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  
•       •       •

3762 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (26 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 10:31:20 PM
lordjupiter:
Do you really, honestly believe there are statistics kept on this specific possibility?

I'd settle for a few newspaper articles at this point. Even anecdotal evidence would perk my ears after this snit.

Or that the hypothetical scenario has actually been achieved nationwide to a degree that the sample size would be big enough?

People have been carrying guns for a long time, and concealed carry has been in many states for decades (after being passed over the objections of people with this exact argument, if I recall.).

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?

Well now you're just confusing vigilantism with self-defense, possibly on purpose in order to shift goalposts.

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

I don't think that asking for proof to a claim someone else makes is fallacious.
 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,


It would be if I ever made that claim, which I did not.

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.

I didn't make the claim that the police would be unable, and that chaos would reign. Stop trying to flip the burden of proof.
 
2014-02-13 10:35:02 PM

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Do you really, honestly believe there are statistics kept on this specific possibility?

I'd settle for a few newspaper articles at this point. Even anecdotal evidence would perk my ears after this snit.

Or that the hypothetical scenario has actually been achieved nationwide to a degree that the sample size would be big enough?

People have been carrying guns for a long time, and concealed carry has been in many states for decades (after being passed over the objections of people with this exact argument, if I recall.).

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?

Well now you're just confusing vigilantism with self-defense, possibly on purpose in order to shift goalposts.

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

I don't think that asking for proof to a claim someone else makes is fallacious.
 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,


It would be if I ever made that claim, which I did not.

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.

I didn't make the claim that the police would be unable, and that chaos would reign. Stop trying to flip the burden of proof.



NRA Shill.  Probably lying about everything to boot.  You should be proud.
 
2014-02-13 10:36:45 PM
lordjupiter:
NRA Shill.  Probably lying about everything to boot.  You should be proud.

Of my ability to remain calm in the face of your continual insults and inability to form coherent statements?
 
2014-02-13 10:40:27 PM

BayouOtter: I'd settle for a few newspaper articles at this point. Even anecdotal evidence would perk my ears after this snit.


yeah lordjupiter there's literally dozens of different types of media he will refuse to read out there. get busy finding some
 
2014-02-13 10:42:44 PM

sprawl15: BayouOtter: I'd settle for a few newspaper articles at this point. Even anecdotal evidence would perk my ears after this snit.

yeah lordjupiter there's literally dozens of different types of media he will refuse to read out there. get busy finding some


Its such a pervasive and common issue that a few minutes with google should drown me in anecdotal evidence.
 
2014-02-13 10:46:11 PM

sprawl15: 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 :(


You know, I don't like to state the obvious, but if you're throwing biatch-fits against everyone else in the thread, just maybe.....you're the problem.....
 
2014-02-13 10:50:07 PM

gaspode: but I'm not sure that was the INTENT of the second amendment


Funny thing about laws - all your speculations about "intent" do not mean a damn thing.  What is written is all that matters.  Laws are not opinions.

coeyagi: Attention Walmart Shoppers, we have a special on "potatoes" in Aisle 7.


Be careful when throwing bricks from within class houses.  Show me an argument that amounts to more than irrational fear.

The Name: BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability

So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?

If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

Oh?  Is the gun rights movement going to start putting its money where its mouth is on this point?  Can we expect to see an "NRA March on Washington for Economic Justice" sometime soon?


I'm all for economic justice - although I don't really like the term itself because it makes its proponents sound... entitled.  On the other hand I am anti-NRA.  They do NOT represent all pro-gun rights proponents.  They are nothing more than right wing shills.  They exist to gain votes for Republicans by pumping up fear of anti-gun fanatics.  Sadly these threads prove such fears are not entirely unfounded, but they still overstate them and channel such fears for nakedly partisan aims.  Fark the NRA.

Social justice will actually make a difference in the problems that gun control only aims (and will miss) to fix.  So is it your position that if we can't get an effective solution passed, then we should just do SOMETHING aka throw shiat at the wall and hope it sticks.  Gun control will not accomplish your goals unless your goals are not deeper than limiting firearms.  The "we need to do SOMETHING" mentality that the anti-gun people here have is very reminiscent of the mentality which brought us the so called "Patriot Act."  The best of intentions often make for the worst of legislation.

UrukHaiGuyz: My original claim was that more guns (or a higher rate of gun ownership) leading to a more "polite" less violent society is demonstrably false given the fact that the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.


You are the reason we have this picture.

Yeah no shiat more guns would mean more gun violence.  It is not hard to see that those PEOPLE who have intent on violence would use guns in THEIR VIOLENCE more often when they are available.

People like you always careful to use that exact phrase "gun violence" are careful to do so for a reason.  The reason is that you cannot truthfully state that "countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of violence."  You aren't so much lying as you are being willfully deceitful... and you know it.

The underlying problem is people, not guns.  You cannot change people with one more law banning one more thing.  Want to ban guns?  So how is that "War on Drugs" working out for you?  I think you need to apply the hard lessons we have learned from that failure towards your new crusade.

If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything.  There is plenty of ways to kill people.  People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since.  For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.

Your gun regulations can only accomplish 2 things.
1.  Waste your time.
2.  Infringe on everyone's rights.

But if that is what gets you off then I can't stop you!

