If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   NRA: "Guns are not to blame for mass shootings, it's America's celebration of violent pop culture. Now, check out this sweet shotgun from No Country for Old Men. We got a whole museum full of this shiat"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 459
    More: Stupid, No Country, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, mass shooting, Media Matters for America, shotguns, American Psycho, cultures  
•       •       •

2807 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2013 at 9:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



459 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 08:10:13 PM
F*ck the NRA
 
2013-01-03 08:21:29 PM

Lionel Mandrake: F*ck the NRA

 
2013-01-03 08:25:22 PM
And this is why I'll never join them.
 
2013-01-03 08:32:42 PM
Indeed. Guns certainly aren't an integral part of a mass shooting. That's why we here about similar incidents involving bows and arrows, crossbows, artillery, and other non-firearm shooting implements ALL THE TIME!

So, stop singling out guns, you bunch of jerks!
 
2013-01-03 08:41:23 PM
I presume everyone read the headline in Wayne LaPierre's voice?
 
2013-01-03 08:48:05 PM

Apos: I presume everyone read the headline in Wayne LaPierre's voice?


"If you think only a hypocritical douchebag would blame glorification of violence for shootings and then glorify guns from violent movies, then call me a hypocritical douchebag."
 
2013-01-03 08:51:06 PM

mamoru: Indeed. Guns certainly aren't an integral part of a mass shooting. That's why we here about similar incidents involving bows and arrows, crossbows, artillery, and other non-firearm shooting implements ALL THE TIME!

So, stop singling out guns, you bunch of jerks!


You forgot Benny Hana.
 
2013-01-03 08:53:16 PM
Says the organization that supported a gun grabber for president recently.
 
2013-01-03 09:02:28 PM
And they wonder why people call them gun nuts
 
2013-01-03 09:06:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: F*ck the NRA

 
2013-01-03 09:22:46 PM
At what point does the NRA actually start to harm the appeal of owning a gun?

It's not like they've already fractured the gun-owning community long ago.
 
2013-01-03 09:23:11 PM

Apos: I presume everyone read the headline in Wayne LaPierre's voice?


I'm not sure I know what Wayne LaPierre's voice sounds like.

So I started it with, "Good news, everyone!"
 
2013-01-03 09:23:27 PM
Emposter Presents: The Right Winger Politics Checklist and/or Drinking Game (As Applied to the topic of Firearms)

