Quote from: Shaltuum on July 28, 2013, 01:23:58 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 28, 2013, 05:13:10 AM

Quote from: Rassah on July 28, 2013, 04:28:15 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 27, 2013, 06:07:20 AM

Quote from: Rassah on July 27, 2013, 03:49:45 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 27, 2013, 03:45:04 AM

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.

Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.

Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.

Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.

I would argue that the right to defend yourself is just as, or at least nearly as, important as transportation.
And using your logic, wouldn't banning all cars above 50 BHP make sense, as well? You don't need a car that can do 0-120 MPH in under 10 seconds when the maximum speed limit in highways is somewhat 80 MPH.

See my above quoted text for your answer.

And I do have a right to defend myself.