/don't even own a gun
/Democrat
 
2014-02-13 10:54:46 PM

Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"

The mantra of derp.


Here's what Chris Kyle has to say about that

...

...

Oh, wait. That's right. shiat.
 
2014-02-13 10:55:00 PM

Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...


Your facts and understanding of firearms is not welcome in a discussion about reasonable gun restrictions.
 
2014-02-13 10:56:13 PM
bk3k:
Social justice will actually make a difference in the problems that gun control only aims (and will miss) to fix.  So is it your position that if we can't get an effective solution passed, then we should just do SOMETHING aka throw shiat at the wall and hope it sticks.  Gun control will not accomplish your goals unless your goals are not deeper than limiting firearms.  The "we need to do SOMETHING" mentality that the anti-gun people here have is very reminiscent of the mentality which brought us the so called "Patriot Act."  The best of intentions often ...

You are the reason we have this picture.

Yeah no shiat more guns would mean more gun violence.  It is not hard to see that those PEOPLE who have intent on violence would use guns in THEIR VIOLENCE more often when they are available.

People like you always careful to use that exact phrase "gun violence" are careful to do so for a reason.  The reason is that you cannot truthfully state that "countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of violence."  You aren't so much lying as you are being willfully deceitful... and you know it.

The underlying problem is people, not guns.  You cannot change people with one more law banning one more thing.  Want to ban guns?  So how is that "War on Drugs" working out for you?  I think you need to apply the hard lessons we have learned from that failure towards your new crusade.

If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything.  There is plenty of ways to kill people.  People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since.  For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.

Your gun regulations can only accomplish 2 things.
1.  Waste your time.
2.  Infringe on everyone's rights.


Somebody just earned a spot on my friend's list. Do you have a preference for the color used to highlight your posts?
 
2014-02-13 10:57:26 PM

udhq: You know, I don't like to state the obvious, but if you're throwing biatch-fits against everyone else in the thread, just maybe.....you're the problem....


YOU SAID WE WERE DONE

YOU LIED TO ME

BayouOtter: friend's list.


i remember my first time using fark
 
2014-02-13 11:19:52 PM

lordjupiter: 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.


No you keep seeing them in the media again and again.  Do you even understand how many people live in this nation?  Just because something happens enough to be in the news a few times a year does not mean it is statistically significant.  I'm sure that people die because they where riding their motorcycle and a bird flew in front - resulting in the rider being stabbed with the beak etc.  So we should ban motorcycles due to the bird death epidemic.

The difference here is that the media isn't reporting on people who die from motorcycles.  You are clearly one of those people who are quite sensitive/vulnerable to sensationalism.  So the emotional reaction argument clearly fits you no matter if you like the argument or not.

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


WhyNotBoth.jpg

Seriously... BOTH.

justtray: 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.


Pretty weak.  I have a few people on ignore.  But I don't use it to ignore people with different opinions than mine.  I use it on those who are not willing to debate at all and their argument usually boils down to "I'm right because I'm right!"  So I use the ignore function to avoid wasting my time.  I welcome people who disagree with me(and those who will continue to do so).  How mentally weak are you that you can only talk with people who agree with you on everything?

OK now feel free to add me to the (ignore) list of bad men who touched you in naughty places.  I'm honored to be the sand in your vagina.

sprawl15: there's also the issue of first responders knowing who the shooter is and who the brave armed citizenry is/are


Well the guy mowing people down is the shooter.  Not that hard.  The "brave armed citizen" is the one shooting at the guy mowing down the unarmed people fleeing in terror.  The "brave armed citizen" will respond to police commands to drop your weapon and get on the ground now.  The shooter will not.

Seriously that isn't that hard, and honestly how often does that actually come up?  About never I would wager.  Have any other strawmen scenarios?

coeyagi: Gee, just a guess here, if overall crime is going down, and that pulls down gun crime, why is it not pulling down gun crime proportionally? Why is gun crime not falling as fast as overall crime is falling?

Questions in need of answering.


Doesn't matter.  Total crime is falling while gun ownership increases.  I know correlation does not equal causation, but you want to pretend not to notice that clearly gun ownership increasing does NOT equal an increase in crime?  Here is a question in need of answering - why do you NEED to phrase everything to focus ONLY on the gun portion of any crime/violence statistic?

Would not the more rational explanation be that the increase in armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals, but the ones who continue their crime are therefore relying more heavily on guns?  Because that is still a net benefit.  Well I know you don't actually care about the truth or the numbers because you believe in a "greater truth."  Your "greater truth" is that "guns are bad."  The reason you use deceptive phrasing is that zealots only serve their "greater truth."
 
2014-02-13 11:25:07 PM
What a dumbass.

_______, you might be a redneck.
________, here's your sign.

Now we can add

_______, aaaaand your gun misfires.
 
2014-02-13 11:28:50 PM

bk3k: Well the guy mowing people down is the shooter. Not that hard. The "brave armed citizen" is the one shooting at the guy mowing down the unarmed people fleeing in terror.


you might as well have said 'the bad guy has a goatee'
 
2014-02-13 11:33:43 PM

BayouOtter: Somebody just earned a spot on my friend's list. Do you have a preference for the color used to highlight your posts?


