Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[numinus]

Not to mention that it's just a tad more difficult to hide a slave than it is to hide a gun.

Is that your best comprehension of the analogy I provided?

No wonder you are clueless.

 

[numinus]

The only other person that I have known to be so taken with himself was the only person in his village to have a high school education or a pair of shoes.

And I suppose that is what your alleged 'education' is good for -- wearing shoes and shooting guns.

HEE HAW!

 

[dahermit]

Sigh.

Not all people -- just the one's who initiate verbal abuse against me.

A cursory perusal of this thread will prove just that.



Why would I bother, indeed, since all my posts are available for anyone interested enough to read, hmmm?

Go ahead people, take his challenge, read all his posts on this thread.

 

[PLC1]

Is that your best comprehension of the analogy I provided?

No wonder you are clueless.

Some analogy.

My best comprehension is that it is relatively easy to hide a gun, and that those who don't care about the law will have guns whether or not they are legal.

I think it might be more difficult to hide slaves, so it is easier to outlaw slavery.

Criticize the message, not the messenger.

indeed.

 

[numinus]

Some analogy.

My best comprehension is that it is relatively easy to hide a gun, and that those who don't care about the law will have guns whether or not they are legal.

I think it might be more difficult to hide slaves, so it is easier to outlaw slavery.

Nonsense.

It is far easier to conceal recreational drugs than guns. This fact does not deter society from prohibiting drugs, however difficult, does it?

The criteria, as I have been saying since god knows when, and the basis of the analogy, are FACTS AND LOGIC.

indeed.

I have demonstrated the defects in ALL your arguments EVERY SINGLE TIME you propose one in this subject.

Give it up already.

 

[numinus]

Go ahead people, take his challenge, read all his posts on this thread.

Still no takers?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Because most thinking people who read your posts realize that you are a complete waste of bandwidth, and quite probably belong in a mental ward.

Now excuse me, I'm going shooting with my uncle.

 

[numinus]

Because most thinking people who read your posts realize that you are a complete waste of bandwidth, and quite probably belong in a mental ward.

Now excuse me, I'm going shooting with my uncle.

Spoken like a true cowboy!

Hee haw!

 

[dahermit]

Still no takers?

Why am I not surprised?

Here is the first insult:

Jaraxle said: dumbest thing ever heard.(insult)

numinus said: Do not berate yourself too hard, though. Somehow, I don't expect comprehension to dawn on you soon.

Bunz stated: need for guns to hunt. (no insult)

numinus said: What dishonest nonsense!

Humans have perfected agriculture more than 5 thousand years ago and you have the cheek to suggest your gun is meant to feed your family?

Bunz: I dont shoot at human shaped targets, and your suggestion that I do is false and ignorant. For the far majority it is a simple bullseye with scoring rings. The ones who generally shoot at human shaped targets are the police and military forces. The only ones who by your suggestion should have guns.
Am I the only one who thinks that letting only the people who regularly practice on human targets have guns is generally unwise?
(no insult)
numinus said:
Your mind operates on a hopelessly meandering logic.

The ability to use a gun for PROTECTION, for one's self or others, requires a proficiency that takes years of rigid training -- the kind of training available to law enforcement personnel. The very nature of a gun's use requires very strict adherence to rules of engagement -- something that applies only to law enforcement and military personnel.

Btw, your dishonesty is plain. Do you use your gun to feed your family or shoot at paper targets with cross-hairs and scoring rings, hmmm? I don't know why anyone would expect an honest answer from you, but just the same, the question needed to be asked.
Bunz:
Well like any responsible hunter, I go out and make sure my guns work properly before attempting to hunt with them. It wouldnt be wise for someone to go out with a scoped rifle without any idea where the sighting point is. But then again, having knowledge about guns should have taught you that long ago.
(no insult)

numinus said:
What patent dishonesty!

And you just happen to callibrate your gun's scope on targets with SCORING RINGS? You're lies have been obvious since you said you hunt to feed your family. There is no sense in pretending that your lies would amount to anything.

Originally Posted by PLC1
You might want to check out Bunz's location before making any such sweeping commentary.
You know, before you go saying someone else is lying or is ignorant, or whatever, try doing a search or two to update your own information.
(no insult)

numinus said:
And you might want to actually employ some critical thought on what he is saying.

Using targets with SCORING RINGS should suggest to any reasonable individual that he wasn't callibrating his scope -- hence the lie he was blatantly peddling in this thread.

And on and on.

Bunz and PLC1 made no insults...numinus was insulted more or less by a couple of others, but generally insulted any
who debated him. (examples: Bunz and PLC1)

Nevertheless, numinus'es statements were so inaccurate and outrageous concerning guns and hunting they were adequately provocative. The word, Troll comes to mind.

Yes, numinus, you were really being picked on.

 

[numinus]

Here is the first insult:

Jaraxle said: dumbest thing ever heard.(insult)

numinus said: Do not berate yourself too hard, though. Somehow, I don't expect comprehension to dawn on you soon.

Bunz stated: need for guns to hunt. (no insult)

numinus said: What dishonest nonsense!

