Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass, GOP, morning, Colorado, radiation damages  
•       •       •

3782 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-02-13 12:52:22 PM  
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...
 
2014-02-13 12:55:31 PM  
That senator B herpin
 
2014-02-13 01:01:58 PM  
While technically correct, this is a really stupid thing to say.  It would be a bit like if there were some freak car accident where a person was spared injury by not wearing a seat belt.  Just because it happened that time doesn't mean seat belts are a bad idea.
 
2014-02-13 01:06:22 PM  
The 100-round C-Mags (beloved of mall ninjas and keyboard kommandos the world over) are a piece of shiat that jam far more often than the standard 20 or 30 round STANAG magazines.

The 82nd Airborne Division experimented with using stripped down M4s (the short M16s) with C-Mags as sort of a lightweight version of the M249 SAW (a heavier, belt-fed weapon that uses 200 or 100 round ammo packs) for mountain warfare in Afghanistan.  They jammed so often that they actually cancelled the testing early.  A shooter burning through multiple standard 30-round mags was able to put more rounds on target than a guy constantly having to stop to unfark his weapon.
 
2014-02-13 01:11:45 PM  
"good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.
 
2014-02-13 01:14:34 PM  
And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.
 
2014-02-13 01:15:58 PM  

TheOnion: While technically correct, this is a really stupid thing to say.  It would be a bit like if there were some freak car accident where a person was spared injury by not wearing a seat belt.  Just because it happened that time doesn't mean seat belts are a bad idea.


Both the Aurora and the Tuscon shooters were using above normal capacity magazines.  They were both stopped when those magazines failed.  I'm not aware of any other mass shooters using above normal capacity magazines.

The VT shooter, on the other hand, used neutered 10 round magazines for his Glock.... and he's got the highest body count ever in a school shooting in the US.

Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.
 
2014-02-13 01:20:08 PM  

jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.


Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?
 
2014-02-13 01:21:49 PM  

jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.


The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.
 
2014-02-13 01:23:27 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...


^ This.  Plus he was using an Armalite.  If he'd had a real rifle, like an AK, for example, he could have done a lot more damage.
 
2014-02-13 01:26:53 PM  
So then why don't we just make 1,000,000-round magazines?
 
2014-02-13 01:36:42 PM  

BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?


The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.
 
2014-02-13 01:39:38 PM  
If we make the magazines hold so much that they won't ever fire correctly, then no one will ever get shot. Bonus!
 
2014-02-13 01:41:09 PM  

the_rev: BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?

The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.


Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.
 
2014-02-13 01:46:07 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.


A man could combine his gymnastic pommel horse ability with ninjitsu and become virtually unstoppable.

static.tvtropes.org
 
2014-02-13 01:49:33 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.


Easily.
 
2014-02-13 01:52:13 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...


If you can guarantee that every high cap magazine will jam, then I'm sure nobody would have a problem with those.
 
2014-02-13 02:01:53 PM  

sigdiamond2000: So then why don't we just make 1,000,000-round magazines?


But only they're designed to jam after the first few rounds.
 
2014-02-13 02:21:52 PM  

the_rev: BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?

The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.


How do we manage to proactively become aware of the mindset of a potential shooter?

How are others able to stop him before he has a gun in his hand?
 
2014-02-13 02:23:19 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: the_rev: BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?

The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.

Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.


Dozens?  Seems the most determined have killed a heluva lot more than that without having a gun.
 
2014-02-13 02:34:24 PM  

the_rev: hillbillypharmacist: Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.

Easily.


Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined:   Happy Land Fire  Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire.  Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).
 
2014-02-13 02:42:58 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).


Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes.  That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.
 
2014-02-13 02:47:47 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...


For the record, I agree that if the Aurora shooter hadn't used such POS equipment, things would have been even worse.  His 100-round drum feeder was a POS.
 
2014-02-13 03:03:36 PM  

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).

Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes.  That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.


I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

Then too, we have the case of the 9/11 attackers, who used small knives.
 
2014-02-13 03:12:26 PM  

dittybopper: I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.


I'm sorry to say that even that date was a generation ago.  I'm seriously sorry that 1990 was a generation ago, and kinda still in shock.
 
2014-02-13 03:17:05 PM  
In spite of what reddit would have us believe, technically correct is not always the best kind of correct.

Yes, the Aurora shooter had an oversized magazine, and heavier magazines tend to jam.  Apparently a similar phenomenon occurs in the middle east where folks using Kalashnikovs will make the decision to tape magazines together for easier swaps.  Some figure that because taping two magazines together that taping 3 is even better than that, but apparently taping 3 together results in frequent jams due to the weight of the three together.

That being said, the guy who said that is a moron.
 
2014-02-13 03:18:30 PM  
I've never considered using poor craftsmanship as a way of expanding our purchasing options.  Can we let people buy cannons if they fail more than 75% of the time?  TNT if it fails more than 85% of the time?  Ricin so long as most of the batches don't really have much ricin in them?
 
2014-02-13 03:20:06 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: the_rev: BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?

The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.

Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.


Sure.  Tomohiro Kato killed 7 and injured 10 with a "dagger".  Nevertheless.
 
2014-02-13 03:29:51 PM  
Fine. I'm all in favor of this representatives initiative to only sell magazines that are defective and jam regularly. That's what he's advocating, right?
 
2014-02-13 03:32:14 PM  
Hmm, I wonder... Let's say we make 100 round magazines illegal, so the next nujob decides to buy an illegal one or construct his own.  I wonder if it's going to end up being more or less likely to jam than the commercially available 100-round magazines today.
 
2014-02-13 03:33:02 PM  
Translated for those of us who arent fluent in farking shiathead; "I'm glad his gun jammed."
 
2014-02-13 03:34:53 PM  
His statement alluding to the reliability of high capacity magazines is not incorrect.
 
2014-02-13 03:35:37 PM  
thismodernworld.com
 
2014-02-13 03:36:14 PM  
Herpin is a boob, but he is right, the drum mag did jam. Obviously, pure speculation to claim it 'saved' lives when it jammed since they won't release the ballistic info.
 
2014-02-13 03:36:46 PM  
I wonder if Loughner or Holmes ever took their firearms to a range.
 
2014-02-13 03:38:30 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...


Where precisely did this slack jawed imbecile mention this hypothetical scenario?

I suppose if the Aurora shooter had been aborted, that would have been a good thing too.
 
2014-02-13 03:39:01 PM  

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


One day, you'll post something that isn't completely boring.
 
2014-02-13 03:39:05 PM  

TheGregiss: Translated for those of us who arent fluent in farking shiathead; "I'm glad his gun jammed."


or "i'm glad he used a magazine far more prone to jamming and depended on its reliability"
 
2014-02-13 03:39:09 PM  
I'm more of a suspicious guy with a gun.  I'm like the guy with a gun in the rated R movie, you know, the guy with a gun you're not sure whether or not you like yet. You're not sure where he's coming from.
 
2014-02-13 03:40:41 PM  

unyon: 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...

If you can guarantee that every high cap magazine will jam, then I'm sure nobody would have a problem with those.


If they always jam, why would anyone want to buy one?  And why would you care if faulty crap is banned?
 
2014-02-13 03:41:41 PM  

Dalrint: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]


Nothing's better than a proselytizing political comic that takes three or four paragraphs to get to the farking point.
 
2014-02-13 03:42:15 PM  
A hundred thousand people were killed in Hiroshima without a gun. Therefore, no gun regulations.

QED, bed wetters.
 
2014-02-13 03:42:51 PM  

Great_Milenko: If they always jam, why would anyone want to buy one?


because they're easier to get than mexican viagra
 
2014-02-13 03:43:00 PM  
Dear GOP:  Try this out!

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-02-13 03:43:17 PM  
Guns are not evil, being merely tools. They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though. Kind of hard to imagine the founders could've conceived of today's weaponry when writing the 2nd amendment- cavalry saber charges were still used right up until the advent of machine gun emplacements, for Christ's sake. It's not the same world anymore, but our history and culture (especially westward expansion) are so tied up with firearms we probably won't shake the obsession for generations, if ever.
 
2014-02-13 03:43:39 PM  
It's not that you're wrong, Walter.  You're just an asshole.
 
2014-02-13 03:45:56 PM  

regindyn: Dear GOP:  Try this out!

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x402]


I'm guessing that what he said was a joke. I've read plenty of threads where people say that conservatives are not as funny as liberals because conservatives cannot laugh at themselves. This I actually agree with to an extent. But when you DO get the odd repub cracking a joke about his party, you get... Well, this shiat.
 
2014-02-13 03:47:05 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 03:47:11 PM  
woodgatesview.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-13 03:47:52 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though.


to me the real question is always "what is the base issue" followed by "how do we reduce the instances of that issue". limiting the issue to only mass shootings, which are such a small percentage of gun deaths, strikes me as an incredibly silly way to approach things. one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce the instances of gun deaths would be to legalize and regulate drugs and prostitution.

that the idea isn't something beaten into people's heads with a farking hammer every time these threads pop up shows that people are far more interested in political point scoring/shaming than actually fixing the issue
 
2014-02-13 03:48:53 PM  
FTFA:
"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

 Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question. I'm glad he answered it the way he did.
 
2014-02-13 03:49:52 PM  
I am sure your average cheap magazine is only going to be bought by criminals and not rednecks who need to spread their wealth between truck nuts, meth, pork rinds and Busch Light.
 
2014-02-13 03:50:18 PM  

Frank N Stein: FTFA:
"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

 Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question.


How so?
 
2014-02-13 03:50:53 PM  
If high capacity magazines actually make for a less effective weapon mechanism, why do gun advocates consider it important not to limit them?
 
2014-02-13 03:51:03 PM  
Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?
 
2014-02-13 03:51:05 PM  

dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).

Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes.  That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.

I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

Then too, we have the case of the 9/11 attackers, who used small knives.


I don't think it was the small knives that actually did the majority of the killings.
 
2014-02-13 03:51:24 PM  

Hollie Maea: 100 clip round magazine


FTFM.

I'm so sorry, gun farks, for using the wrong word.  Please don't shoot me.
 
2014-02-13 03:52:14 PM  

Ablejack: If high capacity magazines actually make for a less effective weapon mechanism, why do gun advocates consider it important not to limit them?


It is only a less effective weapon in the context of lying during a hearing to further your political goals, if I RTFA correctly.
 
2014-02-13 03:52:54 PM  

Ablejack: If high capacity magazines actually make for a less effective weapon mechanism, why do gun advocates consider it important not to limit them?


in theory, because they don't like the idea of regulating something 'just because'. a law against the color blue would be restriction without cause, and they consider regulating the high cap magazines to have just as little merit

there's also the practical issues with trying to control high capacity magazines but that's secondary
 
2014-02-13 03:53:07 PM  

Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?


We don't know, they won't release that information.
 
2014-02-13 03:54:02 PM  
"Bigger magazines equal lower casualties because bigger magazines are pieces of crap that will fail and that's why bigger magazines need to remain legal."

Do I have that right?

Also, can someone help me with my logic board? It seems to have self-incinerated.
 
2014-02-13 03:54:34 PM  
If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?
 
2014-02-13 03:54:52 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though.

to me the real question is always "what is the base issue" followed by "how do we reduce the instances of that issue". limiting the issue to only mass shootings, which are such a small percentage of gun deaths, strikes me as an incredibly silly way to approach things. one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce the instances of gun deaths would be to legalize and regulate drugs and prostitution.

that the idea isn't something beaten into people's heads with a farking hammer every time these threads pop up shows that people are far more interested in political point scoring/shaming than actually fixing the issue


I think the reason mass shootings have kept the place they have in the public consciousness is that it really is indiscriminate, and that scares people. Even though 50% of suicides are committed with firearms and the majority of firearm deaths are suices., it's not particularly scary to the average individual. I see what you mean though, in that it's the tool of choice for homicide, and that smarter regulation of black market industries would lead to less murder (and therefore fewer gun deaths overall).
 
2014-02-13 03:55:25 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?


Yeah, sounds like we're outlawing a dangerous product here.
 
2014-02-13 03:56:32 PM  
The gist of his argument seems to be it's a good thing he legally purchased a 100-round magazine because they're defective. That's almost an argument against them in and of themselves. How effective would they be for self-defense if they don't work as intended?
 
2014-02-13 03:56:59 PM  
Even less would be harmed had he only had access to a squirt gun. No matter how much the capacity of the resevoir.
 
2014-02-13 03:57:35 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?

We don't know, they won't release that information.


