'8 yr old killed self with uzi' necropost thread closed

[1245A Defender]

imported post

the debate is over,,,,
you lost!!!
i remember reading your first post on OCDO,, with the name of SWINE, i knew it would come to this!!!

you are SICK in the HEAD,, thanks for your participation!!

now you should just STFU,, and go away quietly....

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Swine,

You did not cite any source of credibility or historical reference for your perspective.

You did not answer all of my questions, and in fact, meaningfully avoided a few.


Sir, your entire argument is emotive. This means not based or steeped in any sort of rationality. It is purely based on an illogical, and irrational emotion that you have towards an inanimate object.


You yourself have stated, "I HATE guns!".


This irrational behavior, on it's face, is proof of irrationality in an argument.

What will your stance be when we are capable of dissolving the bonds in a human being by simply pointing a device at them?

Will you hate those too?

What about swords, swine? Do you hate these too?

Daggers?

Knives?

Brass Knuckles?


Do you pretend to exist in a world where the scientific advancements lead to not only new ways to live, but new ways to die?

You do realize you cannot "uninvent" the firearm, right?



I am going to summarize this, nice and tightly, right now.



#1. As for the definitions of terms used, I have cited extremely reputable sources that directly support my interpretation of definitions.

--You have not done so, even once. You merely allude to the belief that they exist, after attempting to tell me that I was the only person, in the WHOLE WORLD, who used the primary, number one, most popular definition for the term in it's proper context.



#2. I have supporting quotes from our founding fathers, that support wholly, the position in which I stand.

--You have not. (You even concede that you are not aware if Jefferson ever said anything about the 5th.)



#3. I do not have an irrational fear of inanimate objects.

--You very clearly do.



#4. You claim that open carriers HAD to be involved in random, egregious shootings. I requested that you cite just one example, using the power of the internet at your fingertips.

--You could not do so, not even once.





Sir,

An empty hatred towards an inanimate object is an ugly thing. It literally reeks of a mental disorder. These are most commonly know as "phobias".

This is the definition of "phobia":


pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.


The specific ailment you suffer from, is referred to as "Hoplophobia":


"Hoplophobia , from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, an irrational fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia."


For your reference, not that you will read it mind you, here is a wonderful article describing your ailment. It literally touches every facet of the conversation we have had, and is done by a Psychiatrist.

http://www.gunlaws.com/Hoplophobia Analysis.htm




There is, unfortunately, nothing that can be discussed any further, because you suffer from this ailment.

I hope, as a fellow human being who respects your sovereignty and freedom, that you are able to cope with this malady and come to terms with it in the future.


Have a wonderful day swine!

I wish you the best.

Jason

 

[LV XD9]

imported post

swine wrote:

It's a true to life example of an otherwise reasonable person (there's not space for my entire resume and life story, but trust me I'm reasonable (except on this site), acting badly with a dangerous weapon.

No, it's an example of a hot-head (and admitted criminal) who has made it clear that he should not be walking around with any sort of weapon (including ridiculous - and likely illegal - home made contraptions that shoot poison-tipped darts.) Nothing you have said or claimed to have done can be described as "reasonable" so I would thank you to stop projecting your character flaws upon others.



As to the story being "true to life," well, we really have no idea if it's true or made up, do we? It's not like you've been terribly consistent - one moment you're telling a story about your wife and how "she" would have fired indiscriminately into a wall at a "strange noise" had she owned a gun,and the next you're rambling on about not beingable tofight in Nam because it was discovered that you are homosexual.

Jefferson died two hundred years ago, more or less, rest his soul. My understanding of the 2d Amendment is that it prevents thegovernment from passing laws to restrict possession of armskept for the purpose ofparticipating in a well regulated militia. It is notthat clearly intended to restrict the use of same strictly for sport or personal self defense. I think there may indeed be some justification for permitting the use of firearms for self defense, but I don't think the 2d Amendment guarantees that right.

[/quote]
[/quote]Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what your understandingof the 2nd amendment is. As you pointed out yourself, that's up to the Supreme Court to rule on - which they have.

 

[swine]

imported post

Well if I 'lost' it's because the audience here is biased. I am the only one here who would have supported my side of the debate in the first place, so how could I have 'won' even if I did win. You ever see the movie 'The Best of the Best?" The American's 'won' that one too, but the Koreans awarded themselves the medal.

