Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2751  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:08 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I tried- I really tried, everyone- to read and consider ElvisL1ves's response but it's a total non-sequitur
Yes, it's already established that you are psychologically incapable of comprehending such an advanced topic as the existence and rights of others. But congratulations on admitting it; that's the first step in overcoming a problem. Only eleven more to go ...

And we're still waiting for an honest explanation of why you carried a firearm into the Capitol. Hell, you haven't given yourself one, have you?
  #2752  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:48 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, it's already established that you are psychologically incapable of comprehending such an advanced topic as the existence and rights of others. But congratulations on admitting it; that's the first step in overcoming a problem. Only eleven more to go ...

And we're still waiting for an honest explanation of why you carried a firearm into the Capitol. Hell, you haven't given yourself one, have you?
Ok, since this post is at least semi-coherent, I'll give answering it a try:

I carried a firearm into the Capitol primarily to prove a point: that I, as a citizen, felt that carrying is a right; and that I along with all the other pro-gun people there were demonstrating that gun bans are not the overwhelmingly popular measure the gun control advocates claim it is. The fact is that for legislators the bottom line are the votes that will keep them in office, and we sought to disabuse the legislators of the notion that the pro-gun people are a dismissable fringe.

As to the existence and rights of others: I prove that I comprehend them by not treating the rest of humanity as prey that I can feed on at will- unlike numerous inhabitants of my section of town, according to the weekly police reports. And I prove it by NOT acting like a bully and a jerk even though I have a firearm and the majority of people around me probably do not.

So how is anyone supposed to know that I am one of the "good guys"? Primarily by the fact that after carrying a gun for several years, I am not in prison or dead.
  #2753  
Old 08-18-2013, 10:32 AM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So your response is to give them more reason to fear you than vice versa? That's sane?

Here's the same question for you that so often goes unanswered by others: What makes you one of the "good guys"? How can anyone else tell?
Fear can be a strong motivator and it may be the only one available for use in some cases for certain types of people. Whether I actually am or appear objectively bad or good to them or anyone else is irrelevant. The overt indication that I am armed is enough to dissuade most common criminals. The possibility that I may be gives them pause.

Have you ever found yourself approached by a stranger or strangers at night on the street in an empty urban area? A situation to be avoided, for sure, but it happens. I certainly don't advocate shooting people under this type circumstance, but a hand to the hip followed loudly by "that's close enough motherfucker!" Goes a long way towards preventing that violence you so fear in today's reality.
  #2754  
Old 08-18-2013, 11:20 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
Have you ever found yourself approached by a stranger or strangers at night on the street in an empty urban area? A situation to be avoided, for sure, but it happens. I certainly don't advocate shooting people under this type circumstance, but a hand to the hip followed loudly by "that's close enough motherfucker!" Goes a long way towards preventing that violence you so fear in today's reality.
Don't you feel silly when it turns out they are just approaching you to let you know it isn't a good area, and they're wondering if you need directions/car help/whatever?
  #2755  
Old 08-18-2013, 11:38 AM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Don't you feel silly when it turns out they are just approaching you to let you know it isn't a good area, and they're wondering if you need directions/car help/whatever?
Well you never know, because you can tell those types when they scurry off very quickly without saying anything, probably identifying with your type of thinking engendered in the imaginative minds of fearful sheep.

The other type can actually be heard muttering obscenities as they skulk off slowly. That is a real world example of discriminating between the good and the bad you may never understand. Good luck if the day ever comes when reality slaps that right out of you.

Now on your next "what if?" scenario...
  #2756  
Old 08-18-2013, 12:05 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Don't you feel silly when it turns out they are just approaching you to let you know it isn't a good area, and they're wondering if you need directions/car help/whatever?
I feel silly when flying pigs poop on my head, too.
  #2757  
Old 08-18-2013, 12:23 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,117
Quote:
...Well you never know, because you can tell those types when they scurry off very quickly without saying anything, probably identifying with your type of thinking engendered in the imaginative minds of fearful sheep.

