Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

[The Architect Of Fate]

I was responding to the charge i fell afoul of the generic fallacy . Which i pointed out  simply pointing out fire arms were military in nature does not do .And the wiki article answers your statement doubting if that fact was true .

First of all, it's the 'genetic' fallacy, not the 'generic' fallacy.  And second, there was no charge that you had fallen afoul of it.  I asked if you could make an argument from the fact you noted without running afoul of the genetic fallacy because if you can't, then none of your conclusions from that fact are valid and any conclusions that you draw are non sequiturs.  I'm not even claiming that you can't make such an argument.  I simply challenged you to do so.  Instead, we get this nonsense in reply from you.  Is English your first language, or is there a language barrier here that I am unaware of there being?

1. Sorry i must have misunderstood you and i apologize for the misspelling 

2. I did make an argument that didn't do so . Simply pointing out the original use of fire arms was war was the only point i was trying to make  . And my only conclusion was stating that fact .Though i do admit to challenging notion that using something aside in a manor it was not intended by the designer does not necessarily make it a multi use item

3.And i don't think my reply was nonesense . The first part was a misunderstanding . The second part was simply sourcing my claim that fire arms were originally used for war 

4. I believe i have stated multiple times (though perhaps not under this account ) that english in not my first language or even my second .

---

Stalking is wrong period

It doesn't matter how much you repeat that falsehood. It remains a falsehood 

[Angrboda]

First of all, it's the 'genetic' fallacy, not the 'generic' fallacy.  And second, there was no charge that you had fallen afoul of it.  I asked if you could make an argument from the fact you noted without running afoul of the genetic fallacy because if you can't, then none of your conclusions from that fact are valid and any conclusions that you draw are non sequiturs.  I'm not even claiming that you can't make such an argument.  I simply challenged you to do so.  Instead, we get this nonsense in reply from you.  Is English your first language, or is there a language barrier here that I am unaware of there being?

1. Sorry i must have misunderstood you and i apologize for the misspelling 

2. I did make an argument that didn't do so . Simply pointing out the original use of fire arms was war was the only point i was trying to make  . And my only conclusion was stating that fact .Though i do admit to challenging notion that using something aside in a manor it was not intended by the designer does not necessarily make it a multi use item

3.And i don't think my reply was nonesense . The first part was a misunderstanding . The second part was simply sourcing my claim that fire arms were originally used for war 

4. I believe i have stated multiple times (though perhaps not under this account ) that english in not my first language or even my second .

I don't have significant doubts about your claim after your citation, but I do still have serious doubts that you can draw any relevant conclusions from that fact. Simply stating that something was once used for a specific, single use doesn't ineluctably lead to the conclusion that it is not now a multi-use item. On its own without additional support, that doesn't seem to follow. And despite my prompting you multiple times, you don't seem to be aware of that fact.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. Sorry i must have misunderstood you and i apologize for the misspelling 

2. I did make an argument that didn't do so . Simply pointing out the original use of fire arms was war was the only point i was trying to make  . And my only conclusion was stating that fact .Though i do admit to challenging notion that using something aside in a manor it was not intended by the designer does not necessarily make it a multi use item

3.And i don't think my reply was nonesense . The first part was a misunderstanding . The second part was simply sourcing my claim that fire arms were originally used for war 

4. I believe i have stated multiple times (though perhaps not under this account ) that english in not my first language or even my second .

I don't have significant doubts about your claim after your citation, but I do still have serious doubts that you can draw any relevant conclusions from that fact.  Simply stating that something was once used for a specific, single use doesn't ineluctably lead to the conclusion that it is not now a multi-use item.  On its own without additional support, that doesn't seem to follow.  And despite my prompting you multiple times, you don't seem to be aware of that fact.

My only conclusion if we consider the original intent and design this it a single use . Now in practical use it could be multi use (technically anything could be multi use  ).Really it comes down to context which is why i agree to disagree with Brian because i think both of us are technically right

[Angrboda]

I don't have significant doubts about your claim after your citation, but I do still have serious doubts that you can draw any relevant conclusions from that fact.  Simply stating that something was once used for a specific, single use doesn't ineluctably lead to the conclusion that it is not now a multi-use item.  On its own without additional support, that doesn't seem to follow.  And despite my prompting you multiple times, you don't seem to be aware of that fact.

My only conclusion if we consider the original intent and design this it a single use . Now in practical use it could be multi use (technically anything could be multi use  ).Really it comes down to context which is why i agree to disagree with Brian because i think both of us are technically right

Okay, and why would we consider the original intent and design when determining whether or not it is a single use item? (Btw, the "context" in question isn't 12th century China.)

[Belacqua]

Martha Stewart can put a rose in the barrel of an assault rifle and call it a bud vase, and then it's a multi-use item.

That doesn't change the fact: Americans are crazy about guns for their fetish value, not their use value.

[Silver]

Martha Stewart can put a rose in the barrel of an assault rifle and call it a bud vase, and then it's a multi-use item.

That doesn't change the fact: Americans are crazy about guns for their fetish value, not their use value.

Word.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Martha Stewart can put a rose in the barrel of an assault rifle and call it a bud vase, and then it's a multi-use item.

That doesn't change the fact: Americans are crazy about guns for their fetish value, not their use value.

Then what was the purpose in bringing up your mistaken point that guns are ONLY used to kill people? Because not only is that not their only use, it isn’t even their primary use. It’s a brute fact that guns are used more often to kill animals than people, and I would venture to guess that more rounds of ammunition are expended on paper targets than on either people or animals.

That being said, I don’t dispute your point that the majority of guns purchased in the US are bought for emotional or fetishistic reasons, but that seems kind of damaging to your overall argument. If guns are bought for reasons other than your stated use value (killing people), then it necessarily follows that people don’t buy guns in order to be able to kill other people. That people ARE killed by guns is irrelevant.

This isn’t to say that gun deaths and gun violence in the US isn’t a serious problem (it plainly is), just saying that this particular line of reasoning seems pretty flawed.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Martha Stewart can put a rose in the barrel of an assault rifle and call it a bud vase, and then it's a multi-use item.

That doesn't change the fact: Americans are crazy about guns for their fetish value, not their use value.

Then what was the purpose in bringing up your mistaken point that guns are ONLY used to kill people? Because not only is that not their only use, it isn’t even their primary use. It’s a brute fact that guns are used more often to kill animals than people, and I would venture to guess that more rounds of ammunition are expended on paper targets than on either people or animals.

That being said, I don’t dispute your point that the majority of guns purchased in the US are bought for emotional or fetishistic reasons, but that seems kind of damaging to your overall argument. If guns are bought for reasons other than your stated use value (killing people), then it necessarily follows that people don’t buy guns in order to be able to kill other people. That people ARE killed by guns is irrelevant.

This isn’t to say that gun deaths and gun violence in the US isn’t a serious problem (it plainly is), just saying that this particular line of reasoning seems pretty flawed.

Boru

How the hell would any of you know why Americans buy guns? You don't.

How many guns have you sold?

5? 2? 1? None?

I have sold thousands. I don't recall any customers stroking off as some here suggest.

All your assertations prove is your bias and ignorance.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Then what was the purpose in bringing up your mistaken point that guns are ONLY used to kill people? Because not only is that not their only use, it isn’t even their primary use. It’s a brute fact that guns are used more often to kill animals than people, and I would venture to guess that more rounds of ammunition are expended on paper targets than on either people or animals.

That being said, I don’t dispute your point that the majority of guns purchased in the US are bought for emotional or fetishistic reasons, but that seems kind of damaging to your overall argument. If guns are bought for reasons other than your stated use value (killing people), then it necessarily follows that people don’t buy guns in order to be able to kill other people. That people ARE killed by guns is irrelevant.

This isn’t to say that gun deaths and gun violence in the US isn’t a serious problem (it plainly is), just saying that this particular line of reasoning seems pretty flawed.

Boru

How the hell would any of you know why Americans buy guns? You don't.

How many guns have you sold?

5? 2? 1? None?

I have sold thousands. I don't recall any customers stroking off as some here suggest.

All your assertations prove is your bias and ignorance.

Ok, I’m kind of on your side here. 

Boru

[onlinebiker]

How the hell would any of you know why Americans buy guns? You don't.

How many guns have you sold?

5? 2? 1? None?

I have sold thousands. I don't recall any customers stroking off as some here suggest.

All your assertations prove is your bias and ignorance.

Ok, I’m kind of on your side here. 

Boru

Want to know why people buy guns?

There's as many reasons as there are buyers.


...

I knew one guy who used to come in - who collected - pristine new guns. He would not buy a gun that had the action repeatedly worked. (It leaves marks in the finish - if you know where to look). As far as I know - none of his guns in his collection ever got fired.

There were guys like computer geeks - they only bought the "latest and greatest". I guess they just liked being "the first kid on the block".

Me - the only "collecting" I do - that is,  buying for other than reason of utility - is I buy J.C. Higgins model 20-12. It is a pump 12 gauge, single bar steel receiver. It is a Sears branded gun - made by Hi Standard (model M200). It's a great shotgun - excellent quality and they sell cheap. I have 7 of them - 2 in near new condition. The last one made was in the early 1960's. I figure the prices of them can only go up.

Do I love my guns?

No more than my car lift or my favorite Sawzall....