Guns

[Famine]

You miss my point.

Say you're in a dark alley and a mugger confronts you. You pull out a gun to defend yourself - but you're not willing to pull the trigger. You're counting on the mugger backing off at the sight of the gun.

But what happens if you're not willing to pull the trigger and the mugger isn't deterred by the sight of the gun? What next?

Your rights are violated just as they would have been without the gun's presence.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which is why you need to be willing to pull the trigger if you have to, even if the need to do so never actually arises. Deterrents are only effective if the person you are trying to deter believes that you will make good on the threat.

 

[Famine]

Which is why you need to be willing to pull the trigger if you have to, even if the need to do so never actually arises. Deterrents are only effective if the person you are trying to deter believes that you will make good on the threat.

So what you've established is that the gun is meaningless to the encounter, only the intent to use the gun has any relevance.

By this rationale it turns out that guns don't kill people - people do...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

By this rationale it turns out that guns don't kill people - people do...

When did I say anything to the contrary?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The problem is that people aren't great when it comes to exercising good judgement.

 

[Famine]

The problem is that people aren't great when it comes to exercising good judgement.

Mugging someone is very poor judgement indeed, especially if they might shoot you for it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So too is defending yourself with a .50 rifle, a weapon with limited effectiveness at short range - so you have to decide whether someone is intending to mug you long before they show any sign of intending to mug you.

Like I said, I can understand the argument of gun ownership for personal defence, even if I don't agree with it. But I don't see why it is necessary for civilians to own high-powered weapons.

 

[Parker]

So too is defending yourself with a .50 rifle, a weapon with limited effectiveness at short range - so you have to decide whether someone is intending to mug you long before they show any sign of intending to mug you.

Like I said, I can understand the argument of gun ownership for personal defence, even if I don't agree with it. But I don't see why it is necessary for civilians to own high-powered weapons.

Multiple people have explained to you numerous times why it is necessary, you just don't agree with it.

 

[FoolKiller]

why it is necessary for civilians to own high-powered weapons.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Multiple people have explained to you numerous times why they think it is necessary, you just don't agree with it.

Fixed.

 

[Famine]

So too is defending yourself with a .50 rifle, a weapon with limited effectiveness at short range - so you have to decide whether someone is intending to mug you long before they show any sign of intending to mug you.

Not to mention defending yourself from a bear, cougar, crocodile or cassowary with a .22 pistol. I guess if you really want to wait to see the whites of its eyes...

Like I said, I can understand the argument of gun ownership for personal defence, even if I don't agree with it. But I don't see why it is necessary for civilians to own high-powered weapons.

I don't see why it is necessary for civilians to own sodium perchlorate, donuts, lederhosen or a car that will do 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds. Apparently necessity doesn't enter into it when it comes to private ownership of inanimate objects.

I'm curious why the distinction of "civilians" there though. Who isn't a civilian but needs a "high-powered weapon"? Why is it necessary for non-civilians to own "high-powered weapons" than it isn't necessary for a civilian to own? What classes as "high-powered" anyway?

 

[Joel]

@prisonermonkeys
Don't get so caught up in "high powered" as a descriptor for guns. They're all high powered when your target is a human. Most hunters don't even consider the 5.56 round in the AR-15 to be powerful enough to hunt deer, but it's deadly to humans and used by most western militaries. A hundred year old 30-06 Springfield or .303 Lee Enfield rifle from WW1 is insanely powerful on a human target, but most would be wary to use one for moose or bear hunting. There's tons of rounds that are used regularly for hunting big game that would utterly destroy a human target, because if you want to hunt a 1500lb moose you need the power to do it safely and humanely.

You're talking about two different things. Your first point was about why a civilian would need a huge .50 calibre gun or high powered weapons. Then you started talking about Sandy Hook which was carried out with the Honda Civic of firearms. That's without even addressing handguns which overwhelmingly make up the crazy gun violence numbers in the US (more people are killed in the US with fists or bats/blunt weapons than with rifles of all types). It's bizzare to me that you seem to be more or less understanding that people could own handguns for self defense, but not have a good reason to own a .50 rifle, when there's over ~7500 killings a year with handguns in the US and as far as I know a .50BMG has been used in only a handful of crimes over decades.