Well, it's an important consideration. If it jammed on the 20th round he has a point, if it jammed on the 98th round he still has a slight point, as clearing a jams is tougher than a mag change.

Still, saying mag capacity doesn't matter in a mass shooting silly. A mag change, like a jam, gives people the opportunity to subdue the atacker.

If it doesn't matter than you should be fine with a 6 round revolver.
 
2014-02-13 03:58:47 PM  

smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.


It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.
 
2014-02-13 03:59:32 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?


Because the good congresscritter lied to you, Donny.
 
2014-02-13 03:59:51 PM  
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a hell of a drug.
 
Bf+
2014-02-13 03:59:52 PM  

Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"

The mantra of derp.



ooh...
"Job Creator with a Gun"
 
2014-02-13 04:00:20 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?


Well, it's never a 100 round ban, it's a 10 or even less ban.
 
2014-02-13 04:00:48 PM  
"The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a bad guy with a gun that has a really big f*cking LEGAL magazine capacity." -Wayne Lapierre
 
2014-02-13 04:00:51 PM  
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is if the guy has a bad gun.
 
2014-02-13 04:01:00 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: FTFA:
"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

 Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question.

How so?


It's a yes or no question in which either answer reflects negatively on the person being questioned. I'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch, but the "this law would have stopped [him] from purchasing a blah blah" question assumes that's the law would have prevented casualties. Had he answered in the affirmative, than he implies agreement that the law would have prevented deaths. If he answers in the negative he looks like he's not in touch with reality.
 
2014-02-13 04:01:48 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I see what you mean though, in that it's the tool of choice for homicide, and that smarter regulation of black market industries would lead to less murder (and therefore fewer gun deaths overall).


and if you look at the violent crime stats you'll see that a majority of violent crime is in some ways drug related. k-mart doesn't shoot wal-mart workers on their way to work, because it's a legal industry. and with those things legalized, and the entire funding structure for things like gangs pulled out from underneath them, there's a real opportunity for significant social change in the places that need it the most
 
2014-02-13 04:03:25 PM  

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: FTFA:
"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

 Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question.

How so?

It's a yes or no question in which either answer reflects negatively on the person being questioned. I'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch, but the "this law would have stopped [him] from purchasing a blah blah" question assumes that's the law would have prevented casualties. Had he answered in the affirmative, than he implies agreement that the law would have prevented deaths. If he answers in the negative he looks like he's not in touch with reality.


A sh*tty gotcha question followed up by a sh*ttier bullsh*t answer.
 
2014-02-13 04:04:54 PM  
So, should we outlaw 100 round magazines made in America and not China?

//please watch your step, the GOP brain matter all over the floor can get slippery
 
2014-02-13 04:04:59 PM  
I'm the only good guy with a gun.
My guns are being kept by a family member in a gun safe because I have no use for them since I stopped hunting.  No way I would have had the time to fly out to Colorado and stop this guy.   All the other supposed good guys with guns are delusional and should be treated with suspicion.
 
2014-02-13 04:05:04 PM  

DrBenway: "Bigger magazines equal lower casualties because bigger magazines are pieces of crap that will fail and that's why bigger magazines need to remain legal."

Do I have that right?

Also, can someone help me with my logic board? It seems to have self-incinerated.


Or this: "those magazines do not pose a significant threat because they do no operate reliably, therefore there is no public necessity to ban them"

Does that make sense?
 
2014-02-13 04:05:49 PM  

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


Said the guy who thinks the "guns = substitute penises" thing is a petty ad hominem.
 
2014-02-13 04:06:47 PM  

dforkus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?

We don't know, they won't release that information.

Well, it's an important consideration. If it jammed on the 20th round he has a point, if it jammed on the 98th round he still has a slight point, as clearing a jams is tougher than a mag change.

Still, saying mag capacity doesn't matter in a mass shooting silly. A mag change, like a jam, gives people the opportunity to subdue the atacker.

If it doesn't matter than you should be fine with a 6 round revolver.


It does matter. How many rounds should a police officer be allowed in his firearm? Same logic.
 
2014-02-13 04:07:06 PM  

Kome: The gist of his argument seems to be it's a good thing he legally purchased a 100-round magazine because they're defective. That's almost an argument against them in and of themselves. How effective would they be for self-defense if they don't work as intended?


Look man, they aren't big on logic.

They also make the argument that other things are just as deadly, except then if that was the case, why do these mass murders not choose to use said weapons, time and time again?

Also, only thing that stops guy with a gun is another gun, but reducing the available supply of guns has no impact.

Also also also, we can't put any regulations on guns, because that would lead to other, hypothetical regulations on guns that would be too restrictive.

They aren't bright people. The cartoon above really just sums it up accurately. Tens of thousands of dead people per year is the price they've decided is acceptable for their selfish hobby. And everyone else just has to deal with that.
 
2014-02-13 04:08:36 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Guns are not evil, being merely tools. They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though. Kind of hard to imagine the founders could've conceived of today's weaponry when writing the 2nd amendment- cavalry saber charges were still used right up until the advent of machine gun emplacements, for Christ's sake. It's not the same world anymore, but our history and culture (especially westward expansion) are so tied up with firearms we probably won't shake the obsession for generations, if ever.


Guns are actually pretty discriminate - they only put bullets where you point. Bombs, arson, crashes, etc, are less discriminating. (Also more devastating, which is why the military and terrorists alike love bombs and artillery)

As to your second point, I'm sure the Founders could not have imagined radio, TV, the Internet, or Mormonism, so I guess it'd be alright to ban those, or consider them not protected by the First Amendment.
 
2014-02-13 04:09:07 PM  

Frank N Stein: DrBenway: "Bigger magazines equal lower casualties because bigger magazines are pieces of crap that will fail and that's why bigger magazines need to remain legal."

Do I have that right?

Also, can someone help me with my logic board? It seems to have self-incinerated.

Or this: "those magazines do not pose a significant threat because they do no operate reliably, therefore there is no public necessity to ban them"

Does that make sense?


So, you encourage the sale of defective merchandise... for the children?
 
2014-02-13 04:09:15 PM  

BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?


The biggest ones are Time and Isolation. To be brief, the longer a shooter has access to an isolated group of victims, the more damage he is going to do.

For example, the Virginia Tech shooting and the Norway attacks were very bloody, ( 32 and 69 victims, respectively) shootings. In both cases the shooters isolated their unarmed victims (university students and youth campers) by chaining doors shut or staging their attack on an island. This gave them plenty of time to execute people.

The recognized proper response to an active shooter is to respond as quickly as possible with whatever police or security assets are available. A lot of shooters commit suicide once opposed.
 
2014-02-13 04:11:39 PM  
Amerika will get what it deserves

and it's gonna mean a lot of cold, dead hands.
 
2014-02-13 04:11:46 PM  

DrBenway: Frank N Stein: DrBenway: "Bigger magazines equal lower casualties because bigger magazines are pieces of crap that will fail and that's why bigger magazines need to remain legal."

Do I have that right?

Also, can someone help me with my logic board? It seems to have self-incinerated.

Or this: "those magazines do not pose a significant threat because they do no operate reliably, therefore there is no public necessity to ban them"

Does that make sense?

So, you encourage the sale of defective merchandise... for the children?


We're not banning the sale of Dell computers because they aren't the most reliable machine out there. "Encourage" is an interesting word choice, too. I'd say I'm more of a "let it be" type person. If they aren't posing a significant risk, what's the problem?
 
2014-02-13 04:12:05 PM  
justtray: They also make the argument that other things are just as deadly, except then if that was the case, why do these mass murders not choose to use said weapons, time and time again?

Guns are psychologically attractive to the kind of nut that wants to make people beg for their lives, probably. Most mass murders aren't rational actors that proceed from a place of logic, thank goodness, or they'd be killing hundreds at a stroke instead of a dozen. I'm not sure why you want to force them into more effective means of killing.
 
2014-02-13 04:13:13 PM  
Also, lol
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 04:13:19 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Herpin is a boob, but he is right, the drum mag did jam. Obviously, pure speculation to claim it 'saved' lives when it jammed since they won't release the ballistic info.



It would be nice to see how many of the injuries happened after he switched to the shotgun loaded with birdshot.
 
2014-02-13 04:14:31 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...


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?
 
2014-02-13 04:14:42 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?


It sets a precedence for banning magazines based on size. That leaves the door pen to ratchet limits down further and further, and further, to an unknown point. Take New York - a few years back they set the limit at 10 rounds, but then last year tightened it down to 7 rounds - what guarentee does anyone have they won't take it down further?
 
2014-02-13 04:15:32 PM  
If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines? If they are inherently and predictably defective, why the pearl-clutching about getting rid of them?If they function properly most of the time, then we don't want the bad guys to have access to murder power like that. And if they don't, then they're of no use to normal gun owners *anyway*, so nobody will miss them when they're gone. Right?...
 
2014-02-13 04:16:09 PM  

BayouOtter: Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?

It sets a precedence for banning magazines based on size. That leaves the door pen to ratchet limits down further and further, and further, to an unknown point. Take New York - a few years back they set the limit at 10 rounds, but then last year tightened it down to 7 rounds - what guarentee does anyone have they won't take it down further?


You don't?  And the Constitution doesn't guarantee you a certain number of rounds?
 
2014-02-13 04:16:48 PM  

Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?


55.
 
2014-02-13 04:17:15 PM  

QueenMamaBee: dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).

Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes.  That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.

I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

Then too, we have the case of the 9/11 attackers, who used small knives.

I don't think it was the small knives that actually did the majority of the killings.


No, they used manned cruise missiles loaded with incendiaries.
 
2014-02-13 04:18:08 PM  

BayouOtter: UrukHaiGuyz: Guns are not evil, being merely tools. They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though. Kind of hard to imagine the founders could've conceived of today's weaponry when writing the 2nd amendment- cavalry saber charges were still used right up until the advent of machine gun emplacements, for Christ's sake. It's not the same world anymore, but our history and culture (especially westward expansion) are so tied up with firearms we probably won't shake the obsession for generations, if ever.

Guns are actually pretty discriminate - they only put bullets where you point. Bombs, arson, crashes, etc, are less discriminating. (Also more devastating, which is why the military and terrorists alike love bombs and artillery)

As to your second point, I'm sure the Founders could not have imagined radio, TV, the Internet, or Mormonism, so I guess it'd be alright to ban those, or consider them not protected by the First Amendment.


I meant indiscriminate in that those committing the mass homicides often do not have pre-selected targets, often times just locations. I never said anything about banning anything, in fact stated that I think the 2nd amendment is likely to remain strongly upheld for generations. Thank you though for your considered butthurt, it has been duly noted.
 
2014-02-13 04:18:21 PM  

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

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra



And they look "tacticool".

cdn2.armslist.com

That way you think you're really a bad-ass, when all you really are is a dumdass with a .223 that has a flashlight on it.
 
2014-02-13 04:19:10 PM  

Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines


I'm not a gun expert, but coudl the argument be made that clearing the occasional jam is less time consuming than refilling a 15 round magazine 7 times, during your responsible trip to the shooting range?

Also, read the post right above yours...
 
2014-02-13 04:19:36 PM  

Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines? If they are inherently and predictably defective, why the pearl-clutching about getting rid of them?If they function properly most of the time, then we don't want the bad guys to have access to murder power like that. And if they don't, then they're of no use to normal gun owners *anyway*, so nobody will miss them when they're gone. Right?...


It is a specific type of magazine. A drum magazine. They are rare and very different than the straight or 'banana' magazines that are used 99% of the time.
 
2014-02-13 04:20:11 PM  

Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines?


Like a jacked-up truck with neon underlights they are obnoxious, impractical, and sometimes fun as hell.

If they are inherently and predictably defective, why the pearl-clutching about getting rid of them?

Because they are big and scary and so many bullets in one magazine means an entire school will be killed at once! (Ignoring that one can swap magazines in a second or two.)

If they function properly most of the time, then we don't want the bad guys to have access to murder power like that. And if they don't, then they're of no use to normal gun owners *anyway*, so nobody will miss them when they're gone. Right?...

Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.
 
2014-02-13 04:20:26 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?

55.


[citationneeded.jpg]
 
2014-02-13 04:20:32 PM  

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

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

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


that is one ugly forward grip.
 
2014-02-13 04:21:10 PM  

serial_crusher: Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines

I'm not a gun expert, but coudl the argument be made that clearing the occasional jam is less time consuming than refilling a 15 round magazine 7 times, during your responsible trip to the shooting range?