Humans have perfected agriculture more than 5 thousand years ago and you have the cheek to suggest your gun is meant to feed your family?

Bunz: I dont shoot at human shaped targets, and your suggestion that I do is false and ignorant. For the far majority it is a simple bullseye with scoring rings. The ones who generally shoot at human shaped targets are the police and military forces. The only ones who by your suggestion should have guns.
Am I the only one who thinks that letting only the people who regularly practice on human targets have guns is generally unwise?
(no insult)

No insult indeed!

numinus said:
Your mind operates on a hopelessly meandering logic.

The ability to use a gun for PROTECTION, for one's self or others, requires a proficiency that takes years of rigid training -- the kind of training available to law enforcement personnel. The very nature of a gun's use requires very strict adherence to rules of engagement -- something that applies only to law enforcement and military personnel.

Btw, your dishonesty is plain. Do you use your gun to feed your family or shoot at paper targets with cross-hairs and scoring rings, hmmm? I don't know why anyone would expect an honest answer from you, but just the same, the question needed to be asked.
Bunz:
Well like any responsible hunter, I go out and make sure my guns work properly before attempting to hunt with them. It wouldnt be wise for someone to go out with a scoped rifle without any idea where the sighting point is. But then again, having knowledge about guns should have taught you that long ago.
(no insult)

numinus said:
What patent dishonesty!

And you just happen to callibrate your gun's scope on targets with SCORING RINGS? You're lies have been obvious since you said you hunt to feed your family. There is no sense in pretending that your lies would amount to anything.

Originally Posted by PLC1
You might want to check out Bunz's location before making any such sweeping commentary.
You know, before you go saying someone else is lying or is ignorant, or whatever, try doing a search or two to update your own information.
(no insult)

numinus said:
And you might want to actually employ some critical thought on what he is saying.

Using targets with SCORING RINGS should suggest to any reasonable individual that he wasn't callibrating his scope -- hence the lie he was blatantly peddling in this thread.

And on and on.

Bunz and PLC1 made no insults...numinus was insulted more or less by a couple of others, but generally insulted any
who debated him. (examples: Bunz and PLC1)

It is patent dishonesty (and I do not mean that as an insult) to suggest that bunz is using guns to feed his family AS A NECESSITY.

No reasonable individual would believe that someone who has access to the internet hunts for his food on a daily basis.

Nevertheless, numinus'es statements were so inaccurate and outrageous concerning guns and hunting they were adequately provocative. The word, Troll comes to mind.

Yes, numinus, you were really being picked on.

That is correct. I am glad you have a modicum of honesty to admit it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

From Nums post #170 on the Capital Punishment thread.

Unlike you, who can't seem to recognize facts and logic if it sat on your face and defecated.

I'm sure we can all see from this pleasant quote of yours that you are indeed being picked on something fierce. Poor Nums.

 

[dahermit]

No insult indeed!

It is patent dishonesty (and I do not mean that as an insult) to suggest that bunz is using guns to feed his family AS A NECESSITY.

No reasonable individual would believe that someone who has access to the internet hunts for his food on a daily basis.

That is correct. I am glad you have a modicum of honesty to admit it.

To suggest that Bunz shoots at human targets is a" false and ignorant" and therefore, not an insult.

Inasmuch as it is common for people who live in Alaska to big game hunt for subsistence (a moose may weigh a 1,000 lbs.), even though it is a once a year event, it is not patent dishonesty to say that it is a necessity. And, to suggest that it is, is an insult.
Lastly, I was being facetious, you are a rude and insufferable. Note that I received training by the Army as a psychiatric technician which included hours of instruction in psychology including abnormal psychology, and I recognize you as the socially maladjusted person you are. As to why, I can only guess...Do you feel that Americans have done you some harm?

By the way, scoring rings on a target are for the purpose of determining who wins the competition. There is nothing insidious about the rings and have no relevance to shooting of people as you have previously and foolishly implied.

 

[PLC1]

Nonsense.

It is far easier to conceal recreational drugs than guns. This fact does not deter society from prohibiting drugs, however difficult, does it?

The criteria, as I have been saying since god knows when, and the basis of the analogy, are FACTS AND LOGIC.



I have demonstrated the defects in ALL your arguments EVERY SINGLE TIME you propose one in this subject.

Give it up already.

Facts and logic in caps must mean personal childish insults. Whenever you stoop to that level, you've lost the argument. Sorry, Nummi, but it's checkmate again.

I can't believe your argument went from slaves to drugs. We all know just how successful outlawing drugs has been. It's about as successful as outlawing guns would be.

 

[Rhodri]

You folks are doing great fending off num...the topic is worth the time and energy...not sure the subject in this case is however.

 

[numinus]

From Nums post #170 on the Capital Punishment thread.


I'm sure we can all see from this pleasant quote of yours that you are indeed being picked on something fierce. Poor Nums.

That was definitely meant to be an insult.

What duhermit was soliciting is an UNJUSTIFIED INSULT. In your case, every single one was justified.