Well only you would see it - but blue.

sprawl15: i remember my first time using fark


Nah the friends system is useful to keep track of people and where they stand on things.  Teatards get Red etc and maybe a note.  More extreme people get a darker shade of whatever color.  Helps to know who I am dealing with in my response.  Or in the case of trolls to not bother at all - or to bother knowing what they are anyways.

That is my system anyways.  Not everyone can memorize every name and every conversation they have had.

Now if only Drew could add an enemies list as well...
 
2014-02-13 11:33:45 PM
"Perhaps, James Holmes would not have been able to purchase a 100-round magazine," Herpin said in response. "As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. If he had instead had four, five, six 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up."

Does that mean 15 round mags should be banned?

That is the logic I am reading.

\That was the system used in Newtown.
 
2014-02-13 11:36:15 PM

sprawl15: you might as well have said 'the bad guy has a goatee'


ecetopuzlu.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-13 11:39:08 PM

bk3k: Nah the friends system is useful to keep track of people and where they stand on things.


you see the joke is that it is called 'favorites' and not 'friends' and the inability to even look at a button and figure out what is written on it is consistent with their previous posting

bk3k: Now if only Drew could add an enemies list as well...


that's what the horrible looking colors and note box are for.

protip: just save the number like 8141600 for this thread and it is an easy reference point
 
2014-02-13 11:40:34 PM
bk3k:
People like you always careful to use that exact phrase "gun violence" are careful to do so for a reason.  The reason is that  you cannot truthfully state that "countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of violence."  You aren't so much lying as you are being willfully deceitful... and you know it. 


Oh god really? You think gun violence is not, in the vast majority of cases, much worse than violence not involving an extremely effective dedicated killing device? You think a grabbed knife or random object or boot is on average anything like as damaging as a gun?

A drunk or stoned neighbour/husband who beats up someone over an argument is better for me than one who blows their head off (in both cases he regrets it when sobered up/un-angried, but in only one case are two lives ruined). How about you? Guns are enjoyable sporting equipment, they can be very effective self-defense tools (arguments over the right to kill in defense put aside).. but casual access to them results in huge numbers of deaths and maimings that would not otherwise occur. To pretend otherwise is beyond belief.
 
2014-02-13 11:42:04 PM

gaspode: You think gun violence is not, in the vast majority of cases, much worse than violence not involving an extremely effective dedicated killing device? You think a grabbed knife or random object or boot is on average anything like as damaging as a gun?


let me stop you there and make a really bad analogy
 
2014-02-13 11:53:08 PM

Enemabag Jones: "Perhaps, James Holmes would not have been able to purchase a 100-round magazine," Herpin said in response. "As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. If he had instead had four, five, six 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up."

Does that mean 15 round mags should be banned?

That is the logic I am reading.

\That was the system used in Newtown.


His mags were 30-round. Of course, most weren't emptied, nor even close to empty, when he swapped them out.
 
2014-02-13 11:56:58 PM

gaspode: bk3k:
People like you always careful to use that exact phrase "gun violence" are careful to do so for a reason.  The reason is that  you cannot truthfully state that "countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of violence."  You aren't so much lying as you are being willfully deceitful... and you know it.

You think a grabbed knife or random object or boot is on average anything like as damaging as a gun?


Well I suppose it depends on the object and the user versus whatever gun you chose. Getting stabbed in the heart with a kitchen knife is going to be as fatal as getting shot through the heart with a 9mm slug. On the other hand, getting shot in the hand with a .22lr won't be as damaging as getting forcefully struck in the head with a tire iron.

A drunk or stoned neighbour/husband who beats up someone over an argument is better for me than one who blows their head off (in both cases he regrets it when sobered up/un-angried, but in only one case are two lives ruined). How about you?

Well a non-fatal beating is generally preferable to a homicide, but bare-handed beatings can and do end in death quite often, so I dispute your assumption that the lack of a firearm will prevent a death and its presence will ensure one.

On the whole, I'd rather that nobody be subject to violence and would seek to stop it from happening in the first place. Maybe the drunk/stoned person wouldn't be so argumentative if they had better healthcare and economic stability?

Guns are enjoyable sporting equipment, they can be very effective self-defense tools (arguments over the right to kill in defense put aside).. but casual access to them results in huge numbers of deaths and maimings that would not otherwise occur. To pretend otherwise is beyond belief.

I dispute your causal link. The presence of firearms does not precipitate violence.
 
2014-02-13 11:57:31 PM

bk3k: If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything.  There is plenty of ways to kill people.  People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since.  For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.


This is empirically untrue.
 
2014-02-14 12:00:19 AM

BayouOtter: Guns are enjoyable sporting equipment, they can be very effective self-defense tools (arguments over the right to kill in defense put aside).. but casual access to them results in huge numbers of deaths and maimings that would not otherwise occur. To pretend otherwise is beyond belief.

I dispute your causal link. The presence of firearms does not precipitate violence.


You misrepresent the claim, which was far more limited. See above for support for gaspode's claim.
That said, the presence of firearms does seem to exacerbate violence.
 
2014-02-14 12:01:46 AM

BayouOtter: I dispute your causal link. The presence of firearms does not precipitate violence.


Right. The firearm is a force multipler so when violence does occur, it is that much more harmful.