Also, read the post right above yours...


No.
 
2014-02-13 04:23:28 PM  
hillbillypharmacist:

You don't?  And the Constitution doesn't guarantee you a certain number of rounds?

Sort of like it doesn't guarantee me a certain number of books, bibles, or printers, right? I mean if tomorrow the government said they were going to ban all ink then my right to a free press wouldn't be infringed at all, right? I mean I'm not guaranteed access to a certain amount of ink!

Rights are inexorably tied to the mechanisms of their exercise.
 
2014-02-13 04:23:40 PM  
So, the main safety feature of a 100-round is that it jams after three or four shots? I wonder why anyone wants a 100-round magazine.
 
2014-02-13 04:26:00 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...



The obvious solution is to only sell high-capacity magazines that automatically jam.
 
2014-02-13 04:27:13 PM  
The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?
 
2014-02-13 04:27:18 PM  
Maybe he was using that shiatty, steel-cased Russian ammo.
 
2014-02-13 04:29:23 PM  

Frank N Stein: Also, lol
[img.fark.net image 850x309]


That is the winner of all winners. A pity you don't actually win anything, but still... maybe subscriptions to 100 magazines of your choice? Except they'll screw up your order after the first twenty, so better move the amputee donkey porn right to the top of the list.
 
2014-02-13 04:29:56 PM  

Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?


I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.
 
2014-02-13 04:32:01 PM  

BayouOtter: Sort of like it doesn't guarantee me a certain number of books, bibles, or printers, right? I mean if tomorrow the government said they were going to ban all ink then my right to a free press wouldn't be infringed at all, right? I mean I'm not guaranteed access to a certain amount of ink!


That may be the worst analogy I've ever heard.  Rights are tied to the mechanisms of their exercise, but that doesn't mean that any and all mechanisms must be legal.
 
2014-02-13 04:34:28 PM  

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.


Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?
 
2014-02-13 04:34:56 PM  

Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.


Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?
 
2014-02-13 04:36:40 PM  

sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?


Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.
 
2014-02-13 04:37:47 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.


BUT THAT ONE TOWN!!!
 
2014-02-13 04:38:07 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.


given a long enough timeframe, it could be a true statement
 
2014-02-13 04:38:54 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I'm more of a suspicious guy with a gun.  I'm like the guy with a gun in the rated R movie, you know, the guy with a gun you're not sure whether or not you like yet. You're not sure where he's coming from.


I am the one who knocks.
 
2014-02-13 04:39:11 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Sort of like it doesn't guarantee me a certain number of books, bibles, or printers, right? I mean if tomorrow the government said they were going to ban all ink then my right to a free press wouldn't be infringed at all, right? I mean I'm not guaranteed access to a certain amount of ink!

That may be the worst analogy I've ever heard.  Rights are tied to the mechanisms of their exercise, but that doesn't mean that any and all mechanisms must be legal.


Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms
, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego
 
2014-02-13 04:39:38 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

given a long enough timeframe, it could be a true statement


Maybe so, definitely not in the armed society=polite society sense, though.
 
2014-02-13 04:40:37 PM  

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


You know, if that was true, there would be *no* farking regulations.

Try again with your hyperbolic self.
 
2014-02-13 04:40:42 PM  
Same old derp.
 
2014-02-13 04:40:59 PM  
 
2014-02-13 04:42:24 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

given a long enough timeframe, it could be a true statement

Maybe so, definitely not in the armed society=polite society sense, though.


a society on the losing side of a famine is a polite society doesn't quite fit on bumper stickers
 
2014-02-13 04:42:56 PM  
You gun grabbers are really an obsessed lot, aren't you?
 
2014-02-13 04:42:57 PM  

justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.


So, why do cops have guns, then?
 
2014-02-13 04:43:09 PM  
So if this Senator stood next to the IL Senator there would be a Herpin and a Durbin
 
2014-02-13 04:43:14 PM  

BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego


And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?
 
2014-02-13 04:43:22 PM  

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them.
Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.


I guess that explains why Colorado Democrats banned them last year.
 
2014-02-13 04:45:27 PM  

smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.


So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting.

/this is what conservatives actually believe.
 
2014-02-13 04:47:02 PM  

Paul Baumer: BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.

Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?


Its a stupid idea because giant drum magazines aren't being used to do harm on any scale necessitating a legislative response. Rifles, as a whole, are used in less than 5% of all homicides in the United States, and the number of drum magazines in use is a tiny fraction of that. Throwing money at an object that is used in less than 5% of homicides is foolish, more so because those homicides would have likely been possible even in the magazine's absence.

Going after even a general class of weapons used in homicides is pretty stupid, because murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability. Ending the drug war, working on our broken and racist policies of poverty control, income inequality and education - these topics would actually address violent crime at the cause, but that would be hard and complicated.

It is so much easier to just 'ban something - for the children!' and call it a day.
 
2014-02-13 04:48:48 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego

And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?


Same as the number of books you can own and churches you can attend.
 
2014-02-13 04:48:49 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.


Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.
 
2014-02-13 04:48:57 PM  

BayouOtter: Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.


The irony is that while many gun advocates will echo this sentiment, they'll turn around and say no price is too high policing welfare for the poor and even one lobster and steak dinner is one too many. Then they'll wonder why they're labelled gun nuts when those loony libs say one gun death is one too many. I mean, it's only death, right? Didn't stop Jesus.
 
2014-02-13 04:49:47 PM  

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.


You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.
 
2014-02-13 04:49:55 PM  

LoneWolf343: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting.

/this is what conservatives actually believe.



And the existence of other, far more difficult and unlikely scenarios where someone is killed by something other than a gun means guns are actually just fun little balloon animals that just happen to be tools of war and defense against oppressive governments.
 
2014-02-13 04:51:43 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.

You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.


I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.
 
2014-02-13 04:52:21 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.

You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.



Hey, that's way out of line.  Only gun-grabbers need to cite sources in Fark gun threads.
 
2014-02-13 04:52:37 PM  

BayouOtter: hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego

And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?

Same as the number of books you can own and churches you can attend.


Snert. Why, then, are fully automatic weapons so restricted? Totes unconstitutional, right?
 
2014-02-13 04:53:02 PM  

LoneWolf343: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting.

/this is what conservatives actually believe.


I am generally pro gun, pro concealed-carry, pro Castle Doctrine, and I agree with your statement. I am certain that another person in the Aurora theater with a gun would have likely made the situation worse. A gun does not make you immune to fear, panic, nor does it give you perfect aim. There was the story of the police officers who got into a gunfight in New York City, and about 9 innocent bystanders were shot. All by the officers' bullets.

If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.
 
2014-02-13 04:54:07 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: BayouOtter: Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.

The irony is that while many gun advocates will echo this sentiment, they'll turn around and say no price is too high policing welfare for the poor and even one lobster and steak dinner is one too many. Then they'll wonder why they're labelled gun nuts when those loony libs say one gun death is one too many. I mean, it's only death, right? Didn't stop Jesus.


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.)

My perfect America fantasy is pretty unique in a lot of ways, I think.
 
2014-02-13 04:54:29 PM  
I think a point is missed.

People claim that they need guns for sport/hunting, for target shooting and for home defense.

For all of those purposes large capacity magazines are more than useless, they are in fact something you would definitely NOT want.

The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

Now you can say you have the right to be an infantile psycho with wet dreams of mass killing and to act those out on targets and such if you want.. but I'm not sure that was the INTENT of the second amendment.
 
2014-02-13 04:54:48 PM  

The Name: Hey, that's way out of line.  Only gun-grabbers need to cite sources in Fark gun threads.


Actually, everyone should have cites. Most don't - especially the side that equates owning a gun with having a small penis.
 
2014-02-13 04:55:51 PM  
hillbillypharmacist:
Snert. Why, then, are fully automatic weapons so restricted? Totes unconstitutional, right?

Yes, actually. Hopefully that will get sorted out in the courts before too long.
 
2014-02-13 04:55:55 PM  

sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.


You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.
 
2014-02-13 04:56:27 PM  
gaspode:The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

I'm so glad you know what everyone needs and tell them that.
 
2014-02-13 04:57:15 PM  

sugar_fetus: gaspode:The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

I'm so glad you know what everyone needs and tell them that.


Liar!
 
2014-02-13 04:57:36 PM  

BayouOtter: hillbillypharmacist:
Snert. Why, then, are fully automatic weapons so restricted? Totes unconstitutional, right?

Yes, actually. Hopefully that will get sorted out in the courts before too long.


Don't hold your breath.

Just because there's not a bright line, it doesn't mean a line can't be drawn.
 
2014-02-13 04:58:30 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego

And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?


They did not rule on the number or rounds but given how rights are the governement should need to work around strict scrutiny.  What is the compelling interest and can you show that the ban will achieve that as the minimalist use of the law.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:04 PM  
soporific
If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.

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

Civilians that go through the hoops of getting a CCW are often shooting enthusiasts in the first place, and often expend 500 rounds per month in practice, or more. In addition, a civilian does not have the same immunity from civil and criminal charges like an officer does, and are thus driven to be more discriminating an careful in their shots.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:22 PM  

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.

Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?

Its a stupid idea because giant drum magazines aren't being used to do harm on any scale necessitating a legislative response. Rifles, as a whole, are used in less than 5% of all homicides in the United States, and the number of drum magazines in use is a tiny fraction of that. Throwing money at an object that is used in less than 5% of homicides is foolish, more so because those homicides would have likely been possible even in the magazine's absence.

Going after even a general class of weapons used in homicides is pretty stupid, because murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability. Ending the drug war, working on our broken and racist policies of poverty control, income inequality and education - these topics would actually address violent crime at the cause, but that would be hard and complicated.

It is so much easier to just 'ban something - for the children!' and call it a day.


So the gentleman's statement regarding it being a "good thing" the man had a 100rd mag was in fact a red herring then, and just a show argument for the rubes.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:34 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.


Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?
 
2014-02-13 05:01:09 PM  

lordjupiter: sugar_fetus: gaspode:The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

I'm so glad you know what everyone needs and tell them that.

Liar!


Pfft! I don't need you to tell me that! :-)
 
2014-02-13 05:01:44 PM  
Paul Baumer:
So the gentleman's statement regarding it being a "good thing" the man had a 100rd mag was in fact a red herring then, and just a show argument for the rubes.

More like a general 'its a good thing that criminal was a dumbass who picked shiatty tools/means to commit his crime, or things could have been worse.'
 
2014-02-13 05:04:23 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 05:05:00 PM  
I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!
 
2014-02-13 05:06:36 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 05:06:51 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!


But thank god THAT one is freely available for purchase at any sporting goods store, because freedom.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:08 PM  

BayouOtter: 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.


For me, it comes down to attitude. It's the "responsible gun owner" types that insist they are as such, that any attempt to curtail their rights or access to guns is unthinkable, and then completely ignore what that broad access to guns means for other people to get them. "Not my problem." they say, and on an individual level, that's right, but having such broad access has societal costs, and I just can't view anyone as a responsible owner if they're unwilling to acknowledge that.
I feel like the backdoor methods like mag limits and banning cosmetics are because there can't be any discussion of front door methods without certain groups flying into a frothing rage and even the most innocuous suggestion seen as the direct path to banning all guns ever.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:17 PM  

sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.

So, why do cops have guns, then?


Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:42 PM  

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.

Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?


I never claimed that more guns cause more crime in general. 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.

Hence designating the "good guy with a gun" line of reasoning advocating for increased gun ownership is so much derp.
 
2014-02-13 05:07:44 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!


it is a good thing he did not have a jumbo jet
 
2014-02-13 05:08:35 PM  

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?


Good thing people are always rational and anger is a thing of the past.  Thanks Obama.
 
2014-02-13 05:09:14 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 05:10:29 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-02-13 05:11:19 PM  

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?


And mental health and healthcare!  Don't forget how quickly they pumped and dumped that one after the rage and legislation from Newtown fizzled out, and actually started fighting against what they'd previously offered as the solution.

Very helpful!
 
2014-02-13 05:11:35 PM  

justtray: sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.

So, why do cops have guns, then?

Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.


Yet, the bad guys in Britain still have guns. Imagine that.

And, correct - Police in the US are not required to stop crime, nor actually protect you, according to the Supreme Court.

Do *you* get it?  Nope, you don't. Keep insulting people. That's so helpful.
 
2014-02-13 05:13:01 PM  
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.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?
 
