NZ gun laws

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › NZ gun laws

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2201980 19-Mar-2019 19:59

shk292:

Fred99:

Then we're finished in this conversation. When it's been pointed out by several people in many posts in this thread and others what a false equivalence argument is, and exactly why you're arguing one, and you double down then try to frame it with a BS statement like that, I'm done arguing with you.

Well that's a relief, but just for future reference I'm as entitled to an opinion as you or anyone else, and just because you and a few other like minded people believe something, that doesn't make it an incontrovertible truth. Just your opinion

Except your false equivalence argument was exactly as you've been told, and you've failed to acknowledge that indisputable fact when you're clearly wrong, but instead just double-down on an untruth - which is significant in context of what this thread is about. It's not that I want to suppress debate - but that debate should be honest.

Would you like me to explain to you in simple terms what a "false equivalence" argument is, and why what you said was exactly that?

I'll apologise to comment that I was wrong to say that I'm finished arguing with you, I'll keep going, but not on that issue. If you want to keep coming back defending your serious mistake, I'll keep going too. Politely, without hate or malice.

shk292

2857 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2201984 19-Mar-2019 20:02

Fred99:

Except your false equivalence argument was exactly as you've been told, and you've failed to acknowledge that indisputable fact when you're clearly wrong, but instead just double-down on an untruth - which is significant in context of what this thread is about. It's not that I want to suppress debate - but that debate should be honest.

Would you like me to explain to you in simple terms what a "false equivalence" argument is, and why what you said was exactly that?

I'll apologise to comment that I was wrong to say that I'm finished arguing with you, I'll keep going, but not on that issue. If you want to keep coming back defending your serious mistake, I'll keep going too. Politely, without hate or malice.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. Until you do, I'm done with your preaching

no need to apologise, no need to explain. You're entitled to your opinion and to express it. Just like me

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201999 19-Mar-2019 20:21

GV27:

tdgeek:

Re the effectiveness of banning semis. I feel its not effective, although I support it. Its been decreed by some that this HAS to happen. The evidence is that it doesnt work. Why cant we discuss this without throwing our toys? I have no issue being wrong. Happy to be. Its a REAL topic now, not the usual forum argue issue.

At this stage, I think want to see them try just in case it does work. If it does, fantastic. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. Surely we owe it to the victims to at least try.

100% A semi isn't that big a deal. All it saved me with a 15 shot mag was convenience. It didn't work in AUS, it might work here, doesn't matter, lets take the step anyway.

What we MUST do is up out intelligence. And bugger privacy issues. I couldn't care less if GSCB watched everything I do.

shk292

2857 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2202015 19-Mar-2019 20:40

Interesting re intelligence and acting on it. The most recent comparison I can think of was the now infamous Urewera raids. Police received intel that a group was making inappropriate use of firearms and acted to stop it. We all know how that ended. I think the police have a very tough job, a very thin line to tread

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2202017 19-Mar-2019 20:49

shk292:

Fred99:

Except your false equivalence argument was exactly as you've been told, and you've failed to acknowledge that indisputable fact when you're clearly wrong, but instead just double-down on an untruth - which is significant in context of what this thread is about. It's not that I want to suppress debate - but that debate should be honest.

Would you like me to explain to you in simple terms what a "false equivalence" argument is, and why what you said was exactly that?

I'll apologise to comment that I was wrong to say that I'm finished arguing with you, I'll keep going, but not on that issue. If you want to keep coming back defending your serious mistake, I'll keep going too. Politely, without hate or malice.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. Until you do, I'm done with your preaching

no need to apologise, no need to explain. You're entitled to your opinion and to express it. Just like me

You're wrong. Indisputable fact (not opinion) - you did use a false equivalence argument to try and influence people to support a right wing pro-gun position, you tried it using a logical fallacy, and you failed!

Any decent person would apologise! But it's up to you I guess.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202020 19-Mar-2019 20:51

Fred99:

You're wrong. Indisputable fact (not opinion) - you did use a false equivalence argument to try and influence people to support a right wing pro-gun position, you tried it using a logical fallacy, and you failed!

Any decent person would apologise! But it's up to you I guess.

I suggest taking the cue from our PM on our terrorist loser and do the same thing with the NRA-like loonies. Just ignore them, don't mention them by name, and don't give them airtime.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2202023 19-Mar-2019 20:57

dejadeadnz:

Fred99:

You're wrong. Indisputable fact (not opinion) - you did use a false equivalence argument to try and influence people to support a right wing pro-gun position, you tried it using a logical fallacy, and you failed!

Any decent person would apologise! But it's up to you I guess.

I suggest taking the cue from our PM on our terrorist loser and do the same thing with the NRA-like loonies. Just ignore them, don't mention them by name, and don't give them airtime.

I'm not sure if that poster is an NRA loonie!

It might just be that she's been affected by heuristic bias from visiting right-wing NRA type websites, reading Stuff comment sections etc.

I have hope that lost souls may be redeemable, and wish the poster and her family the best, with love and compassion.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Ge0rge

2055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202026 19-Mar-2019 20:59

dejadeadnz:
Fred99:

You're wrong. Indisputable fact (not opinion) - you did use a false equivalence argument to try and influence people to support a right wing pro-gun position, you tried it using a logical fallacy, and you failed!

Any decent person would apologise! But it's up to you I guess.

I suggest taking the cue from our PM on our terrorist loser and do the same thing with the NRA-like loonies. Just ignore them, don't mention them by name, and don't give them airtime.

