Shooting at Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School

[khushal]

the argument was about analogies not what happened ....you lose concentration easily

actually that is precisely the debate; something having the potential to harm others should not be banned simply because of misuse.

you were already debunked for you to run away like a coward and just swoop back down when the coast is clear to respond to a comment with someone else's attempt to diverge is not a refutation.

"saying shytty" analogy doesn't work either ./...learn how analogies work.

I didnt duck down dumbass. I had to go eat dinner.
I know it was about analogies and your analogy of comparing a gun to a knife is plain stupid.

And that is not the debate because if it was they would have lost it a long time ago. If it was not for the second amendment, guns would probably have been banned completely in the US a long time ago.

[khushal]

yes that's MY POINT, ANYTHING can be a weapon...../and in particular knives are known for having lethal effects in a similar way as guns, penetrating the body and damaging organs , hence why the analogy applies .....what doesn't apply is banning schools since that would make NO sense to analogize.


you aren't revealing anyone else's "shytty" logic but your own; by repeating a false analogy and saying a correct analogy BY DEFINITION is faulty. Seriously go back to school and get an education you're suffering miserably because you're a retard who thinks he can just wing things as he goes along.

That approach may work well in the remedial classes you took in high school but you aren't fooling me

all weapons arent the same retard. Why dont you man up and not submit to your ego because clearly your too dumb to understand the supreme courts debate about gun control. They dont talk about wheather they should ban knives as well, they only talk about wheather something is constitutional or not because it is their job to protect the constitution.

[khushal]

BUT IT can, if you mean damage means how many people killed. compared to what happened here.

your argument is incoherent entirely.....and you're straying from the topic. Even if one person was shot there would still be a big fuss on control, thus it has nothing to do with how many people killed but the fact people were killed by a gunman ...thus the analogy of other weapons is relevant here.

if you can't understand the basic concept of an analogy you're a retard ...and it was already shown to you in the definition; so all that can be said here is that you're stupid and you're obstinately so despite evidence.

Your the one straying from the topic. Why dont you give us an example of a nut mass killing people with a knife in the past. It isnt there because it can not be done with the exception of war zones with cammando units.

Dont get mad at me for revealing your stupidity, get mad at yourself for being stupid.

[Afghanistan2010]

RTR owned again.....by khushalism.....:-)

[RevolutionThroughReason]

all weapons arent the same retard. Why dont you man up and not submit to your ego because clearly your too dumb to understand the supreme courts debate about gun control. They dont talk about wheather they should ban knives as well, they only talk about wheather something is constitutional or not because it is their job to protect the constitution.

You're just upset because I gave an intelligent logical reason as to why banning guns would absurd, and my refutation sticks, as opposed to you squirming and twisting everywhere and no one accepts your poiint..

[RevolutionThroughReason]

RTR owned again.....by khushalism.....:-)

you were owned by Mullah Sandwich.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Your the one straying from the topic. Why dont you give us an example of a nut mass killing people with a knife in the past. It isnt there because it can not be done with the exception of war zones with cammando units.

Dont get mad at me for revealing your stupidity, get mad at yourself for being stupid.

We're arguing about whether the analogy was valid or not so uit is very much in line with the topic; it's your statement which argues irrelevant variables to the analogy which is straying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers

done ....dimwit .....this is what happens when you don't know what you're talking about


Yeah getting mad at you for doing that would only make sense if you weren't revealing your own stupidity instead. you are dense ....you lose every debate with me ...whether its science, math, logic, history, sociology ...you are a failure.

[khushal]

We're arguing about whether the analogy was valid or not so uit is very much in line with the topic; it's your statement which argues irrelevant variables to the analogy which is straying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre


done ....dimwit .....this is what happens when you don't know what you're talking about
.

We know what the argument is about. Your under the impression that the supreme court actually discuss whether to ban knives or not. Your so dense you dont even know the supreme courts purpose.