There's tons of legitimate reasons to own an AR-15 as a civilian, they're affordable, parts are plentiful, they're accurate, have low recoil and light weight (which makes them easier for a younger or weaker shooter to handle safely) and they're reliable. The Honda Civic of guns. That's why farmers buy them for pest control (coyotes). That's why people buy them to teach their children to shoot. That's why people buy them for home defense or the zombie apocalypse. That's why people use them for target shooting and competitive shooting. That's why NATO armies either use them or a similar rifle. It's also why people who perpetrate mass shootings or get involved with gang violence use them.

The extension of the car analogy here would be deaths from street racing in Honda Civics, and concluding that we need to ban Ferrari's because nobody needs a high powered race car. .50BMG rifles cost $10k+, the ammunition costs ~$5 a round, and they weigh 25-30lb. They're high end rifles that enthusiasts own for target shooting. There's no sense to use one for a crime because you could buy an old Lee Enfield for a fraction of the price that will be nearly as effective in any criminal use, and only weighs 8 lb. You're right that a .50BMG rifle is a poor choice for home defense, that's why nobody uses them for that purpose either. People own them for the same reason they own any sort of expensive hobby equipment, because they're fun.

 

[LeMansAid]

Sorry. I didn't realize you were just seeking to make a drive-by post and not actually have a discussion.

I will be shocked if America is still a country, as is, in 5,000 years. That would be an amazing achievement in the course of human history. Of course, however it looks wouldn't change the right or need to rise up against oppression.

That's the issue with the argument. It presuppose that revolution is folly because you don't know what will happen after the revolution. It is the villain you know now is better than the villain you haven't met yet argument. No matter how you make that argument, the idea of a revolution is that the villain you know now is a dick you no longer want to live with and are willing to take the risk with someone/thing new.

To me it looked very much like you were saying to @prisonermonkeys that it was not fair to compare different cultures, yet now you explain that culture shouldn't make any difference. ie. if/when America ends up with a vastly altered one. In light of the hypocrisy, your smarmy dismissiveness is ill-founded.

Unless you want to tell us that this was not sarcasm?

Don't fight Hitler, you might get Stalin? Please continue to compare completely different cultures. That makes total sense.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

I take my points made earlier in the thread back. I will be applying for my FOID card soon will buy my first gun when I turn 21 in a month. The world is just too crazy to not have one. We have radicals killing people over cartoons, crime is probally going up in Chicago next year so why not. I need protection in some way, and everyone in Chicago has a gun wether it be legal or not.

 

[FoolKiller]

To me it looked very much like you were saying to @prisonermonkeys that it was not fair to compare different cultures, yet now you explain that culture shouldn't make any difference. ie. if/when America ends up with a vastly altered one. In light of the hypocrisy, your smarmy dismissiveness is ill-founded.

It isn't fair to compare a westernized society full of multiple different religions, races, and whatnot and say that you could expect the same outcome. It doesn't happen on an individual level in the same community, it doesn't happen on a community level in the same region/state, it doesn't happen on a region/state level in the same country, and it definitely wouldn't happen on a country level on different sides of the globe where the difference between one and the other are staggering.

It also doesn't help that in Eastern countries like Egypt there were a lot of outside influences, including money and support. It has been a folly of western foreign policy for decades, hoping to find the guy who will best benefit them and not considering how he might be with his own countrymen.

And I am saying that culture shouldn't make a difference in whether or not the oppressed should fight. I never said Egypt should have never had a revolution because of their culture. I am saying that you can't say their end result is representative of everyone else. Hell, it can't be representative of anyone else, or even Egypt at a different time in history. It only represents Egypt at the time it happened. Any human or group of humans has the right to fight oppression. I never said otherwise. My point of not fighting Hitler because you might get Stalin as an example of his argument is saying that you should still fight Hitler, no matter who you are. But If the Germans through Hitler out and wound up with a version of Stalin, that doesn't mean the same would happen in the US, and it can't be used as an example to say they shouldn't fight their own oppressive dictator if/when one arises.



I am still curious, even if you can say the Egypt example represents how everyone in every country on Earth would wind up, how does that negate the right for those people to try to fight oppression and hope for something better? How does the result of Egypt negate their right to fight for freedom? Putting in a new form of oppression doesn't mean your revolution failed. It means you made the same mistakes as the previous government and nothing more.