2014-02-13 05:13:18 PM  

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer:
So the gentleman's statement regarding it being a "good thing" the man had a 100rd mag was in fact a red herring then, and just a show argument for the rubes.

More like a general 'its a good thing that criminal was a dumbass who picked shiatty tools/means to commit his crime, or things could have been worse.'


No it was quite specific, and the topic in question were 100rd mags - "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."  You claimed the real answer is "Its a stupid idea because giant drum magazines aren't being used to do harm on any scale necessitating a legislative response."

So either this legislator has no idea what the basis of good policy regarding the 100rd mag is, or does know and doesn't think his constituency will accept this, and made up an answer.
 
2014-02-13 05:14:03 PM  

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 do, for one, as do several of my allies. We're working on a more widespread acceptance of a new model for coping with crime and violence as a holistic problem with the social order.

Gun control is the wrong argument. It is a sort of bait and switch topic. BOTH sides of the argument are essentially talking around one another, because the issue isn't guns. It's about violence, safety and crime.

We have a problem with violence in this country--both domestic and in the commission of a variety of crimes where violence is a tool to gain monetary advantage. There are then just the nutjobs who just want to hurt folks in a generalized sense for a variety of reasons that come back to the issue of mental health or deep persecution complexes and see violence as their only answer.

Gun control is a bait and switch topic, because it looks at symptoms, as opposed to the causes of violence. It looks at the tools, and opposed to real issue. The real issue is that folks see violence as a valid option. Be that against their wives, husbands, or neighbors, to "settle" an issue. It is about power, frustration, and feelings of helplessness in the face of a LOT of stress. Be that as a means to gain monetary advantage, or simply carry out their "business" which involves taking from others, or "protecting" their turf so that they can continue illegal operations, and enforce their will while engaged in activities that are likewise crimes. The tools themselves don't really matter--see England's gangland problem, or Japan's own gangs that have evolved beyond just the Yakuza--but rather that there are criminal elements that will do great violence to folks, because they see it as a valid option, and one where the risks justify the reward. In part, the reward for these criminals IS the reputation of being some bad motherf*ckers who are NOT to be messed with. This is a symptom of some problems in those societies as well.

We need to take a long, hard look at violence in this country. We need to. The root causes, the rising economic inequality, the stress of modern society, mental health care, economic factors, education, and social mobility opportunities. What is causing folks to turn to violence as something that they feel justified in committing. This is not a comfortable conversation. Violence like this is a symptom of failings within our society. Just as students' behavior is indicative of issues at home, our society likewise is giving us clear signs that all is NOT well. And we are focusing on the tools, as opposed to the reasons that folks commit these crimes. And we focus on the tools, because it's easier to get folks focused on the tools, as opposed to having the real conversation we should be having. The real conversation is stalled, and in fact, the public and officials are distracted from facing the real issues when you throw "gun control" out there, because it's a red herring. It's supposed to distract folks. It is a bait and switch, because no one really wants to talk about the real ills that we face.

We are in a time of great economic upheaval. Or rather, a lot of folks are facing economic uncertainty, while others are doing more than just fine, they're making out like bandits, and that leads to a certain degree of ire. We are facing a population with declining prospects, while some are doing very well, and that leads to some grim decisions. It leads to greater stress, it leads folks to feelings of helplessness, and we are surprised when folks act while under constant and enduring stressors? Frustration and constant fear for the future leads folks down some dark paths. Couple it with a crisis in mental health care, as well as folks uncertain how to even get help, and their ability to even think about paying for it, and you get a lot of folks who simply cannot get help, and a lot of folks who are turned out of a mental health care system that is over burdened already. We have a nation that is looking to lash out at somebody, and often they turn on whoever is closest, as opposed to turning that ire on someone responsible--and in fact those responsible for the plight of so many, REALLY want the conversation turned away from looking at the real issues, because if folks focused on the real issues, their gravy train would end, so it's better for folks to talk about something else entirely. Something like gun control, which only deals with symptoms, gets folks heated up, and pointed firmly away from the real issues that we face, and thus, they can continue doing what they do, and from behind firm walls, and in communities that are gated, locked away, and firmly out of the public eye, save to wave on occasion, and throw out a bone or two of hope that some of the peons may make it out, and get them skirmishing with one another for that chance, as opposed to wondering why they should be fighting so damn hard for table scraps.
 
2014-02-13 05:14:21 PM  

factoryconnection: dittybopper: I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

I'm sorry to say that even that date was a generation ago.  I'm seriously sorry that 1990 was a generation ago, and kinda still in shock.


I hate to agree with ditty, but he is right.

Less convenient methods than grabbing a rifle are equally deadly and available to the crazies.

I have no problem with gun regulations fwiw.
 
2014-02-13 05:14:50 PM  

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

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

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


That looks like a lowered Honda Civic with a bookcase wing on the back and lots of stickers.
 
2014-02-13 05:15:37 PM  

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.

Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?


I'll help him. Yes, I have a number of statistically valid studies that you will continue to ignore. I keep them just handy for idiots like yourself when you try to make this false argument.

More guns = more homicide http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Guns in home increase risk of homicide and suicide http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Intentional gun homicides outnumber justified homicides by 50:1, and suicides by 100:1
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

This doesn't even include the fact that the UK has 4x the rate of violent crime per capita as the united states while maintaining 4x lower rate of homicide per capita. I wonder what the difference is??? Spoiler - guns create more homicide, a LOT more.

Your turn. Time for you to post non causal, statistically invalid graphs that show crime going down due to Roe vs Wade and falsely attributing it to guns, or better yet trying to cherry pick the one country that has high rates of gun ownership but maintain low crime, while ignoring all examples to the contrary.

Or maybe youll just pretend like you didn't see this post. Your kind is soooooo predictable.
 
2014-02-13 05:16:27 PM  
Paul Baumer:
So either this legislator has no idea what the basis of good policy regarding the 100rd mag is, or does know and doesn't think his constituency will accept this, and made up an answer.

You're confusing my opinion on why banning 100 round magazines is stupid with what I thought he meant by his statement. They are two distinct opinions.
 
2014-02-13 05:16:36 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: rzrwiresunrise: I love gun threads. Especially ones where posters dicker about which type would have caused more damage in a massacre and say it's a good think he didn't have THAT one cuz then he coulda REALLY caused some mayhem!

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x476]


fc00.deviantart.net
 
2014-02-13 05:19:15 PM  
The party of "common sense", folks
 
2014-02-13 05:20:49 PM  

sugar_fetus: 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.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?


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

Guns are at best not a crime deterrent.
 
2014-02-13 05:21:11 PM  

lordjupiter: The party of "common sense", folks


While the opposition says that gun bans are 'common sense'. Its almost like people of all stripes use the phrase 'common sense' to make their ideas sound good without actually proving that they are reasonable, while at the same time poisoning the well of their opponent's objections.
 
2014-02-13 05:21:18 PM  

sugar_fetus: justtray: sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.

So, why do cops have guns, then?

Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.

Yet, the bad guys in Britain still have guns. Imagine that.

And, correct - Police in the US are not required to stop crime, nor actually protect you, according to the Supreme Court.

Do *you* get it?  Nope, you don't. Keep insulting people. That's so helpful.


I don't see you conceding the point. Now you're just repeating more irrelevant freeper talking points.

If you can't handle it, get out. This isn't a place for uninformed fools to get coddled.
 
2014-02-13 05:22:42 PM  

sugar_fetus: 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.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?


What someone who doesn't understand basic causation looks like. Why do you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor? Have you considered that maybe your argument is just invalid, which is why it keeps getting pointed out as such? Of course not. You're sure you're right, despite it being explained to you why you are not.

Sad.
 
2014-02-13 05:23:25 PM  

sugar_fetus: 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.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?


As much fun as it is running in circles with you, I'm gonna have to call it quits after this one- we don't seem to be getting anywhere at all. There are a lot of factors at play here, including poverty rates, per capita imprisonment and recidivism rates, current enforcement levels of various illegal activities- all of these and more can have a huge impact on the crime rate in general and gun violence in particular.

Did you look at all at my citation? It shows clearly the correlation between gun ownership and rates and gun violence in 27 developed countries. The two are not absolutely correlated, but the trend is clear enough to indicate that higher levels of gun ownership do not reliably reduce gun violence.

Unless you can show that the *reason* crime rates in the U.S. are lower is due to increased ownership, you can't reasonably claim that higher ownership rates reduce crime, as the bulk of worldwide evidence shows otherwise.
 
2014-02-13 05:23:48 PM  
gaspode:

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

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

Oh wait, there are huge differences! Whoops.

Guns are at best not a crime deterrent.

I guess cops can stop carrying guns, then.
 
2014-02-13 05:27:13 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: The party of "common sense", folks

While the opposition says that gun bans are 'common sense'. Its almost like people of all stripes use the phrase 'common sense' to make their ideas sound good without actually proving that they are reasonable, while at the same time poisoning the well of their opponent's objections.



It's a useless statement but the right wing does think they have a lock on "common sense" as champions of traditional values.  From what I can tell the MAJORITY of what the opposition thinks relates to gun control measures similar to those used for other items the gun lobby commonly compare to guns (i.e. cars) rather than a full ban.

But in general yes most people call themselves meaningless terms like "centrist" and "pragmatist" and "realist" simply because their own ideas and opinions by definition seem like the "common sense" that best defines an objective reality.  Once established, confirmation bias cements it.  These types of arguments have been going on for thousands of years and will never end.
 
2014-02-13 05:27:13 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 05:32:34 PM  
So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?
 
2014-02-13 05:36:04 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 05:36:30 PM  

bborchar: So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?


No the law of averages is supposed to comfort you.  Your kids are statistically extremely unlikely to be shot and killed at school.  But the kids who do get killed at school, well fark them.  They're just statistics.  Like traffic deaths or lightning strikes.  Not real people being massacred.  Only numbers.
 
2014-02-13 05:37:21 PM  

bborchar: So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?


The fact that your child is more likely to die in a pool or falling off his bike should comfort you. Stop being so paranoid about highly unlikely events and pay attention to the ones that are actual threats to your child, like traffic accidents.
 
2014-02-13 05:39:22 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.



The problem, if you're being honest here, is that you're trying to backburner something that should not be put aside.  That smacks of the typical NRA fueled delay tactics that have been used for decades as a way of DOING NOTHING.  There's no reason we can't work on 10 problems at once if we can work on 9, yes?
 
2014-02-13 05:39:58 PM  

BayouOtter: bborchar: So, it's a good thing that he bought something potentially more deadly but more likely to fail?

Is this supposed to comfort me when I start sending my children to school?

The fact that your child is more likely to die in a pool or falling off his bike should comfort you. Stop being so paranoid about highly unlikely events and pay attention to the ones that are actual threats to your child, like traffic accidents.


Called it.
 
2014-02-13 05:42:57 PM  

lordjupiter: No the law of averages is supposed to comfort you.


or at least negate the immediate fear reaction from events that are particularly horrific which the brain naturally has a tendency to weigh out of proportion

"you're appealing to rationality" is not a sound basis for playing the facile argument card
 
2014-02-13 05:43:36 PM  
Yeah, like some of the others have said, this guy has a point in the fact that those 100-rd mags are pieces of shiate.

Doesn't mean that anyone got "lucky", just that those things are notorious for jamming, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it.
 
2014-02-13 05:46:56 PM  
lordjupiter:
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.


The problem, if you're being honest here, is that you're trying to backburner something that should not be put aside.  That smacks of the typical NRA fueled delay tactics that have been used for decades as a way of DOING NOTHING.  There's no reason we can't work on 10 problems at once if we can work on 9, yes?


Well first of all I disagree with the assumption that gun control can't be backburnered. I don't believe it is an effective, much less efficient way to address violence or crime in our society.

The reason it is difficult to work on the multiple issue when there is an active disagreement (issue X here) is that the actions of one side must be opposed by the other if they hold those beliefs in good faith. The amount of resources (money, time, etc) are finite, so any action on X cannot be spent on issues A, B or C. In attempt to win on issue X, one side will put resources toward it, the other side must negate it with an equal amount of resources or suffer a setback. Therefore resources are spent by two opposing sides to maintain more or less the status quo, which means those resources have been wasted. A more efficient use of those resources would be for both sides to ignore X and combine their resources on issues A, B and C, it has the same result for X (status quo) and better returns from A,B and C.
 
