Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Ill take it thats you admiting you can't answer the question then?

Please don't respond with some stupid s**t like 'have you ever been to an ice cream factory'.

Admit your falt, or if you not man enough to do that just stop responding.


Look Thefranzkafkafront I stated that people own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used and you went all teleological on me. What did I do to deserve this?

One day you'll have to understand that not everyone has your level of education then you will have to make a simple choice, either to debate only with the intellectual elite either to accept that having a conversation with the people requires you to use a more basic language.

If your goal was to make me feel inferior to you Thefranzkafkafront, your attempt has not only failed but backfired. If your goal is to challenge my post, please proceed.

:-D
:-D

[Knight]

Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote:

You do not even know what you are replying to! I wanted proof of your statement:
Lucky Luke wrote: You'll find that most criminals with illegal guns were one day law abiding citizens who legally owned guns.

Come on and find a source that supports your statement above. The children reply you gave me what not a source at all, just an assumption you have that has no relation to the statement you made.

This is in fact another statement of mine, I am pleased that you decided to move on. However it makes sense that a criminal with an illegal gun would have a history of handling a firearm beforehand and we all know that in America a law abiding citizen can own legally any guns in most of the country.

:-D
:-D

Nice job recovering. Blame it on me and say that I "moved on". Real smooth debating... :lol: :roll:

That is still not a source. Lets try for a third time. You like using statistics, so give me a source that states that.

Hold on right there Knight let's restore some honesty to this debate here is the statement you asked me to prove:

Knight wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: You'll find that most criminals with illegal guns were one day law abiding citizens who legally owned guns.
:-D
:-D

Proof, sir?

In America children are not born criminals but a lot of them seem to be raised in a home with guns.

:-D
:-D

That is not proof. That is an assumption.

Proof of what Knight, that children are not born criminals or that a lot of American homes have guns in them?

:-D
:-D

Proof of your statement. You know damn well what I'm talking about. The relation that children who become criminals are more likely to have been raised at a home with guns.

That is exactly what you are saying in that statement.

Here is a different statement that you are asking me to back up now:

Knight wrote:

You do not even know what you are replying to! I wanted proof of your statement:
Lucky Luke wrote: You'll find that most criminals with illegal guns were one day law abiding citizens who legally owned guns.

Come on and find a source that supports your statement above. The children reply you gave me what not a source at all, just an assumption you have that has no relation to the statement you made.

As you can see the statement was about children born law abiding citizens around legally owned guns in America Knight, what is wrong with that statement? Most of you are law abiding citizens born around legally owned guns.
:-D
:-D

Luke, look at my first response. What was it a response to? The statement you made that I wanted a source of. Here, I bolded the statement that you made that I clearly asked for you to prove. Oh shucks, look Lucky, they're the same statement! Guess you missed that, for the 4th time. The "children" stuff you threw at me had no relation to my question. You are not answering my question but avoiding it. You cannot find a source so you are throwing stuff at me with hopes of confusing me and forgetting the only question I asked you. Why is it so hard to find a source? Is it because it is a false statement?

[OneZero]

Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote:

ok.

source

* Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).

* Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%).

* Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).

Quote: The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal
gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and
hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own
illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners,
socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it
appears to take place “on the street.”

I can't find in your DOJ link the sentence that says: "Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%)"

Can you point it out to me or were you mistaken about this wild claim of yours OneZero?

:-D
:-D

Look at the chart.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Ill take it thats you admiting you can't answer the question then?

Please don't respond with some stupid s**t like 'have you ever been to an ice cream factory'.

Admit your falt, or if you not man enough to do that just stop responding.


Look Thefranzkafkafront I stated that people own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used and you went all teleological on me. What did I do to deserve this?

One day you'll have to understand that not everyone has your level of education then you will have to make a simple choice, either to debate only with the intellectual elite either to accept that having a conversation with the people requires you to use a more basic language.

If your goal was to make me feel inferior to you Thefranzkafkafront, your attempt has not only failed but backfired. If your goal is to challenge my post, please proceed.

:-D
:-D

No my goal was to have an intelectual debate, something you appear incapable of.