The other type can actually be heard muttering obscenities as they skulk off slowly. That is a real world example of discriminating between the good and the bad you may never understand. Good luck if the day ever comes when reality slaps that right out of you.
So, this sort of thing happens to you frequently? And you know what is going on in their minds....how, exactly?

You seem to posit a very rational thought process for the violent criminal, have you examined that idea closely? You ask us to believe that he does a very careful cost/benefit analysis, and, if he realizes that you are likely armed, he will defer his attack to someone less wise in the ways of the world. Have you had a lot of contact with such people, what is the source of your expertise?

Has it occurred to you that your gun makes you a more inviting prospect, rather than less? Because, if you are like most of us hapless victims, you are not carrying a large wad of freely accessible cash. But the gun, now, there is a very saleable item, can be turned into cash rather quickly.

But you have a gun! You can defend yourself! Sure, if they give you fair warning. What if they don't? And why should they? Seems to me that this highly rational criminal/junkie you posit might very well include that question in their cost/benefit analysis, and be quickly drawn to the advantages of surprise and ambush.

Still, it is comforting to know that there is another Tough Guy. What we need more of, more Tough Guys. Humanity and reason have failed us, welcome to Deadwood.

Last edited by elucidator; 08-18-2013 at 12:23 PM.
  #2758  
Old 08-18-2013, 01:08 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
So, this sort of thing happens to you frequently? And you know what is going on in their minds....how, exactly?

You seem to posit a very rational thought process for the violent criminal, have you examined that idea closely? You ask us to believe that he does a very careful cost/benefit analysis, and, if he realizes that you are likely armed, he will defer his attack to someone less wise in the ways of the world. Have you had a lot of contact with such people, what is the source of your expertise?

Has it occurred to you that your gun makes you a more inviting prospect, rather than less? Because, if you are like most of us hapless victims, you are not carrying a large wad of freely accessible cash. But the gun, now, there is a very saleable item, can be turned into cash rather quickly.

But you have a gun! You can defend yourself! Sure, if they give you fair warning. What if they don't? And why should they? Seems to me that this highly rational criminal/junkie you posit might very well include that question in their cost/benefit analysis, and be quickly drawn to the advantages of surprise and ambush.

Still, it is comforting to know that there is another Tough Guy. What we need more of, more Tough Guys. Humanity and reason have failed us, welcome to Deadwood.
You've seen the movies. Black street hoodlums always shuffle up to you with that one expression on their face. You know, where they are looking forward to abusing you?

Then, they always give you plenty of time to draw your weapon, usually listening to your clever quip and calling you a jive turkey muthafucka.
  #2759  
Old 08-18-2013, 01:23 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
acewiza, you're the person I'm talking about when I say that gun advocates are congenitally panty-pissng scared people. You feel threatened doing what other men, women and children don't think twice about doing every day.
  #2760  
Old 08-18-2013, 01:53 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
When's the last time hearing "I'm rubber, you're glue!" convinced you of a point? Gawdamm, boy, this ain't fourth grade no more.
There were two ways you could have handled that.

One would have been "Sorry, I didn't realize I myself was using the bad logic I'm accusing others of. Let's drop that line of reasoning and have a serious conversation."

The other was the one you chose.
  #2761  
Old 08-18-2013, 02:41 PM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Lucy, just FYI, for future reference, I don't answer rhetorical questions couched in assumptions and insinuation. It's a waste of time. Should you feel the need, the ignore button is but a few clicks away...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
acewiza, you're the person I'm talking about when I say that gun advocates are congenitally panty-pissng scared people. You feel threatened doing what other men, women and children don't think twice about doing every day.
I think you have pistol envy.
  #2762  
Old 08-18-2013, 03:25 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
I think you have pistol envy.
I think you have penis envy.
  #2763  
Old 08-18-2013, 03:46 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
There were two ways you could have handled that.
I used the one that was appropriate in response to the statement made, Junior.

If you have a serious point to make, it's about time you made it. At least it's time you thought of one.
  #2764  
Old 08-18-2013, 03:50 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
Fear can be a strong motivator and it may be the only one available for use in some cases for certain types of people.
Your approach, the one you advocate for everyone apparently, is to go into any situation already fearful. That tends to bring pretty negative results, since you have a much lower threshold for acting on your fear, and you have the means to do so as well. If you somehow hold yourself short, you are quite willing, eager in fact, to congratulate yourself for a successful "defensive" gun use.