 

BayouOtter: On the other hand, getting shot in the hand with a .22lr won't be as damaging as getting forcefully struck in the head with a tire iron.


Blatant false equivalency. Getting shot in the hand with a .22LR round will be more damaging than getting forcefully struck in the  HAND with a tire iron.
 
2014-02-14 12:01:59 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything.  There is plenty of ways to kill people.  People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since.  For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.

This is empirically untrue.


You'd think that Gun Free South Africa.org would know this pretty well that people can and do kill without guns, considering there have been at least one or two genocides where machetes were used to kill somewhere between .5-1 million people.
 
2014-02-14 12:05:07 AM

gaspode: bk3k:
People like you always careful to use that exact phrase "gun violence" are careful to do so for a reason.  The reason is that  you cannot truthfully state that "countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of violence."  You aren't so much lying as you are being willfully deceitful... and you know it.


Oh god really? You think gun violence is not, in the vast majority of cases, much worse than violence not involving an extremely effective dedicated killing device? You think a grabbed knife or random object or boot is on average anything like as damaging as a gun?

A drunk or stoned neighbour/husband who beats up someone over an argument is better for me than one who blows their head off (in both cases he regrets it when sobered up/un-angried, but in only one case are two lives ruined). How about you?



Thanks for proving me correct by sidestepping my comment and arguing against something I didn't say.  Want to try re-reading what I actually wrote?  Of course not - you can't argue against what I wrote.

Your thought up scenario doesn't change anything.  Patterns, statistics, averages, etc - this is what you make policy decisions on - not a few cases where things are worse than average.  That increased access to guns does not result in your scenario nearly as often as you imagine it does.  However, individual cases where it does exactly that are not that statistically significant on their own.

Guns are enjoyable sporting equipment, they can be very effective self-defense tools (arguments over the right to kill in defense put aside).. but casual access to them results in huge numbers of deaths and maimings that would not otherwise occur. To pretend otherwise is beyond belief.


The underlined part does not concur with statistics.  Just because you have a hard time imagining something plays out a certain way doesn't actually mean it does.  Believing what statistics tell us is not "pretending."  It is accepting reality as it is rather than how you imaging things MUST BE.

Your argument is highly irrational.  When you "just know" you are correct, you highly likely to be mistaken.  This goes for any subject.  Would you like to tell me next that climate change is a hoax because data-be-damned "it just doesn't feel right in your heart" or something along those lines?
 
2014-02-14 12:16:43 AM

thehobbes: Blatant false equivalency. Getting shot in the hand with a .22LR round will be more damaging than getting forcefully struck in the HAND with a tire iron.


being garotted with piano wire is more damaging than being garotted with a luger

your move libs

bk3k: Believing what statistics tell us is not "pretending."


when you consider that, for example, the ratio between non-gun suicides and gun suicides is considered solid enough to use as the primary way of estimating how many gun owners exist in the populace you may not want to beat the 'but there are no statistics' drum too hard

i mean even at a basic constructional level if you assume that the presence of guns do not add to crime and merely shifts some extant crime to gun crime, there remains the basic fact that crime involving a firearm is generally deadlier than crime not involving a firearm

you seem to have confused "the import of this is not enough to make me want to base policy off the increased innate dangers of firearm proliferation as there are bigger fish to fry" with "that danger doesn't exist"
 
2014-02-14 12:20:42 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: This is empirically untrue.


1.  If I can't trust a document about guns on a website that is dedicated to eliminating guns, then who CAN I TRUST?

2.  Why bother mentioning suicide?  Who said we should even prevent suicide?  If people wish to no longer exists, I think they should have every such right - provided they are not going to hurt anyone else in the attempt.  The suicide increase(obviously because guns can be used for that) does not bolster their argument(or yours).

3.  Despite you saying what I wrote was untrue, this "clearly unbiased" article does not do that for you.  It addresses 2 very specific statistics.  Suicide is not relevant to my claims that people murdered each other just fine without guns throughout history(a fact backed up by any history book you could ever find).  The other part is only a small portion of the total murder pie.  Net murders are down.  You can argue against someone claiming an increase in guns somehow lowers the murder rate(correlation =/= causation), but you can't look at that statistic and argue that an increase in guns = increased net murder.  OK, I mean you technically "can" argue that but you can't HONESTLY argue that.

0/10.  You fail.  Please try again.
 
2014-02-14 12:35:54 AM

sprawl15: when you consider that, for example, the ratio between non-gun suicides and gun suicides is considered solid enough to use as the primary way of estimating how many gun owners exist in the populace you may not want to beat the 'but there are no statistics' drum too hard


Suicide is absolutely immaterial.  It is a personal decision and has no bearing nor relevance towards acts of violence.  If someone wants to end their existence a few years early, that is their own business not yours.  It does not belong in a gun debate at all.

And I will continue to beat the statistics drumbeat because I accept the truth that the facts lay out no matter where those facts take me.  Try doing research.  You might change your mind about something or another.  I'm not talking about guns specifically.

