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  
•       •       •

3766 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (35 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 08:06:44 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter: 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?

What do you think?

That you don't want to actually address my points and are desperately casting for another subject for deflection.

You know why.  Because your "points" are nothing more than talking points for the organization you're speaking for, whether professionally or voluntarily, and are either bullshiat diversions or previously debunked myths.  Playing stupid only makes you seem even more phony.


If they are so common and tired, surely you can just copy-paste some biting responses and destroy my assertions. Instead you just claim, without support, that they are wrong or say things like "Shhh, adults are talking." I don't believe you have any legitimate responses.
 
2014-02-13 08:07:26 PM  
sprawl15: udhq: Gun crime as a percentage of overall violent crime is currently at a 30 year high.

why do you think that's a meaningful statistic


Because while overall violent crime has plummeted over the last 30 years due to a host of social changes (abortion, unleaded gas, and the rise of easily-produced meth vs. trafficked coke and heroin), the rate of gun crime is exploding when compared to decreases of nearly ALL other kind of violent crime.
 
2014-02-13 08:08:19 PM  

udhq: Burning_Monk: udhq: sprawl15: spawn73: USA has less gun violence?

gun violence has decreased while ownership has gone up for years now

Gun crime as a percentage of overall violent crime is currently at a 30 year high.

Nope.

Yup.


If I'm seeing the chart right, it says Non-fatal Firearm Violence, and then calculates that as a percent of all violent crime. Why doesn't it take into account Fatal firearm violence?
 
2014-02-13 08:09:21 PM  

Burning_Monk: udhq: Burning_Monk: udhq: sprawl15: spawn73: USA has less gun violence?

gun violence has decreased while ownership has gone up for years now

Gun crime as a percentage of overall violent crime is currently at a 30 year high.

Nope.

Yup.

If I'm seeing the chart right, it says Non-fatal Firearm Violence, and then calculates that as a percent of all violent crime. Why doesn't it take into account Fatal firearm violence?


Without looking at the chart you reference, I can only assume we need more target practice as a society.

//i keed
 
2014-02-13 08:13:32 PM  

coeyagi: Questions in need of answering.


no, they aren't

i get that you want to change the subject to something that superficially sort of supports your position politically, but the percentage of gun crime as a percent of all violent incidents sticking within the 19 year average doesn't somehow magically make gun violence not decrease. especially when the same farking chart points out a ridiculous drop in the firearm crime rate and numbers over the same time period

if you're in this just because you need to jerk yourself off over imaginary internet points, just let me know.

udhq: Because while overall violent crime has plummeted over the last 30 years due to a host of social changes


simple question: when i said "gun violence has decreased [...] for years now", is that true or false?

udhq: the rate of gun crime is exploding


uh, that is not 'exploding'. that is sticking within the range. it was 7% or 8% 13 years of the 19, and you're saying that 8% is 'exploding'?

Burning_Monk: Why doesn't it take into account Fatal firearm violence?


i would assume because the set isn't using fatal crimes at all
 
2014-02-13 08:16:04 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter: 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?

What do you think?

That you don't want to actually address my points and are desperately casting for another subject for deflection.

You know why.  Because your "points" are nothing more than talking points for the organization you're speaking for, whether professionally or voluntarily, and are either bullshiat diversions or previously debunked myths.  Playing stupid only makes you seem even more phony.

If they are so common and tired, surely you can just copy-paste some biting responses and destroy my assertions. Instead you just claim, without support, that they are wrong or say things like "Shhh, adults are talking." I don't believe you have any legitimate responses.



Do you think I'm new to this and your "nyah nyah you can't refute me" taunts mean anything?  I'm not wasting my time repeating myself or what others have posted just so you can continue to ignore it all and lob your own cut and paste grenades.  You are a shill from what I can tell, and probably a liar.
 
2014-02-13 08:16:04 PM  

coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: Since Apple products are defective pieces of crap, why are all you iTards so opposed to banning them?

[laurenburgueno.files.wordpress.com image 300x285]

Another iNut fanboy with no common sense. Pathetic.

Awww. Farker Soze, what's wrong?  Show me where the gun grabber grabbed you.

No gungrabber has ever grabbed me, but an iPad luser once touched me right on the android. I bet it was YOU.

You should stick to gun euphamisms.  I don't think you have the colorful metaphor thing down just yet.