So, again, what is it that makes you the "good guy"? What would the evidence say to a neutral observer asked to choose which is which?
  #2765  
Old 08-18-2013, 03:57 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I carried a firearm into the Capitol primarily to prove a point: that I, as a citizen, felt that carrying is a right; and that I along with all the other pro-gun people there were demonstrating that gun bans are not the overwhelmingly popular measure the gun control advocates claim it is.
What, then, distinguishes you from the "swaggering bully" you claim not to be? On what basis can you claim not to have intended to intimidate the legislators who were right there in range?

To repeat: You're a fucking menace.


Quote:
As to the existence and rights of others: I prove that I comprehend them by not treating the rest of humanity as prey that I can feed on at will
Until the day, which for you at least has not yet arrived that we know of, when you get pissed or scared or maybe even drunk, and suddenly stop being a, what is the term you love, oh yes, a "law abiding citizen".

Quote:
unlike numerous inhabitants of my section of town, according to the weekly police reports.
Yes, you're completely different from all those others. They're not "law abiding citizens", even if they used to think they were. No, you're different, you're special, you're one of the "good guys", right?

Quit kidding yourself.

Quote:
And I prove it by NOT acting like a bully and a jerk even though I have a firearm and the majority of people around me probably do not.
Yeah, you really showed them dam' librul politishuns in the Capitol that, didn't you? Buncha gun-grabbin' Commies.

Quote:
So how is anyone supposed to know that I am one of the "good guys"? Primarily by the fact that after carrying a gun for several years, I am not in prison or dead.
By the time you show otherwise in a way that is obvious even too yourself, it will be too late for your victim(s), though. How about a little pro-active responsibility, if you can grasp the concept?
  #2766  
Old 08-18-2013, 10:13 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What, then, distinguishes you from the "swaggering bully" you claim not to be? On what basis can you claim not to have intended to intimidate the legislators who were right there in range?
Intimidate as in threaten to murder? Grow up.

Quote:
Until the day, which for you at least has not yet arrived that we know of, when you get pissed or scared or maybe even drunk, and suddenly stop being a, what is the term you love, oh yes, a "law abiding citizen".
So everyone is a ticking time bomb waiting to go postal? And you claim I have a poor opinion of humanity?

Quote:
Yes, you're completely different from all those others. They're not "law abiding citizens", even if they used to think they were. No, you're different, you're special, you're one of the "good guys", right?
Well all I can say is that I've never robbed anyone at gunpoint or committed aggravated assault. I'm well ahead on points.

Quote:
Yeah, you really showed them dam' librul politishuns in the Capitol that, didn't you? Buncha gun-grabbin' Commies.
We showed them that they may lose the next election if they push through unpopular laws.

Quote:
By the time you show otherwise in a way that is obvious even too yourself, it will be too late for your victim(s), though. How about a little pro-active responsibility, if you can grasp the concept?
I don't initiate violence against others. Isn't that pro-active?

Quote:
To repeat: You're a fucking menace
.What Would Jesus Do?
  #2767  
Old 08-18-2013, 10:40 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I used the one that was appropriate in response to the statement made, Junior.

If you have a serious point to make, it's about time you made it. At least it's time you thought of one.
Well, so far your argument has been "You aren't at all considering my thoughts as valid, your thoughts are insane, and despite you expressly accounting for a balance of risk in your statements the fact that you disagree with me obviously means you have never considered my side of it."

At some point you have to realize you're making a fool of yourself.
  #2768  
Old 08-18-2013, 10:41 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
Have you ever found yourself approached by a stranger or strangers at night on the street in an empty urban area? A situation to be avoided, for sure, but it happens. I certainly don't advocate shooting people under this type circumstance, but a hand to the hip followed loudly by "that's close enough motherfucker!" Goes a long way towards preventing that violence you so fear in today's reality.
You are fucked in the head. Please stop being on my side.
  #2769  
Old 08-18-2013, 10:43 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
We've been over this. More deaths are caused by the availability of guns than are prevented by it. About time you dealt with it.
First, we're not talking about how many deaths cause in society versus how many deaths are prevented by guns. We are talking about how many deaths would be prevented by passing a law that prohibits guns versus how many deaths are saved because people are armed.