2014-02-13 05:48:01 PM  

sprawl15: lordjupiter: No the law of averages is supposed to comfort you.

or at least negate the immediate fear reaction from events that are particularly horrific which the brain naturally has a tendency to weigh out of proportion

"you're appealing to rationality" is not a sound basis for playing the facile argument card


No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need.  Just because X number is bigger than Y it may mean that raw probability is enough to soothe the individual but it does nothing for the actual people behind those numbers.  It's an especially disingenuous argument when the typical analogous threats are more regulated than guns.

In other words, you can't declare something a non-issue just because worse issues exist.
 
2014-02-13 05:51:26 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
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.


The problem, if you're being honest here, is that you're trying to backburner something that should not be put aside.  That smacks of the typical NRA fueled delay tactics that have been used for decades as a way of DOING NOTHING.  There's no reason we can't work on 10 problems at once if we can work on 9, yes?

Well first of all I disagree with the assumption that gun control can't be backburnered. I don't believe it is an effective, much less efficient way to address violence or crime in our society.

The reason it is difficult to work on the multiple issue when there is an active disagreement (issue X here) is that the actions of one side must be opposed by the other if they hold those beliefs in good faith. The amount of resources (money, time, etc) are finite, so any action on X cannot be spent on issues A, B or C. In attempt to win on issue X, one side will put resources toward it, the other side must negate it with an equal amount of resources or suffer a setback. Therefore resources are spent by two opposing sides to maintain more or less the status quo, which means those resources have been wasted. A more efficient use of those resources would be for both sides to ignore X and combine their resources on issues A, B and C, it has the same result for X (stat ...



And which of those other 9 issues do both sides completely agree on?  Or even agree on enough to come together and solve?  I mean, are you seriously paying attention to the political landscape in America if you think gun control is the one issue where no consensus exist, and we just need to pool efforts toward fixing everything else?
 
2014-02-13 05:52:11 PM  
lordjupiter:
No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need.

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

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

Someone being murdered is a tragedy, true. It is not a good reason to throw limited government resources away for no gain, though.
 
2014-02-13 05:53:59 PM  

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


For a little while there was a consensus to move forward on mental health and the availability of care. You'll remember this from my Boobiess on the subject. It was a lost opportunity to actually accomplish something, all because of the fixation on gun control.
 
2014-02-13 05:55:03 PM  

AngryDragon: You gun grabbers are really an obsessed lot, aren't you?


Attention Walmart Shoppers, we have a special on "potatoes" in Aisle 7.
 
2014-02-13 05:57:07 PM  

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


it's not, though. "the best way to spend limited resources on gun deaths is to focus those resources on those categories of gun death or the causal factors of gun death, especially those that make up the majority of deaths" is a rational approach.

lordjupiter: Just because X number is bigger than Y it may mean that raw probability is enough to soothe the individual but it does nothing for the actual people behind those numbers.


this is the exact same argument behind the "well 9/11 was bad and those were 3000 real americans that died and never forget therefore comma". it's an appeal to emotion. you're saying that the death of a child in a school shooting is somehow more meaningful to you than the death of a child in a gangland shootout or the death of a child from drowning in a pool. there's actual people behind all the numbers.

we don't have infinite money, we don't have infinite political capital, and we don't have infinite power. we have limited resources, and the moral burden is to help as many people with those resources as we can. if i had a magic wand i'd wave newton away, absolutey. if you told me to choose between waving newton away or choosing to wave away one category of the thousands of children dying because child abuse, neglect, fires, disease, etc, every year, i'd have to sit down and look at the numbers. to let one event that was plastered on my television screen overwhelm every rational faculty i have is to poison the very concept of compassion
 
2014-02-13 05:57:29 PM  

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

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


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

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

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

lordjupiter:
The "emotional reaction" argument is tired.

Then stop making it.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

lordjupiter:
The "emotional reaction" argument is tired.

Then stop making it.

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

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

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

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



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

Have fun.
 
2014-02-13 06:20:06 PM  

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Som Tervo: gun cowards


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

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


As will you?
 
2014-02-13 06:23:57 PM  

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

These threads are such a waste.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

As will you?


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

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

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

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

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

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Som Tervo: gun cowards

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

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

As will you?


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

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

Never stop trolling, friend.



Trolling would be funnier.

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

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

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

BayouOtter: gaspode:

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

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

Oh wait, there are huge differences! Whoops.

Guns are at best not a crime deterrent.

I guess cops can stop carrying guns, then.


Are you simple?

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

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

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

Never stop trolling, friend.


Trolling would be funnier.

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


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

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

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

Never stop trolling, friend.


Trolling would be funnier.

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

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

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


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

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

lordjupiter: Trolling would be funnier.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never stop trolling, friend.


Trolling would be funnier.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Trolling would be funnier.

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

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

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

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

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

Is this getting through to you?


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

Shhhh, adults are talking.

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

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


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

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


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

BayouOtter: your assertion


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

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


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

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

BayouOtter: your assertion


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

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


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

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

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:

Shhhh, adults are talking.

You should be listening.



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

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


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

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

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:

Shhhh, adults are talking.

You should be listening.


How long have you been a member of the NRA?


How would that be relevant?
 
2014-02-13 07:14:57 PM  

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


laurenburgueno.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-13 07:15:09 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 07:19:39 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:20:24 PM  

BayouOtter: That you don't want to actually address my points


ironic
 
2014-02-13 07:24:32 PM  

BayouOtter: I like guns because they kept and continue to keep my family fed. Also feeling safe. Isn't that a good reason?


FTFY.
 
2014-02-13 07:25:24 PM  
In case this wasn't pointed out earlier....

img.myconfinedspace.com
 
2014-02-13 07:27:29 PM  

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


Are the bed wetters the ones that don't think they need to carry guns everywhere to protect themselves from all those scary other people?

/Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.
 
2014-02-13 07:27:31 PM  

udhq: BayouOtter: I like guns because they kept and continue to keep my family fed. Also feeling safe. Isn't that a good reason?

FTFY.


Considering that I've used them to preserve the live and limb of my sister, I was correct in the first instance.

Kindly fark off.
 
2014-02-13 07:28:03 PM  

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

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


I'll gladly put up one of those signs if you put up one that says "this home contains a $500 untraceable firearm in the upstairs closet."
 
2014-02-13 07:28:34 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:29:19 PM  

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

Are the bed wetters the ones that don't think they need to carry guns everywhere to protect themselves from all those scary other people?

/Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world; Karl Rove perfected the technique as performed by an entire political movement in the early 21st century.



FTFY
 
2014-02-13 07:30:08 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:30:09 PM  

Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting#cite_note-DailyExp re ss-M.26P15-12

55 apparently. So he managed to get 45 rounds out of his crappy magazine.

I mean, imagine if he had brought 4+ 15 round ones, it would have been much worse!

/though actually, he also brought a Glock, which he then started using instead.
 
2014-02-13 07:31:39 PM  

spawn73: Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting#cite_note-DailyExp re ss-M.26P15-12

55 apparently. So he managed to get 45 rounds out of his crappy magazine.

I mean, imagine if he had brought 4+ 15 round ones, it would have been much worse!

/though actually, he also brought a Glock, which he then started using instead.


So the congresscritter in the TFA was wrong and possibly retarded?  I gotta tell you, I didn't see that coming.
 
2014-02-13 07:32:29 PM  

BayouOtter: udhq: BayouOtter: I like guns because they kept and continue to keep my family fed. Also feeling safe. Isn't that a good reason?

FTFY.

Considering that I've used them to preserve the live and limb of my sister, I was correct in the first instance.

Kindly fark off.


Yeah, I'm sure it was one of those unquantifiable "defensive gun uses" the NRA likes to cite.

Also, people might be more comfortable with the idea of you possessing firearms if you didn't behave, to stereotype, like such a confrontational douche bag when politely challenged.
 
2014-02-13 07:32:39 PM  

sugar_fetus: 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.

Yet, here we are in the US with more guns *and* less crime.

Your claim is false. How many times do you have to read that to understand it?


USA has less gun violence?

I only had to read it once to understand what you are.
 
2014-02-13 07:33:17 PM  

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.

You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.

I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.


Please, friend,  proceed with your demonstration.
 
2014-02-13 07:33:44 PM  

spawn73: USA has less gun violence?


gun violence has decreased while ownership has gone up for years now
 
2014-02-13 07:35:07 PM  

BayouOtter: udhq: BayouOtter: I like guns because they kept and continue to keep my family fed. Also feeling safe. Isn't that a good reason?

FTFY.

Considering that I've used them to preserve the live and limb of my sister, I was correct in the first instance.

Kindly fark off.


And that my friend, is truly the world I want to live in.  Gotta remember to carry the gun everywhere I go in case some asshole is also carrying one.

Why don't we see if we can find a better solution?  I mean, guns are fun and all - I mean, Chuck Heston once said so, so it's true - but maybe the best solution isn't proliferation and escalation.  I know you know in your brain that it's not the best idea, it's just the EASIEST one.

So, let's go walk through the Fortress of Solitude - you can be the Kal-el to my Jor-el, and perhaps we can find the answers.... together.
 
2014-02-13 07:36:19 PM  

sprawl15: spawn73: USA has less gun violence?

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


Correct. And I am sure the USA's gun violence rate is truly a gold standard amongst first world nations (per capita incidences)... right?
 
2014-02-13 07:40:05 PM  

coeyagi: And I am sure the USA's gun violence rate is truly a gold standard amongst first world nations (per capita incidences)... right?


that it's still an embarassment to the world is irrelevant to the point

it is going down. we have less gun violence.
 
2014-02-13 07:40:35 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:41:00 PM  

sprawl15: coeyagi: And I am sure the USA's gun violence rate is truly a gold standard amongst first world nations (per capita incidences)... right?

that it's still an embarassment to the world is irrelevant to the point

it is going down. we have less gun violence.


True.  It is not irrelevant to the point that it can be much lower.  The point that I am obviously making.
 
2014-02-13 07:42:14 PM  

sprawl15: spawn73: USA has less gun violence?

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


Both have gone down.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?p re vSearch=&searchHistoryKey=&;

Among the 50 states, the average firearm homicide rate decreased from 5.2 per 100000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100000 in 2010. By decade, this rate was 4.2 per 100000 in 1981 to 1990, 4.3 per 100000 in 1991 to 2000, and 3.4 per 100000 in 2001 to 2010.

Among the 50 states, the average percentage of gun ownership (measured by the FS/S proxy) decreased from 60.6% in 1981 to 51.7% in 2010. By decade, this percentage declined from 60.6% in 1981 to 1990 to 59.6% in 1991 to 2000 to 52.8% in 2001 to 2010.
 
2014-02-13 07:42:29 PM  

coeyagi: The point that I am obviously making.


the point you seem to be making is that you really don't care about the veracity of claims as long as they snugly fit your politics
 
2014-02-13 07:42:30 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...


Done in one, really, and I don't like defending Republicans because of how insane they've become. There's a reason your typical grunt isn't issued a handy 100-round mag.

iirc, it jammed after about 60 rounds, and the vast majority of injuries and deaths were from the AR. If that's the case, then he might well have done half again as much damage with 30-round mags or even the 20-round box mag most of them come with.
 
2014-02-13 07:43:04 PM  

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
 
2014-02-13 07:44:52 PM  

spawn73: Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting#cite_note-DailyExp re ss-M.26P15-12

55 apparently. So he managed to get 45 rounds out of his crappy magazine.

I mean, imagine if he had brought 4+ 15 round ones, it would have been much worse!

/though actually, he also brought a Glock, which he then started using instead.


If you follow the links, there is no source credited with that number. I live in Denver and have followed this case closely, they have never given us an official number.  Not that it ultimately matters.
 
2014-02-13 07:45:05 PM  

sprawl15: coeyagi: The point that I am obviously making.

the point you seem to be making is that you really don't care about the veracity of claims as long as they snugly fit your politics


So you are disagreeing that our gun violence is much higher here than most of the first world nations?  I agreed to your point, why don't you just agree with the obvious?  Is reality that disagreeable to you?  Sorry, man.
 
2014-02-13 07:46:22 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:47:24 PM  

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.


I love this.  I get to be the kid whose heads rolls back and forth, watching the parents fight.
 
2014-02-13 07:48:43 PM  
coeyagi:
And that my friend, is truly the world I want to live in.  Gotta remember to carry the gun everywhere I go in case some asshole is also carrying one.

I wished I lived in a magical fantasy world too. One with unicorns.

Why don't we see if we can find a better solution?

Well, as I've said previously, my preferred solution is multi-point, and includes ending the Drug War, reforming our justice/prison system entirely, ending the vast economical/income inequality, providing free healthcare (mental and otherwise) , and so on.