[www.futuredude.com image 570x320]

Why is everything about guns with you? I'm talking shiatty electronics here. Obsess much?

And here I thought we were going to go another 10 posts without an obvious display of psychological projection.  Silly me.

I'm not the one who mentioned guns. You are a very silly person.

You act as if I haven't seen you post in gun threads before.  Do you think I have no memory?  I believe it is you who are the silly person.

//obligatory "No U!" images to follow


One, quit living in the past. Two, all this concern because I insulted your precious ithing, just let it go.
 
2014-02-13 08:18:00 PM  

sprawl15: simple question: when i said "gun violence has decreased [...] for years now", is that true or false?


Simple answer:   A Politico "technically correct, but intentionally misleading."
 
2014-02-13 08:19:48 PM  
lordjupiter:
Do you think I'm new to this and your "nyah nyah you can't refute me" taunts mean anything?  I'm not wasting my time repeating myself or what others have posted just so you can continue to ignore it all and lob your own cut and paste grenades.  You are a shill from what I can tell, and probably a liar.

Stop posting, justtray.
 
2014-02-13 08:21:42 PM  

sprawl15: Burning_Monk: Why doesn't it take into account Fatal firearm violence?

i would assume because the set isn't using fatal crimes at all


Generally I would agree, but the chart just says "all violent crimes" which I would assume would include fatal ones. Killing being the ultimate form of violence and all.
 
2014-02-13 08:21:55 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Do you think I'm new to this and your "nyah nyah you can't refute me" taunts mean anything?  I'm not wasting my time repeating myself or what others have posted just so you can continue to ignore it all and lob your own cut and paste grenades.  You are a shill from what I can tell, and probably a liar.

Stop posting, justtray.


Wrong about me, not an alt.  But I'm right about you, aren't I?  How long in the NRA, and do you have a position or title?
 
2014-02-13 08:24:10 PM  

sprawl15: coeyagi: Questions in need of answering.

no, they aren't

i get that you want to change the subject to something that superficially sort of supports your position politically, but the percentage of gun crime as a percent of all violent incidents sticking within the 19 year average doesn't somehow magically make gun violence not decrease. especially when the same farking chart points out a ridiculous drop in the firearm crime rate and numbers over the same time period

if you're in this just because you need to jerk yourself off over imaginary internet points, just let me know.

udhq: Because while overall violent crime has plummeted over the last 30 years due to a host of social changes

simple question: when i said "gun violence has decreased [...] for years now", is that true or false?

udhq: the rate of gun crime is exploding

uh, that is not 'exploding'. that is sticking within the range. it was 7% or 8% 13 years of the 19, and you're saying that 8% is 'exploding'?

Burning_Monk: Why doesn't it take into account Fatal firearm violence?

i would assume because the set isn't using fatal crimes at all


What are my political points?  I bet you have no f*cking clue.  So stop jerking yourself off to those delusions of grandeur inhibiting your insipidly foolish mind.
 
2014-02-13 08:25:57 PM  

udhq: A Politico "technically correct, but intentionally misleading."


"gun crime has decreased" is intentionally misleading when it has actually decreased?

what in the hell are you talking about? in what way is it misleading, either factually or rhetorically?

your bullshiat argument that a number landing within one standard deviation of average is an "explosion" is what's intentionally misleading
 
2014-02-13 08:27:01 PM  

Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: Since Apple products are defective pieces of crap, why are all you iTards so opposed to banning them?

[laurenburgueno.files.wordpress.com image 300x285]

Another iNut fanboy with no common sense. Pathetic.

Awww. Farker Soze, what's wrong?  Show me where the gun grabber grabbed you.

No gungrabber has ever grabbed me, but an iPad luser once touched me right on the android. I bet it was YOU.

You should stick to gun euphamisms.  I don't think you have the colorful metaphor thing down just yet.

[www.futuredude.com image 570x320]

Why is everything about guns with you? I'm talking shiatty electronics here. Obsess much?

And here I thought we were going to go another 10 posts without an obvious display of psychological projection.  Silly me.

I'm not the one who mentioned guns. You are a very silly person.

You act as if I haven't seen you post in gun threads before.  Do you think I have no memory?  I believe it is you who are the silly person.

//obligatory "No U!" images to follow

One, quit living in the past. Two, all this concern because I insulted your precious ithing, just let it go.


What precious thing?  I pointed out that you made a really really crappy analogy.  Your foolish mind ASSUMED that I cared one sh*t about Apple products.  My god, how the f*ck do you people even have the intellect to breathe?
 