 

[swine]

imported post

No argument there.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

swine wrote:

No argument there.

Swine,

You did not cite any source of credibility or historical reference for your perspective.

You did not answer all of my questions, and in fact, meaningfully avoided a few.


Sir, your entire argument is emotive. This means not based or steeped in any sort of rationality. It is purely based on an illogical, and irrational emotion that you have towards an inanimate object.


You yourself have stated, "I HATE guns!".


This irrational behavior, on it's face, is proof of irrationality in an argument.

What will your stance be when we are capable of dissolving the bonds in a human being by simply pointing a device at them?

Will you hate those too?

What about swords, swine? Do you hate these too?

Daggers?

Knives?

Brass Knuckles?


Do you pretend to exist in a world where the scientific advancements lead to not only new ways to live, but new ways to die?

You do realize you cannot "uninvent" the firearm, right?



I am going to summarize this, nice and tightly, right now.



#1. As for the definitions of terms used, I have cited extremely reputable sources that directly support my interpretation of definitions.

--You have not done so, even once. You merely allude to the belief that they exist, after attempting to tell me that I was the only person, in the WHOLE WORLD, who used the primary, number one, most popular definition for the term in it's proper context.



#2. I have supporting quotes from our founding fathers, that support wholly, the position in which I stand.

--You have not. (You even concede that you are not aware if Jefferson ever said anything about the 5th.)



#3. I do not have an irrational fear of inanimate objects.

--You very clearly do.



#4. You claim that open carriers HAD to be involved in random, egregious shootings. I requested that you cite just one example, using the power of the internet at your fingertips.

--You could not do so, not even once.





Sir,

An empty hatred towards an inanimate object is an ugly thing. It literally reeks of a mental disorder. These are most commonly know as "phobias".

This is the definition of "phobia":


pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.


The specific ailment you suffer from, is referred to as "Hoplophobia":


"Hoplophobia , from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, an irrational fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia."


For your reference, not that you will read it mind you, here is a wonderful article describing your ailment. It literally touches every facet of the conversation we have had, and is done by a Psychiatrist.

http://www.gunlaws.com/Hoplophobia%20Analysis.htm




There is, unfortunately, nothing that can be discussed any further, because you suffer from this ailment.

I hope, as a fellow human being who respects your sovereignty and freedom, that you are able to cope with this malady and come to terms with it in the future.


Have a wonderful day swine!

I wish you the best.

Jason

 

[swine]

imported post

Jason! You've got a name. I sincerely hope your full name is NOT Jason Tom.

Swine, You did not cite any source of credibility or historical reference for your perspective. Did too.


You did not answer all of my questions, and in fact, meaningfully avoided a few.
Answered all, avoided none.

Sir, your entire argument is emotive. This means not based or steeped in any sort of rationality. It is purely based on an illogical, and irrational emotion that you have towards an inanimate object. Except for the part where I hate guns, my responses are 'pure reason'.

You yourself have stated, "I HATE guns!". How about, "I Hate dangerous, lethal, killing machines (i.e. guns)." Is that better?

This irrational behavior, on it's face, is proof of irrationality in an argument. So, like, if you hate, like, rattlesnakes that's proof of irrationality in avoiding walking off trail in the desert?
What will your stance be when we are capable of dissolving the bonds in a human being by simply pointing a device at them? Please rephrase. I don't understand the sentence you wrote here.
Will you hate those too? Hate whats too?

What about swords, swine? Do you hate these too? Not as much, you can run from a sword or block one with your own sword. They're a little safer than guns.
Daggers? Safer yet because they're shorter than swords.
Knives? Better.
Brass Knuckles? If I can wear a couple pair of those as well, I can live with brass knucks.

Do you pretend to exist in a world where the scientific advancements lead to not only new ways to live, but new ways to die? Well, yes, and so do you. Kavorkian showed us all new ways t die. Aids is a new way to die. Atom bombs are a relatively new way to die. There are lots of new ways to die thanks to science.
You do realize you cannot "uninvent" the firearm, right? Yes, I do. But my 'dart gun' as many here have referred to it might replace or displace most of the guns, I hope. (yeah, I know, 'in my wildest dreams', I'm way ahead of you on that one.)