I defined teleological, if can't understand it then simply admit you can't instead of deflecting with innae s**t like 'have you ever been to a turkish prison'.

Theres no point trying to hide behid ideas of me accusing you of being uneducated because I have done no such thing, I have learnt nothing of my opinions from schooling, I taught all of it to myself, egro its irrelivent.

[Lucky Luke]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Ill take it thats you admiting you can't answer the question then?

Please don't respond with some stupid s**t like 'have you ever been to an ice cream factory'.

Admit your falt, or if you not man enough to do that just stop responding.


Look Thefranzkafkafront I stated that people own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used and you went all teleological on me. What did I do to deserve this?

One day you'll have to understand that not everyone has your level of education then you will have to make a simple choice, either to debate only with the intellectual elite either to accept that having a conversation with the people requires you to use a more basic language.

If your goal was to make me feel inferior to you Thefranzkafkafront, your attempt has not only failed but backfired. If your goal is to challenge my post, please proceed.

:-D
:-D

No my goal was to have an intelectual debate, something you appear incapable of.

I defined teleological, if can't understand it then simply admit you can't instead of deflecting with innae s**t like 'have you ever been to a turkish prison'.

Theres no point trying to hide behid ideas of me accusing you of being uneducated because I have done no such thing, I have learnt nothing of my opinions from schooling, I taught all of it to myself, egro its irrelivent.

If you want an intellectual debate go and have one in the intellectual forum, here we are debating gun control and this forum is not a private forum for the intellectual elite such as yourself.

If you still want to participate to this thread and challenge any of my posts go ahead but there is no way that you are going to boot me out of here because I haven't got your great words knowledge and education.

Attack the post if you wish to but respect the poster Thefranzkafkafront.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote:

Luke, look at my first response. What was it a response to? The statement you made that I wanted a source of. Here, I bolded the statement that you made that I clearly asked for you to prove. Oh shucks, look Lucky, they're the same statement! Guess you missed that, for the 4th time. The "children" stuff you threw at me had no relation to my question. You are not answering my question but avoiding it. You cannot find a source so you are throwing stuff at me with hopes of confusing me and forgetting the only question I asked you. Why is it so hard to find a source? Is it because it is a false statement?

And my answer was:
Quote: In America children are not born criminals but a lot of them seem to be raised in a home with guns.

Saying that most American children are around legally owned guns, the ones who will become criminals later on included.

The answer is not that all gun owners become criminals in America but that American criminals have been around legally owned guns in their youth making guns their favourite weapons that they are going to own legally or not.

:-D
:-D

[Knight]

And again, I replied, that is an assupmtion. Find me some statistics (since you adore those) that proves your statement. Its like pulling teeth to admit that you cannot find a source. Sad...

[Lucky Luke]

OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote:

ok.

source

* Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).

* Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%).

* Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).

Quote: The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal
gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and
hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own
illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners,
socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it
appears to take place “on the street.”

I can't find in your DOJ link the sentence that says: "Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%)"

Can you point it out to me or were you mistaken about this wild claim of yours OneZero?

:-D
:-D

Look at the chart.

In Rochester, Rochester only and for adolescents, adolescents from the 9th and 10th grade only OneZero!


By the ninth and tenth grades, more boys own illegal guns than own legal guns OneZero, this is the problem that children of an early age thought that they should own guns, legally or not is not an issue, if it was make all guns legal for every child to own and look at the result!

What I found astonishing in this graph is that children involved in street attacks and drug use should be allowed to own a gun legally.



May I suggest too that the gun crimes are more likely to be for being caught with an illegal gun OneZero?
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote: And again, I replied, that is an assupmtion. Find me some statistics (since you adore those) that proves your statement. Its like pulling teeth to admit that you cannot find a source. Sad...

I don't think that there is any statistics telling us if American criminals have been around legally owned guns in their youth making guns their favourite weapons that they are going to own legally or not, but surely most American children are around legally owned guns, why would these American children be that different Knight? Are you breeding criminals in separate closed areas in America?

:-D
:-D

[Knight]

So your statement is not based on any statistics or source. Just your logic, correct? Then why deny millions of gun owners' logic for having firearms? Is our logic faulted and yours perfect?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Ill take it thats you admiting you can't answer the question then?