That's pretty rough man. It sure seems to me like you've just gone and said that there is something similar between a murdering terrorist and a person who is defending their (currently) legal right / privilege to own firearms and that because you disagree with their views, that they should not be allowed to air them. That's pretty nasty, and I'm quite sure we have plenty of posts here devoted to exactly the opposite of both those sentiments.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202033 19-Mar-2019 21:08

Oh people should be allowed to air whatever views they want to air that is allowed under the law (and within the context of a private forum like this one -- with the owner's permission). All that I am saying is not to give people who deliberately choose to propagate false equivalence arguments in the context of gun control debates any attention.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202055 19-Mar-2019 21:37

The other thing the usual rightwingers on here should also learn is this: prancing around preaching some spirit of the community, how you are entitled to an opinion, and how this is not the right time for "this" (whatever that means) doesn't actually spare you from the reality of some people at least wanting to critically examine your arguments. Occasionally, if the arguments are stupid enough and the lack of engagement with logic is sufficiently evident, people will draw their own conclusions. In my experience, right w(h)ingers, notwithstanding their often loud protests against political correctness gone mad and [insert random other rightwing tropes], are often the first to decry others "attacking" them when engaged in a robust fashion.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202094 19-Mar-2019 21:52

Got one thing right , gone mad.

Avoider. know what that means? You preach about evidence. It has to be fed to you, and still avoided.

Robust?? Laughable.

Go on argue about banning guns, who gives a f#ck. If you bothered to read instead of rant you would know everyone here agrees. But you cannot let it go. Good on you for banning guns, that we all agree to, while ignoring the obvious, as you clammer to find some website to support your failed argument. Banning semis wont work.

Comment on the links provided. You want evidence, counter it. Go on, counter them. Thats what you profess to me, give evidence. Lets here your story on why NFA failed, as gun issues were in decline well before NDFA took effect.

Right wingers, NRA BS. Filth.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202108 19-Mar-2019 22:11

tdgeek:

Got one thing right , gone mad.

Avoider. know what that means? You preach about evidence. It has to be fed to you, and still avoided.

Robust?? Laughable.

Go on argue about banning guns, who gives a f#ck. If you bothered to read instead of rant you would know everyone here agrees. But you cannot let it go. Good on you for banning guns, that we all agree to, while ignoring the obvious, as you clammer to find some website to support your failed argument. Banning semis wont work.

Comment on the links provided. You want evidence, counter it. Go on, counter them. Thats what you profess to me, give evidence. Lets here your story on why NFA failed, as gun issues were in decline well before NDFA took effect.

Right wingers, NRA BS. Filth.

What the hell are you on about? For someone who doesn't give a **** , you sure spam the living daylights out of this forum. You know, anyone who'd bother to read this thread and the other thread would see that I am the one bringing in authoritative evidence. Things like citing real legislation, reports about parliament select committee findings, and so forth. If you're not going to even address people's arguments properly (by first of all acknowledging the realities that they point to), why should I bother engaging with some randomly thrown out barbs from you that have no coherence? Your MO seems to be to just assert a conclusion (e.g. gun laws are fine, David Tipple's character is of no relevant to the gun laws debate, 99% of people aren't the problem etc) and then just randomly point by selective things that "support" your thinking. The schtick that you're putting up of engaging in serious arguments and being genuinely concerned about gun laws, as opposed to just trolling, is wearing thin.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202111 19-Mar-2019 22:19

QC who worked on the 1997 Thorp report on the missed opportunities

But what the hell does he know?

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202117 19-Mar-2019 22:27

dejadeadnz:

tdgeek:

Got one thing right , gone mad.

Avoider. know what that means? You preach about evidence. It has to be fed to you, and still avoided.

Robust?? Laughable.

Go on argue about banning guns, who gives a f#ck. If you bothered to read instead of rant you would know everyone here agrees. But you cannot let it go. Good on you for banning guns, that we all agree to, while ignoring the obvious, as you clammer to find some website to support your failed argument. Banning semis wont work.

Comment on the links provided. You want evidence, counter it. Go on, counter them. Thats what you profess to me, give evidence. Lets here your story on why NFA failed, as gun issues were in decline well before NDFA took effect.

Right wingers, NRA BS. Filth.

What the hell are you on about? For someone who doesn't give a **** , you sure spam the living daylights out of this forum. You know, anyone who'd bother to read this thread and the other thread would see that I am the one bringing in authoritative evidence. Things like citing real legislation, reports about parliament select committee findings, and so forth. If you're not going to even address people's arguments properly (by first of all acknowledging the realities that they point to), why should I bother engaging with some randomly thrown out barbs from you that have no coherence? Your MO seems to be to just assert a conclusion (e.g. gun laws are fine, David Tipple's character is of no relevant to the gun laws debate, 99% of people aren't the problem etc) and then just randomly point by selective things that "support" your thinking. The schtick that you're putting up of engaging in serious arguments and being genuinely concerned about gun laws, as opposed to just trolling, is wearing thin.

Making stuff up again, Calm down.

Respond to the two links that show that the NFA was ineffective. Why are you ignoring that? You saw the graph that goes well before NFA, respond to that. Suspend the whining just keep to the topic.

I never said gun laws are fine, . LIE

I assume the "schtick" refers to the links that were posted by another? Again you fail to respond, just rant. Comment on those, for about the 5th time of asking. Its wearing thin all right, you are an avoider.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202121 19-Mar-2019 22:34

I was not the one who raised any issues with the NFA. I am not interested in that debate. Here's the thing you don't get: when in a discussion forum, people are entitled to respond to what they like and, more importantly, the burden of proof on people making positive claims is on them. I've backed up all my claims and my contentions around gun laws do not rely on the reforms in Australia having been conclusively effective. If you can't handle this, go get yourself some professional counselling because the only thing you're succeeding with on your little campaign is sounding like a pathetic stalker.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18