  I know you know in your brain that it's not the best idea, it's just the EASIEST one.

You obviously don't know anything going on in my head.

So, let's go walk through the Fortress of Solitude - you can be the Kal-el to my Jor-el, and perhaps we can find the answers.... together.

I'd rather not be a wanna-be messiah using hideous racist ideology to justify genocide and soft tyranny. driven by a delusional traitor with delusions of godhood. (Man of Steel displays a really twisted picture.)
 
2014-02-13 07:48:57 PM  

coeyagi: 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.

I love this.  I get to be the kid whose head rolls back and forth, watching the parents fight.


FTFM - one head
 
2014-02-13 07:50:34 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?


THiS is where the thread ended.
 
2014-02-13 07:51:59 PM  

BayouOtter: coeyagi:
And that my friend, is truly the world I want to live in.  Gotta remember to carry the gun everywhere I go in case some asshole is also carrying one.

I wished I lived in a magical fantasy world too. One with unicorns.

Why don't we see if we can find a better solution?

Well, as I've said previously, my preferred solution is multi-point, and includes ending the Drug War, reforming our justice/prison system entirely, ending the vast economical/income inequality, providing free healthcare (mental and otherwise) , and so on.

  I know you know in your brain that it's not the best idea, it's just the EASIEST one.

You obviously don't know anything going on in my head.

So, let's go walk through the Fortress of Solitude - you can be the Kal-el to my Jor-el, and perhaps we can find the answers.... together.

I'd rather not be a wanna-be messiah using hideous racist ideology to justify genocide and soft tyranny. driven by a delusional traitor with delusions of godhood. (Man of Steel displays a really twisted picture.)


Well, you fail on all counts if you think I was referring to the Snyder Superman rather than the Donner one.  Fo' shame.

Anyway, I am just curious though, why do most people on both sides continue to fight the silly fight of gun control vs. gun rights?  It is absolutely pointless, a waste of time.  I agree with you about those things. That is not the magical fantasy land, that is the god damn holy grail to cracking this thing.  And yet, people look at it as too complex?  Come on Kal-el, remember when we used to be a nation of big ideas, not silly knee-jerk reactions?
 
2014-02-13 07:52:25 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-13 07:52:56 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?

THiS is where the thread ended.


To be fair to the "enthusiasts", I don't think this wingnut speaks for all of them.  That's Wayne's job!
 
2014-02-13 07:54:32 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:56:42 PM  
coeyagi:
Well, you fail on all counts if you think I was referring to the Snyder Superman rather than the Donner one.  Fo' shame.

I've never been a fan of Superman. Sorry.

Come on Kal-el, remember when we used to be a nation of big ideas, not silly knee-jerk reactions?
 
Stop calling me that, please.
 
2014-02-13 07:56:44 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 07:57:42 PM  

Burning_Monk: Both have gone down.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?p re vSearch=&searchHistoryKey=&;


there's a couple of things about that study's methodology that bother me

the fs/s method has always struck me as incredibly sloppy, especially when using a .1 significance wald test on something that isn't a random draw

that's exacerbated by their decision to start with the beginning of the whole crack outbreak (dataset beginning in 1981), and they decided to not include numbers in DC for some reason.

i do vaguely remember that in one of the tables they said something like for every 1% additional black population there's 5% more gun murders but i'd have to find a copy of it that isn't locked behind a paywall to back that up. it's a weird, weird study (in no small part because the nra are cocks and refuse to let any meaningful data be collected)
 
2014-02-13 07:57:42 PM  

sprawl15: spawn73: USA has less gun violence?

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


Eh yeah, but that wasn't what I was quoting now was it?

USA has less gun violence than UK?

---

The crime rate in USA is decreasing overall. Maybe someone believes this is due to the higher number of guns around, I think its because of the lower number of pirates of the coast in Somalia.

Though, its also fascinating that whilst the general crimerate is down, the prison population keeps rising. I guess that must be because all the criminals are in jail. ;)
 
2014-02-13 07:59:52 PM  

sigdiamond2000: hillbillypharmacist: Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.

A man could combine his gymnastic pommel horse ability with ninjitsu and become virtually unstoppable.

[static.tvtropes.org image 310x229]


Gymkata was the best movie ever!
 
2014-02-13 07:59:58 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 08:00:59 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 08:01:17 PM  

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

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

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

These threads are such a waste.


Because you've put everyone who's bothered arguing with you on ignore and the response from just about everybody who reads these threads, and your tired bullsh*t has been to ignore you too, mister echo chamber. I know, I'm on ignore.
 
2014-02-13 08:02:11 PM  

spawn73: Eh yeah, but that wasn't what I was quoting now was it?


you interjected yourself into a conversation where sugar_fetus was arguing that the gun crime within the us has gone down over the last few years, against urukhaiguyz who was arguing that internationally there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun crime

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
 
2014-02-13 08:04:30 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-13 08:05:11 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


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.
 
2014-02-13 08:06:11 PM  

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
 
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 :(
 
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.

I live with my mom.  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.

I live with my mom.  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.
 
2014-02-14 02:26:35 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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 ...


Farking hell no one reads.  I already got accused of all the same shiat you just said and answered every bit of it.  It didn't really take that long to read the entire thread and you can't read up a few posts.  I don't know why I bother.

The only thing I will be retyping AGAIN is that I am a farking Liberal, so quit trying that shiat.  Being anti-firearm has NOTHING IN HELL TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL.  The policy is not remotely rooted in Liberal thinking at all.  It just happens to be an opinion shared by many.  Not all Liberals are going to agree with you on this.

Fark this I am going to bed like I should have hours ago instead of answering the same farking questions over and over and over to be ignored and misquoted over and over and over.  Hell maybe you are doing it on purpose.  I find it hard to believe your are arguing in good faith.  Whatever I am out.  Have fun with your sense of self superiority.
 
2014-02-14 02:39:59 AM  

bk3k: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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 ...


Let me clue you in:
I am not anti-firearm. I go the range regularly.
I am not for confiscating firearms, except from felons and the mentally ill (and only while they are mentally incapacitated).
Also, as a percentage of the population, there has been a decrease in armed citizenry over the last twenty years. Your hypothesis is based on empirically false premises, which I've told you more than once.
I am very much in favor of having a population that is skilled, trained, and regularly qualified to use firearms, criminals and the mentally ill excepted.
You're the one who couldn't be bothered with facts - didn't even read "more than a sentence".
 
2014-02-14 03:37:21 AM  
I love it when people use the "good guy with a gun" nonsense line when it comes to the Aurora shooting, given that the theater it took place in is right across the street from the police station. The lack of blogger patriots creating deadly crossfire combined with the nearly instant police response just might explain why only 12 people died in that gallery of sitting ducks.

At least this particular scumbag politician has an appropriate name

/had it easy, a floor seat with plenty of room to get the hell out of eyesight and stay invisible
//Holmes went after the people who had to descend stairs after shooting the guy two seats to my right in the head
///Seriously, politicizing a smoke filled massacre in a darkened theater is farking stupid
 
2014-02-14 03:59:02 AM  
I just want to know who taught all these assholes that verbal tic where they need to cite a rising spread of numbers. That whole "what if he had four, five, six smaller mags?" Seen it done for timescales, too, such as "what about twenty, fifty, hundred years later?" Pisses me off. Pick a number, assholes...
 
2014-02-14 04:00:37 AM  
Cars have the ability to hurt others because of physics. So do bullets. Cars require a license, insurance, and registration. Why exempt bullets? I can't knife or hammer or circular saw my way into mass murder (unless said melee device slipped out of my hands).

Quit being scared little nancys about your rights and accept some regulation for the benefit of the team. Besides, none of you bad asses will ever shoot at an LEO or soldier in response to your perceived loss of second amendment rights so get over yourselves. You'll gladly buy a fishing license from walmart to land monster carp at you local river, creek, or pond. You'll even buy turkey and or deer tags. So why the push back? Most of you don't have the knowledge or wherewithal to fight perceived grievances against your rooftop voting rights to begin with.

Quit being a biatch about your guns and take some responsibility. It will never be an all or nothing proposition.
 
2014-02-14 04:42:36 AM  
I think both sides are missing the point on this one. Regulating magazine sizes and the appearance of weapons only accounts for a small part of the damage they can do.

If you've ever fired a semiautomatic pistol, you know that even a deranged person can swap magazines in less than 2 seconds with little practice.

These laws simply don't do a lot to address the problem. It's actually a very difficult problem.
 
2014-02-14 06:08:44 AM  

Animatronik: Regulating magazine sizes and the appearance of weapons is retarded and has failed multiple times in history.



I agree.
 
2014-02-14 06:53:32 AM  

Animatronik: These laws simply don't do a lot to address the problem. It's actually a very difficult problem.


That's actually the point; these laws don't address the problem, which is why I oppose them.  Just like I'd oppose any regulation that I see as failing at it's core purpose.

Fista-Phobia: Quit being a biatch about your guns and take some responsibility. It will never be an all or nothing proposition.


Are you familiar with the pie argument?  You're arguing for another slice of MY pie as compromise.  We've already been put under a lot of regulation, much of it nonsensical.

Cars don't need to be registered or insured and you don't need a license for driving them if you're not going to be driving one on public roads.  So you really need to come up with a better analogy.  Because the equivalent of driver's licenses would be concealed carry permits.  Fishing isn't a firearm issue, but it's the same deal with hunting - we recognize that we're harvesting a public resource(if renewable) and the tag system helps preserve said resource for future use.

All we really ask is that any regulations actually do what they're being proposed for - and those of us that know firearms see the vast majority of the proposals as not just violating the 2nd amendment and infringing on our rights, but also being ineffective at what they're arguing at.

AR-15 style rifles have indeed been used in a number of very public shootings.  But the common handgun still dwarfs those killings by over an order of magnitude.  More people are killed by knives than ALL rifles.  More people are killed without weapons(IE 'bare hands and feet') than with rifles, much less the 'assault weapon' subset.

Fix the violence issue and the gun violence issue will also be resolved.  Fix the gun violence issue and you still have a violence issue, which is why you see proposals over in England to ban kitchen knives.
 
2014-02-14 08:14:28 AM  

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

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

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


Does "stand your ground" ring a bell?
 
2014-02-14 09:27:50 AM  

Firethorn: AR-15 style rifles have indeed been used in a number of very public shootings. But the common handgun still dwarfs those killings by over an order of magnitude. More people are killed by knives than ALL rifles. More people are killed without weapons(IE 'bare hands and feet') than with rifles, much less the 'assault weapon' subset.


The goal isn't to stop murder, the goal is to reduce murder and mass killings.

Firethorn: Fix the violence issue and the gun violence issue will also be resolved. Fix the gun violence issue and you still have a violence issue, which is why you see proposals over in England to ban kitchen knives.


Right, a common retort seems to be if you take away guns, then killers will just find another method.  For perspective, at the same time Sandy Hook elementary was being shot up and kids were being killed, a guy went on a knife rampage through a school in China.  22 in total were stabbed.  Guess how many died?
 
2014-02-14 09:28:41 AM  

Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?


According to the below article - over 70 rounds had been fired.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4781460
 
2014-02-14 10:33:23 AM  
lennavan:
Right, a common retort seems to be if you take away guns, then killers will just find another method.  For perspective, at the same time Sandy Hook elementary was being shot up and kids were being killed, a guy went on a knife rampage through a school in China.  22 in total were stabbed.  Guess how many died?

Since you're smugly boasting, I'll guess zero died in that particular school attack? I'll assume you mean the Chenpeng province school slashing, but knife-based school attacks aren't sunshine and rainbows.
The Nanping school massacre in 2010 had 8 children killed, and a month later in Fujian 16 students and one teacher were stabbed, days later at Zhongxin Kindergarten 28 students were stabbed (most under 4 years old), then a month later in Hanzhong Kindergarten 7 kids were killed and 2 adults.
In August  3 were slashed to death, and 20 more injured at a kindergarten in Shibo. Information is spotty around this time as the Chinese government began to censor news reports out of embarrassment and a desire to halt sensationalizing the events, which can incite copycat crimes.

Instead of blaming knives, box cutters, and cleavers, however, the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao had this to say: "China needed to handle social problems, resolve disputes and strengthen mediation at the grassroots level".

Lets talk more about China, though, since you're fixated on it.