Please don't respond with some stupid s**t like 'have you ever been to an ice cream factory'.

Admit your falt, or if you not man enough to do that just stop responding.


Look Thefranzkafkafront I stated that people own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used and you went all teleological on me. What did I do to deserve this?

One day you'll have to understand that not everyone has your level of education then you will have to make a simple choice, either to debate only with the intellectual elite either to accept that having a conversation with the people requires you to use a more basic language.

If your goal was to make me feel inferior to you Thefranzkafkafront, your attempt has not only failed but backfired. If your goal is to challenge my post, please proceed.

:-D
:-D

No my goal was to have an intelectual debate, something you appear incapable of.

I defined teleological, if can't understand it then simply admit you can't instead of deflecting with innae s**t like 'have you ever been to a turkish prison'.

Theres no point trying to hide behid ideas of me accusing you of being uneducated because I have done no such thing, I have learnt nothing of my opinions from schooling, I taught all of it to myself, egro its irrelivent.

If you want an intellectual debate go and have one in the intellectual forum, here we are debating gun control and this forum is not a private forum for the intellectual elite such as yourself.
Ill post wherever i feel like thanks, there are no rules about the philosophical nature of posts in each respective forum. If you can't answer my questions at least be man enough to admit it.

Quote:
If you still want to participate to this thread and challenge any of my posts go ahead but there is no way that you are going to boot me out of here because I haven't got your great words knowledge and education.

Seriously what the hell are you on about.

Quote:
Attack the post if you wish to but respect the poster Thefranzkafkafront.

:-D
:-D I've not attacked you once, thats something you've invented.

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote: So your statement is not based on any statistics or source. Just your logic, correct? Then why deny millions of gun owners' logic for having firearms? Is our logic faulted and yours perfect?

When your logic is contrary too well known official statistical evidence, I do put it to you that your logic is flawed. When you are wrongly using official statistical evidence to back up your logic, I will let you know as well.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Ill take it thats you admiting you can't answer the question then?

Please don't respond with some stupid s**t like 'have you ever been to an ice cream factory'.

Admit your falt, or if you not man enough to do that just stop responding.


Look Thefranzkafkafront I stated that people own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used and you went all teleological on me. What did I do to deserve this?

One day you'll have to understand that not everyone has your level of education then you will have to make a simple choice, either to debate only with the intellectual elite either to accept that having a conversation with the people requires you to use a more basic language.

If your goal was to make me feel inferior to you Thefranzkafkafront, your attempt has not only failed but backfired. If your goal is to challenge my post, please proceed.

:-D
:-D

No my goal was to have an intelectual debate, something you appear incapable of.

I defined teleological, if can't understand it then simply admit you can't instead of deflecting with innae s**t like 'have you ever been to a turkish prison'.

Theres no point trying to hide behid ideas of me accusing you of being uneducated because I have done no such thing, I have learnt nothing of my opinions from schooling, I taught all of it to myself, egro its irrelivent.

If you want an intellectual debate go and have one in the intellectual forum, here we are debating gun control and this forum is not a private forum for the intellectual elite such as yourself.
Ill post wherever i feel like thanks, there are no rules about the philosophical nature of posts in each respective forum. If you can't answer my questions at least be man enough to admit it.

Quote:
If you still want to participate to this thread and challenge any of my posts go ahead but there is no way that you are going to boot me out of here because I haven't got your great words knowledge and education.

Seriously what the hell are you on about.

Quote:
Attack the post if you wish to but respect the poster Thefranzkafkafront.

:-D
:-D I've not attacked you once, thats something you've invented.

Here you are again, in what world do you live in where people who don't know what teleological reasoning means is less than a man?

Post after post in this thread you are claiming that somehow posters who don't know what teleological reasoning is are not fit to be of a certain gender or fit to debate with you.

Get that Thefranzkafkafront I don't know what teleological reasoning means, I don't want to know what teleological reasoning means and I don't want you to tell me what teleological reasoning means.

This thread is in a gun forum not reserved to intellectuals and you know what you can do with your philosophical posts, find a philosophical forum to post them there.