2014-02-13 08:29:50 PM  

Burning_Monk: Generally I would agree, but the chart just says "all violent crimes" which I would assume would include fatal ones. Killing being the ultimate form of violence and all.


possibly, but it compared firearm murders to all murders above (so including them in both places would be bad form) and the list of violent incidents included in the numbers for the chart ("rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault") seems to explicitly disclude acts of murder

coeyagi: What are my political points? I bet you have no f*cking clue.


this isn't maury, "you don't know me" and chair throwing is poor form
 
2014-02-13 08:31:08 PM  

sprawl15: udhq: A Politico "technically correct, but intentionally misleading."

"gun crime has decreased" is intentionally misleading when it has actually decreased?

what in the hell are you talking about? in what way is it misleading, either factually or rhetorically?

your bullshiat argument that a number landing within one standard deviation of average is an "explosion" is what's intentionally misleading


Fair enough, "explosion" may be hyperbole, but the fact still stands that while violent crime has plummeted, gun crime has not decreased proportionally, making it a bigger part of the overall issue of violent crime.
 
2014-02-13 08:38:10 PM  

udhq: gun crime has not decreased proportionally


again, non-violent gun crime (the only gun crime you are talking about) has remained within one standard deviation of its average percentage of all violent incidents over the last 19 years. it has absolutely decreased proportionally, because it's stayed about the same. that's what "within one standard deviation" means.

my assertion that gun crime has gone down is supported by your link because the non-violent gun crime has gone down ~70% from the point your data starts. and you dismiss it as 'intentionally misleading', even though the overall decrease in gun crime is exactly what was being discussed since sugar_fetus decided to pick a fight dozens of posts ago. i'm sorry you haven't been able to follow the whole conversation, but there's no reason to outright lie to me and throw shiat around like 'intentionally misleading' just to try to get me to emotionally acquiesce to a factually wrong point
 
2014-02-13 08:39:57 PM  

coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: Since Apple products are defective pieces of crap, why are all you iTards so opposed to banning them?

[laurenburgueno.files.wordpress.com image 300x285]

Another iNut fanboy with no common sense. Pathetic.

Awww. Farker Soze, what's wrong?  Show me where the gun grabber grabbed you.

No gungrabber has ever grabbed me, but an iPad luser once touched me right on the android. I bet it was YOU.

You should stick to gun euphamisms.  I don't think you have the colorful metaphor thing down just yet.

[www.futuredude.com image 570x320]

Why is everything about guns with you? I'm talking shiatty electronics here. Obsess much?

And here I thought we were going to go another 10 posts without an obvious display of psychological projection.  Silly me.

I'm not the one who mentioned guns. You are a very silly person.

You act as if I haven't seen you post in gun threads before.  Do you think I have no memory?  I believe it is you who are the silly person.

//obligatory "No U!" images to follow

One, quit living in the past. Two, all this concern because I insulted your precious ithing, just let it go.

What precious thing?  I pointed out that you made a really really crappy analogy.  Your foolish mind ASSUMED that I cared one sh*t about Apple products.  My god, how the f*ck do you people even have the intellect to breathe?


So do you or don't you care about them?  Lot of rage for something you care so little about.  I'm just saying.
 
2014-02-13 08:41:39 PM  

macadamnut: [woodgatesview.files.wordpress.com image 512x450]


Replace "Gun Industry" with "Republican Party" and that comic is spot on.

Karl Rove and 2 other Republican PAC leaders are on the Board of Directors. The NRA-ILA is a de facto organ of the Republican party. Blame them, not gun owners or people in the industry. Universal Background Check was popular among us, too.
 
2014-02-13 08:43:17 PM  

sprawl15: udhq: gun crime has not decreased proportionally

again, non-violent gun crime (the only gun crime you are talking about) has remained within one standard deviation of its average percentage of all violent incidents over the last 19 years. it has absolutely decreased proportionally, because it's stayed about the same. that's what "within one standard deviation" means.

my assertion that gun crime has gone down is supported by your link because the non-violent gun crime has gone down ~70% from the point your data starts. and you dismiss it as 'intentionally misleading', even though the overall decrease in gun crime is exactly what was being discussed since sugar_fetus decided to pick a fight dozens of posts ago. i'm sorry you haven't been able to follow the whole conversation, but there's no reason to outright lie to me and throw shiat around like 'intentionally misleading' just to try to get me to emotionally acquiesce to a factually wrong point


Like I said to BO, maybe people wouldn't be so uncomfortable with the idea of you owning firearms if you didn't behave like a confrontational d-bag when presented with statistics that clearly burst the bubble you've created to protect yourself from reality.
 