 

[TVR27]

 

[LeMansAid]

And I am saying that culture shouldn't make a difference in whether or not the oppressed should fight. I never said Egypt should have never had a revolution because of their culture. I am saying that you can't say their end result is representative of everyone else. Hell, it can't be representative of anyone else, or even Egypt at a different time in history. It only represents Egypt at the time it happened. Any human or group of humans has the right to fight oppression. I never said otherwise.

I identify that as what I would have expected your attitude to be, I just found putting up culture as relevant at all, and in that way, confusing.

So, back to "guns less effective by the day"....... I see us moving further and further away from "hot wars", and the response to oppression needs to be aligned with the form that the oppression takes. People enslaved physically can fight back physically, but I can't see why the powers that be would allow a war with it's people to be fought on that level into the future. Mostly though, it's that people won't recognise their need to fight. Go door to door attempting to collect the extra "tax" money from people, and being greeted with a shotgun is somewhat a like for like response. Ye olde corruption suits ye olde reaction. That's really not where we are, and certainly not where we'll be. Corruption and the enslavement of people will surely become more and more convert, and thinking that a gun will help you out with that may only serve to further breed a complacency that is already rife.

Not about owning or not owning, but about effective or non-effective.

 

[Exorcet]

I identify that as what I would have expected your attitude to be, I just found putting up culture as relevant at all, and in that way, confusing.

So, back to "guns less effective by the day"....... I see us moving further and further away from "hot wars", and the response to oppression needs to be aligned with the form that the oppression takes. People enslaved physically can fight back physically, but I can't see why the powers that be would allow a war with it's people to be fought on that level into the future. Mostly though, it's that people won't recognise their need to fight. Go door to door attempting to collect the extra "tax" money from people, and being greeted with a shotgun is somewhat a like for like response. Ye olde corruption suits ye olde reaction. That's really not where we are, and certainly not where we'll be. Corruption and the enslavement of people will surely become more and more convert, and thinking that a gun will help you out with that may only serve to further breed a complacency that is already rife.

Not about owning or not owning, but about effective or non-effective.

The guns are for gunfights. They're not the solution to all problems button.

 

[LeMansAid]

The guns are for gunfights. They're not the solution to all problems button.

I can't see anyone saying that they are, hence why I'm not writing as if anyone is.

 

[Swagger897]

Not about owning or not owning, but about effective or non-effective.

Effective as in the ability to kill and the damage done, or effective as in owning it or not does any good?

Unless you think guns are meant only to kill people then you are far off in another world....

 

[FoolKiller]

I identify that as what I would have expected your attitude to be, I just found putting up culture as relevant at all, and in that way, confusing.

Unless you think the culture of the people plays no role in how they envision a rebuilt government, comparing Egypt to what could happen in the US has no relevance.

So, back to "guns less effective by the day"....... I see us moving further and further away from "hot wars", and the response to oppression needs to be aligned with the form that the oppression takes. People enslaved physically can fight back physically, but I can't see why the powers that be would allow a war with it's people to be fought on that level into the future. Mostly though, it's that people won't recognise their need to fight. Go door to door attempting to collect the extra "tax" money from people, and being greeted with a shotgun is somewhat a like for like response. Ye olde corruption suits ye olde reaction. That's really not where we are, and certainly not where we'll be. Corruption and the enslavement of people will surely become more and more convert, and thinking that a gun will help you out with that may only serve to further breed a complacency that is already rife.

Not about owning or not owning, but about effective or non-effective.

There is one issue with your moving away from "hot wars" vision. When the people get uppity the government turns to guns. Their power is ultimately because of their guns. If you don't think this is true, then explain military equipment being given to local police in the US.

I agree the form of oppression is becoming more subversive and deceptive. We try to stop it through the official system, but occasionally it moves fast enough to require a louder response to draw attention. People protest. They are met with police action, despite the 1st Amendment.

Now, when your protests become too huge to beat back with pepper spray, batons, gas, and non-lethal rounds where does it go from there?

Violence begets violence and if those in power refuse to relinquish it when the people demand it you will get a "hot war." You can't have the IRS harass everyone. You can't spy on every person to blackmail them.

 

[Swagger897]

If you don't think this is true, then explain military equipment being given to local police in the US.

You might want to actually lookup where they get such vehicles.

From what I've read, is that the majority of police stations who own such vehicles purchase them through auctions, after the government has no use for them or deemed inefficient. Many of the times when police districts search for new equipment, they are forced to resort to auctions because the budget won't allow proper spending to purchase equipment specific to them.