1. Nirvana Fallacy (AKA the Perfect Solution Fallacy)

The Nirvana Fallacy is where a possible solution to a problem is rejected because it is not perfect. You often see this fallacy used by right wingers against any form of tax increase, who will use the argument that a specific tax increase won't completely solve the deficit, and therefore shouldn't be considered at all.
Applied to Firearms: Any variation of the argument that firearms regulations won't stop all gun violence or even all violence in general, such as (but not limited to) the arguments that sufficiently determined criminals will manage to get guns, or that criminals will find other ways to kill people, while steadfastly ignoring any possible partial reduction in firearms violence.
2. Red Herring
The Red Herring is where a person, rather than addressing the issue or argument being discussed, changes the subject to a different argument to try and distract from serious discussion of a topic or position they are weak on. The Red Herring was a favorite of the Right during debates over health care reform, where they ranted about proposals that existed only in their imaginations, such as Sarah Palin's famous of the existence of "death panels" in the reform bill, despite being unable to point to any part of any version of any proposal that provided for any system to determine if individuals were worthy of health care.
Applied to Firearms: Any completely loony accusation, such as (but not limited to) the idea that mass shootings were secretly planned by the left to force stronger gun control regulation (sadly, similar arguments can be found on the left that it was a plan by weapon manufacturers to increase sales), or that gun control is part of a plan to disarm the populace so that the government can become more tyrannical without fear of a patriotic revolution.
3. Strawman Argument
The Strawman Argument is where a person misrepresents an opponent's position as one they can more easily attack, then attacks the false position rather than the real one. This fallacy is unique to each instance, but is so common and well known on Fark that no general example is necessary.
Applied to Firearms: The most common strawman you will see in firearms threads will be pro-gun posters changing an argument for stronger firearms regulations into an argument for complete bans.
4. Tu Quoque (AKA Appeal to Hypocrisy)
This is where a person argues that a position is wrong or should be disregarded because the proponent of the position doesn't follow their own proposal. This fallacy is commonly used in tax discussions to attack the credibility of people who take advantage of existing tax deduction strategies but also support higher taxes.
Applied to Firearms: Look for the argument that a supporter of stronger gun control laws benefits from gun control themselves, such as pointing out that Obama has Secret Service guards or that a proponent's children go to a school with an armed security guard.
5. False Equivalency
This is where a person attempts to analogize two unrelated items/positions/statements, etc. Like the strawman, these are as unique and numerous as the statements on Fark, being found in pretty much every thread where right-winger's post, but are widely understood, and need no general explanation.
Applied to Firearms: Look for comparisons between the dangers of firearms (weapons designed in almost all cases specifically to kill) and items designed for primarily non-lethal purposes but can be used to kill or which can be dangerous when used incorrectly (everything from cars to spoons). Alcohol is a right wing favorite.
6. Slippery Slope
This is where a person assumes that initial small steps must inevitably lead to later steps which eventually cause an undesired result. This is commonly used by all sides of political discussions when discussing increases in government power over virtually anything, and is one of the more difficult fallacies to identify because in many cases it can be quite reasonable and may end up being correct. Generally, the only difference between this being used correctly (in terms of being an effective argument only, it is never actually proof of anything) or incorrectly is the reasonableness of the assumptions made in predicting the steps.
Applied to Firearms: This is going to be a tough one to spot, cause some are reasonable. Look for any claim that reasonable gun regulations will eventually lead to the complete banning, and perhaps even confiscation, of all guns.
7. Anecdotal Evidence
Also known as the "Person Who Fallacy" (as in, "I know a person who"), this is where a person attempts to refute a position by pointing out one or several isolated instances which don't fit the general pattern. The right loves to use this to try and refute overwhelming evidence of global climate change and scientific consensus by citing isolated instances of unseasonably cold weather (not even getting into how many of even those actually support GCC).
Applied to Firearms: Look for this used in attempts to argue that countries with far lower rates of gun deaths and homicides than the US aren't actually better because of "insert isolated serial killer here."
8. Cherry Picking
This is where a person presents only part of the existing evidence, while withholding evidence advantageous to the opposing position. Generally, the stronger the evidence withheld, the more fallacious the argument.
Applied to Firearms: You will see this a lot using previous US gun control laws, such as the assault weapons ban and handgun bans in DC. Right wingers will often argue that they did not have a significant impact on gun deaths, while ignoring factors such as poor enforcement, huge exceptions in the laws, and geographical limitations. They may also attempt to argue that gun control laws cannot possibly work, while completely ignoring the vast majority of the world, where stronger gun control laws both exist and work.
9. Fallacy of the Single Cause
This is where the person assumes that, because one cause is easily identified, that it is the only cause. This is used by both sides, because most issues have factors each side wants to address as well as factors they'd rather ignore, such as welfare reform (which the left often tries to minimize) and tax reform (which the right tries to minimize) in relation to economic problems.
Applied to Firearms: The right seems to love doing this with relation to the causes of gun violence. Look for posters who try and point to many spree shooters having mental problems and claiming that because of that, all we have to do is improve mental health services, and we can solve the problem of gun violence without any new gun control measures.

Remember, forewarned is forearmed. You are now ready to enter the pants-on-head derposphere that is a Fark Politics discussion. Godspeed!
 
2013-01-03 09:23:55 PM
Uh, it's both. I'm sorry, but our violent culture is exacerbated by guns, and guns completely contribute to how violent our society is.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but you're wrong.
 
2013-01-03 09:25:41 PM

Lionel Mandrake: F*ck the NRA

 
2013-01-03 09:26:26 PM

cretinbob: And they wonder why people call them gun nuts


I like to call them a more accurately descriptive term: tiny penised.
 