As for me beating the statistics drumbeat, why are you so dismissive of it?  How can you argue so intently AGAINST clear facts?  Do you REALLY believe so strongly that the numbers MUST be wrong?  Maybe you need to take a step back and at least admit to yourself that you might be wrong about something.  I'll not ask you to admit it here, but just think about it internally in your own mind.  Hell just try to say it out loud to yourself "I might be mistaken about something."  See if that is hard to do.

i mean even at a basic constructional level if you assume that the presence of guns do not add to crime and merely shifts some extant crime to gun crime, there remains the basic fact that crime involving a firearm is generally deadlier than crime not involving a firearm

you seem to have confused "the import of this is not enough to make me want to base policy off the increased innate dangers of firearm proliferation as there are bigger fish to fry" with "that danger doesn't exist"

If the "danger" exists to a significant degree, it will show up in the statistics.  Once it becomes statistically significant enough that it must be dealt with, then proceed forward with a constitutional amendment removing or abridging the 2nd amendment.  You believe "the danger is real" for whatever reason or another - but that reason is clearly not statistics.  Much like the existence of God, I'll believe it when there is proof.  Until then it is more logical to assume otherwise.
 
2014-02-14 12:42:26 AM

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything.  There is plenty of ways to kill people.  People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since.  For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.

This is empirically untrue.

You'd think that Gun Free South Africa.org would know this pretty well that people can and do kill without guns, considering there have been at least one or two genocides where machetes were used to kill somewhere between .5-1 million people.


Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.
And it's farking disingenuous of you to claim that firearms and machetes are perfect substitutes.
 
2014-02-14 12:44:00 AM

bk3k: Suicide is absolutely immaterial.


like when you read the word suicide are you unable to read any of the words around it

serious question

bk3k: As for me beating the statistics drumbeat, why are you so dismissive of it?


uh i just asked you that question. you seem to be unwilling to look at statistics because of things like "but it's from a lib website" and "the word suicide shuts down my ability to read"

you can beat the statistics drum, and that's fine. you just have to be actually honest about how you're beating it instead of pulling the hilarious "oh you said suicide" pearl clutching bullshiat you just pulled. you don't get to play the moral high horse card and then turn around and immediately dispute everything about a report because it smells like lib

how you somehow got "i sure hate statistics" out of "you're being a hypocritical dick while beating the statistics drum" is just like hilarious irony icing

bk3k: If the "danger" exists to a significant degree, it will show up in the statistics.


are you denying the statistical fact that firearm crimes are far more lethal than non-firearm crimes?

i want to make sure i get a hernia belt on before starting to laugh
 
2014-02-14 12:45:21 AM

Hollie Maea: Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong?

Do you think it's a good idea to rely on magazines jamming?

"Just think of what he could have done with a non jamming 15 clip magazine?"  What about what he could have done with a 100 clip magazine if it hadn't happened to jam you stupid fark?


Your gun literacy speaks to me, you are clearly the type of person we should listen to when considering laws about firearms.

Pincy: Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...

Really?  You're going with that argument?

So what if it didn't jam until the 99th bullet?  What if it wasn't a cheap one?  Or why don't require only cheap ones to be sold and then we can just rely on them jamming to stop mass murders?


Doesn't seem to me that I touched on that in the least bit. For those of us who can read, there is no question that my statement was simply that what he said wasn't incorrect.


And for those of you who can't understand the difference between these shiatty 100rd drum magazines, and the ban on conventional 30rd box magazines, you don't have a horse in this race. Learn what you are trying to talk about, then come back with your "scary gun" rhetoric. Most of us "gun nuts" couldn't give a shiat less about the 100rd drums, it's the common 30/15rd magazines that we are defending.

The attempt to rid the country of guns will go just as well as the attempt to rid the country of drugs. That is to say-- it will fail miserably, and the people that don't give a fark about the law are going to be the ones that still have them. How does that make you more comfortable?
 
2014-02-14 12:45:53 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.

Gasoline makes arson really easy. I suppose we should start restricting people's access to it and similar products?
 
2014-02-14 12:50:50 AM

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.

Gasoline makes arson really easy. I suppose we should start restricting people's access to it and similar products?


Take your reasonable arguments elsewhere.. Pants-wetters ain't got no time for that...
 
2014-02-14 12:53:22 AM

bk3k: demaL-demaL-yeH: This is empirically untrue.

1.  If I can't trust a document about guns on a website that is dedicated to eliminating guns, then who CAN I TRUST?

2.  Why bother mentioning suicide?  Who said we should even prevent suicide?  If people wish to no longer exists, I think they should have every such right - provided they are not going to hurt anyone else in the attempt.  The suicide increase(obviously because guns can be used for that) does not bolster their argument(or yours).

3.  Despite you saying what I wrote was untrue, this "clearly unbiased" article does not do that for you.  It addresses 2 very specific statistics.  Suicide is not relevant to my claims that people murdered each other just fine without guns throughout history(a fact backed up by any history book you could ever find).  The other part is only a small portion of the total murder pie.  Net murders are down.  You can argue against someone claiming an increase in guns somehow lowers the murder rate(correlation =/= causation), but you can't look at that statistic and argue that an increase in guns = increased net murder.  OK, I mean you technically "can" argue that but you can't HONESTLY argue that.

0/10.  You fail.  Please try again.