I am going to summarize this, nice and tightly, right now.



#1. As for the definitions of terms used, I have cited extremely reputable sources that directly support my interpretation of definitions. And I have similarly cited similarly reputable sources that directly support my interpretatins of definitions.

--You have not done so, even once. Did too. You merely allude to the belief that they exist, after attempting to tell me that I was the only person, in the WHOLE WORLD, who used the primary, number one, most popular definition for the term in it's proper context Now you're exaggerating! I never said you were the only person in the whole world who used your definitions, I never did that, now come on! And....."the primary, number one, most popular definition for the term"???.... you call that 'nice and tight?' Anyway it's only popularon this site
#2. I have supporting quotes from our founding fathers, that support wholly, the position in which I stand. Your quotes from the founding fathers were very good and very welcome. I hadn't read those before. Thank you. I don't think that what the founding fathers said in those quotes alters the fact that the first half of the 2d Amendment has to be either one of two things, (1) an operative part of the Amendment wherein you have to be in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, or (2) it is extraneous 'justification' for the second half of the Amendment, in which case (case 2) it doesn't belong there z(the first half) and should be Amended to be gotten rid of.
--You have not. (You even concede that you are not aware if Jefferson ever said anything about the 5th.) Yes I concede that, but I find that accusation irrelevant. I only meant to say that BOTH the 5th AND the 2d Amendments are routinely violated and misinterpreted by judges, courts (including the Supreme Court), and Federal Prosecutors andetc.


#3. I do not have an irrational fear of inanimate objects.

--You very clearly do. Rational hatred of lethal killing machines is how I like to think of it.



#4. You claim that open carriers HAD to be involved in random, egregious shootings. I requested that you cite just one example, using the power of the internet at your fingertips. --You could not do so, not even once. There are literally hundreds of gun deaths in this country every day,and here you are seriously asserting that not ONE of those gun deathshas EVER been perpetrated by ANYONE openly carrying a firearm on his person.That's just plain absurd!



Sir,

An empty hatred towards an inanimate object is an ugly thing. It literally reeks of a mental disorder. These are most commonly know as "phobias". But in this case the 'inanimate object' is a lethal killing machine that is 'animated' by a loony toon who doesn't have a criminal record yet. Who knows what he's gonna do with that thing strapped to his belt. I don't call that irrational. I understand you do, but I'll match you shrink for shrink and I bet I'll win.
This is the definition of "phobia":


pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. Some people have similarly persistent abnormal irrational fears (in my case hatreds) of passenger airplanes too, and rightly so in spite of the reassurances that they are not dangerous. there have been plenty of people killed in plane crashes that were supposed to be safe, like that recent crash in Cairo where only a 9 year old boy survived. Do you think he would be irrational if he never got on an airplane again? I don't.

The specific ailment you suffer from, is referred to as "Hoplophobia": Learn something new every day. Hoplophobia. Has a nice ring to it.

"Hoplophobia , from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, an irrational fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia." If that's a real mental illness I can tell you that literally millions upon millions of Americans suffer from it, including just about everyone I know, and I know a lot of people, believe me.

For your reference, not that you will read it mind you, here is a wonderful article describing your ailment. It literally touches every facet of the conversation we have had, and is done by a Psychiatrist. Well just for that, I'm gonna read it!


http://www.gunlaws.com/Hoplophobia%20Analysis.htm




There is, unfortunately, nothing that can be discussed any further, because you suffer from this ailment. Right, as the preacher said, "you've closed your mind to god, therefore you cannot be saved from your sins."
I hope, as a fellow human being who respects your sovereignty and freedom, that you are able to cope with this malady and come to terms with it in the future. I have come to terms with it. I and my friends will fight long and hard to put an end to thepublic display of loaded guns. Or motto will be, "Take your child to work, but leave your gun at home."

Have a wonderful day swine! Thanks, you too.
I wish you the best. You too.


Jason

 

[swine]

imported post

You said,

"For your reference, not that you will read it mind you, here is a wonderful article describing your ailment. It literally touches every facet of the conversation we have had, and is done by a Psychiatrist.

http://www.gunlaws.com/Hoplophobia%20Analysis.htm


Ok, I read it.As it happens I AM seeing a shrink, but not for hoplophobia, and she's Jewish too, like the one quoted above. I will present his paper to her tomorrow to read and give me her comments. She has two PHD's so I'm sure she will have a valid opinion. She might even get some second and third opinions from others. Let's see what she comes up with. I said, I'd match you shrink for shrink, and that's what I'm gonna do!

