, really vast, number of nonsensical things that people do that make them happy are some how "better" simply because it does not involve a gun.
That's not a claim, that's a statistical fact, backed by several funerals.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So your adrenaline comes from killing weapons?
Avoidance. Explain how my examples are reasonable.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That's not a claim, that's a statistical fact, backed by several funerals.
Statistical fact that if people stopped having children then there would be no more funerals for children. And given that the US and most and perhaps all first world nations make absolutely no requirements of any kind on adults before they decide to have a child, explain how that is a sound basis for allowing children to be born?
-
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So your adrenaline comes from killing weapons?
Avoidance. Explain how my examples are reasonable.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That's not a claim, that's a statistical fact, backed by several funerals.
Statistical fact that if people stopped having children then there would be no more funerals for children. And given that the US and most and perhaps all first world nations make absolutely no requirements of any kind on adults before they decide to have a child, explain how that is a sound basis for allowing children to be born?
jschell wrote:
Explain how my examples are reasonable.
They're not, and I need not explain anything :)
jschell wrote:
Statistical fact that if people stopped having children then there would be no more funerals for children.
See? No reasonable argument there, so end of discussion :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
Explain how my examples are reasonable.
They're not, and I need not explain anything :)
jschell wrote:
Statistical fact that if people stopped having children then there would be no more funerals for children.
See? No reasonable argument there, so end of discussion :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
No, not avoiding anything on a subject already won; ready to discuss the topic with anyone who can bring decent arguments :) You did not, and so I will not pretend there is a discussion.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
No, not avoiding anything on a subject already won; ready to discuss the topic with anyone who can bring decent arguments :) You did not, and so I will not pretend there is a discussion.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, not avoiding anythin
I provided examples. I asked you to explain how they were reasonable. You did not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
with anyone who can bring decent arguments
I responded to your points. You failed to respond to mine.
jschell wrote:
I provided examples. I asked you to explain how they were reasonable. You did not.
I have no need to :)
jschell wrote:
I responded to your points. You failed to respond to mine.
I already explained why, didn't I? :cool:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
I provided examples. I asked you to explain how they were reasonable. You did not.
I have no need to :)
jschell wrote:
I responded to your points. You failed to respond to mine.
I already explained why, didn't I? :cool:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.