2014-02-13 08:47:36 PM  

sprawl15: Burning_Monk: Generally I would agree, but the chart just says "all violent crimes" which I would assume would include fatal ones. Killing being the ultimate form of violence and all.

possibly, but it compared firearm murders to all murders above (so including them in both places would be bad form) and the list of violent incidents included in the numbers for the chart ("rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault") seems to explicitly disclude acts of murder

coeyagi: What are my political points? I bet you have no f*cking clue.

this isn't maury, "you don't know me" and chair throwing is poor form


Well, that's one way of saying "sh*t, he called me out on it and now I have no answer".

You must be the sh*ttiest poker player who ever lived.
 
2014-02-13 08:49:36 PM  

Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: coeyagi: Farker Soze: Since Apple products are defective pieces of crap, why are all you iTards so opposed to banning them?

[laurenburgueno.files.wordpress.com image 300x285]

Another iNut fanboy with no common sense. Pathetic.

Awww. Farker Soze, what's wrong?  Show me where the gun grabber grabbed you.

No gungrabber has ever grabbed me, but an iPad luser once touched me right on the android. I bet it was YOU.

You should stick to gun euphamisms.  I don't think you have the colorful metaphor thing down just yet.

[www.futuredude.com image 570x320]

Why is everything about guns with you? I'm talking shiatty electronics here. Obsess much?

And here I thought we were going to go another 10 posts without an obvious display of psychological projection.  Silly me.

I'm not the one who mentioned guns. You are a very silly person.

You act as if I haven't seen you post in gun threads before.  Do you think I have no memory?  I believe it is you who are the silly person.

//obligatory "No U!" images to follow

One, quit living in the past. Two, all this concern because I insulted your precious ithing, just let it go.

What precious thing?  I pointed out that you made a really really crappy analogy.  Your foolish mind ASSUMED that I cared one sh*t about Apple products.  My god, how the f*ck do you people even have the intellect to breathe?

So do you or don't you care about them?  Lot of rage for something you care so little about.  I'm just saying.


Rage?  Hello, hello, McFly, anyone home?  I posted a gold star that said "you tried".  Does that sound like someone who is raging?  The fact remains that you are comparing Apple products, products that are not designed to kill anyone, to firearms, products that are primarly used to kill.
 
2014-02-13 08:52:27 PM  

udhq: maybe people wouldn't be so uncomfortable with the idea of you owning firearms


you really think because i made the factually correct statement that gun crime has gone down in the last few years i must not only own a firearm but i must own a firearm so hard that i make people around me uncomfortable?

i don't own or want to own a firearm. my first what, half dozen posts in this thread were outright mocking the pro-gun lobby. you are picking someone who posted this chain of conversation as someone you want to paint as an insane gun person, because they explained to you what a standard deviation was and held you to a statistical basis when you cited statistics.

udhq: if you didn't behave like a confrontational d-bag when presented with statistics that clearly burst the bubble you've created to protect yourself from reality.


you mean like your entire post

if it makes you feel better i felt embarrassed for you while reading it
 
2014-02-13 08:53:17 PM  

coeyagi: Apple products, products that are not designed to kill anyone


Oh, who's being naive now, Kay?
 
2014-02-13 08:53:22 PM  

coeyagi: You must be the sh*ttiest poker player who ever lived.


i'm actually not bad but that's solely because people have a hard time reading me and i don't play for amounts where i care

they get antsy when i all in without looking at my cards
 
2014-02-13 09:09:38 PM  

sprawl15: derp


You know, it can't be easy to live life as someone who falls so completely to pieces when they're politely challenged by a stranger on the internet.

You have my sympathies for the difficulties you must face on a day-to-day basis, but you and I are done here.
 
2014-02-13 09:16:55 PM  
 
2014-02-13 09:18:35 PM  

BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: I do, for one, as do several of my allies.

Yeah, I get that every time I bring up that point, and I don't care what soup kitchens you and your gun club volunteer at.  I'll stop criticizing the movement --because that, not you, is what I am criticizing-- when Congress is just as afraid to vote against a raise in the minimum wage as it is to vote against gun control.

