YT2095 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : Quite right. They're for terrorising, bludgeoning, posturing, intimidating... oh, and practicing all of the above. Did I miss anything out? yes quite an important one actualy, as has been gone over in previous posts here. with that level of ignorance and understanding, I can certainly see why you take the stance you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :yes quite an important one actualy, as has been gone over in previous posts here. with that level of ignorance and understanding, I can certainly see why you take the stance you do. If you're going to go so far as to call me "ignorant", instead of considering I might know exactly what is missed off and that my structured argument has a point to make, you might want to back yourself up by stating what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 So, anyway, on his deathbed he suggests that I buy the lawnmower off him. I said no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 atinymonkey said in post # :So, anyway, on his deathbed he suggests that I buy the lawnmower off him. I said no. What's that got to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Apart from lawnmowers and deathbeds? What's your comment got to do with anything? What have any of you comments in this thread been to do with anything? Repeating the same statements over and over again ad nausium is pointless. If youve got nothing original to say, shut up and leave the thread alone. That's what it means. Oh yes. If you can't be topical, be funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 You were a little too late in making your mower comment, it looked like it had no connection to anything else. Maybe Sayo should look back into the rest of the thread, like YT said. And let's avoid insulting people, it really doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :Maybe Sayo should look back into the rest of the thread, like YT said. So you want to stick your oar in too do you? * Fine. Why should I look back up the thread? What is this great mystery I've overlooked? Do tell. * You might well have come to the conclusion from the number of times I have told people to "read the thread" when they have given precluded responses to me, that I actually am reading the thread closely, but since you chose not to I am calling you out on this. ATM is right - if you people just keep repeating the same arguments ad nauseam, and taking stances that have already been used by others and debunked, this thread is going to go nowhere. Read again from page 1 and see the MIGHTY WOWNESS that consistent arguments bring to a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 I know you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but I doubt its hard to obtain. Probably requires a background check and maybe a few safety classes at most. What else should they need? PS: I won the debate Cap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Instead of asking someone who says things like "I doubt", and "probably" for more facts, why not look for government websites that describe the pertinent laws on Google? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Actualy, in all fairnes, I never said to read back or eluded that he hadn`t, quite simply that withing the previous posts was the "other reason" (namely a legitimate Sport) that he`de neglected to add the list of uses, intentional or otherwise. as he`s pointed out himself and to others, he`s told them "to read back" and I know this to be true. "Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :307 Maybe Sayo should look back into the rest of the thread, like YT said." sorry Cap, I never said that if you`re going to use me in an argument them by all means do, I`ve got no problem with that, but please quote me correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 If you're shooting beast or fowl for sport, that certainly falls under the banner of "killing". If you are shooting mobile targets that might as well go under "clay pigeon shooting" which I added to the list in a subsequent post. I'm not confident this kind of sport shouldn't come under "practice" but some staunch tweed-clad ex-Majors would probably disagree with me. If you are shooting static targets that comes under "practice", which as I discussed earlier (among myselves, seeing as it was strategically ignored by anyone taking the pro-gun stance) practice is a function of shooting (as opposed to being a separate undertaking) and does not provide an alternative reason for owning a gun in itself that is exclusive from shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 "or for practicing all of the above" care to define what "all of the above"means then? is it restricted to just that one post outlined in #302? or is it restricted to all the preceeding posts? (and that would render the statement lame). which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 That post, clearly (although thinking about it "any" would probably have been a better choice of word than "all"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 then how do you account for sports shooting? ie/ Olympic Games where a medal is to be won as the end result, sure one must practice, but for NON of the reasons you outlined? by extension, Playing Darts as a sport is also bannable? how about "shoot`em`up" computer games? how would you account for those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I've already posted the answers to all of those questions in prior posts. READ THE THREAD. Indeed read the posts you were just talking about (302 & 312) with a view to understanding the model I am presenting. I mean, come on - I say "shooting static targets comes under 'practice'", and your response is "but what about Olympic shooting, which requires practice?". The question does not follow because you are confusing functions with objectives. I am not typing out the same arguments over and over again for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to read them the first time around, or forgot what was in them. The argument in your second paragraph has been thrown out of this thread a couple of times, because it's not valid, relevant, related, or logically sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 “ Sayonara³ said in post # : Quite right. "They're for terrorising, bludgeoning, posturing, intimidating... oh, and practicing all of the above. Did I miss anything out? ” that statement is indefensible <fullstop> I`ve already pointed out why, because Sports shooting is not emcompased withing its scope, and so YES, you DID miss something out. it`s certainly not about bludgeoning, killing, posturing or intimidating and Practicing to those ends, or "All of the above" as you put it. the goal is to get as many points scored as possible (same as Darts) and win a trophy or medal for doing so (just like Darts). the guns