Meanwhile, in 2013 in China,  47 were killed on a bus when a disgruntled and dissatisfied Chen Shuizong lit it on fire.   Its a pretty popular way to kill people, for example, back in 2009 somebody else in the same town killed 27 people the same way. In that same year, a steelworker further to the north set a shuttle bus on fire and that killed 24 people. Ignoring buses, in 2010 over there a drunken angry construction worker went on a rampage with his shovel loader and killed 17 people.

Go a bit East and you'll find Kim Dae-han, a 56-year old partially paralyzed retired cab driver, living in Daegu, South Korea. One fine day in February of 2003 he got up and walked to the subway carrying two milk jugs of gasoline or paint thinner, and a lighter. Angry and upset over his medical issues, frustrated and unhappy with the world, he took out his feelings through arson. By the end of the event, 198 people were killed, 147 were injured.

Compare and contrast with the Long Island Railroad Massacre of 93, where Colin Ferguson killed 6 and wounded 19.

How is your perspective now?
 
2014-02-14 10:41:42 AM  

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


Yes! I swapped out the 40 S&W barrel in my Glock 27 for a $99 Lone Wolf 9mm barrel.  Drop-in replacement, takes literally a few minutes with no tools.  Much more controllable for follow-up shots.  I used it for my CCW range qualification, and it's extremely accurate for a CCW piece.

I used to argue the merits of 9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP but the reality is if you need to fire in self-defense, you're likely going to need to fire more than once, and the 40 S&W in a pocket pistol is just too whippy.
 
2014-02-14 10:45:07 AM  
Harris and Klebold had a couple of propane bombs that didn't go off that the sheriff claimed could have killed more than their guns did. Maybe without guns, they would have put more care into the bombs.

Of course, bombs aren't perfect substitutes for guns either, but one of the cautions in all this is that gun control advocates make a shiatload of assumptions about the relative effectiveness of different platforms, and most of those assumptions lack empiricism and, in fact, are directly contradicted by it.
 
2014-02-14 10:47:35 AM  

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

Yes! I swapped out the 40 S&W barrel in my Glock 27 for a $99 Lone Wolf 9mm barrel.  Drop-in replacement, takes literally a few minutes with no tools.  Much more controllable for follow-up shots.  I used it for my CCW range qualification, and it's extremely accurate for a CCW piece.

I used to argue the merits of 9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP but the reality is if you need to fire in self-defense, you're likely going to need to fire more than once, and the 40 S&W in a pocket pistol is just too whippy.


The perfect is the enemy of the good enough. Time spent fretting over precisely which model, capacity, caliber, and weight of gun is far better spent on the range perfecting draw-and-shoot. I'd rather be perfect in my actions with a .22 or 10mm or .50 or any other suboptimal round than clumsy with whatever conventional wisdom holds is the best gun to have.
 
2014-02-14 10:51:22 AM  

BayouOtter: How is your perspective now?


I always feel like busting out that kind of list is detrimental to your argument. Showing that people want to kill each other everywhere is not an argument I'd use to increase availability of and access to guns.
If you're going to win, you have to convince the anti-gun crowd that gun owners are responsible with their firearms or that firearms are only available to responsible people, but the usual "Nuh uh, I totally am. Don't trample MY rights you pants wetter." isn't that convincing.
 
2014-02-14 10:52:09 AM  

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

Yes! I swapped out the 40 S&W barrel in my Glock 27 for a $99 Lone Wolf 9mm barrel.  Drop-in replacement, takes literally a few minutes with no tools.  Much more controllable for follow-up shots.  I used it for my CCW range qualification, and it's extremely accurate for a CCW piece.

I used to argue the merits of 9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP but the reality is if you need to fire in self-defense, you're likely going to need to fire more than once, and the 40 S&W in a pocket pistol is just too whippy.


In a pocket pistol, yes, .40 is probably too powerful. But in a full sized handgun, .40 isn't all that much more snappy than 9mm. Especially if you have the right handgun. My CZ has much less perceived recoil than many 9mm I have fired. Has a lot to do with the design. I compete with a .40 and the rest of the people in my "class" have 9mm. I am just as accurate on followup shots as they are.

Gun design, training and proper handling are the key, not calibre.
 
2014-02-14 11:01:48 AM  

BayouOtter: Since you're smugly boasting, I'll guess zero died in that particular school attack?


That'd be a correct.  Zero.  That guy killed 0 out of 22 stabbed.

BayouOtter: later at Zhongxin Kindergarten 28 students were stabbed (most under 4 years old)


How many of them died?  A violent guy goes on a rampage at an elementary school with a knife.  How many died?  Zero.  That guy killed 0 out of 28 stabbed.

BayouOtter: month later in Hanzhong Kindergarten 7 kids were killed and 2 adults.


27 kids were stabbed in that.  That guy killed 7 out of 27 stabbed.

BayouOtter: In August 3 were slashed to death, and 20 more injured at a kindergarten in Shibo


So he killed 3 out of 23?

Let's take a look at some gun related events:

With a gun, at Virginia Tech, 32 killed out of 49 shot.
With a gun, at Sandy Hook Elementary 26 killed out of 28 shot. 
With a gun, at a movie theater in Colorado, 12 killed out of 70 shot. 
With a gun, at the Navy Yard, 12 killed out of 15 shot.
With a gun, at Fort Hood, 13 killed out of 45 shot.

I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives.  But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?

This should not be a shocking development for you - guns make it easier to kill people.  I hope you were sitting down for that.
 
2014-02-14 11:06:34 AM  
Why do some assume the ONLY goal is killing people, and that these killers don't want to specifically SHOOT people?  If there are other, more efficient means of killing mass amounts of people, and they're just as easy, WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THAT?

Maybe because:

1) It's not as easy as just buying a gun, walking in an unlocked door and opening fire
2) The specific act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger has its own appeal


This is the dirty little secret you all want to hide, even as you trumpet your own LOVE OF SHOOTING.
 
2014-02-14 11:22:44 AM  

lennavan: I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives.  But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?


I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, but I guess you don't care at all about children being mutilated, do you? There is this weird thing you have where you want to reduce harm, but just a little and only for guns - if they live through the attack you don't care that they may be blind or paralyzed, just that a gun didn't kill them. You are so focused on the tool used that you completely ignore the person at the center of it, even when addressing the problem of that person would eliminate the harm entirely- why are you so avoidant? Do you have some kind of anti-social personality disorder?

This should not be a shocking development for you - guns make it easier to kill people.  I hope you were sitting down for that.

Arson, bombs and crashes make it even easier - note how in my examples from that previous post that a trip to the gas station for gas and a lighter was all it took to kill far more people than your shooting examples. I know you'll ignore that though.

Oh, speaking of China again, poisoning.  Cheng Zhengping was pretty upset that his competitor's snack shop was doing better, so he slyly spiked their food with rat poison. At least 42 people were killed, though its possible the government suppressed a higher count, and over 300 people fell ill. A majority of the victims where schoolchildren.
 
2014-02-14 11:28:12 AM  

lordjupiter: Why do some assume the ONLY goal is killing people, and that these killers don't want to specifically SHOOT people?  If there are other, more efficient means of killing mass amounts of people, and they're just as easy, WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THAT?

Maybe because:

1) It's not as easy as just buying a gun, walking in an unlocked door and opening fire


Its easier, actually. All you need is a jug of gasoline and a lighter, and you could kill far more people pretty easily, as has been amply demonstrated.

2) The specific act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger has its own appeal

This is probably it. There is a certain psychological appeal for those sorts which thankfully looses its shine pretty quickly. Haven't you noticed how most shooters sort of give up and go through the motions near the end, letting people go and finally taking their own lives? Execution is exhausting.

Unlike arson, which is more like a certain cooking product, just set it and forget it!

This is the dirty little secret you all want to hide, even as you trumpet your own LOVE OF SHOOTING.

Okay, so you want to get rid of guns, so we force these fruit-loops to use more efficient means to kill people? Is that your plan? Because frankly, that is retarded.

Can I propose a different plan, where we take all that gun-ban money and instead try to identify and help these people before they try to kill people? You know, prevent the harm from ever happening instead of making it worse?
 
2014-02-14 11:30:25 AM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Why do some assume the ONLY goal is killing people, and that these killers don't want to specifically SHOOT people?  If there are other, more efficient means of killing mass amounts of people, and they're just as easy, WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THAT?

Maybe because:

1) It's not as easy as just buying a gun, walking in an unlocked door and opening fire

Its easier, actually. All you need is a jug of gasoline and a lighter, and you could kill far more people pretty easily, as has been amply demonstrated.

2) The specific act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger has its own appeal

This is probably it. There is a certain psychological appeal for those sorts which thankfully looses its shine pretty quickly. Haven't you noticed how most shooters sort of give up and go through the motions near the end, letting people go and finally taking their own lives? Execution is exhausting.

Unlike arson, which is more like a certain cooking product, just set it and forget it!

This is the dirty little secret you all want to hide, even as you trumpet your own LOVE OF SHOOTING.

Okay, so you want to get rid of guns, so we force these fruit-loops to use more efficient means to kill people? Is that your plan? Because frankly, that is retarded.

Can I propose a different plan, where we take all that gun-ban money and instead try to identify and help these people before they try to kill people? You know, prevent the harm from ever happening instead of making it worse?



Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.
 
2014-02-14 11:34:53 AM  

lordjupiter: Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.


So despite your own evidence of how much death and mayhem is caused by guns, you're not in favor of a ban? What kind of monster ARE you?
 
2014-02-14 11:37:15 AM  
lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.
 
2014-02-14 11:48:28 AM  
Trying to reduce homicides by focusing on scary AR-15 clones is like trying to reduce travel fatalities by focusing on airline crashes.
 
2014-02-14 11:50:32 AM  

syrynxx: Trying to reduce homicides by focusing on scary AR-15 clones is like trying to reduce travel fatalities by focusing on airline crashes.


We should ban 747s. The worst crash in aviation history involved 747s.
 
2014-02-14 11:59:01 AM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.



The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.

But since you asked, here are some of my thoughts on guns:

I've been saying all along that this "mental health" solution is never going to fly, and the gun fanatics will stonewall it before it goes far enough to make a difference, once they find out that THEY are not exempt from the scrutiny, restrictions and information gathering/sharing. That doesn't even mention the question of who controls all of this (government intrusion into their own mental health, and analysis of their behavior/medicine) and who pays for it. It was a distraction from the guns themselves all along.

There are just too many variables and too many paranoid people to allow the vagueries of medical diagnosis and the healthcare system to determine who can have guns (or even be AROUND them) and who can't. Crackpots will start suing, insurance premiums will go up, and so forth. As soon as PTSD veterans start getting denied guns, exemptions will be discussed and there will be no way to reconcile veteran favoritism with this "mental health" approach
.
Then there are the police. What happens if a cop is stressed out from work or is put on leave for some incident, like shooting someone? Is he stripped of all the guns he owns personally?

This has not been thought through at all by the gun lobby, or else they just never intended to go along in the first place and are kicking the can down the road again, waiting for the next election, knowing that they can use their influence to block anything meaningful and then mount constant challenges in the courts in the unlikely chance anything ever does get passed.

I'm "pro-gun" but anti-gun-nut. I believe we have a right to a reasonable type of arms, in reasonable quantities, with reasonable restrictions. If you don't like "who decides" what reasonable means, maybe look at that same Constitution that has the 2nd Amendment for the answer, because all the details about how we make and review laws and Amendments are there.

"Gun free zones" are often a response to an area being especially sensitive to gun violence, or especially prone to it. Increasing the amount of guns in such a zone, like a school, is only adding to the problem by sheer weight of numbers and, again, human nature. Even articles on cops in school cite a "prison environment" with children being tasered and even shot.

The "polite society" thing is a myth created by the gun lobby with biased statistical studies by gun advocates. I've even had people use similar products of "blog fog" to claim that the "wild west" was safer than society today. But when you look at actual numbers and not some misinterpretation of data published in Cracked magazine, you see that the exact opposite is true. These are the kinds of misconceptions that the gun nuts hold, but believe are proven facts.

There are dozens of reasons why arming teachers is asinine, so here's a few...

The first and most obvious is that if trained cops are still prone to shooting kids, what do you think is going to happen when educators (who many to the right of center despise anyway) are armed and expected to make snap decisions that even cops screw up? Peoples' Rambo fantasies are not reality. If you've studied the issue at all, beyond reading stories of people shooting unarmed or knife-wielding burglars on gunssavelives.com, you'd know that perception and cognition during such fast-moving events is shaky at best. The last thing we need is more Amadou Diallo style shootings--especially in a school--where someone who is unarmed is believed to have a gun because of the expectations or misperceptions of the shooter.