Part of the problem is that a lot of my fellow liberals cannot let go of gun-ban fantasies. There was a golden opportunity after Newtown when massive reforms to mental health care could have been passed with the threat of gun-related stuff happening. The odds of getting the Republicans to go along with that would have been much better than chasing after gun-bans, but they just refused to put it on the backburner. They threw away a real chance to actually accomplish something practical and progressive for a very long and expensive shot at something ineffective.

I mean I've sat down with some of these people and made a list, like so:
Gun control
Prison Reform
Justice System Reform.
Police Oversight
Health Care (Including Mental Health)
Fighting Poverty
Ending the Drug War
etc.
They will agree with me on everything but gun control, and I'll say something like "Okay, we agree that ten other things will make the world better for sure. We disagree on one thing. Lets put the one thing aside, let it be status quo, and get the other ten accomplished. Then come back to the one. That way we can stop wasting energy opposing each other and work together on things we agree will help everybody."

Almost every time I get declined. That is the crux of the problem.


But you're missing my point: why isn't there any movement in the ANTI-gun-control crowd FOR healthcare, police oversight, prison reform, etc.?
 
2014-02-13 09:21:49 PM  

sprawl15: udhq:

[i.imgur.com image 850x583]


I guess "we're done here" was a little over your head?
 
2014-02-13 09:22:24 PM  

The Name: why isn't there any movement in the ANTI-gun-control crowd FOR healthcare, police oversight, prison reform, etc.?


partly because the nra are cocksmoking assholes and partly because a whole lot of other assholes think otherwise

i mean, it's a thing that wasn't party specific up until recently (reagan and bush I built the modern gun control system after all), but has been largely made so by the aforementioned assholes. at the same time that politics has turned into "if you don't believe 100% of what i say you are the great satan and hate america"
 
2014-02-13 09:23:39 PM  

udhq: I guess "we're done here" was a little over your head?


are we?
 
2014-02-13 09:29:48 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Do you think I'm new to this and your "nyah nyah you can't refute me" taunts mean anything?  I'm not wasting my time repeating myself or what others have posted just so you can continue to ignore it all and lob your own cut and paste grenades.  You are a shill from what I can tell, and probably a liar.

Stop posting, justtray.

Wrong about me, not an alt.  But I'm right about you, aren't I?  How long in the NRA, and do you have a position or title?


Where'd he go?  Huh.  Odd.
 
2014-02-13 09:31:17 PM  

The Name: BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: I do, for one, as do several of my allies.

Yeah, I get that every time I bring up that point, and I don't care what soup kitchens you and your gun club volunteer at.  I'll stop criticizing the movement --because that, not you, is what I am criticizing-- when Congress is just as afraid to vote against a raise in the minimum wage as it is to vote against gun control.

Part of the problem is that a lot of my fellow liberals cannot let go of gun-ban fantasies. There was a golden opportunity after Newtown when massive reforms to mental health care could have been passed with the threat of gun-related stuff happening. The odds of getting the Republicans to go along with that would have been much better than chasing after gun-bans, but they just refused to put it on the backburner. They threw away a real chance to actually accomplish something practical and progressive for a very long and expensive shot at something ineffective.

I mean I've sat down with some of these people and made a list, like so:
Gun control
Prison Reform
Justice System Reform.
Police Oversight
Health Care (Including Mental Health)
Fighting Poverty
Ending the Drug War
etc.
They will agree with me on everything but gun control, and I'll say something like "Okay, we agree that ten other things will make the world better for sure. We disagree on one thing. Lets put the one thing aside, let it be status quo, and get the other ten accomplished. Then come back to the one. That way we can stop wasting energy opposing each other and work together on things we agree will help everybody."

Almost every time I get declined. That is the crux of the problem.

But you're missing my point: why isn't there any movement in the ANTI-gun-control crowd FOR healthcare, police oversight, prison reform, etc.?


Well, I'm moving for it.

I went over this at least three times. Re-read the thread.
 
2014-02-13 09:35:52 PM  

lordjupiter: Where'd he go? Huh. Odd.


considering he decided to stop responding to me when i suggested the first responders would not be able to immediately discern the shooter and the brave blogger-patriots who drew on the shooter, i would imagine he's just looking for simpler bait
 
2014-02-13 09:36:56 PM  

sprawl15: lordjupiter: Where'd he go? Huh. Odd.

considering he decided to stop responding to me when i suggested the first responders would not be able to immediately discern the shooter and the brave blogger-patriots who drew on the shooter, i would imagine he's just looking for simpler bait


I did respond, actually. Nice job not reading, though.
 