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

swine wrote:

And I have similarly cited similarly reputable sources that directly support my interpretatins of definitions.

Show me please.

If you can.



swine wrote:

Now you're exaggerating! I never said you were the only person in the whole world who used your definitions, I never did that, now come on! And....."the primary, number one, most popular definition for the term"???.... you call that 'nice and tight?' Anyway it's only popularon this site

You didn't say this?

swine wrote:

I challenge you to identify the dictionary that defines 'encroachment' that way. That's just how YOU, and you alone,define 'encroachment'.

No swine. You certainly did.

You are incapable of following the conversation.



swine wrote:

Rational hatred of lethal killing machines is how I like to think of it.

Automobiles kill more people per year than firearms.
Firearms are not solely meant to kill.

Statistically speaking, pools and automobiles are far greater killers than firearms.

There is nothing whatsoever that is rational about your commentary swine. Emotion does not substantiate rationale.

Logic, and analytical thinking do.

Pushing a political agenda based on "I hate guns" is as mentally retarded as:

"I hate knives"
"I hate boats"
"I hate airplanes"
"I hate pools"


swine wrote:

There are literally hundreds of gun deaths in this country every day,and here you are seriously asserting that not ONE of those gun deathshas EVER been perpetrated by ANYONE openly carrying a firearm on his person.That's just plain absurd!

If you are through projecting ideas, and tying for emotional, irrational, dramatic response, then perhaps you may take the time out of your busy day to show me, again, one case where an open carrier committed a violent crime, wherein death or great threat of injury occurred.

swine.

Are you not intellectual enough to understand that your claim of, "how obvious it would be that people would start shooting each other dead over ho-ho's and ding-dongs", would be easily substantiated by news reports or public record?

Your argument is irrational.

Swine, again and for the last time.

Show me a case of an Open Carrier causing great physical harm, or committing a crime wherein life endangerment HAS OCCURRED.

Show me right now, don't give me a BS excuse, SHOW ME, where said "obvious and rampant" criminal acts have occurred.



You fear other people.
You project.

Your own quote on the subject:

swine wrote:

When I don’t know the guy, have never seen him before in my life and don’t know if he’s maybe crazy as a loon? Seems like a safer assumption than the alternative to me.

You immediately associate the presence of a firearm, as a sign of impending danger.

You stereotype, as you have done in this thread, that because a firearm is holstered on somebodies hip. Just sitting there, that the owner must be either:

A. Mentally deranged

or

B. Simply Dangerous


Could he not simply be an individual who realizes that the police are not there to protect him, and it is his duty to protect himself, as a free man?

That's quite a random, irrational solution to a non-present problem swine.


I open-carry swine.

I have no need for bravado.

I hope for the rest of my life to never have to draw my firearm in defense. I truly TRULY hope that!

However, I am not patently stupid enough to think that angels will descend within 3-5 minutes to save me from a criminal intent on causing great harm to me.

I love my family.
I cherish life.
I care for my fellow man.

I will defend all, to the death.

Your solution is disgusting swine.

You would have my 17mo old daughter die at the hands of a merciless criminal, because I opted to be morally defunct, see things your way, and put myself in the role of toothless, helpless victim.

That is YOUR answer.

It is grotesque.


swine wrote:

But in this case the 'inanimate object' is a lethal killing machine that is 'animated' by a loony toon who doesn't have a criminal record yet. Who knows what he's gonna do with that thing strapped to his belt. I don't call that irrational. I understand you do, but I'll match you shrink for shrink and I bet I'll win.

Ah here we go.

More absolutely rhetorical projection, and fear of inanimate objects.

"Lethal Killing Machine"

You mean like far more dangerous "cars"?


You're right swine!

Who KNOWS what he could be doing with that thing strapped to his belt?!

Oh my God he could be getting a latte RIGHT THIS MOMENT!


I'd be happy to go "shrink to shrink". I don't see how that could be arranged.


swine wrote:

Some people have similarly persistent abnormal irrational fears (in my case hatreds) of passenger airplanes too, and rightly so in spite of the reassurances that they are not dangerous. there have been plenty of people killed in plane crashes that were supposed to be safe, like that recent crash in Cairo where only a 9 year old boy survived. Do you think he would be irrational if he never got on an airplane again? I don't.

