Thread: Guns in National Parks

I have no anger in the issue.

I have studied the philosophers in question and I just want to clarify the positions that they took.

Hobbes was kind of extreme in his views, Rawls on the other hand was more pragmatic. Granted Rawls' system was more experimental, but his process of achieving his goal was more oriented to achieving peace and recognizing the ignorance that society can have when it comes to making rules.

I do not agree with Hobbes' view of always being in a state of war and that achieving peace in society is impossible or difficult to obtain.

Originally Posted by singlewedge

I have no anger in the issue.

You don't seem to! Yours is the most thought-provoking (i.e., not based in raw emotion) posting on a gun-related thread that I have seen in a long time, and is much appreciated.

right
now I'm a coward

this is called an ad hominem attack folks

it happens when someone can't attack an argument so they attack the person making it
in other words he called me a chicken

actually them were several ad hominem attacks here
the main being that average people can't be trusted with guns

I other words, these people think you are all idiots
everyone who ever visited a national park is an incompetent boob who can not be trusted with a gun
even though I drove my family there and could have crashed the car
even though I have dozens of hours in small planes and could have crashed into any number of things
even though I have worked in the food industry and could have poisoned some large number of people very easily

no, no, if I get a gun I'm just going to go hog wild
never mind that I can carry one into the grocery store, on a subway, into the fair, etc etc etc


another illogical argument is that allowing guns will turn someplace into the wild west
it never has, it never will (not even the wild west, look it up)

this horse is so dead it has started to stink

since we have apparently decided that attacking our fellow forum members is the only way to feel like a big man (ooh, see? I did it too but mine are less thinly veiled because I'm not a coward ... ooh did it again!)


it is your right to disagree with me sir, but it will not change that fact that you are wrong

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

right
now I'm a coward

this is called an ad hominem attack folks

it happens when someone can't attack an argument so they attack the person making it
in other words he called me a chicken

actually them were several ad hominem attacks here
the main being that average people can't be trusted with guns

I other words, these people think you are all idiotsI do not think that anyone here used or insinuated that anyone was an idiot
everyone who ever visited a national park is an incompetent boob who can not be trusted with a gunUm... I lived two hours from Yellowstone and visited frequently. I do not consider myself a boob, regardless of gun ownership.
even though I drove my family there and could have crashed the car
even though I have dozens of hours in small planes and could have crashed into any number of things
even though I have worked in the food industry and could have poisoned some large number of people very easily

no, no, if I get a gun I'm just going to go hog wild
never mind that I can carry one into the grocery store, on a subway, into the fair, etc etc etcI do not think that gun owners will go, to use your words, hog wild in any given situation. It is only the criminals or the people that have something to prove that go wild.


another illogical argument is that allowing guns will turn someplace into the wild west
it never has, it never will (not even the wild west, look it up)Not going there

this horse is so dead it has started to stink

since we have apparently decided that attacking our fellow forum members is the only way to feel like a big man (ooh, see? I did it too but mine are less thinly veiled because I'm not a coward ... ooh did it again!)Personally I think this is a childish statement. There are no personal attacks only POVs.


it is your right to disagree with me sir, but it will not change that fact that you are wrongAgain POV

With respect please see above comments in red.

As an edit I would like to say this. All comments on this thread are POV and not an attack. If a POV is perceived as an attack I would think a better way to address the message would be to say something like:

That is an interestin POV, but what about this or this how does that fit in.

That method of disagreement seems to go farther to further an argument than the perception of always being attacked or labeling people and/or arguments as attackers. When in point of fact they are doing nothing but disagreeing with your stated position.

Lets try and keep this civil and impersonal.