2014-02-13 09:38:31 PM  

BayouOtter: I did respond, actually.


to a different person with utter bullshiat. i responded to that (twice, actually, thanks to the router).

again, you don't seem to know what the fark you're talking about before you post
 
2014-02-13 09:42:11 PM  

BayouOtter:

Well, I'm moving for it.

I went over this at least three times. Re-read the thread.


Yeah, and I'm not talking about you.  Are you talking about this?

BayouOtter: Believe me, I know what you mean. Sometimes its really disturbing to run in these circles for me, as I'm a super-liberal homosexual atheist and sometimes there can be some really weird contradictory opinions on policy. As you noted, enforcement attempts to corral the 2% fraud rates in welfare cases are more expensive than the fraud losses, and its stupid. Who cares if a small percent are skimming if kids get their nutrition? (Though we do need a serious overhaul of the system from the ground up to better provide for the welfare of all.)


So a large proportion of gun enthusiasts are Republicans, and that makes it okay?  I'm supposed to withhold my criticism because many of them just happen to be right-wing nuts, and that's just the way it is?
 
2014-02-13 09:42:35 PM  

sprawl15: BayouOtter: I did respond, actually.

to a different person with utter bullshiat. i responded to that (twice, actually, thanks to the router).

again, you don't seem to know what the fark you're talking about before you post


It must seem like posting into a mirror for you.

Did I ask you for statistics and sources for your hypothetical scenario? Like the annual rate for first-responder police shooting a 'brave blogger-patriot ' would be useful.
 
2014-02-13 09:44:28 PM  

BayouOtter: Did I ask you for statistics and sources for your hypothetical scenario?


no, you asked urukhaiguyz for statistics and sources for my hypothetical scenario

figure out how your mousewheel works, scroll up and read the thread, then get back to me
 
2014-02-13 09:47:43 PM  

sprawl15: BayouOtter: Did I ask you for statistics and sources for your hypothetical scenario?

no, you asked urukhaiguyz for statistics and sources for my hypothetical scenario

figure out how your mousewheel works, scroll up and read the thread, then get back to me


So whats the rate for 'brave blogger-patriots' getting shot by first responders/police? It must be very frequent to have you so wound up.
 
2014-02-13 09:48:36 PM  
Yes yes we TOTALLY need to change our laws and restrict everyone's rights to deal with an "epidemic" that results in far less than 1% of total yearly MURDERS, let alone total yearly deaths.

[quote=my link]In the 30 years through March, 78 public mass shootings occurred in the U.S. -- incidents in which four or more people were killed at random by a gunman killing indiscriminately, according to a report issued that month by the Congressional Research Service. These crimes don't include gang-related killings or domestic disputes where a person slays relatives or other people linked to the assailant.
The mass slaughters listed in the report caused the deaths of 547 people. Over the same three decades through 2012, that's less than a tenth of 1 percent of the 559,347 people the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates were murdered in America.

To be specific, that is 1 out of every 1022.6 murders.  Again that is murders, not total deaths.

Faced again and again with math and other simple facts, I can only see the reasons for certain people being so anti-gun as falling into one or more of the following categories.

1.  People who are scared shiatless of every sensational news report.  No doubt these people wish to ban more than just guns.  Other targets could include pitbulls(or any large breed), airplanes, Muslims, and who knows what else?  EVERYTHING THAT SCARES ME SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!  Only they won't come out and say these things frighten them - they go on about how it is "common sense" that 'X' is dangerous.  We have no shortage of such people here on Fark.

2.  Bleeding hearts who wish to ban everything remotely enjoyable to "save" (really only extend) as many lives as possible.  That alone doesn't sound so bad except these people go far beyond what is reasonable.  OMG 26 people died of 'X' last year, we should OUTLAW that!  Their greatest wish may be for everyone to live long, joyless and completely unfulfilling lives.  The fact that the policies they support will save almost no one while negatively affecting many(or all) is lost on them, or they get it but simply don't care.

3.  People who simply with to punish those who enjoy something that they themselves do not enjoy AKA "stop liking what I don't like."  Another term is... assholes.