1. Jeebus. That is a peer-reviewed article in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The lead author is an epidemiologist, and, by the way, an Army veteran.
2. Death by firearm is death by firearm. There is no reason for an epidemiologist to separate them when he's analyzing a vector, but he did.
3. Read the farking article. The data is there. And murder is analyzed separately. And what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms?
 
2014-02-14 12:58:06 AM
Is this the worst gun thread ever? Seriously, it scans like a Special Olympics bum fight.
 
2014-02-14 12:59:14 AM

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.

Gasoline makes arson really easy. I suppose we should start restricting people's access to it and similar products?


Gasoline does not burn down buildings by design. Its designed use is as fuel for transportation.
Firearms, on the other hand, kill by design. That's what they're for.
As for restricting access, only from felons and the mentally ill. I want everybody trained and proficient.
 
2014-02-14 01:01:46 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms, on the other hand, kill by design. That's what they're for.

They're actually designed to contain a chemical explosion in order to launch a projectile on a predictable arc.

As for restricting access, only from felons and the mentally ill. I want everybody trained and proficient.

Ah, so you'll support to initiative to make gun safety and handling a part of the school curriculum, or at the very least offer free training to everyone courtesy of the government then?
 
2014-02-14 01:04:47 AM

Olo Manolo: BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.

Gasoline makes arson really easy. I suppose we should start restricting people's access to it and similar products?

Take your reasonable arguments elsewhere.. Pants-wetters ain't got no time for that...


Really? You think that is appropriate? You think that somebody who walks around armed in public for no good reason should be calling people who walk around unarmed in public "pants-wetters"?
That's some ridiculously fugbuck-nuts-refer-for-involuntary-observation projection there.
 
2014-02-14 01:10:18 AM

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms, on the other hand, kill by design. That's what they're for.

They're actually designed to contain a chemical explosion in order to launch a projectile on a predictable arc.

As for restricting access, only from felons and the mentally ill. I want everybody trained and proficient.

Ah, so you'll support to initiative to make gun safety and handling a part of the school curriculum, or at the very least offer free training to everyone courtesy of the government then?


Stop with the asinine sophistry: Firearms are for killing. That's their farking purpose.
Back when the Army ran the CMP, that's exactly what happened.
Every person legally present in the United States age 16 and older who is not a conscientious objector, mentally ill, not a felon, or disabled to an extent that would make firearm training dangerous, counterproductive, or pointless.
Mandatory.
 
2014-02-14 01:17:01 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Stop with the asinine sophistry:

You first.
 
2014-02-14 01:29:40 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything.  There is plenty of ways to kill people.  People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since.  For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.

This is empirically untrue.

You'd think that Gun Free South Africa.org would know this pretty well that people can and do kill without guns, considering there have been at least one or two genocides where machetes were used to kill somewhere between .5-1 million people.

Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.
And it's farking disingenuous of you to claim that firearms and machetes are perfect substitutes.


Unimportant.  People can and do kill without guns.  The problem is that they want to kill each other.  This is a social problem.  Much the same as the problem that people want to use hard drugs(which is itself tied into the violence problem).  This is also a social problem.  So do you propose we take steps against guns that are so similar to our "war on drugs" which we have taken to combat that problem?  Because it sounds like you are in favor of just that.  Something something failing to learn from history something something.

sprawl15: bk3k: Suicide is absolutely immaterial.

like when you read the word suicide are you unable to read any of the words around it

serious question

bk3k: As for me beating the statistics drumbeat, why are you so dismissive of it?

uh i just asked you that question. you seem to be unwilling to look at statistics because of things like "but it's from a lib website" and "the word suicide shuts down my ability to read"


Fark you right there.
1.  Was only a small one sentence part of my point
2.  I am a Lib.  If you read before on this very page, you would know that.  Continuing to hold onto your beliefs despite statistics, and only selectively using the small portions of them you like... not very Liberal of you I might add.  Leave that shiat to Conservatives.
3.  I said the sight was anti-gun.  I went to their main page to find that clearly.  We are arguing about a particular issue, not a left/right thing either.  Your link is to an organization that is very biased on that one issue.  I correctly called you out on that, but even then - point 1.
4.  I had a link above about how little these mass shootings are as a percentage of total murders - and I linked Bloomberg.  You DO know who owns Bloomberg and even his stance on guns, right?
5.  I'll be lucky if you don't yet again ignore everything but a small part of my post that you can intentionally misrepresent.  I'm getting a pretty strong troll vibe and I should quit while I am ahead.
6.  I did look at them.  I offered a criticism of them - which most reasonable people would take that to mean I did read.
7.  Suicide does not even remotely contribute to the discussion at hand - that discussion being violent crime and other forms of violence.  Tell me how a person who kills themselves is relevant.  That is beyond reaching and you know it.
8.  Relative to #6 - again I will state this.  The other part was a statistic about people getting murdered in their own homes as a result of domestic violence.  Apparently(if that site is to be trusted completely) this increased when guns are owned.  And yet this is only a part of the total amount of murders.  A piece of the pie does not over-ride the entirety of the pie.  This right here is proof that you selectively nitpick the tiny pieces of statistic that suit you while ignoring the whole picture(which does NOT suit you).