2013-01-03 09:27:19 PM
Boy that was a whole bunch of words to say absolutely nothing.
 
2013-01-03 09:30:18 PM
Nothing like arguing something that cannot be proven. They might as well say the devil caused these people to go on shooting rampages. There's about as much evidence for that.
 
2013-01-03 09:31:34 PM
FACT: It is impossible for conservative thoughts to contain logical inconsistencies. The liberal mind's inability to grasp nuance is the reason they fail to grasp this simple truth.

Suck it libs!
 
2013-01-03 09:32:19 PM

mamoru: Indeed. Guns certainly aren't an integral part of a mass shooting. That's why we here about similar incidents involving bows and arrows, crossbows, artillery, and other non-firearm shooting implements ALL THE TIME!

So, stop singling out guns, you bunch of jerks!


Mmmm... anthrax and fertilizer bombs come to mind. Or firebombs, if you're going all 1920s on a fool.

Arson in general tends to cast a pretty wide collateral damage net, too. It's pretty popular among the destructive nutballs among us.

Basically, guns are the most convenient tool for murder, but not really mass murder. Probably the best for murdering specific people, I guess.
 
2013-01-03 09:36:17 PM
Blaming movies/tv for firearm violence is every bit as logical as blaming firearms for violence. Neither makes sense.

/With all due respect to the celebrity wankers preaching DO SOMETHING.
 
2013-01-03 09:37:04 PM
The NRA joins MADD and PETA in my mind as organizations that were once useful which got taken over by fanatics.
 
2013-01-03 09:38:28 PM

crawlspace: Blaming movies/tv for firearm violence is every bit as logical as blaming firearms for violence. Neither makes sense.

/With all due respect to the celebrity wankers preaching DO SOMETHING.


it's almost as if people have to pick up tools that kill people... to kill people. Or maybe that our species has always been violent to survive. I mean we did wipe out our closest competitor right into extinction and bred them right into our own gene pool after all. That's just adding insult to injury.
 
2013-01-03 09:39:14 PM

b0rg9: At what point does the NRA actually start to harm the appeal of owning a gun?

It's not like they've already fractured the gun-owning community long ago.


The National Rifle Association's irrational statements have already made the entirely unreasonable, irrational and idiotic proposal of Senator Dianne Feinstein seem "reasonable" to some individuals.
 
2013-01-03 09:40:13 PM
I fail to understand how one man can single-handed fark over an entire organization. But, then again, I forget about Citizen Kane and WSJ. Hell, Charlton Heston wasn't a great speaker for the NRA, but he was infinitely better than this guy.

Oh, right, we're supposed to be shouting at the top of our lungs about dead kids and AK-47s. I'll come back when this thread reaches 700 posts.
 
2013-01-03 09:40:15 PM

Psychohazard: The NRA joins MADD and PETA in my mind as organizations that were once useful which got taken over by fanatics.


Uh...did you forget the GOP or did you forget to take your meds?

/I used to be a GOP member and I remembered to take my....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
2013-01-03 09:40:33 PM
I think the gun oil just hit Uranus.
 
2013-01-03 09:42:24 PM

Kittypie070: I think the gun oil just hit Uranus.


Blame Samuel Adams... our greatest President!
 
2013-01-03 09:43:33 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: Psychohazard: The NRA joins MADD and PETA in my mind as organizations that were once useful which got taken over by fanatics.

Uh...did you forget the GOP or did you forget to take your meds?

/I used to be a GOP member and I remembered to take my....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Mind you, by no means is the above a complete...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
2013-01-03 09:44:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: F*ck the NRA

 
2013-01-03 09:45:06 PM
Dimensio: The National Rifle Association's irrational statements have already made the entirely unreasonable, irrational and idiotic proposal of Senator Dianne Feinstein seem "reasonable" to some individuals.


