Major Theory Discussion

[The_Alpha_Dog]

Explain.

Explain it? Things still make sounds even if you can't hear it.

That can't be proven. It's a philosophical question. Approaching it with a physical mindset will ruin it.

Just to be clear... I don't understand anything that anyone is saying.

[Joey Skylynx]

You seriously want people to experience "technical curiousity" through firearms?
Curiousity through firearms?
I take apart firearms, and explore the components of them for fun. It's amazing the amount of technical work that goes into a firearm.
Because.. THAT will not end badly at all, right? High school kids exploring their "technical curiousities" with firearms.
Why would you judge someone on their age? Certain people have hills and valleys regarding education, but disallowing them from exploring something they like because "HIGHSCHOOL KIDS" is stupid.

Also the rest of your argument is fallacious, depriving someone of a firearm is not depriving them of making morale choices, at all. Abortion is a matter of morale, taking a lousy parent's child away is a matter of morale, taking a murderweapon from a person to prevent death is not a matter of morale, and certainly does not deprive the owner of making morale decision (in fact, the fact that when you own a gun, you have to make morale decision about it, signifies how many times straight up murder would be unnecessary).
Not to sound like a prick, but guns require someone with a brain to pull the trigger. They are not going to randomly go BLAM BLAM BLAM without reason.
But back to the topic... I've never stated it's taking all matters of morale choice, but rather it's taking away their choice of owning a weapon for whatever reason they may have

"Deny them the right to stand tall when they are small"..
That sounds sick, no offence. I don't wanna offend you, but that seems like some stereotypical American bravado-Texan speaking there. A gun makes you tall? Seriously? You are quite literally stating that firepower is might, and might is important. How about a society where standing tall or small wouldn't be a matter of possession? But rather a matter of political views and wording them? Using words instead of guns seems like a much more sensible choice, quite objectively. That is so sickly republican that I want to puke.
I'll admit that was pretty badly worded, but in the terms of defense it stands quiet true. Someone which isn't exactly physically fit[scrawny or fat] is able to defend their own against a full brute if they are armed.
Humans made tools to even the playing field or to have advantages over their opponents.
Also such a society wouldn't be possible.

And the technical curiosity? Guns have existed for hundreds of years, I think we are WELL beyond the time of exploring firearms in your backyard. And if you are doing so, you deserve to shoot yourself accidentally, for being a moron.
-Engines have existed for 100's of years. Any man/women which tinkers with the mechanical components of an engine deserves to die.
-Aircraft have existed since the late 1600's[possibly sooner], but if you decide to fly aircraft as a hobby you deserve to kill yourself.
-Tinker with old boats, and learn how we made steel monsters float? You should go drown because you are doing something innovative.
I don't judge what another man or women does with their time, but if they choose to research and innovate... Let them.

[Faustie]

Because particles vibrate and pass along kinetic energy, proximity to someone does not effect this.

That cannot be proven, in anyway. Bear in mind, any observation of the tree falling would be breaking the rule.

Actually, it can and has been. You should read up on some basic chemistry and physics, it's all there.

[Dylan]

Because particles vibrate and pass along kinetic energy, proximity to someone does not effect this.

That cannot be proven, in anyway. Bear in mind, any observation of the tree falling would be breaking the rule.

Actually, it can and has been. You should read up on some basic chemistry and physics, it's all there.

How could it be proven, when no observation is allowed? With no observation to base it on, how would facts be built upon it? How can you prove, that this world isn't a dream?

---

I take apart firearms, and explore the components of them for fun. It's amazing the amount of technical work that goes into a firearm.

Why would you judge someone on their age? Certain people have hills and valleys regarding education, but disallowing them from exploring something they like because "HIGHSCHOOL KIDS" is stupid.


Not to sound like a prick, but guns require someone with a brain to pull the trigger. They are not going to randomly go BLAM BLAM BLAM without reason.
But back to the topic... I've never stated it's taking all matters of morale choice, but rather it's taking away their choice of owning a weapon for whatever reason they may have


I'll admit that was pretty badly worded, but in the terms of defense it stands quiet true. Someone which isn't exactly physically fit[scrawny or fat] is able to defend their own against a full brute if they are armed.
Humans made tools to even the playing field or to have advantages over their opponents.
Also such a society wouldn't be possible.

-Engines have existed for 100's of years. Any man/women which tinkers with the mechanical components of an engine deserves to die.
-Aircraft have existed since the late 1600's[possibly sooner], but if you decide to fly aircraft as a hobby you deserve to kill yourself.
-Tinker with old boats, and learn how we made steel monsters float? You should go drown because you are doing something innovative.
I don't judge what another man or women does with their time, but if they choose to research and innovate... Let them.

That was a massive failquote, Had to spend some time edit that out..

About the age.. Wow.. No arguments there. Yes, why wouldn't we let all children have access to guns, vehicles like cars and airplanes etc. because, there might be 1 out of a million that is actually smart. Face it, judging people by a number is how our society is built. You are not considered independent by the state until you are 18, you may not drink until you are 21 etc.

In terms of defense? How about in terms of offence? Guns being legal spikes murder incredibly, either way.

"taking their choice of having a weapon".. So having an atom bomb would be okay according to you? I mean.. It's your weapon, it's for self protection. If I want an atom bomb in my yard, who can stop me?
But I'm sure you'll say "oh but that is an exaggeration", but is it? Where does the proverbial line between too much and too little in this go? And the way you stated it, there shouldn't be one. Choice of weapon is every american's right.

And the last argument is so ridiculous I wont even go into it. I know you read into what I said as "dying", but I didn't say that at all. I said "shoot themselves accidentally", which is a whole other world. And they do. Being a redneck hillbilly tinkering with his guns in the backyard, which is, fyi, a weapon and NOT an engine, plane or car, deserves to get shot by his own gun, for irresponsibility. Seriously, tinkering with guns should be cool? That is an incredibly loose and unserious approach to gun control, they are not toys, they are weapons, they should only be used in incredible times of danger, not for some redneck to show off is incredibly machoness.

[Nevy]

Explain.

Explain it? Things still make sounds even if you can't hear it.

That can't be proven. It's a philosophical question. Approaching it with a physical mindset will ruin it.

Just set up a sound recorder brah. Problem solved?