Second, we haven't really been over this. Other than your assertions, you have provided no evidence that more deaths are caused by the availability of guns than are saved by it. you haven't really address how many lives are saved by guns at all.

Quote:
And this is where you show you still don't realize how ridiculous the militia/tyranny stuff is that you find yourself forced to fall back on.
What?!?! I swear, every other post of yours is a non-sequitor. Its like there is some extra text that you thought you posted but actually only exists in your head. WTF are you talking about?

Quote:
This "law abiding citizen" stuff fascinates you, doesn't it? You use it as a synonym for "gun owner" when it is nothing of the sort.
You're retarded. How do I use law abiding citizen as a synonym for gun owner. We use the phrase law abiding when referring to gun owners to distinguish them from gun owners that are not allowed to own gun. We use this language because there is a huge difference in the likelihood that of felon with a gun committing a crime and a law abiding citizen with a gun committing a crime.

Quote:
Those, like you, who would resist any sort of registration law would become criminals, violent criminals if they resist. Not "law abiding citizens" That means you, fool.
You are a fucking retard. I advocate licensing and registration. I've been doing so for a while. I've told you this and you keep forgetting because you don't really care to distinguish between people who support gun rights.

Quote:
There is no power on earth that can make you see yourself as something other than one of the "good guys" in a John Wayne film, is there? Too bad, life is a little more complicated than that. But, as a psychopath, you're incapable of comprehending that.
I am one of the good guys. Most people are. I'm just an armed good guy.

Its a bit rich to hear you talking about life being more complicated than it seems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Here's the same question for you that so often goes unanswered by others: What makes you one of the "good guys"? How can anyone else tell?
I think you have an overly romantic view of gun ownership. That and you're retarded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Has it occurred to you that your gun makes you a more inviting prospect, rather than less? Because, if you are like most of us hapless victims, you are not carrying a large wad of freely accessible cash. But the gun, now, there is a very saleable item, can be turned into cash rather quickly.
I don't if I buy into the hypothetical you are responding to but its a bit silly to say that having a gun would make you a target. Cops would be getting jacked left and right in these neighborhoods and yet they don't seem to victimized at higher rates than the average schmo.

Quote:
Still, it is comforting to know that there is another Tough Guy. What we need more of, more Tough Guys. Humanity and reason have failed us, welcome to Deadwood.
Why bother having cops then. I don't think we need self appointed cops running around but I didn't think you were arguing against guns for self defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What, then, distinguishes you from the "swaggering bully" you claim not to be? On what basis can you claim not to have intended to intimidate the legislators who were right there in range?
He was threatening him with his vote, not his guns. Of course its understandable why someone like you would be cowed by the mere presence of guns no matter who was holding them.

Quote:
Until the day, which for you at least has not yet arrived that we know of, when you get pissed or scared or maybe even drunk, and suddenly stop being a, what is the term you love, oh yes, a "law abiding citizen".
And we know the chances of using your gun in self defense are much higher than your chances of murdering someone with that gun.

Quote:
By the time you show otherwise in a way that is obvious even too yourself, it will be too late for your victim(s), though. How about a little pro-active responsibility, if you can grasp the concept?
I know you don't give a shit about facts but the fact is that a lot of good is done with guns and you have yet to provide any evidence that the harm that would be avoided by confiscating all the guns from law abiding citizens (because you're not going to get them from the criminals or you would have them already).
  #2770  
Old 08-19-2013, 06:51 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Intimidate as in threaten to murder? Grow up.
Intimidate as in intimidate, which you've already acknowledged was your intent. You have to stop lying to yourself if you're ever going to stop lying to others.

Quote:
So everyone is a ticking time bomb waiting to go postal?
Potentially. It usually doesn't happen, but sometimes it does, and there's no good way for anyone else to be sure who or when. But it could be you, and you have no way to be sure yourself much less assure others.