Attack the post if you wish to but respect the poster Thefranzkafkafront, man or woman.

:-D
:-D

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lucky Luke wrote:
Here you are again, in what world do you live in where people who don't know what teleological reasoning means is less than a man?

Post after post in this thread you are claiming that somehow posters who don't know what teleological reasoning is are not fit to be of a certain gender or fit to debate with you.

Get that Thefranzkafkafront I don't know what teleological reasoning means, I don't want to know what teleological reasoning means and I don't want you to tell me what teleological reasoning means.

This thread is in a gun forum not reserved to intellectuals and you know what you can do with your philosophical posts, find a philosophical forum to post them there.

Attack the post if you wish to but respect the poster Thefranzkafkafront, man or woman.

:-D
:-D

I explained teleological reasoning a Few pages back, you were just too busy trying to be a smart ass to actually notice anything.

s**t if you could have swallowed your pride and asked what it was instead of producing innane responce after innane responce I would have just told you.

But s**t heaven forbid your ever wrong lucky.

Oh I see 'you don't want to know' and heaven forbid i should 'attack the post' by making a intelectual point. Prehaps we should just all stick to your meathod of making little quips and then posting links with often nothing to do with the topic matter.

Here we go again.

Teleological reasoning in that, where the consideration of an ethical action is based primarly is not soley on the actions outcome.

Britboy manged to get it, and he was actually man enough to entertain an idea other than his own.

Again heaven forbid you should do that.

Hell i think you've had a vauge idea what im getting at for a few posts now , you know you can't defeat it and so you trying to turn me into the bad guy by trying to equate a intelectual (hell it hard even that this is AS level ethics) point with a charater attack.

Now if you want to be reminded of the question (which of course you won't answer) it was.

Do you subscribe to teleological reasoning? Yes or No.

I eagerly await the next innane responce, with accusations of Ad hominems, innane links and oh.. lets not forget the two emotes at the end.

[Lucky Luke]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

I explained teleological reasoning a Few pages back, you were just too busy trying to be a smart ass to actually notice anything.

s**t if you could have swallowed your pride and asked what it was instead of producing innane responce after innane responce I would have just told you.

But s**t heaven forbid your ever wrong lucky.

Oh I see 'you don't want to know' and heaven forbid i should 'attack the post' by making a intelectual point. Prehaps we should just all stick to your meathod of making little quips and then posting links with often nothing to do with the topic matter.

Here we go again.

Teleological reasoning in that, where the consideration of an ethical action is based primarly is not soley on the actions outcome.

Britboy manged to get it, and he was actually man enough to entertain an idea other than his own.

Again heaven forbid you should do that.

Hell i think you've had a vauge idea what im getting at for a few posts now , you know you can't defeat it and so you trying to turn me into the bad guy by trying to equate a intelectual (hell it hard even that this is AS level ethics) point with a charater attack.

Now if you want to be reminded of the question (which of course you won't answer) it was.

Do you subscribe to teleological reasoning? Yes or No.

I eagerly await the next innane responce, with accusations of Ad hominems, innane links and oh.. lets not forget the two emotes at the end.

You are not my professor and I am not your pupil Thefranzkafkafront, I made it quite clear from the start if you wish to debate my posts come down from your high horses, if not at least refrain from calling me names.

Respect is the topic you need to work on to be able to debate with common people, your pedantic latin quotations is what we could do without here.

What is it going to be Thefranzkafkafront, are you going to tell me again that I am not man enough to understand your intellectual gibberish or are you going to come back down to earth?

:-D
:-D

[britboy]

Frankakafront - why don't you just rephrase the original question using more commonly used words?

I guess otherwise it's the equivelent of saying 'what do you think of the tradional Portugese saying 'Esta Schere Colmani'??

Of course most people will just think 'Eh?' and move on ..

Also Luke must have 500 posts to read and retort to each time he logs on (it always seems to be the whole world versus him in here - and god forbid he takes > 1 day to reply to debate number 42 he's having!). Asking him to trawl an unspecified number of pages back through the post to try and find the definition of a word in your question is a little OTT don't you think?

Just tell him in clear, basic English, in 1 post, here, your argument!