This is the exact same farking thing Conservatives do with Climate change.  THE EXACT SAME THING.  Durr it sure is cold in winter!  Therefore global warming is false!  Durr Durr!  Yeah if you only look at temperatures at certain times in certain areas - you can say it is colder.  When you look at the total global data over time, it paints a consistent picture - a picture they reject.  On the issue of gun violence - this is EXACTLY what YOU are doing.  The data shows less violent crime and less murders (despite the deadliness of guns) at the same time gun ownership has increased.  So how the fark can you ignore that and just come to the opposite conclusion to what the data plainly shows?

That is why I say Fark you I am done after this post.  You either cannot or will not debate in good faith.  Probably you are a troll and I shall not waste my time on you again.  If not a troll than an amazingly stubborn fool.  Same either way.  You can't even debate.  You just ignore what was said and substitute your own reality.  Forget it.



you can beat the statistics drum, and that's fine. you just have to be actually honest about how you're beating it instead of pulling the hilarious "oh you said suicide" pearl clutching bullshiat you just pulled. you don't get to play the moral high horse card and then turn around and immediately dispute everything about a report because it smells like lib

Funny that you can't argue against my points and get stuck on the suicide thing - which isn't relevant outside of a discussion about suicide.


 
how you somehow got "i sure hate statistics" out of "you're being a hypocritical dick while beating the statistics drum" is just like hilarious irony icing


Well let me formally apologize for replying to what you actually, literally said... instead of what you apparently meant to say.  Since there is no edit button, I don't think you can really pretend you didn't say exactly what you said.  But go ahead anyhow.  I think I am learning that minor technicalities like the literal truth won't stop you.

Also explain this word - hypocritical - and how it applies to me.  It was not in the first version of your quote, and so I do not understand the context of how you are attempting to apply it.  Nor do I think you fully understand how that word is used.  I suspect you feel someone who doesn't agree with you when you "are obviously right" (in your own mind) must be a hypocrite.  That is incorrect.

On second thought - you know what I don't care.

bk3k: If the "danger" exists to a significant degree, it will show up in the statistics.

are you denying the statistical fact that firearm crimes are far more lethal than non-firearm crimes?

i want to make sure i get a hernia belt on before starting to laugh


Oh yeah if you get shot with a glock you die like 5 times where getting stabbed only kills you once.  Yes sir, that is a fact I cannot deny!  I wouldn't want you to get a hernia after all.
 
2014-02-14 01:36:04 AM

bk3k: Unimportant.  People can and do kill without guns.  The problem is that they want to kill each other.  This is a social problem.  Much the same as the problem that people want to use hard drugs(which is itself tied into the violence problem).  This is also a social problem.  So do you propose we take steps against guns that are so similar to our "war on drugs" which we have taken to combat that problem?  Because it sounds like you are in favor of just that.  Something something failing to learn from history something something.


What steps have I suggested we take against guns? Well?
Check some of the gun threads and get back to me.
 
2014-02-14 01:39:14 AM

bk3k: The data shows less violent crime and less murders (despite the deadliness of guns) at the same time gun ownership has increased.  So how the fark can you ignore that and just come to the opposite conclusion to what the data plainly shows?


Oh, almost forgot: We've had a twenty-year decline in the percentage of households with firearms. Those households with firearms  (and we have more households than twenty years ago) tend to have more firearms than twenty years ago.
 
2014-02-14 01:47:05 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Olo Manolo: BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.

Gasoline makes arson really easy. I suppose we should start restricting people's access to it and similar products?

Take your reasonable arguments elsewhere.. Pants-wetters ain't got no time for that...

Really? You think that is appropriate? You think that somebody who walks around armed in public for no good reason should be calling people who walk around unarmed in public "pants-wetters"?


Nope, not people who walk around unarmed, people who are unreasonably terrified of the people who choose to be armed. Self defense seems like a pretty good reason to me, at least for the people who are willing to take responsibility for themselves as opposed to waiting for some dolt with a badge to show up.

That's some ridiculously fugbuck-nuts-refer-for-involuntary-observation projection there.

Not gonna lie, I'm not even sure I understand this last part... something about projecting an assumed fear on to people? Assuming that's the case; Does it have to be fear that causes people to carry? Could it not be preparedness? Do hikers carry a compass out of fear? Do cyclists wear helmets out of fear? Do doctors wear non-slip shoes out of fear? Oh wait, none of those examples of preparedness are valid, because compasses, shoes, and helmets aren't scary enough to fit the bill...

/carries where it's legal
//has never considered using it or felt the need to draw
///might be glad it's there if the day ever comes
 
2014-02-14 02:03:51 AM

Olo Manolo: demaL-demaL-yeH: Olo Manolo: BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.

Gasoline makes arson really easy. I suppose we should start restricting people's access to it and similar products?

Take your reasonable arguments elsewhere.. Pants-wetters ain't got no time for that...

Really? You think that is appropriate? You think that somebody who walks around armed in public for no good reason should be calling people who walk around unarmed in public "pants-wetters"?

Nope, not people who walk around unarmed, people who are unreasonably terrified of the people who choose to be armed. Self defense seems like a pretty good reason to me, at least for the people who are willing to take responsibility for themselves as opposed to waiting for some dolt with a badge to show up.

That's some ridiculously fugbuck-nuts-refer-for-involuntary-observation projection there.