Quote:
Well all I can say is that I've never robbed anyone at gunpoint or committed aggravated assault. I'm well ahead on points.
But you've taken a major step in that direction already by preparing yourself to do so, haven't you?

Quote:
I don't initiate violence against others. Isn't that pro-active?
You threaten it. No, it isn't.
  #2771  
Old 08-19-2013, 06:54 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Well, so far your argument has been...
Something you cannot and will not make any attempt to understand, as evidenced by your inability to summarize it correctly or even coherently. But you can come back with preadolescent nyah-nyahing. So, that's the level on which you can expect to be engaged, being incapable of no other.

Quote:
At some point you have to realize you're making a fool of yourself.
Still with the rubber-glue stuff, huh, kiddo?

When come back, bring argument.
  #2772  
Old 08-19-2013, 07:09 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
First, we're not talking about how many deaths cause in society versus how many deaths are prevented by guns. We are talking about how many deaths would be prevented by passing a law that prohibits guns versus how many deaths are saved because people are armed.
You have to start with the first point before you can get on with the second. So, uncomfortable as it might be for you, yes, we are.

Quote:
Second, we haven't really been over this.
Sure we have, it just hasn't made it through your shields. No, I'm not going to try it again.

Quote:
How do I use law abiding citizen as a synonym for gun owner.
Every single fucking time you use it, except when claiming that there are, yes, some small minority of "bad guys" who own their guns legally. You even use it to refer to people whose ownership would be outlawed as "law abiding citizens". You are unaware of how your use of a favorite buzzword signifies the depth to which you have considered an issue. True, your volume of invective shows it even more, though.

Quote:
We use this language because there is a huge difference in the likelihood that of felon with a gun committing a crime and a law abiding citizen with a gun committing a crime.
Except you also use it for legal owners who commit crimes.

Quote:
You are a fucking retard. I advocate licensing and registration.
You oppose it whenever it comes up. You opposed Manchin-Toomey. You laughed at its proponents. You blame them instead of yourself for its failure. You oppose those things. Your claim to support them is a lie. You are lying. You do not advocate those things, you oppose them. You are fooling no one but yourself. When it's time to support any measure at all, reasonable or otherwise, you oppose it. You Oppose It.

Clear now? Psychopath.


Quote:
I am one of the good guys. Most people are. I'm just an armed good guy.
To repeat the question you're ducking: What is your definition, and how would anyone else know?

Quote:
Its a bit rich to hear you talking about life being more complicated than it seems.
Says the guy who uses the terms "good guy" and "bad guy" unironically. As if they have clear meanings at all.

Quote:
I think you have an overly romantic view of gun ownership.
Says the guy who thinks he's waving a Magic Wand of Protection and Goodness.

Quote:
I don't if I buy into the hypothetical you are responding to but its a bit silly to say that having a gun would make you a target. Cops would be getting jacked left and right in these neighborhoods and yet they don't seem to victimized at higher rates than the average schmo.
So, you think banning guns would make more of them appear in "these neighborhoods" (watch it now)? And you don't get that the owners of guns who refuse to comply with the law would then be the violent criminals, not the "law-abiding citizens" you continue to refer to them as? No, gun ownership is the primordial right to you, isn't it?

Quote:
He was threatening him with his vote, not his guns.
You really believe that shit, don't you? He brought his vote with him. So what was the gun for?

Quote:
And we know the chances of using your gun in self defense are much higher than your chances of murdering someone with that gun.
See the "we've been over that" discussion.
  #2773  
Old 08-19-2013, 08:47 AM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
Is the "You're going to make me shoot you by disagreeing with me..." a common rhetorical flourish for "Good Guys" ?
  #2774  
Old 08-19-2013, 09:23 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
But you've taken a major step in that direction already by preparing yourself to do so, haven't you?
By that standard no one should ever learn martial arts, since that makes them "prepared" to beat people up.