including the rounds are standardised as are the catagories. "They're for terrorising, bludgeoning, posturing, intimidating... " are not recognised catagories outside the feild of the ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I don't think you have a clue what I'm talking about, but I can tell you that constantly repeating the same thing and calling me ignorant is not going to help you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I understand perfectly well, and I`m addressing it (your post) in a way that demosthenes failed to, in way of defining "recreation" and settling for the 1`st answer you gave him, that served to weakly reinforce your "case" to get a rise out of someone, instead of him thinking for himself. I think for myself, and those are my answers to "Did I miss anything out". yes you did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 But you haven't mentioned any function of shooting that was not covered in that list (+ the 'clay shooting' category), so I am still none-the-wiser as to what your point is. Incidentally, if I did miss anything off that list it would not be "indefensible", it would be incomplete. Stating truisms isn't something that usually requires defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I`ve filled in the "missing" part for you and yet you argue that your "Truisms" are complete in their list? that to me is indefensible. the list is NOT complete. competition shooting does not fit in ANY of those you mention within your list. and while we`re talking Incidently: to use your words "You`re Mine Laying" tut tut tut! secondly you said "* You might well have come to the conclusion from the number of times I have told people to "read the thread" when they have given precluded responses to me, that I actually am reading the thread closely, but since you chose not to I am calling you out on this." may I quote you for saying "It`s not a moderators job to CALL anyone out". hey, your words, not mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :I`ve filled in the "missing" part for you and yet you argue that your "Truisms" are complete in their list? that to me is indefensible. the list is NOT complete. competition shooting does not fit in ANY of those you mention within your list. I acknowledged the list is not necessarily complete in that post, and I did not at any point claim that that was a list of "complete truisms". Stop strawmanning, you aren't impressing anyone. Competition shooting can fit under any or all of the following: posturing, practice (which is both a function and an objective - it occurs to me this could be a source of confusion), and clay pigeon. Inevitably you will disagree with this, but the fact that you clearly don't understand the hierarchy orientation I am trying to establish makes you less than credible as a source of criticism. Your above post doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to prove? Let's assume that I agree with you that competition shooting should be a separate function. Does that make the list "wrong"? No, because everything on the list is still applicable. It makes it - as I said - incomplete. Solution? WE ADD IT TO THE F***ING LIST. And what would that accomplish? Follow the argument through from Demosthenes' original query and we can use your logic to show that guns should be available to whoever wants them for the whole scope of their functions, because of Olympic shooting events. and while we`re talking Incidently: to use your words "You`re Mine Laying" tut tut tut! I don't see how you skipping the posts prior to the "list" -- which partly explain the fundamental ideas behind it -- and therefore completely failing to understand the significance of the thing you are investing so much of your argument in is the same as me "mine laying". Less of the abortive ad hominem please. secondly you said "* You might well have come to the conclusion from the number of times I have told people to "read the thread" when they have given precluded responses to me, that I actually am reading the thread closely, but since you chose not to I am calling you out on this." may I quote you for saying "It`s not a moderators job to CALL anyone out". hey, your words, not mine! Yes, of course you may. Since I was clearly responding to a direct attack on myself, and not passing off my response as me exercising moderator duties, the same does not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I'll tell you what, edit the list, delete all replies from 311 and close the thread. It's all going nowhere, and not settling anything. You two can get all semantic on each other asses in the mod's forum, if you really think it's important. Don't make reach across the internet an he-bitch-man-slap your asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I mean, ffs, how does "because Olympic shooters need to use them" answer the poll in the thread? Stop doing that modly dad thing atm, it's unnerving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 EeEeEeEeWWWW, take the pictures down, Sayos going up the wall! LOL (was it something I said?). 1`st of all, what is "Strawmanning"? enlighten US. Impressing anyone? I certainly wished to impess upon my point if that`s what you mean. "Your above post doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to prove? Let's assume that I agree with you that competition shooting should be a separate function. Does that make the list "wrong"? No, because everything on the list is still applicable. It makes it - as I said - incomplete. Solution? WE ADD IT TO THE F***ING LIST." keep your hair on old chap It merely indicates your bias and or ignorance for not including it, that`s all nothing to PROVE other than that. "I don't see how you skipping the posts prior to the "list" -- which partly explain the fundamental ideas behind it -- and therefore completely failing to understand the significance of the thing you are investing so much of your argument in is the same as me "mine laying". Less of the abortive ad hominem please." LOL, a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet "Yes, of course you may. Since I was clearly responding to a direct attack on myself, and not passing off my response as me exercising moderator duties, the same does not apply. " well if you care to refer back to where you originaly said that, you`ll see that I took my hat off to the lady as a ordinary user of sfn and not as a moderator either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 atinymonkey said in post # :I'll tell you what, edit the list, delete all replies from 311 and close the thread. It's all going nowhere, and not settling anything. You two can get all semantic on each other asses in the mod's forum, if you really think it's important. Don't make reach across the internet an he-bitch-man-slap your asses. This has less and less to do with the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts