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.

(Talking Points Memo)   "It was... a good thing that [the Aurora shooter] had a 100-round magazine... If he had instead had... 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up." This is what the GOP actually believes   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 453
    More: Dumbass, GOP, morning, Colorado, radiation damages  
•       •       •

3765 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 05:57:29 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: And which of those other 9 issues do both sides completely agree on?  Or even agree on enough to come together and solve?  I mean, are you seriously paying attention to the political landscape in America if you think gun control is the one issue where no consensus exist, and we just need to pool efforts toward fixing everything else?

For a little while there was a consensus to move forward on mental health and the availability of care. You'll remember this from my Boobiess on the subject. It was a lost opportunity to actually accomplish something, all because of the fixation on gun control.


It didn't seem genuine, even at the time- more like a delaying tactic. I do think that Democrats should largely back off the issue and focus efforts on less contentious things that impact more people, but if you think Republicans would then be willing to actually work with them in good faith you're a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am.
 
2014-02-13 05:58:58 PM

tricycleracer: give me doughnuts: sprawl15: Great_Milenko: If they always jam, why would anyone want to buy one?

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

That way you think you're really a bad-ass, when all you really are is a dumdass with a .223 that has a flashlight on it.

That looks like a lowered Honda Civic with a bookcase wing on the back and lots of stickers.


It's the white "suburban kid dressed like a gangsta" of the firearms world.

How it's owner sees himself:
i167.photobucket.com

What he really resembles:
csc.ca
 
2014-02-13 06:01:17 PM

BayouOtter: It was a lost opportunity to actually accomplish something, all because of the fixation on gun control.


eh, it was far more because of the utterly ridiculous political standstill brought by the gop. just look at the outright lies about even bipartisan ideas like manchin-toomey. i predicted that a lot of the gun reform stuff would be thrown away as chips to get the AWB reinstated, but i was outright wrong - it was one of the first things thrown off the table, if it ever really was on there to begin with
 
2014-02-13 06:02:12 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need.

"I had a very emotional reaction to highly unlikely event. Enact expensive policy that waste finite resources to do little, if anything to prevent a similar event." - A totally unselfish person.

In other words, you can't declare something a non-issue just because worse issues exist.

Someone being murdered is a tragedy, true. It is not a good reason to throw limited government resources away for no gain, though.



The "emotional reaction" argument is tired.  Most people are more upset after a tragedy and that's natural, but these are not new problems.  They keep coming up again and again.    When people kick the can down the road they're looking to defang the opposition and ride out the wave of MOTIVATION that goes along with the emotion following a shooting.  But the sentiment is generally ALWAYS THERE, even when the political winds aren't blowing.  You want those winds to settle down so nothing changes.

And like it or not, the decision to do nothing is not without emotion, either.  All human decisions contain some emotion.  It's just the emotions behind the gun lobby are channeled elsewhere and it's been decided that certain interests must be protected.  Fear of not having a gun is one of those emotions.  Fear that the latest shooting is going to lead to new legislation is an emotion.  Those emotions rooted in self-preservation motivate gun lobbyists to try and calm everyone else down so nothing gets done.

Also, your assessment that policies need be expensive and futile is opinion, not fact.  It's a convenient assumption that portrays any effort as imperfect and impractical.  I doubt you really want to solve any problems if you take this attitude.
 
2014-02-13 06:04:06 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.


Are you talking about gun nerds?  Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.
 
2014-02-13 06:05:18 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: And which of those other 9 issues do both sides completely agree on?  Or even agree on enough to come together and solve?  I mean, are you seriously paying attention to the political landscape in America if you think gun control is the one issue where no consensus exist, and we just need to pool efforts toward fixing everything else?

For a little while there was a consensus to move forward on mental health and the availability of care. You'll remember this from my Boobiess on the subject. It was a lost opportunity to actually accomplish something, all because of the fixation on gun control.


Yes, for maybe a few weeks there was the deflection from gun legislation to the mental health sacrificial issue.  And as I said earlier when it came time to pony up the gun lobby backed off.  Why?  Because they never meant it.  It was just the usual tactic to get past the tragedy and back to the status quo.

And that's one issue.  There is nothing even close to a consensus on anything else?
 
2014-02-13 06:05:57 PM

lordjupiter: Also, your assessment that policies need be expensive and futile is opinion, not fact.


policies to impose regulations on easily made products that are ubiquitous and have not been tracked in any way up to this point would be expensive and futile

profileration is one of the biggest practical hurdles when dealing with additional restrictive legislation

lordjupiter: It's a convenient assumption that portrays any effort as imperfect and impractical


that's only if you assume that, for example, banning high capacity magazines is the only potential solution beyond doing nothing.
 
2014-02-13 06:06:44 PM

lordjupiter: And as I said earlier when it came time to pony up the gun lobby backed off. Why?


are you arguing against the ideas of the person you're arguing against, or just railing blindly against the gun lobby?
 
2014-02-13 06:06:56 PM

BayouOtter: soporific
If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.

You highly overestimate police training and motives while underestimating armed civilians. Unless they're on a serious Swat-type team, cops qualify once a year, maybe shoot 500 rounds annually. They generally don't have strong motivation to become expert marksman, and if they do shoot wildly (or "accidentally" execute someone through mishandling) they aren't going to suffer much for it, if at all.

Civilians that go through the hoops of getting a CCW are often shooting enthusiasts in the first place, and often expend 500 rounds per month in practice, or more. In addition, a civilian does not have the same immunity from civil and criminal charges like an officer does, and are thus driven to be more discriminating an careful in their shots.


I won't disagree with your assessment of the marksmanship of the police in general, but I will disagree with your assessment of CCW holders. While, yes, they are, generally better marksmen that most, they still miss their targets, even under non-stressful conditions. I've been practicing every week with my IPSC club for four years and I am still only a "B Class" shooter. Are these shooting enthusiasts just standing at the line or are they practicing IDPA/IPSC style shooting? Anecdotal evidence yes, but telling. Every bullet that doesn't hit the target is one that could hit a by-stander. Add in conditions such as that movie theatre and you have a recipe for even greater casualties.
 
2014-02-13 06:07:16 PM

Som Tervo: Dancin_In_Anson: And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.

Are you talking about gun nerds?  Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.


It's very typical, classic projection. I'm surprised they still use it. Probably because they just don't have anything else.
 
2014-02-13 06:07:48 PM

BayouOtter: Someone being murdered is a tragedy, true. It is not a good reason to throw limited government resources away for no gain, though.


Agreed.  So, you and the rest of the conservatives who agreed with you on this about guns can now lay down arms (so to speak) regarding Voter ID, since it is a complete and utter f*cking waste?

(watch head asplode!)
 
2014-02-13 06:09:59 PM

Som Tervo: Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.


You're one of these brave souls aren't you?
 
2014-02-13 06:10:31 PM

Mouldy Squid: Add in conditions such as that movie theatre and you have a recipe for even greater casualties.


there's also the issue of first responders knowing who the shooter is and who the brave armed citizenry is/are
 
2014-02-13 06:11:00 PM

justtray: Som Tervo: Dancin_In_Anson: And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.

Are you talking about gun nerds?  Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.

It's very typical, classic projection. I'm surprised they still use it. Probably because they just don't have anything else.


I would respect gun nerds more if they would just come out and admit that they just like guns because they are fun.  All the glorious talk about revolution and keeping the government in line is a pile of silliness.
 
2014-02-13 06:14:25 PM
UrukHaiGuyz:
It didn't seem genuine, even at the time- more like a delaying tactic. I do think that Democrats should largely back off the issue and focus efforts on less contentious things that impact more people, but if you think Republicans would then be willing to actually work with them in good faith you're a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am.

I thought it be more at the point of a sword and the threat of less Republican-palatable efforts, less than their good nature. Either way, I felt those odds were much, much better than getting gun control elements passed.

lordjupiter:
The "emotional reaction" argument is tired.

Then stop making it.

Also, your assessment that policies need be expensive and futile is opinion, not fact.  It's a convenient assumption that portrays any effort as imperfect and impractical.  I doubt you really want to solve any problems if you take this attitude.

I want to solve problems as much as they can be solved. I believe that gun control is fundamentally flawed because it focuses on the tool being used in violence, and not the violence itself. What is the difference if I am stabbed to death rather than shot to death? It addition it presupposes, as a matter of course, that murder/violence is predicated on the presence of firearms, which is prima facie wrong.

