Guns don't kill people, people kill people....

[bulbasaur]

You're wrong.

...tell me I'm wrong and I'll concede.

[bulbasaur]

Waiting for that concession....

[bulbasaur]

Good to know that you acknowledge that you are wrong.   

happy to concede...ther e's no point to this thread.    

[bulbasaur]

For those who think I am just being mean to ZajDabNeeg, let's spread some education.  Let's examine the flaw in his logic on the topic AND how he presented his argument. 

1.  His presentation was weak.  Once he wrote, "tell me I'm wrong and I'll concede," that was the demise of his argument.  He left himself with only two options, and both options would not lead to a favorable conclusion for him.  Of course, I am going to tell him he is wrong, so he can either...

A. Concede as he claimed, but by doing so he admits he was wrong all along. 

B. Not concede and accuse me of arguing semantics.  He could try to argue that is not what he "really meant" and it doesn't actually relate to the "real issue."  If he chose this option, he would leave his original argument to fail because his original argument is nothing but semantics, "Guns don't kill, people do."  Thus, if I am wrong for arguing semantics, then he is also wrong for arguing semantics in his original claim. 

2. Insulting me, the topic, the thread, etc. does not help his argument at all.  It doesn't prove or disprove anything.  If anything, he contradicts himself.  He wrote, "there's no point to this thread." But, he himself made a point in the thread.  That means his original argument was pointless. 

His debate skills need work, but let's be nice and actually look at his argument and see why it is wrong. 

3.  He wrote, "Death of a person by gun.  The actual death of a person wounded by a bullet/ammunition shot from a gun which it's trigger was pulled by another person, who had the intent caused by a motivation, is actually the excessive bleeding (the body's inability to circulate the blood).  so gun's don't kill people, nor does people kill people...it's the motivation that killed a person."

That's a handful, but it is full of holes. 

A.  Some deaths by guns are accidental, and there was no motivation.  Now, the entire argument is moot. 

B.  As stated before, the entire argument is an argument on semantics.  It actually has no bearing on how to create better gun laws.  We can do this for almost anything.  Let's look at flight safety...

Issue: Should there be stricter regulations on airplane checks before flights?
Person 1: Yes.  X amount of airplanes have crashed in the past 10 years. 
Person 2: No.  Airplanes don't crash.  People crash. 
Person 1: Ok, and people use airplanes, so let's make sure people don't die from an airplane. 
Person 2: AIRPLANE DO NOT KILL!  PEOPLE DO!

Do you see how absurd this line of logic is? 

[bulbasaur]

hahhahahaha.  Refer back to...

2. Insulting me, the topic, the thread, etc. does not help his argument at all.  It doesn't prove or disprove anything.  If anything, he contradicts himself.

The most pathetic part of all this is that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.  Only a "kid" would resort to attacking the person instead of the argument.  Only a "kid" sees his/her own point.  Unlike you, I broke down what you wrote; you just rather talk about me.  Which one of us is the "deaf kid?" 

And the worst part, YOU ALREADY CONCEDED.  You admitted you are wrong.  Why you mad?  hahahahahaha.   

no disrespect nor am I insulting you but why not concede when it's like talking to a kid?  , better yet, a deaf person who only sees his point.   

[bulbasaur]

You have to be nuts to want to carry a rifle into a restaurant.  You're not even coming back from a hunting trip.  You're the kind of person we need gun laws for....because you shouldn't have a gun! 

[bulbasaur]

The problem with some people is that even after they have been proven wrong, their ego won't let them accept it.  It is somehow the other person's fault.  I am apparently a "deaf kid" because all his claims got refuted? 

A normal person would see that when their line of thinking is wrong, they change their mind.  If you are driving down the wrong road, you would obviously turn around when you realize it.  For some people, they don't; they just keep driving.  Worse, they blame everything else.   It's not my fault your argument has holes and contradicts itself. 

[bulbasaur]

It is obvious your feelings are hurt.  So, feel free to insult me.  Insults don't bother me.  They only show that you know you are wrong.  You just can't admit it.   

sorry to hurt your feelings...  

[bulbasaur]

And we're back to this again, "But but, guns don't kill people.  People kill people."

Well, guess what?  You're still an idiot because you still don't have a point.  Laws are for people, not guns.  Required gun safety course are for people, not guns.  Background checks are for people, not guns.  You seem to think we are blaming guns, but no.  We are blaming people.  You are too stupid to know the difference.  Just because I want tougher regulations on traffic and cars, that doesn't mean I am anti-cars; it means I am anti-bad-drivers.   

[can]

as a gun owner I agree with more laws on guns.

[bulbasaur]

Refer to #1, #2, and #3. 

Weapons don't move on its own now does it? Unless it does, I'd have to agree that people kill people.

[bulbasaur]

Think of it this way.  Can anyone just open up a medical clinic? Pharmacy drugs don't kill people, people kill people.   The obvious answer is no.  We can't have untrained and unlicensed people giving out drugs to people.  We can't have any and all drugs just out for anyone.  That's dangerous.  Will some crazy people break the law anyways?  Probably.  However, we will at least have a system to control some of it. 

There are tons of products that are regulated.  There is  reason why you can't buy bombs at Walmart. Sure, some people just want to set off bombs in an abandoned field just for recreation.  But, we know that the number of deaths by bombs will also go up.  Bombs don't kill people.  People kill people.