And in suit of that, the newer equipment may have training costs to go along with the original expense, and cost more to operate than what they can get at an auction.

Nothing is given to them at all except for what is set aside in the budget. The government doesn't hand pick who gets what either. It's up to the station to decide how to pay for the vehicles.

 

[FoolKiller]

You might want to actually lookup where they get such vehicles.

From what I've read, is that the majority of police stations who own such vehicles purchase them through auctions, after the government has no use for them or deemed inefficient. Many of the times when police districts search for new equipment, they are forced to resort to auctions because the budget won't allow proper spending to purchase equipment specific to them.

And in suit of that, the newer equipment may have training costs to go along with the original expense, and cost more to operate than what they can get at an auction.

Nothing is given to them at all except for what is set aside in the budget. The government doesn't hand pick who gets what either. It's up to the station to decide how to pay for the vehicles.

No. They get them through the federal 1033 program that was started in 1997 to aid the War on Drugs. The program allows them to get them for roughly the cost of transferring them to their precincts. After 9/11 DHS began offering grants for homeland security initiatives that are used to help pay for even more. It only requires 25% of the money be dedicated to anti-terrorism activities. Nearly a billion dollars was allocated for security programs in FY14. Here (PDF)is the FY14 DHS Grant Programs Directorate Informative Bulletin.

They are given the equipment to fight drugs and given money to buy more for simply running a few anti-terrorism drills a year.

Trust me, these guys aren't running broke when they get this stuff.

 

[Swagger897]

No. They get them through the federal 1033 program that was started in 1997 to aid the War on Drugs. The program allows them to get them for roughly the cost of transferring them to their precincts. After 9/11 DHS began offering grants for homeland security initiatives that are used to help pay for even more. It only requires 25% of the money be dedicated to anti-terrorism activities. Nearly a billion dollars was allocated for security programs in FY14. Here (PDF)is the FY14 DHS Grant Programs Directorate Informative Bulletin.

They are given the equipment to fight drugs and given money to buy more for simply running a few anti-terrorism drills a year.

Trust me, these guys aren't running broke when they get this stuff.

Just from that PDF, the money being allocated isn't going directly to police stations/districts. It's still going to the state to be divided out to its police force, fire stations, emergency squads, hazzmat teams, any and all types of emergencies. It doesn't specifically designate it going to police forces...

So in the end, the money divided out among everyone boils down to a smaller number. Then they are sent to be divided via district. It's really not that much.
My local news channel did a story as to why their equipment was older when they are given the money. I'll find the report by Monday, but in it was my original post.

And to be frank with it all, while the US has somewhat been de-escalating its presence in a few nations, why would the US want to keep tally of all their assets, when they could be used by police forces? The 1033 program is simply delegating the responsibilities to these stations. Now, there is no need for one to have an Abrams tank but other troop carriers I find nothing wrong with owning them.

The whole "militarization" of police is a bit out of hand too. On a daily basis, how many people actually see these troop carriers and hmmwv vehicles? Do they show up to small crimes like robbery or traffic stops? Or how about actual peaceful protests, where they are obey all the laws and not causing a disruption for the public?

I can't think but of only once I've actually seen with my own eyes a surplus item in use, and that was when there was a car accident and the tow truck was tipping over, so the vehicle was used as an anchor....

 

[Exorcet]

I can't see anyone saying that they are, hence why I'm not writing as if anyone is.

Then I didn't understand the point of your post. If guns aren't effective in a specific situation, then don't use them. They will remain effective for the situations where they are useful though, so there's no need to toss them away.

 

[FoolKiller]

Just from that PDF, the money being allocated isn't going directly to police stations/districts. It's still going to the state to be divided out to its police force, fire stations, emergency squads, hazzmat teams, any and all types of emergencies. It doesn't specifically designate it going to police forces...

There are a large number of different programs. Some of them list specific cities, like Atlanta.

So in the end, the money divided out among everyone boils down to a smaller number. Then they are sent to be divided via district. It's really not that much.
My local news channel did a story as to why their equipment was older when they are given the money. I'll find the report by Monday, but in it was my original post.

You also aren't addressing the 1033 program, which practically gives the equipment away. Transportation costs aren't that high. Combine the two and the $6 million going to Atlanta could get a lot of equipment.