You do realize that 8 < 26 right. I hope you do, I thought you have a mathematical background. If the nut in Japan had a gun, he would have done far more damage, thats undisputable.

Its unbeleivable your this naive. Do you honsetly beleive that the knife is equal to the gun or are you just trying to save your arogant ego. Modern wars are fought with guns, not knives and there is a reason for that. Get out of the cave and learn something you simpleton.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

We know what the argument is about. Your under the impression that the supreme court actually discuss whether to ban knives or not. Your so dense you dont even know the supreme courts purpose.

You do realize that 8 < 26 right. I hope you do, I thought you have a mathematical background. If the nut in Japan had a gun, he would have done far more damage, thats undisputable.

Its unbeleivable your this naive. Do you honsetly beleive that the knife is equal to the gun or are you just trying to save your arogant ego. Modern wars are fought with guns, not knives and there is a reason for that. Get out of the cave and learn something you simpleton.

You keep changing goal posts. The issue of whether a can kill more people with a knife than a knife is a red herring logical fallacy. It's about whether they can be used in mass killings. My initial remark was about the absurdity of banning kitchen knifes on the same grounds as banning firearms. i.e. they've been used in mass kiillings.

You do realize this isn't about how many people were killed, yo asked whether a nut ever did a mass killing with a kitchen knife, You believed it never happened.Now you look like a moron and keep babbling to make it seem you weren't wrong; well too bad, you were were wrong just as you were in every debate. Just face your own stupidity for once.

[khushal]

You keep changing goal posts. The issue of whether a can kill more people with a knife than a knife is a red herring logical fallacy. It's about whether they can be used in mass killings. My initial remark was about the absurdity of banning kitchen knifes on the same grounds as banning firearms. i.e. they've been used in mass kiillings.

You do realize this isn't about how many people were killed, yo asked whether a nut ever did a mass killing with a kitchen knife, You believed it never happened.Now you look like a moron and keep babbling to make it seem you weren't wrong; well too bad, you were were wrong just as you were in every debate. Just face your own stupidity for once.

What are you talking about. Your the one changing gola posts.
This is what I said:

False, my argument is that it cant do as much damage as a gun. The gun is by far by a large margin more deadly.

and this is what you said:

BUT IT can, if you mean damage means how many people killed. compared to what happened here.
.

And now that you have been proven an idiot, you think you can change goal posts. that is not working here, sorry. How are you going to change goal posts about your supreme court nonsense.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

What are you talking about. Your the one changing gola posts.
This is what I said:



and this is what you said:


And now that you have been proven an idiot, you think you can change goal posts. that is not working here, sorry. How are you going to change goal posts about your supreme court nonsense.

No that's your changed goal post argument.

nice try Khushal; but you can't mask your logical fallacies by using a A CHANGED GOAL POST to hide your changed goal posts. Even here you're wrong since it is HIGHLY possible to mass murder as many people. remember your changed goal post is about capacity, not likeliness.

you lost.

[Toramana]

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

"When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

[khushal]

No that's your changed goal post argument.

nice try Khushal; but you can't mask your logical fallacies by using a A CHANGED GOAL POST to hide your changed goal posts. Even here you're wrong since it is HIGHLY possible to mass murder as many people. remember your changed goal post is about capacity, not likeliness.

you lost.

whatever. you know you want to back track. the funniest thing was that you beleive that the supreme court actually debates about banning knives. That was hilarious. I was laughing the whole day about that one and I thought DZJ was the comedian. hahahahahaha

[RevolutionThroughReason]

whatever. you know you want to back track. the funniest thing was that you beleive that the supreme court actually debates about banning knives. That was hilarious. I was laughing the whole day about that one and I thought DZJ was the comedian. hahahahahaha

That's what you're doing when you goal post change ....and you use circular arguments ....dumb as bricks = you

[khushal]

the mathematician that thinks 8 = 26 calling others dumb and thinks that the supreme court discusses banning knives. Tell us what color is the sky in your world?