Yeah, right there that's making a mess. I liked Obama's comments on "Meet The Press" this weekend that talks should be had, but "they'll be difficult". Yes, they'll be difficult. Because a lot of reasonable things need to be sorted out amongst all the reactionary things.
 
2013-01-03 09:47:34 PM

Lionel Mandrake: F*ck the NRA


As a gun nut, this.
 
2013-01-03 09:47:37 PM
28.media.tumblr.com

We need to arm the second basemen. So they can defend themselves.
 
2013-01-03 09:47:49 PM

b0rg9: Dimensio: The National Rifle Association's irrational statements have already made the entirely unreasonable, irrational and idiotic proposal of Senator Dianne Feinstein seem "reasonable" to some individuals.


Yeah, right there that's making a mess. I liked Obama's comments on "Meet The Press" this weekend that talks should be had, but "they'll be difficult". Yes, they'll be difficult. Because a lot of reasonable things need to be sorted out amongst all the reactionary things.


"Reasonable" regulation will never be "sorted out". The National Rifle Association opposes any new access controls, and gun control supporting legislators only desire unreasonable and arbitrary bans, rather than improvements to access control.

Any legislator who claims banning the M1 Carbine model rifle by name to be "reasonable" is either dishonest or incompetent.
 
2013-01-03 09:50:18 PM

Emposter: Emposter Presents: The Right Winger Politics Checklist and/or Drinking Game (As Applied to the topic of Firearms)

1. Nirvana Fallacy (AKA the Perfect Solution Fallacy)
The Nirvana Fallacy is where a possible solution to a problem is rejected because it is not perfect. You often see this fallacy used by right wingers against any form of tax increase, who will use the argument that a specific tax increase won't completely solve the deficit, and therefore shouldn't be considered at all.
Applied to Firearms: Any variation of the argument that firearms regulations won't stop all gun violence or even all violence in general, such as (but not limited to) the arguments that sufficiently determined criminals will manage to get guns, or that criminals will find other ways to kill people, while steadfastly ignoring any possible partial reduction in firearms violence.
2. Red Herring
The Red Herring is where a person, rather than addressing the issue or argument being discussed, changes the subject to a different argument to try and distract from serious discussion of a topic or position they are weak on. The Red Herring was a favorite of the Right during debates over health care reform, where they ranted about proposals that existed only in their imaginations, such as Sarah Palin's famous of the existence of "death panels" in the reform bill, despite being unable to point to any part of any version of any proposal that provided for any system to determine if individuals were worthy of health care.
Applied to Firearms: Any completely loony accusation, such as (but not limited to) the idea that mass shootings were secretly planned by the left to force stronger gun control regulation (sadly, similar arguments can be found on the left that it was a plan by weapon manufacturers to increase sales), or that gun control is part of a plan to disarm the populace so that the government can become more tyrannical without fear of a patriotic revolution.
3. Strawman Argument
The Strawman Argument is where a person misrepresents an opponent's position as one they can more easily attack, then attacks the false position rather than the real one. This fallacy is unique to each instance, but is so common and well known on Fark that no general example is necessary.
Applied to Firearms: The most common strawman you will see in firearms threads will be pro-gun posters changing an argument for stronger firearms regulations into an argument for complete bans.
4. Tu Quoque (AKA Appeal to Hypocrisy)
This is where a person argues that a position is wrong or should be disregarded because the proponent of the position doesn't follow their own proposal. This fallacy is commonly used in tax discussions to attack the credibility of people who take advantage of existing tax deduction strategies but also support higher taxes.
Applied to Firearms: Look for the argument that a supporter of stronger gun control laws benefits from gun control themselves, such as pointing out that Obama has Secret Service guards or that a proponent's children go to a school with an armed security guard.
5. False Equivalency
This is where a person attempts to analogize two unrelated items/positions/statements, etc. Like the strawman, these are as unique and numerous as the statements on Fark, being found in pretty much every thread where right-winger's post, but are widely understood, and need no general explanation.
Applied to Firearms: Look for comparisons between the dangers of firearms (weapons designed in almost all cases specifically to kill) and items designed for primarily non-lethal purposes but can be used to kill or which can be dangerous when used incorrectly (everything from cars to spoons). Alcohol is a right wing favorite.
6. Slippery Slope
This is where a person assumes that initial small steps must inevitably lead to later steps which eventually cause an undesired result. This is commonly used by all sides of political discussions when discussing increases in government power over virtually anything, and is one of the more difficult fallacies to identify because in many cases it can be quite reasonable and may end up being correct. Generally, the only difference between this being used correctly (in terms of being an effective argument only, it is never actually proof of anything) or incorrectly is the reasonableness of the assumptions made in predicting the steps.
Applied to Firearms: This is going to be a tough one to spot, cause some are reasonable. Look for any claim that reasonable gun regulations will eventually lead to the complete banning, and perhaps even confiscation, of all guns.
7. Anecdotal Evidence
Also known as the "Person Who Fallacy" (as in, "I know a person who"), this is where a person attempts to refute a position by pointing out one or several isolated instances which don't fit the general pattern. The right loves to use this to try and refute overwhelming evidence of global climate change and scientific consensus by citing isolated instances of unseasonably cold weather (not even getting into how many of even those actually support GCC).
Applied to Firearms: Look for this used in attempts to argue that countries with far lower rates of gun deaths and homicides than the US aren't actually better because of "insert isolated serial killer here."
8. Cherry Picking
This is where a person presents only part of the existing evidence, while withholding evidence advantageous to the opposing position. Generally, the stronger the evidence withheld, the more fallacious the argument.
Applied to Firearms: You will see this a lot using previous US gun control laws, such as the assault weapons ban and handgun bans in DC. Right wingers will often argue that they did not have a significant impact on gun deaths, while ignoring factors such as poor enforcement, huge exceptions in the laws, and geographical limitations. They may also attempt to argue that gun control laws cannot possibly work, while completely ignoring the vast majority of the world, where stronger gun control laws both exist and work.
9. Fallacy of the Single Cause
This is where the person assumes that, because one cause is easily identified, that it is the only cause. This is used by both sides, because most issues have factors each side wants to address as well as factors they'd rather ignore, such as welfare reform (which the left often tries to minimize) and tax reform (which the right tries to minimize) in relation to economic problems.
Applied to Firearms: The right seems to love doing this with relation to the causes of gun violence. Look for posters who try and point to many spree shooters having mental problems and claiming that because of that, all we have to do is improve mental health services, and we can solve the problem of gun violence without any new gun control measures.

Remember, forewarned is forearmed. You are now ready to enter the pants-on-head derposphere that is a Fark Politics discussion. Godspeed!


My doctor says I can't play this game anymore because I need a new liver.


/glad I stocked up on receivers last summer
//making lots of money off of the memories of dead kids
///our own government sells guns to cartels, there's enough hypocrisy to go around.
 
2013-01-03 09:51:25 PM

Gosling: [28.media.tumblr.com image 409x355]

We need to arm the second basemen. So they can defend themselves.


just wanted to tell you that you are now favorited

/LOVE that game
//and the cheat codes
///Back to arguing about guns until the robot uprising
 
2013-01-03 09:51:49 PM
No, it's not because of a celebration of violent pop culture. It's because there are people who have rage issues that they hold in and poison themselves with. And that there is a great deal of truth to a well-known saying in the late 19th Century:

'God made man, but Colonel Colt made man equal'
 
2013-01-03 09:52:29 PM
Won't somebody think of the babies!
 
2013-01-03 09:53:55 PM
Pickles!
 
2013-01-03 09:54:25 PM

Dimensio: "Reasonable" regulation will never be "sorted out". The National Rifle Association opposes any new access controls, and gun control supporting legislators only desire unreasonable and arbitrary bans, rather than improvements to access control.

Any legislator who claims banning the M1 Carbine model rifle by name to be "reasonable" is either dishonest or incompetent.


The thing that gets me most is if the same gun has a wood stock and otherwise looks like a hunting rifle it's OK. But once you put the scary black plastic/composite stock and various assault looking thingies on the same exact weapon -- then it's now somehow more assault-prone.

Guns should not be judged by their paintjob/bodywork.
 
2013-01-03 09:56:10 PM

b0rg9: Dimensio: "Reasonable" regulation will never be "sorted out". The National Rifle Association opposes any new access controls, and gun control supporting legislators only desire unreasonable and arbitrary bans, rather than improvements to access control.

Any legislator who claims banning the M1 Carbine model rifle by name to be "reasonable" is either dishonest or incompetent.

The thing that gets me most is if the same gun has a wood stock and otherwise looks like a hunting rifle it's OK. But once you put the scary black plastic/composite stock and various assault looking thingies on the same exact weapon -- then it's now somehow more assault-prone.

Guns should not be judged by their paintjob/bodywork.


You are unfamiliar with Senator Feinstein's current proposal: it would ban the Mini-14 and the M1 Carbine -- both of which feature wooden stocks in their default configuration -- by name.

/Unaware of what else it would ban.
//Know that the AR-15 is on the list.
//Feinstein is incompetent.
 
2013-01-03 09:56:23 PM
FFS, can we just ban all guns already. Or remove all gun controls. Something, anything to get this conversation over with
 
2013-01-03 09:57:51 PM

Emposter: Emposter Presents: The Right Winger Politics Checklist and/or Drinking Game (As Applied to the topic of Firearms)

1. Nirvana Fallacy (AKA the Perfect Solution Fallacy)
Applied to Firearms


Too soon, man. Too soon.
 
2013-01-03 09:59:11 PM
Organization formerly fronted by an actor who starred in violent action movies now decries violent action films.
 
2013-01-03 10:00:11 PM

Karac: Emposter: Emposter Presents: The Right Winger Politics Checklist and/or Drinking Game (As Applied to the topic of Firearms)

1. Nirvana Fallacy (AKA the Perfect Solution Fallacy)
Applied to Firearms

Too soon, man. Too soon.


I blame Courtney
 
2013-01-03 10:00:20 PM

skullkrusher: FFS, can we just ban all guns already. Or remove all gun controls. Something, anything to get this conversation over with


hehe, lol, rofl, yolo, omgwtfbbq and THIS.


Sorry, I've really stayed out of this whole thing here at Fark and otherwise the whole time. Just thought I'd throw a few IMHO's in tonight. And wound up with an actual reasonable and insightful conversation with Dimensio because of it.
 
2013-01-03 10:01:27 PM
Question: Was the NRA this dangerously deluded during Heston's tenure? Or did it start under LaPierre?
 
2013-01-03 10:03:33 PM

Apos: Question: Was the NRA this dangerously deluded during Heston's tenure? Or did it start under LaPierre?


They put a guy with dementia in charge.
 
2013-01-03 10:04:09 PM
Anyone got a cheat sheet, because I just can't keep up with this stuff anymore.

If you suggest that a crappy youtube video might have helped to spur violence - that's an impeachable offense.
But if a bunch of kids get shot - well, obviously that's the fault of movies and a shiatty flash game no one's ever heard of but you.
 
2013-01-03 10:05:04 PM

b0rg9: skullkrusher: FFS, can we just ban all guns already. Or remove all gun controls. Something, anything to get this conversation over with

hehe, lol, rofl, yolo, omgwtfbbq and THIS.


Sorry, I've really stayed out of this whole thing here at Fark and otherwise the whole time. Just thought I'd throw a few IMHO's in tonight. And wound up with an actual reasonable and insightful conversation with Dimensio because of it.


Seriously, ban large clips if it makes people feel safer. If we ever have a civil war or revolt, you're gonna need the military to side with your cause, at least in part, and you can get all the fully automatic, belt fed Rambo sort of shiat you want then.
Or don't. People don't decide to farking shoot a whole bunch of people because they are able to keep 30 bullets in a metal case instead of carrying 2 metal cases holding 15 each
 
Displayed 50 of 459 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report