And who pays for the teacher training, and the guns? What happens to the insurance for teachers and the school system with the possibility of lawsuits resulting from wrongful death or injury cases? How easy would it be for an unarmed teenager to go through a metal detector at the front door, then sucker punch a 60 year old lady and take her gun away? Hell, a few teens could even ambush and overpower the strongest male teacher you want to put out there, and take his gun. With the volatility of teenagers, how is that making the situation any better??

And what happens if you totally lock down a school and, let's just say, everyone is armed and the place is a fortress. Then what? Then you have these types of attacks likely shifting to the SCHOOL BUS or the BUS STOP. Then what? Do you arm bus drivers, and post cops at every bus stop? Conscript parents and arm them, and put them at every stop, just in case some OTHER armed citizen shows up? How is that a better solution than working to get the guns OUT of the picture as much as possible??

You're damn right that's wingnuttery. It's practically the DEFINITION of it. Wingnuts exist on either end of the spectrum (there are lefty wingnuts of course) but I can't think of a more extreme position on guns than arming teachers, except maybe arming kids. So if that isn't wingnuttery, then what is?

I don't care if you don't like namecalling or emotion. Dead children are dead children regardless of YOUR feelings, unfortunately. This is not all about you. And you can go the usual route of complaining about "emotional responses" or "using the tragedy", but the NRA and people like them have systematically pushed back the discussion every time something like this happens, with the "this is not the time" defense mechanism. For them, there's NEVER a time.

The truth of the matter is that our brains are neurologically wired to process both logical and emotional data when forming our identities, preferences, and opinions even on the deepest level. When the mechanisms for regulating that balance are damaged (such as the orbitofrontal cortex) we can no longer make decisions because our emotional side that helps create our values is removed from our analytical side.  Some kind of emotion backs everything normal humans do, whether they realize it consciously or not. This is not just theory, it's how the brain works.

What the gun lobby REALLY wants is for nothing to get done about the problem, so they bullshiat everyone for a few weeks until the news cycle shifts to something else. That includes pretending that everyone who has an opinion apart from the gun extremists is somehow a hyperemotional dumbass...as if it's a brand new issue nobody has ever considered before, and as if there is no emotion in the fear of one's neighbor or the government that LEADS to arming oneself to the teeth and advocating that all of society be armed as well.

I wonder, as someone mentioned to me, would the same people like it if George Soros gave Bushmasters and Glocks to every liberal and minority in this country? What would they say and do then?

The 2nd says "State", singular, and does not specify what "arms" or exactly how many. So I say give them all one musket and one flintlock pistol and send them to Texas, where they can conceal carry all they want by the light of oil lamps and Franklin stoves.

Just because you can't fully stop ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE ABUSE with prohibition doesn't mean better gun regulation isn't needed.  Throwing one's hands in the air and saying nothing will ever work is defeatist sabotage of the issue.  Since we can never fully eradicate terrorism or WMDs, should we stop trying?

This conversation needs to start taking place among those who can change the laws, without b.s. excuses being made about guns being something other than what they are.

What if all the shootings in the country were liberals killing conservatives....would the historical murder rate still be considered low and acceptable?

Or, is it more sane to consider the details behind the numbers???

What if 1 person died per year from gunshots.  Only one.  Would that be ok, since the number is so low, even if it was the person you love the most?

Back to mental health...

Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else?  fark no.

That's just another scapegoat and bullshiat non-solution they never intend to implement.  They will fight it in the courts, and claim the 2nd requires no such provision.  They KNOW this will never work, and they will never go along with it at a nationally organized or individual level.  The only reason it even sounds good right now is because they just want to make the issue go away for now, and blaming crazy people is a better alternative to looking at the gun problem.

What's the cut-off for "too crazy to own guns"?  Does that mean the government accesses your medical records and tests your sanity?  That they can force mental health care on you if you already own a gun, or can take your gun away if you're on certain medications?  What are those medications?  Will they allow you to be around your own guns if, say, you're recovering from surgery and on some pills that make you loopy for a while?  And if guns are out there and the health care issues don't work, then what?  Institutionalization for all people who can't be trusted around guns, just so Gun Derper can fantasize about blasting hippies and minorities creeping through his window?

Who pays for all that shiat? You have nearly half the country going bananas over some imagined "death panels" in Obamacare, and you want to tie the 2nd Amendment to all of this healthcare crap on top of it? No farking way they will ever go along with it.

Total bullshiat.  The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

 Let's extend the "bat/car/hammer=gun" type of reductionist logic to it's inevitable conclusion.  All killings are equally bad, and all items used in killings are equally bad.  Yet nearly everything in existence has been linked to death in some way.  Therefore, there is no difference in regulating any one thing vs another.  Our choices, then, are to regulate everything, or to regulate nothing.  Ban everything, or anarchy.   Right?
 
2014-02-14 12:06:51 PM  

BayouOtter: lennavan: I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives. But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?

I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, but I guess you don't care at all about children being mutilated


I don't understand why you'd prefer children to die.  WTF is wrong with you?

BayouOtter: if they live through the attack you don't care that they may be blind or paralyzed, just that a gun didn't kill them.


Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?  A kid being stabbed might be blind, so who cares if they die?  I mean, I've encountered some gun nuts but holy shiat do you ever love your guns.  It's farking sick dude, just farking sick.
 
2014-02-14 12:20:49 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.

The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.


Alright, first I don't care much for the shrill cries of 'lying NRA shill!' you keep screaming just because I disagree with you. In addition, you've got this weird hypocritical thing where your only response is to dismiss everything by calling it deflection. Do you not see how weird this is?

"Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws. "
"Okay, lets discuss changes to gun laws. What ideas do you have? How would they work?"
"This is a bullshiat delaying tactic! The old 'lets talk about a plan' deflection!"

Then you go off on this long rambling screed where you erect big strawmen and then set them ablaze while doing the posting equivalent of foaming at the mouth about 'emotion' and 'evil NRA'. Not once do you actually propose any specific or general legislative change beyond (and I am being generous) an extremely vague 'ban murder-resources or make them harder to get' idea, for which you propose no method of accomplishing.

You come of as being very unhinged and unresponsive. One might even suspect that your entire post was formulated with the express intent of delaying a discussion of your proposed changes to our laws, or deflecting from the issue entirely.

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?
 
2014-02-14 12:24:26 PM  

lennavan: BayouOtter: lennavan: I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives. But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?

I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, but I guess you don't care at all about children being mutilated

I don't understand why you'd prefer children to die.  WTF is wrong with you?


I know you have trouble reading, let me try quoting my post.

I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, (because I don't want children to be murdered or mutilated)
 
2014-02-14 12:25:12 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.

The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.

Alright, first I don't care much for the shrill cries of 'lying NRA shill!' you keep screaming just because I disagree with you. In addition, you've got this weird hypocritical thing where your only response is to dismiss everything by calling it deflection. Do you not see how weird this is?

"Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws. "
"Okay, lets discuss changes to gun laws. What ideas do you have? How would they work?"
"This is a bullshiat delaying tactic! The old 'lets talk about a plan' deflection!"

Then you go off on this long rambling screed where you erect big strawmen and then set them ablaze while doing the posting equivalent of foaming at the mouth about 'emotion' and 'evil NRA'. Not once do you actually propose any specific or general legislative change beyond (and I am being generous) an extremely vague 'ban murder-resources or make them harder to get' idea, for which you propose no method of accomplishing.

You come of as being very unhinged and unresponsive. One might even suspect that your entire post was formulated with the express intent of delaying a discussion of your proposed changes to our laws, or deflecting from the issue entirely.

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?



Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.
 
2014-02-14 12:28:16 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter:

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?

Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.


Well, this is a start. How will you remove 'people like me'? Remove voting rights from anyone that disagrees with you? Round them up into camps? Murder?

Alright, after you've eliminated all your political rivals, what is step two? What laws do you pass or alter?

What legislative proposals do you propose?
 
2014-02-14 01:00:43 PM  

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

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

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



That sissy gun ain't nothin'

Check out MY zombie gun

www.evike.com


nothing says tactical like a spork
 
2014-02-14 01:08:17 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter:

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?

Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.

Well, this is a start. How will you remove 'people like me'? Remove voting rights from anyone that disagrees with you? Round them up into camps? Murder?

Alright, after you've eliminated all your political rivals, what is step two? What laws do you pass or alter?

What legislative proposals do you propose?



I don't propose any because I'm not a legislator.  And if you'd read my response you'd already know that, along with a heck of a lot more useful information about what I think we can and can't do.  But you keep grandstanding on that specific legislation "what's your plan in full detail" angle as if we're negotiating, and as if it means something.  It's what you're paid to do, right?
 
2014-02-14 01:25:39 PM  
Boy I missed some fun in this thread overnight.

My new favorite derper boy-

bk3k: 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?


I love when they break this out. Since I ignore someone who literally doesn't understand logical fallacies and is an obvious shill, they immediately create the strawman that I only listen to people with similar opinion as myself. You know, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary in various topics on fark ranging from gun control, to self defense (GZ vs TM), and NSA spying.

But here's the most ironic part....

bk3k: 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.


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?

This guy himself doesn't understand correlation and causation, and due to his own ignorance, simply determines himself to be correct, everyone else to be wrong, and projects his own mental limitations on his opponents.

It would be sad if it wasn't so hilarious. Again I repeat, please don't wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. When others are calling you stupid, you should probably just consider that maybe you are, and that maybe what seems like a really insightful observation might be fundamentally flawed, and that, in fact, you aren't nearly as smart as you pretend to be.

Your ignorance isn't as good as my knowledge, and it never will be. Go and find my post with multiple citations on gun crime, and when you have equal citations that refute those, I'll begin to treat you like an adult.
 
2014-02-14 02:11:06 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter:

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?

Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.

Well, this is a start. How will you remove 'people like me'? Remove voting rights from anyone that disagrees with you? Round them up into camps? Murder?

Alright, after you've eliminated all your political rivals, what is step two? What laws do you pass or alter?

What legislative proposals do you propose?


I don't propose any because I'm not a legislator.


Sounds like you're trying to deflect and delay a discussion about what can be done to curtail mass shootings, bub.

But you keep grandstanding on that specific legislation "what's your plan in full detail" angle as if we're negotiating, and as if it means something.  It's what you're paid to do, right?

Well, I never asked for 'full detail' and I'd be satisfied with some pretty basic proposal ideas from you beyond the "first 'remove' all people that don't share my opinion'".

Here, I'll lead by example.

Some good legislative ideas of mine:
1. Additional funding and guidance should be provided to the states in order to bring their reporting systems in-line with the requirements of NICS. The states should be motivated, guided, and funded to ensure that those found ineligible to purchase firearms due to criminality or mental adjudication by state authorities be properly reported and prevented from purchasing firearms. (Such a gap in reporting allowed Cho, the VT shooter, to obtain his weapons.)
2. Efforts should be made to open access to the NICS for private citizens, so that those selling their guns can ensure that their prospective buyer is not a prohibited person. Privacy entanglements will complicate this, but in the modern age it should be possible for any private seller to call a 1-800 number and be confident he's not providing a criminal with arms.
3. Alternatively or in addition to (2) subsidize or encourage FFLs to perform transfers between private parties, so that background checks are not behind an economic barrier.  (The point, as in (2), is to encourage background checks.)

I could go on, but you'll just deflect and delay, I'm sure.
 
2014-02-14 02:39:49 PM  
Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Learn to read, bub.
 
2014-02-14 02:51:53 PM  

lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.


Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?
 
2014-02-14 03:34:37 PM  

lennavan: The goal isn't to stop murder, the goal is to reduce murder and mass killings.


Shouldn't we have a zero tolerance policy towards murder?  Note zero tolerance in this case means that we'll do our best to haul every murderer into court, investigate every murder, etc...  Nobody gets a free pass on murder.

Still, trying to imply that my realistic goal is to 'stop murder' is close to setting up a straw man.  'Fixing' violence doesn't necessarily mean that the fix is perfect, after all...

Right, a common retort seems to be if you take away guns, then killers will just find another method. For perspective, at the same time Sandy Hook elementary was being shot up and kids were being killed, a guy went on a knife rampage through a school in China. 22 in total were stabbed. Guess how many died?

I'm not worried about knives; I'm worried they'll switch to bombs and/or arson.

lordjupiter: The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the