4.  People who simply do not think for themselves and have not arrived at their own opinions by virtue or processing facts and other information - in context especially - so they import their views from other people especially people they like or admire.  Such people place an undue amount of importance on self-professed experts.  They don't function by the process of WHAT they believe, but in WHOM they believe.

No there is just no logical and reasonable cause to engage in these so called "common sense" gun reforms like that.  Well maybe closing gun show loopholes, keeping guns away from the mentally ill(tea party?) and violent offenders, etc - but not stuff about ammo restrictions or registration.  But go ahead and attempt to use actual statistics to demonstrate how I am wrong.  Oh course you can't because the math is heavily biased against you.

For the record, no I am not a Teatard or other form of Rethuglican.  I'm pretty solid (D).  Being anti-gun is NOT necessarily a Liberal position nor is there anything particularity Liberal about such a stance so don't give people that crap about assuming anyone against your position is just a modern caveman.
 
2014-02-13 09:51:37 PM  
BayouOtter:

still waiting for you to read the thread

it's not hard

my four year old nephew could have puzzled his way through it by now

just have the temerity to walk the intellectual talk you're trying to present
 
2014-02-13 09:53:28 PM  
sprawl15:
my four year old nephew could have puzzled his way through it by now

Can you let him post? Maybe he can show us all the evidence for the overwhelming problem of first responders shooting 'brave blogger-patriots'.
 
2014-02-13 09:57:23 PM  
BayouOtter:

kind of sad how much effort you put into your original post but how little effort you're interested in actually engaging anyone who has any degree of opinion that varies from yours

perhaps your shiateating mentality is why people are laughing at you despite the few decent points in the middle of your endless rage vomit

you are refusing to read a post that responds to your exact question because it also points out that you didn't read the post before that one either

it's pathetic
 
2014-02-13 10:01:55 PM  
sprawl15:
it's pathetic

Holy shiat, man, I responded to you on page 5 about this first-responder thing.


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.
 
2014-02-13 10:08:04 PM  

BayouOtter: Holy shiat, man, I responded to you on page 5 about this first-responder thing.


yes, and then urukhaiguyz responded to that, and you responded to him demanding he back up the statistics on my claim, then i responded to that post

i said this already

please at least try to keep up
 
2014-02-13 10:12:08 PM  
sprawl15:

please at least try to keep up

Naw, you just keep spinning at whatever pace you feel like. I'm just waiting for the next made-up concern you manifest.
 
2014-02-13 10:17:14 PM  

BayouOtter: sprawl15:
it's pathetic

Holy shiat, man, I responded to you on page 5 about this first-responder thing.


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.



Do you really, honestly believe there are statistics kept on this specific possibility?  Or that the hypothetical scenario has actually been achieved nationwide to a degree that the sample size would be big enough?  Or that we even NEED statistics to recognize the potential for chaos and confusion when people self-deputize and new people arrive at a crime scene or firefight?

What you're doing is grandstanding on a burden of proof fallacy.  In this case it's easy for a reasonable person to understand that trained professionals are going to be better (though not perfect) in these situations.  You seem to be starting from the assumption that the way the system works is BACKWARDS, and that untrained amateurs will be just as adept as the professionals, and it's up to everyone ELSE to prove otherwise.

No.  You are the one arguing that the established conditions are not true.  It's up to YOU to prove that armed citizenry will be at least as effective as the police, and that the police will have no problem telling what's going on when they arrive in the middle of a firefight with multiple shooters of unknown disposition.  Not the other way around.
 
2014-02-13 10:22:34 PM  
And I can tell you what will start happening if this becomes a bigger problem.  Police will start shooting everyone with a gun and treating all shooters as hostile until proven otherwise.  You can bank on it.  Given what we've seen of police and their motives of expedient self-preservation, even against people armed with knives, do you doubt this will be true?    Think they'll take chances and ask questions first?  Not likely.  They'll arrive with superior firepower and clear the area, because to hell with extra variables that might get them killed.
 
2014-02-13 10:25:19 PM  

BayouOtter: Naw, you just keep spinning at whatever pace you feel like.


this is a fine pace. it'll be entertaining for at least another half hour to watch you say "but i dont know how to read" and responding "well that is a shame maybe you should get some help"

lordjupiter: What you're doing is grandstanding on a burden of proof fallacy.


you forget that i am the libbest lib to ever lib

i miss back when i was just an nra puppet :(
 
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