Not gonna lie, I'm not even sure I understand this last part... something about projecting an assumed fear on to people? Assuming that's the case; Does it have to be fear that causes people to carry? Could it not be preparedness? Do hikers carry a compass out of fear? Do cyclists wear helmets out of fear? Do doctors wear non-slip shoes out of fear? Oh wait, none of those examples of preparedness are valid, because compasses, shoes, and helmets aren't scary enough to fit the bill...

/carries where it's legal
//has never considered using it or felt the need to draw
///might be glad it's there if the day ever comes


The United States are not a combat zone.
I know this for a fact: I've been in combat zones.

The United States is the safest it's been since the early 1960s.
It would make far more sense for you to be walking around carrying a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, and a defibrillator in public than it does for you to walk around armed in public.
 
2014-02-14 02:04:06 AM

BayouOtter: Gasoline makes arson really easy. I suppose we should start restricting people's access to it and similar products?


Also it is good to murder (multiple) people with.  Just soak their house in it while they are asleep.  Cover all exits and light a match.

Clearly we should ban it.

demaL-demaL-yeH: 1. Jeebus. That is a peer-reviewed article in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The lead author is an epidemiologist, and, by the way, an Army veteran.
2. Death by firearm is death by firearm. There is no reason for an epidemiologist to separate them when he's analyzing a vector, but he did.
3. Read the farking article. The data is there. And murder is analyzed separately. And what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms?


1.  You didn't link to the original source, now did you?  Not that I got stuck on it for more than a sentence.  It was a minor point.  When I make a major thing out of it, you get a WOT.  Anyone who has seen me here knows this all too well.
2.  Only if the discussion was about deaths by firearms.  We're talking about violent crime and murder.  Suicide is neither.
3.  I don't give a fark about "what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms."  Rather than net homicides.  I will save time by copying what I already wrote.

Doesn't matter. Total (forgot to type violent) crime is falling while gun ownership increases.  I know correlation does not equal causation, but you want to pretend not to notice that clearly gun ownership increasing does NOT equal an increase in (violent) crime?  Here is a question in need of answering - why do you NEED to phrase everything to focus ONLY on the gun portion of any crime/violence statistic?

Would not the more rational explanation be that the increase in armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals, but the ones who continue their crime are therefore relying more heavily on guns?  Because that is still a net benefit.


I mean if you asked what was the root cause of mass deforestation... and someone answered that the axes/chainsaws where to blame... you might think they are missing the point entirely by focusing on the tools rather than the actual forces behind it's use.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Really? You think that is appropriate? You think that somebody who walks around armed in public for no good reason should be calling people who walk around unarmed in public "pants-wetters"?
That's some ridiculously fugbuck-nuts-refer-for-involuntary-observation projection there.



As I also said above - Why not both?  I think the answer is both.

People who are that scared of anyone having guns, and those who don't feel safe leaving the house without them - both groups are pants pissing cowards to me.

You might be surprised(unless you read what I already wrote) that I don't actually own any guns.  Not the highest thing on my priorities list.  I might pick one up in the next 10-15 years for the hell of it if I don't have other things I want to blow my money on... which I usually do.  I'm just saying that the price of a gun buys a lot of video games or a good computer upgrade.

There certainly are people who use guns as a substitute for having a ball sack.  But neither is it worth lying awake worrying I will be a victim of "gun violence."  It is realistically probably not going to happen.  I'll far, far more likely die while driving or from my diet.
 
2014-02-14 02:05:28 AM
Sorry, I substituted United States for streets and forgot to change are to is.
/Dammit.
 
2014-02-14 02:17:16 AM

bk3k: 1.  You didn't link to the original source, now did you?  Not that I got stuck on it for more than a sentence.  It was a minor point.  When I make a major thing out of it, you get a WOT.  Anyone who has seen me here knows this all too well.
2.  Only if the discussion was about deaths by firearms.  We're talking about violent crime and murder.  Suicide is neither.
3.  I don't give a fark about "what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms."  Rather than net homicides.  I will save time by copying what I already wrote.


1. It opens a farking PDF of the article. The source is staring at you from the top of the page.  So you didn't read TFA. Let me guess, now you're going to continue to make empirically false claims.
2. Suicide is self-murder, and death by firearm is still death by firearm, but murder is discussed separately in TFA that you can't be bothered to read.
3. You can't be bothered with facts. Fark facts. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

bk3k: Would not the more rational explanation be that the increase in armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals, but the ones who continue their crime are therefore relying more heavily on guns?  Because that is still a net benefit.


Again, reality points to a very different conclusion: The decline in the percentage of households with firearms. Most firearm violence is not stranger-on-stranger, after all.

bk3k: People who are that scared of anyone having guns, and those who don't feel safe leaving the house without them - both groups are pants pissing cowards to me.


Incompetent armed people - both mentally and in terms of skill - are a threat to themselves and the general public. One of the biggest problems is that the overwhelming majority of people walking around armed in public in Arizona are both unskilled and lack the mental competence to rationally assess threats.

bk3k: You might be surprised(unless you read what I already wrote) that I don't actually own any guns.  Not the highest thing on my priorities list.  I might pick one up in the next 10-15 years for the hell of it if I don't have other things I want to blow my money on...


Don't, then. A firearm is not a toy.
 
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