Whoever Invented the Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blower Should Have His Butt Kicked

[FirstAscent]

I would assume that leafblowers are a once/twice/trice a year thing most places. Using it at a regular basis would be misuse of an excellent tool for it's job.

I don't know what planet is that?! Must be really quiet there.

Exactly. It looks like Malawi is in agreement with me on principle. He's just short of some knowledge about the real world.

If that principle is that leafblowers are a great tool for it's job, but that they can be overused, then yes.

I tend to spend most of my time in the real world and at the same planet as the rest, and I live in an area where most people have a fairly large garden. But I'm not really bothered when someone fires up their chainsaw, leafblower or whatnot - its part of life.

We've already been over chainsaws and how people aren't bothered by them. And we're clear that you think frequent regular use of a leafblower is overuse. It's also a fact that leafblowers are actually used frequently and regularly, often once a week or biweekly in suburban residential areas of single family detached homes at nearly every home in which a gardening crew is hired (which is a large percentage of homes), and up to twice a week in condo and apartment complexes and light industrial complexes and technology parks.

[myrkul]

So, your problem is actually with gardening crews, not leafblowers?

[Lethn]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

[myrkul]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

[FirstAscent]

So, your problem is actually with gardening crews, not leafblowers?

Funny how you fail to see that a discussion of gardening crews, or a discussion about individuals who use leafblowers all the time would have little to no meaning regarding the use of leafblowers without the subject at hand actually being the object known as a leafblower.

[FirstAscent]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

[myrkul]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

[FirstAscent]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.

[myrkul]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.

You're still blaming the things, not the people.

[FirstAscent]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.

You're still blaming the things, not the people.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased. People and culture, which affect laws, policies, and lobbying, are the cause of so many guns in this country. Gun rights nuts continue to exacerbate that issue, because of people like you, and because you are influenced and deluded by others.

Increasing guns in this country will not decrease gun crime. I think you need to understand that.

[myrkul]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.

You're still blaming the things, not the people.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

If only there were fewer things, the people who had them wouldn't use them against the people who didn't?

[FirstAscent]

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people .

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.

You're still blaming the things, not the people.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased.

If only there were fewer things, the people who had them wouldn't use them against the people who didn't?

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

[myrkul]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

[FirstAscent]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

[myrkul]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

[FirstAscent]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

[myrkul]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

[FirstAscent]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.

[myrkul]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.

Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

[FirstAscent]

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.

Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.