On a more practical standpoint, I've learned that similar efforts to control the misuse/abuse of similar items have failed. (Desirable items with strong cultural/social/economic demand.) Prohibition failed spectacularly, and the ongoing War on Drugs is even worse. Why would a gun ban work out any better?

I do want to solve problems, but I'd rather focus resources on new approaches that have better promise to improve people's lives and lower incidences of all violence.
 
2014-02-13 06:16:53 PM

coeyagi: BayouOtter: Someone being murdered is a tragedy, true. It is not a good reason to throw limited government resources away for no gain, though.

Agreed.  So, you and the rest of the conservatives who agreed with you on this about guns can now lay down arms (so to speak) regarding Voter ID, since it is a complete and utter f*cking waste?


We should be working harder to improve voter participation. Attempts at voter suppression via expensive or cumbersome regulations are wrong.


sprawl15: Mouldy Squid: Add in conditions such as that movie theatre and you have a recipe for even greater casualties.

there's also the issue of first responders knowing who the shooter is and who the brave armed citizenry is/are



I'm sure you have a laundry list of citations showing this is an actual issue.
 
2014-02-13 06:17:44 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Som Tervo: Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.

You're one of these brave souls aren't you?


This is the kind of math Republicans do to make themselves feel better.
 
2014-02-13 06:17:53 PM
Som Tervo:
I would respect gun nerds more if they would just come out and admit that they just like guns because they are fun.  All the glorious talk about revolution and keeping the government in line is a pile of silliness.

I like guns because they kept and continue to keep my family fed. Also safe. Isn't that a good reason?
 
2014-02-13 06:18:13 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Som Tervo: Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.

You're one of these brave souls aren't you?


I don't really give a shiat either way, gun cowards will never feel safe without their toys.  But violent crime is down overall and I have been in situations that if I was a gun nerd I may have killed people who didn't deserve it.  So it wouldn't bother me to put up a stupid sign, but why would I bother?
 
2014-02-13 06:18:43 PM
Ok, new compromise: You can have any size magazine you want, but it has to jam after 10 rounds are fired.
 
2014-02-13 06:19:20 PM

BayouOtter: UrukHaiGuyz:
It didn't seem genuine, even at the time- more like a delaying tactic. I do think that Democrats should largely back off the issue and focus efforts on less contentious things that impact more people, but if you think Republicans would then be willing to actually work with them in good faith you're a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am.

I thought it be more at the point of a sword and the threat of less Republican-palatable efforts, less than their good nature. Either way, I felt those odds were much, much better than getting gun control elements passed.

lordjupiter:
The "emotional reaction" argument is tired.

Then stop making it.

Also, your assessment that policies need be expensive and futile is opinion, not fact.  It's a convenient assumption that portrays any effort as imperfect and impractical.  I doubt you really want to solve any problems if you take this attitude.

I want to solve problems as much as they can be solved. I believe that gun control is fundamentally flawed because it focuses on the tool being used in violence, and not the violence itself. What is the difference if I am stabbed to death rather than shot to death? It addition it presupposes, as a matter of course, that murder/violence is predicated on the presence of firearms, which is prima facie wrong.

On a more practical standpoint, I've learned that similar efforts to control the misuse/abuse of similar items have failed. (Desirable items with strong cultural/social/economic demand.) Prohibition failed spectacularly, and the ongoing War on Drugs is even worse. Why would a gun ban work out any better?

I do want to solve problems, but I'd rather focus resources on new approaches that have better promise to improve people's lives and lower incidences of all violence.



Confirmation bias.  You're coming at things from the points of view that allow you to dismiss the other side.  Many of your arguments do not make logical sense and many of your claims about the opposition are flat out wrong.  You're essentially spouting NRA talking points.

Have fun.
 
2014-02-13 06:20:06 PM

BayouOtter: We should be working harder to improve voter participation. Attempts at voter suppression via expensive or cumbersome regulations are wrong.


I don't know your political affiliation, but I can tell you good sir, you'd be laughed out of the GOP in a heart beat.

//if you ain't suppresin', you ain't tryin'!
 
2014-02-13 06:21:03 PM
lordjupiter:
Confirmation bias.  You're coming at things from the points of view that allow you to dismiss the other side.  Many of your arguments do not make logical sense and many of your claims about the o ...

Never stop trolling, friend.
 