It should also be pointed out that these are annual dollars, not one time. Each year the grant recipients fill out a program report on how they spent the money. If they are in line with the grant they get that money again the next year. The amounts change every few years, depending on the grant cycle (my branch at work receives a 5-year grant), but unless they are misusing the funds they get the money constantly flowing in.

And to be frank with it all, while the US has somewhat been de-escalating its presence in a few nations, why would the US want to keep tally of all their assets, when they could be used by police forces? The 1033 program is simply delegating the responsibilities to these stations. Now, there is no need for one to have an Abrams tank but other troop carriers I find nothing wrong with owning them.

It's a problem because these guys aren't properly trained and no local issues should be handled with military style weapons. When people can be accused of terroristic threatening for filming in public it is easy for them to justify pulling out their big guns.

The whole "militarization" of police is a bit out of hand too. On a daily basis, how many people actually see these troop carriers and hmmwv vehicles? Do they show up to small crimes like robbery or traffic stops? Or how about actual peaceful protests, where they are obey all the laws and not causing a disruption for the public?

Just overnight raids of homes looking for a teenager with an ounce of pot, who doesn't live there, and they wind up throwing grenades at babies and toddlers and shooting preteens in the head. Other than that they aren't doing too much yet. Yet. It is ramping up. They have no need of those weapons and gear that were designed for fighting other trained soldiers. Cops want us to trust them and see them as friends and recognized as the good cops? Then they need to refuse to accept these items. Why do they actually need them? Where is the trend that justifies ramping up their arsenal for marijuana raids?

And where are the basic training camps where the military passes on proper knowledge of how to use these things and behave with them? Ferguson showed us cops acting more like a movie commando than a trained soldier. You don't raise your guns, with your finger on the trigger, while not engaged.

But to ultimately answer your question, it isn't to an extreme point. I never said it was. I said it is showing that the idea of oppression occurring quietly will end when the people stand up for their rights. The "hot war" is always there, even if not visible at the moment.



If we want to debate the appropriateness of police militarization it should be in the America thread. We are veering off topic and my mention of it was just to highlight the "hot war" point.

 

[LeMansAid]

I agree the form of oppression is becoming more subversive and deceptive. We try to stop it through the official system, but occasionally it moves fast enough to require a louder response to draw attention. People protest. They are met with police action, despite the 1st Amendment.

Now, when your protests become too huge to beat back with pepper spray, batons, gas, and non-lethal rounds where does it go from there?

Violence begets violence and if those in power refuse to relinquish it when the people demand it you will get a "hot war." You can't have the IRS harass everyone. You can't spy on every person to blackmail them.

Then I didn't understand the point of your post. If guns aren't effective in a specific situation, then don't use them. They will remain effective for the situations where they are useful though, so there's no need to toss them away.

I see a couple of points of separation between one of the more common rationales (ability to fight government oppression) for gun ownership and the prevailing realities. In that way, to me it borders on the religious - if all else fails, quote "the book".

Current reality would suggest that the things that are more likely to keep the government "honest" do not include guns, and to consciously or subconsciously think that things are ultimately in check because the people are armed is kind of the equivalent of a religious person not bothering to be moral because "God will forgive". If you're not doing what is effective, you're doing nothing. Psychologically, resting on false assurances must be damaging.

Further, considering that doomsday preppers exist I'm sure that some people have guns for the sole reason of being equipped to fight an oppressive government, but I'm also quite sure that most guns are owned for reasons such as self-defence, sport, hunting, and criminal needs. I find it a bit silly to own a gun for self-defence but justify the ownership via that specific constitutional rationale, and plenty of people do that. Removing criminal needs, as I don't think that anyone argues gun rights based on that, all of the others have points of justification. Whether or not another accepts those points is another matter, but sticking to the logic and not just resorting to quoting "the book" is a much more honest and forthright way of going about a discussion/argument. But for some it's like them trying to explain the benefits of no sex before marriage, but when all else fails falling back on "cause God said so".

To be clear, I wouldn't consider these to be the approaches that I see from many/any of the mainstays in this thread. Sadly though the "flybyers" are possibly more representative of the general population in both the negative and positive attitudes in regards to gun rights, and that's a problem. Where I might point the finger at some of you guys though is in differentiating between a negative and a questioning type. That @Duke (Edit: oops, Kent) recently suggested I was completely insincere is a perfect example of that.

I was always open (albeit a little course), and I'd like to recognise @Keef and @a6m5 for the way that they helped me along by teaching, and not judging, respectively. I'd do a cheers emoticon, but I don't drink beer.

 

[a6m5]

Wait. Duke is alive?



Over & over, I see people question the effectiveness of firearms against oppression, but I don't think the majority of the Americans see firearms as the sole way to keep the government honest anyway. Personally, I see the Second Amendment more as just another protection written into the constitution to preserve the right of the people. It's not the answer against tyranny, etc., but it is another tool provided to help deter or fight oppressive government, foreign or domestic.

Coming from totally different set of culture & values(I'm not an American), also not being the sharpest tool in the shed, it took me a long time to start appreciating the protection of the (especially)individual rights Americans enjoy under the Constitution.

@LeMansAid brought up current reality, but in my view, that's sort of missing the point. Much like insurance policy, it's not just about the current, but future. I hope I'm making sense.

 

[LeMansAid]

Wait. Duke is alive?

@LeMansAid brought up current reality, but in my view, that's sort of missing the point. Much like insurance policy, it's not just about the current, but future. I hope I'm making sense.

Big oops on the Duke/@Kent bit, my brain must have them organised side by side somehow.

Insurance/God's forgiveness are similar analogies. However with the latter, the responsibilities of the meantime morality can sometimes be lost if the focus is on the umbrella protection. So while they're similar, they may have crucial differences. Also consider the person that has insurance, but leaves their house wide open because they have it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I see a couple of points of separation between one of the more common rationales (ability to fight government oppression) for gun ownership and the prevailing realities. In that way, to me it borders on the religious - if all else fails, quote "the book".

Current reality would suggest that the things that are more likely to keep the government "honest" do not include guns, and to consciously or subconsciously think that things are ultimately in check because the people are armed is kind of the equivalent of a religious person not bothering to be moral because "God will forgive". If you're not doing what is effective, you're doing nothing. Psychologically, resting on false assurances must be damaging.

No one said it keeps the government honest. It is for after it has gone past that point. I don't know how many ways we have gone over this. The Constitution is to keep them honest. No one who is sane is waving around their guns saying do it our way or else. No one is fighting with guns first when government overreaches. They rally, protest, file lawsuits, write their local papers, call the news, or host a commentary news show. Everyone you see doing that is trying to keep government honest. That is why we have the 1st Amendment: Free Speech and a Free Press. The press is considered the watchdog of the government. That includes the Internet and it is why no reporter working with people like Edward Snowden has been charged with a crime.

As for your "current reality," do you think I think it is a current necessity? If so, I would actually own a gun, which I don't.

but I'm also quite sure that most guns are owned for reasons such as self-defence, sport, hunting, and criminal needs. I find it a bit silly to own a gun for self-defence but justify the ownership via that specific constitutional rationale, and plenty of people do that. Removing criminal needs, as I don't think that anyone argues gun rights based on that, all of the others have points of justification. Whether or not another accepts those points is another matter, but sticking to the logic and not just resorting to quoting "the book" is a much more honest and forthright way of going about a discussion/argument. But for some it's like them trying to explain the benefits of no sex before marriage, but when all else fails falling back on "cause God said so".

Perhaps you forgot the question that set us on this road. No one has said everyone owns guns for this one reason only. The question was why anyone needs to own a gun like a .50BMG. Fighting an oppressive government was an answer given. It was not the only one. The debate began over that answer, but it was not an end all answer.

Where I might point the finger at some of you guys though is in differentiating between a negative and a questioning type. That @Duke recently suggested I was completely insincere is a perfect example of that.

Why do you bother debating if a "questioning type" is a problem for you? Someone disagrees with you or your point, whether you are being a devil's advocate or not, and they will question it.

No one is calling you names or anything like that. The most you could do is point at something like me saying you seem to be ignoring something because your point tended to act as if we said something we didn't, like the fact that guns to fight oppression are a final option. You act as if you envision me banging my keyboard and screaming.

I'm eating a snow cone in my kitchen right now. I don't think of you in any way that gets my ire up.

 

[LeMansAid]

Why do you bother debating if a "questioning type" is a problem for you?

Just quickly on this. Questioning type = good, unfair assumption of negative type = bad.