[Knight]

Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: So your statement is not based on any statistics or source. Just your logic, correct? Then why deny millions of gun owners' logic for having firearms? Is our logic faulted and yours perfect?

When your logic is contrary too well known official statistical evidence, I do put it to you that your logic is flawed. When you are wrongly using official statistical evidence to back up your logic, I will let you know as well.

:-D
:-D

Excellent. So we are always wrong because you let us know each time we use statistics. I bow down to the master who can't answer my one question with a source. [/sarcasm]

Do you see what I'm getting at? You see us as always wrong for owning a firearm. That is what you stated up there. I don't see any exemptions. Now I know you'll say no and all that, but that is what you're stating. That is what you're feeling. When we provide evidence that clearly contradicts yours, you instantly state that our logic/source/reason is false. More than not, you do not even read the source. Yet, when you cannot provide a single source to backup one of your statements, we are supposed to let it go? You argue and complain and throw us lines that have no relation to the statement you are trying to backup. You then give us links that are irrelevant. You avoid stating directly your view and backing up your statements, lest you actually support something false. You're as vague as can be and argue against people who are knowledgeable in the area, have first hand experience, and live in the country.

Find me a source, no logic, for the statement you made or admit that it must be false since there is no source. Simple.








By the time you read this line, you won't remember what I just said or just skipped through all of it. Go back up and read it again.

[Blinky]

britboy wrote: Frankakafront - why don't you just rephrase the original question using more commonly used words?

I guess otherwise it's the equivelent of saying 'what do you think of the tradional Portugese saying 'Esta Schere Colmani'??

Of course most people will just think 'Eh?' and move on ..

Also Luke must have 500 posts to read and retort to each time he logs on (it always seems to be the whole world versus him in here - and god forbid he takes > 1 day to reply to debate number 42 he's having!). Asking him to trawl an unspecified number of pages back through the post to try and find the definition of a word in your question is a little OTT don't you think?

Just tell him in clear, basic English, in 1 post, here, your argument!


What he said. Get off it, thefranzkafkafront. You want to discuss the issue or point-score all day?

Well done, you know more big words than other people here. Hooray.

[britboy]

Knight wrote:
Find me a source, no logic, for the statement you made or admit that it must be false since there is no source. Simple.


Naah - just because something has no available data to support it doesn't mean it's wrong! It just means we can't prove it yet (and maybe never will).

I've never tried the 110 metre hurdles. I think I'd be rubbish at it yet there is no data to support my thoughts. Are you suggested that what I am saying MUST be false as there is no source? Therefore I MUST be good at 110 metres hurdles!

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote:

Excellent. So we are always wrong because you let us know each time we use statistics. I bow down to the master who can't answer my one question with a source. [/sarcasm]

Do you see what I'm getting at? You see us as always wrong for owning a firearm. That is what you stated up there. I don't see any exemptions. Now I know you'll say no and all that, but that is what you're stating. That is what you're feeling. When we provide evidence that clearly contradicts yours, you instantly state that our logic/source/reason is false. More than not, you do not even read the source. Yet, when you cannot provide a single source to backup one of your statements, we are supposed to let it go? You argue and complain and throw us lines that have no relation to the statement you are trying to backup. You then give us links that are irrelevant. You avoid stating directly your view and backing up your statements, lest you actually support something false. You're as vague as can be and argue against people who are knowledgeable in the area, have first hand experience, and live in the country.

Find me a source, no logic, for the statement you made or admit that it must be false since there is no source. Simple.

By the time you read this line, you won't remember what I just said or just skipped through all of it. Go back up and read it again.

I never said it was wrong to own a firearm, I just believe in strict gun control laws.

You did not provide any evidence against what I stated, you just asked me to provide a stat to back up my point. I explained to you that I don't know of any stats backing up this particular point.

One thing I would say is that I do ask posters if they have any evidence to back up their point because I like to check out if their process of thought makes sense. If the poster has no source or data to back up an opinion, it is up to me then to find the evidence to the contrary.

My point still stands as most American children are around legally owned guns, the ones who will become criminals will want to use a gun legally or not.

:-D
:-D