2014-02-13 06:21:22 PM

justtray: Or maybe youll just pretend like you didn't see this post.


How come every time I go through the lengthy effort to provide all the citations requested, this keeps happening?

Oh yeah, so that next time they can come spouting the same BS, and keep lying saying that no one can provide citations proving them wrong.

These threads are such a waste.
 
2014-02-13 06:22:53 PM

BayouOtter: sprawl15: Mouldy Squid: Add in conditions such as that movie theatre and you have a recipe for even greater casualties.

there's also the issue of first responders knowing who the shooter is and who the brave armed citizenry is/are


I'm sure you have a laundry list of citations showing this is an actual issue.


I don't know about a laundry list, but the the guy that tackled Loughner in the Tuscon shooting nearly got shot himself by a CCW holder. In a chaotic situation, it seems reasonable that even legal firearms could exacerbate the tragedy.
 
2014-02-13 06:23:03 PM

Som Tervo: I don't really give a shiat either way,


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Som Tervo: gun cowards


So you'll take a sign and put it in your yard?

justtray: This is the kind of math Republicans do to make themselves feel better.


As will you?
 
2014-02-13 06:23:57 PM

BayouOtter: soporific
If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.

You highly overestimate police training and motives while underestimating armed civilians. Unless they're on a serious Swat-type team, cops qualify once a year, maybe shoot 500 rounds annually. They generally don't have strong motivation to become expert marksman, and if they do shoot wildly (or "accidentally" execute someone through mishandling) they aren't going to suffer much for it, if at all.

Civilians that go through the hoops of getting a CCW are often shooting enthusiasts in the first place, and often expend 500 rounds per month in practice, or more. In addition, a civilian does not have the same immunity from civil and criminal charges like an officer does, and are thus driven to be more discriminating an careful in their shots.


And I think you over-estimate the abilities of civilians who find themselves in a live fire situation for the first time. It's one thing to hit a target that's stationary, not firing at you, when there's plenty of light and a discernable lack of teargas and screaming, panicked people. Put that person in a life-or-death situation that they were not prepared for, and chances are you'll have a person who runs from the situation, forgetting he has a gun on him. If this person does have his wits about him, he'll still need to find a target, that's moving and shooting back, all while not hitting people running all over the place.

So I stand by my original assertion. I don't care how many rounds one can put into a stationary target. Handling yourself in a crisis situation is another thing entirely, and I have my doubts that those "If only I was there with my gun" types would have fared any better. Again, I'm pro gun, but I'm also pro reality. These fantasies aren't helping, and they might even make things worse.
 
2014-02-13 06:24:26 PM

justtray: justtray: Or maybe youll just pretend like you didn't see this post.

How come every time I go through the lengthy effort to provide all the citations requested, this keeps happening?

Oh yeah, so that next time they can come spouting the same BS, and keep lying saying that no one can provide citations proving them wrong.

These threads are such a waste.


They sure as f*ck are.  The solutions are binary - more gun control, more gun rights.

Neither is useful.  Just distractions so we don't have to look at the deep societal problems that are the root cause.

But at least the gun control side isn't doing it for selfish reasons - they actually want to help society.  Oh, sorry, I forgot, the other side is keeping us safe from tyranny (and safe for comedy!)
 
2014-02-13 06:25:46 PM

Som Tervo: Dancin_In_Anson: And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.

Are you talking about gun nerds?  Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.


I have a theory that for some of them, at least, it has to do with an obsessive need to protect and defend their extremely thin skin. Seems like a nice sun hat and some SPF50 would be more than adequate, but no. And anyway, do you really want to get into a sunscreen argument with any of them? Same old thing...
 
2014-02-13 06:26:20 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: BayouOtter: sprawl15: Mouldy Squid: Add in conditions such as that movie theatre and you have a recipe for even greater casualties.

there's also the issue of first responders knowing who the shooter is and who the brave armed citizenry is/are


I'm sure you have a laundry list of citations showing this is an actual issue.

I don't know about a laundry list, but the the guy that tackled Loughner in the Tuscon shooting nearly got shot himself by a CCW holder. In a chaotic situation, it seems reasonable that even legal firearms could exacerbate the tragedy.


So you're going to cite the example of a not-first responder arriving and nothing bad happening to support your assertion that a first responder will arrive and bad things will happen? They're totally unrelated.
 
2014-02-13 06:27:17 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: justtray: This is the kind of math Republicans do to make themselves feel better.

As will you?


I mean, are you really stupid? I think you might be.

Have you considered that people just don't want any signs in their yards? No, of course not, because this is the type of math that makes you feel better, as I said. Wooosh, is the sound of the point going right over your head.

And that's just the most basic of a number of criticisms I could make on that POS you're trying to pass as an argument.

You're so pathetic.
 
2014-02-13 06:28:01 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Som Tervo: I don't really give a shiat either way,

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Som Tervo: gun cowards

So you'll take a sign and put it in your yard?

justtray: This is the kind of math Republicans do to make themselves feel better.

As will you?


Wow, you really think that sign thing is a great point, sure send me the sign.  Everyone knows that all crime happens or doesn't happen based on gun distribution. That is why Japanese are robbed daily.
 
2014-02-13 06:28:09 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Confirmation bias.  You're coming at things from the points of view that allow you to dismiss the other side.  Many of your arguments do not make logical sense and many of your claims about the o ...

Never stop trolling, friend.



Trolling would be funnier.

You deny you're just spouting the stock NRA talking points?  It's a fundamental flaw in the argument to assume that the "tool" is meaningless in the debate and some magickal formula to stop the "root cause of violence" (with no observable effort) is going to do the trick and while there is no such magickal formula for gun control.  It's a completely specious argument that the NRA and people like you use to deflect, delay and generally distance the debate itself from any real resolutions.
 
2014-02-13 06:28:58 PM
soporific:
So I stand by my original assertion. I don't care how many rounds one can put into a stationary target. Handling yourself in a crisis situation is another thing entirely, and I have my doubts that those "If only I was there with my gun" types would have fared any better. Again, I'm pro gun, but I'm also pro reality. These fantasies aren't helping, and they might even make things worse.

Tell you what, drag up some statistics to show the accuracy or response of people with CCWs, compare them to some statistics on police responses, and lets see where they stand. Honestly, I can think of several instances where the police demonstrated the kind of horrible responses and marksmanship we mentioned at the Empire State building, but not similar responses with CCW holders.

So lets get some real numbers and forget theories and anecdotal news articles.
 
2014-02-13 06:30:42 PM

BayouOtter: gaspode:

EVERYWHERE has less crime than in the past. You in the USA have more crime than places with many many less guns (oh yes you do). Any statistics you have seen claiming the UK for example has more crime than the US are utterly fabricated.

Its a good thing that we have no cultural, demographic, economic, historical, legal, or geographical differences to go along with the disparate rates of firearm proliferation. Otherwise it'd kind of take the strength out of your attempt to make a point.

Oh wait, there are huge differences! Whoops.

Guns are at best not a crime deterrent.

I guess cops can stop carrying guns, then.


Are you simple?

I was not saying guns increased crime at all, I was saying that people's attempts to argue that increased guns have reduced crime are silly and based on ignoring reality and often supported by fabricated evidence (a common argument here is based on a popular set of statistics claiming the uk has more crime, when in fact it has much less). Crime reduction is a pattern across the civilised world, which does still include the USA.

Try and read things in context before posting.
 
2014-02-13 06:32:35 PM

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Confirmation bias.  You're coming at things from the points of view that allow you to dismiss the other side.  Many of your arguments do not make logical sense and many of your claims about the o ...

Never stop trolling, friend.


Trolling would be funnier.

You deny you're just spouting the stock NRA talking points?  It's a fundamental flaw in the argument to assume that the "tool" is meaningless in the debate and some magickal formula to stop the "root cause of violence" (with no observable effort) is going to do the trick and while there is no such magickal formula for gun control.  It's a completely specious argument that the NRA and people like you use to deflect, delay and generally distance the debate itself from any real resolutions.


This is why I just have him, and many like him on ignore. They're simply incapable of seeing the falseness of their logic, blinded by bias, unwilling to accept factual citations, and regurgitating at best, debunked talking points.

Nothing you can say will change his opinion even the slightest bit. Some people just aren't willing to change at all under any circumstance. Best to just remove them from the debate and only discuss with those that show cognitive capacity for logical discussion.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:21 PM

justtray: lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Confirmation bias.  You're coming at things from the points of view that allow you to dismiss the other side.  Many of your arguments do not make logical sense and many of your claims about the o ...

Never stop trolling, friend.


Trolling would be funnier.

You deny you're just spouting the stock NRA talking points?  It's a fundamental flaw in the argument to assume that the "tool" is meaningless in the debate and some magickal formula to stop the "root cause of violence" (with no observable effort) is going to do the trick and while there is no such magickal formula for gun control.  It's a completely specious argument that the NRA and people like you use to deflect, delay and generally distance the debate itself from any real resolutions.

This is why I just have him, and many like him on ignore. They're simply incapable of seeing the falseness of their logic, blinded by bias, unwilling to accept factual citations, and regurgitating at best, debunked talking points.

Nothing you can say will change his opinion even the slightest bit. Some people just aren't willing to change at all under any circumstance. Best to just remove them from the debate and only discuss with those that show cognitive capacity for logical discussion.


I have come to the conclusion that conservatism is merely a check / balance to societal progress.  They are there simply to slow progress down, make sure it can take root in a society, so that progressive ideas don't spread too rapidly to an unprepared society.  At least in the past century, this seems to hold true.  Are there any conservative achievements to hold up in the pantheon of achievements of the 20th century?  The end of the cold war?  There is plenty of arguable evidence to suggest it could have happened regardless.

Let them have their fun... for now.  A society cannot exist in perpetuity if it guided by fear.  The gun rights side is often selfish for selfish sake (hobbyists!) but also guided out of fear.
 
2014-02-13 06:40:06 PM

lordjupiter: Trolling would be funnier.


I didn't want to hurt your feelings by insulting your lack of wit. I was trying to be kind.

You deny you're just spouting the stock NRA talking points?  It's a fundamental flaw in the argument to assume that the "tool" is meaningless in the debate

Even if your goal is preventing violence and murder, then the method is essentially immaterial because the method comes after the motive. Lets consider a circumstances where a murder might occur, shall we?

Drug Dealer Dan is in dispute with Rival Randy for control of a certain street corner for drug distribution. Their conflict is driven by an economic need (for cheddar, yo) and social drives (to maintain an appearance of control and dominance important in their culture). The black-market nature of their business eliminates contracts or courts or the police from consideration as solutions to their conflict. Violence is the solution they go to, because of these factors, and if the socioeconomic drives are powerful enough to overcome the fear of possible negative consequences, they will continue until one of them is dead, regardless of the means.

Black-market disputes functioned this way before the advent of firearms, and will continue to do so regardless of weapon availability because the violence is driven by non-weapon factors.

Is this getting through to you?
 
2014-02-13 06:49:11 PM

coeyagi: justtray: lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Confirmation bias.  You're coming at things from the points of view that allow you to dismiss the other side.  Many of your arguments do not make logical sense and many of your claims about the o ...

Never stop trolling, friend.


Trolling would be funnier.

You deny you're just spouting the stock NRA talking points?  It's a fundamental flaw in the argument to assume that the "tool" is meaningless in the debate and some magickal formula to stop the "root cause of violence" (with no observable effort) is going to do the trick and while there is no such magickal formula for gun control.  It's a completely specious argument that the NRA and people like you use to deflect, delay and generally distance the debate itself from any real resolutions.

This is why I just have him, and many like him on ignore. They're simply incapable of seeing the falseness of their logic, blinded by bias, unwilling to accept factual citations, and regurgitating at best, debunked talking points.

Nothing you can say will change his opinion even the slightest bit. Some people just aren't willing to change at all under any circumstance. Best to just remove them from the debate and only discuss with those that show cognitive capacity for logical discussion.

I have come to the conclusion that conservatism is merely a check / balance to societal progress.  They are there simply to slow progress down, make sure it can take root in a society, so that progressive ideas don't spread too rapidly to an unprepared society.  At least in the past century, this seems to hold true.  Are there any conservative achievements to hold up in the pantheon of achievements of the 20th century?  The end of the cold war?  There is plenty of arguable evidence to suggest it could have happened regardless.

Let them have their fun... for now.  A society cannot exist in perpetuity if it guided by fear.  The gun rights side is often selfish for selfish sake (hobbyists!) but ...



Studies have shown increased polarization and confirmation bias when people are exposed to groups of like-minded individuals and allowed to share ideas.  And I believe there were studies that showed a massive imbalance in how liberals and conservatives got their information/news, with the conservatives relying very heavily on fewer sources.  Put those together and you have a massive echo chamber.

This is why the BSAB argument fails, even when considering some measure of confirmation bias.  There is an observable and predictable increase in extremism and intransigence from the right wing because of known psychological factors, and that's not even considering genetic or socioeconomic influences.

Neither side is perfect, but one side does seem to rely more on faith and distortion than the other.  Real contradictory evidence should at least get the wheels churning.  Instead it gets the guns blazing.
 
2014-02-13 06:50:49 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Trolling would be funnier.

I didn't want to hurt your feelings by insulting your lack of wit. I was trying to be kind.

You deny you're just spouting the stock NRA talking points?  It's a fundamental flaw in the argument to assume that the "tool" is meaningless in the debate

Even if your goal is preventing violence and murder, then the method is essentially immaterial because the method comes after the motive. Lets consider a circumstances where a murder might occur, shall we?

Drug Dealer Dan is in dispute with Rival Randy for control of a certain street corner for drug distribution. Their conflict is driven by an economic need (for cheddar, yo) and social drives (to maintain an appearance of control and dominance important in their culture). The black-market nature of their business eliminates contracts or courts or the police from consideration as solutions to their conflict. Violence is the solution they go to, because of these factors, and if the socioeconomic drives are powerful enough to overcome the fear of possible negative consequences, they will continue until one of them is dead, regardless of the means.

Black-market disputes functioned this way before the advent of firearms, and will continue to do so regardless of weapon availability because the violence is driven by non-weapon factors.

Is this getting through to you?


Shhhh, adults are talking.
 
2014-02-13 06:53:04 PM
Can we all at least agree that .40S&W is a terrible "compromise" round that has no real purpose?
 
2014-02-13 06:58:13 PM
lordjupiter:

Shhhh, adults are talking.

You should be listening.
 
2014-02-13 07:00:13 PM

Som Tervo: Wow, you really think that sign thing is a great point, sure send me the sign.


Send me your snail addy. I'll handle that request post haste.

justtray: Have you considered that people just don't want any signs in their yards?


But of course. At least Tom is brave enough to stand up for his beliefs.
 
2014-02-13 07:03:02 PM

BayouOtter: your assertion


here is a handy statistic. number of people named UrukHaiGuyz who made the assertion: 0

BayouOtter: I'm sure you have a laundry list of citations showing this is an actual issue.


trick question. the amount of mass shootings that have been stopped by an average citizen discharging their weapon is zero.

it's also a stupid question. i'm asserting a concept: that adding additional, difficult to distinguish shooters into a chaotic environment add to the chaos of that environment. if you can't meaningfully address or even acknowledge that idea, why are you pretending to be a rational person on the internet? it's not like you're so swept up in the emotion of the debate that you can't even read user names properly
 
2014-02-13 07:03:54 PM

BayouOtter: your assertion


here is a handy statistic. number of people named UrukHaiGuyz who made the assertion: 0

BayouOtter: I'm sure you have a laundry list of citations showing this is an actual issue.


trick question. the amount of mass shootings that have been stopped by an average citizen discharging their weapon is zero.

it's also a stupid question. i'm asserting a concept: that adding additional, difficult to distinguish shooters into a chaotic environment adds to the chaos of that environment. if you can't meaningfully address or even acknowledge that concept, why are you pretending to be a rational person on the internet? it's not like you're so swept up in the emotion of the debate that you can't even read user names properly
 
2014-02-13 07:05:09 PM
sigh
 
2014-02-13 07:07:36 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:

Shhhh, adults are talking.

You should be listening.



How long have you been a member of the NRA?
 
2014-02-13 07:08:53 PM

Frank N Stein: Can we all at least agree that .40S&W is a terrible "compromise" round that has no real purpose?


Any firearm or ammunition type has, at the bare minimum, the ability to assuage, at least partly, the fear that resides in your armed-to-the-teeth hearts.

//i keed, I love gun owners! -Bill Maher
 
2014-02-13 07:10:49 PM
Since Apple products are defective pieces of crap, why are all you iTards so opposed to banning them?
 
2014-02-13 07:11:59 PM

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:

Shhhh, adults are talking.

You should be listening.


How long have you been a member of the NRA?


How would that be relevant?
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report