Oh lots of people have irrational fears!

The difference between the majority, and individuals like yourself, is that they realize it's irrational.

Let me point something out to you.

Planes can cause death.
Planes have crashed killing lots of people on the ground, and in the air.
Planes are a convenient form of travel.
Planes are a great value, as well as very fast, when it comes to getting off to far away places.
Some people refuse to get on the airplanes, based on these facts.

However:

None of them advocate that airplanes be banned.
None of them petition for removal of airports.
None of them demand that carrying capacity be diminished, to minimize casualties.


Let's parallel this:

Firearms can cause death.
Firearms have been used to kill lots of people.
Firearms are the de facto standard for personal defense.
Firearms allow those who are physically disabled, or small in stature to square off with a good chance of success, against sizable or powerful aggressors.
Firearms are used at least 2.5 million times a year to SAVE LIVES, in personal defense.
Some people refuse to use a firearm for these reasons.

Very interesting.



swine wrote:

Learn something new every day. Hoplophobia. Has a nice ring to it.

If that's a real mental illness I can tell you that literally millions upon millions of Americans suffer from it, including just about everyone I know, and I know a lot of people, believe me.

Many people do in fact suffer from it.

It is steeped in ignorance, to be bluntly honest with you.

The belief that if we teach our children how dangerous firearms are, or try to hide them from them, that they won't find them and play with them like a toy truck, or point it in dangerous directions and go "pew pew", certainly creates prime situations for uninformed curiosity. Which is a situation you admit to finding yourself in as a kid.

It is the belief that a responsible person, wants to teach their offspring how to handle anything that life may throw at them, while the irresponsible parent, sticks their firearm in a dresser drawer, and waits for an uninformed child to take it to school.

My father had about 8 different firearms.

I have 2 other siblings, and a lot of family that were always over.


If firearms, and your irrational fear/hatred of them makes them so dangerous, why was my entire family able to live around them 24/7, with no accidental discharges, or other dangers, EVER occurring for over 30 years?

There are MILLIONS of families that work the same way.

Oh, and here is a kicker for you.

3 rifles were ALWAYS unlocked at the bottom of the closet, leaning against the wall, and were loaded, but not chambered.

I grew up knowing the dangers potentially involved with the USE of a firearm.

I never picked one up, or had a reason to pick one up, and play with it like a "toy truck".

After talking to my sisters later in life (They are both 22+), they never had the desire too either, and never did so.

Somebody learned the real life lessons in this conversation, and somebody did not.

Somebody took their firearm to school to act cool, in this conversation.

Somebody did not. (hint: It isn't swine)


swine wrote:

Right, as the preacher said, "you've closed your mind to god, therefore you cannot be saved from your sins."

Despite your attempt to incriminate the comment by religious affiliation, the concept applies to anything that is to be debated rationally.

Your mind is closed.

You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

You hate a piece of metal and often plastic, and insult, berate, or declare "mentally inept" any individual who wears or owns one.

This despite facts showing that they are used to save lives over 2.5 million times a year.

Amazing rationale, is indeed amazing swine.


Maybe I could hate automobiles, swine.

They kill more people every year.

Then I could categorize everybody who drives a car in public, as a "loony" of which I am sure of because I "hate cars".

Then when you tell me the factually positive aspects of vehicle use, I could simply refer, using no research, to "how dangerous they are", and reiterate how stupid you are for using and driving one.

That is your circular argument.

It is, in fact, the exact same thing.


swine wrote:

I have come to terms with it. I and my friends will fight long and hard to put an end to thepublic display of loaded guns. Or motto will be, "Take your child to work, but leave your gun at home."

That's great!

That way when one of your party affiliates is robbed, mugged, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise killed by malicious attack, and you all slap your little panic buttons, you can feel morally superior with a dead kid at your feet.

At least you didn't use a cursed firearm!

Your child died a moral death!



This all comes back to you never being in a life or death situation. Which we now know is true.

While you preach this ostensible stupidity, I and other responsible adults, will preach the right to protect ones self.


Your moral security is present stupidity, and a lack of any real life experience.