Quote:
You threaten it.
It is only in your cowering sheep's mind that carrying a gun is ipso facto a threat. In fact, now that I reflect on it that seems to be the entire basis of your arguments (such as they are). By that standard, Britain, France, India and Israel are constantly "threatening" to launch a nuclear attack against the United States. The US government has never seriously considered them a threat against the US (as opposed to the Soviet Union/Russia or China) because they're- dare I say it?- the good guys.
  #2775  
Old 08-19-2013, 11:23 AM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
This thread should be titled "The Stupid People with Opinions on Guns Thread."

(If of course, you insist on using the term "stupid" more appropriately)
  #2776  
Old 08-19-2013, 11:44 AM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
By that standard no one should ever learn martial arts, since that makes them "prepared" to beat people up.

It is only in your cowering sheep's mind that carrying a gun is ipso facto a threat. In fact, now that I reflect on it that seems to be the entire basis of your arguments (such as they are). By that standard, Britain, France, India and Israel are constantly "threatening" to launch a nuclear attack against the United States. The US government has never seriously considered them a threat against the US (as opposed to the Soviet Union/Russia or China) because they're- dare I say it?- the good guys.
No cowering sheep here, but I have had two instances of a handgun being pointed at me with no justification beyond the pointer being irritated.

So you can ID Good Guys/Bad Guys just by looking at them Lumpy? Because lacking the centuries of interaction we've had with the countries you've cited with someone you're just meeting, that seems to be the inference...

Last edited by sylmar; 08-19-2013 at 11:45 AM.
  #2777  
Old 08-19-2013, 12:15 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
No cowering sheep here, but I have had two instances of a handgun being pointed at me with no justification beyond the pointer being irritated.
So you can ID Good Guys/Bad Guys just by looking at them Lumpy? Because lacking the centuries of interaction we've had with the countries you've cited with someone you're just meeting, that seems to be the inference...
My condolences to you. Sadly, some jerkasses think that pulling a gun is a way to win arguments, and they ought to be swiftly and brusquely disabused of that notion. Gun ownership is a heavy responsibility, and that responsibility needs to include painful sanctions against misusing guns. Pointing a gun at someone is assault, and whoever did this should have been arrested and charged with a felony. Carrying a gun in a secured holster shouldn't be a threat however.
  #2778  
Old 08-19-2013, 12:41 PM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
I have had two instances of a handgun being pointed at me with no justification beyond the pointer being irritated.
Twice? Wow. Either you hang out with some real swaggering bullies or you're just a total asshole who deserves to have a gun pointed in your face.

How do we know you are one of the good guys?
  #2779  
Old 08-19-2013, 12:52 PM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
My condolences to you. Sadly, some jerkasses think that pulling a gun is a way to win arguments, and they ought to be swiftly and brusquely disabused of that notion. Gun ownership is a heavy responsibility, and that responsibility needs to include painful sanctions against misusing guns. Pointing a gun at someone is assault, and whoever did this should have been arrested and charged with a felony. Carrying a gun in a secured holster shouldn't be a threat however.
Yeah, I just can't get my head around the NRA's Good Guy/ Bad Guy , everyone needs a handgun argument. People don't come in just two flavors.

What's not a threat in one situation could be a whole different ballgame in another when forgetfullness, jealousy, road rage or biggus dickus syndrome kick in.

There was a thread recently discussing a Mountie shooting his wife. I mean, I know I'm playing to stereotype here, but Dudley Do Right for Christ sake? How do you get any more "Good Guy" than that?

The NRA's push for a handgun in every pocket does nothing to make me feel safer.
  #2780  
Old 08-19-2013, 01:06 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
By that standard no one should ever learn martial arts, since that makes them "prepared" to beat people up.
If they have the guts to close and do it hand to hand, then maybe you have a point. A gun lets somebody be a coward, do it at a distance, and see the victim as less human, or a "bad guy" who had it coming.

Quote:
It is only in your cowering sheep's mind that carrying a gun is ipso facto a threat.
Congratulations on your feelings of masculinity. Some of us don't need strap-ons for that, though.

Quote:
The US government has never seriously considered them a threat against the US (as opposed to the Soviet Union/Russia or China) because they're- dare I say it?- the good guys.
Wrong again. A nation with a military controlling nuclear weapons has all kinds of positive safeguards, with many persons involved who all have to participate. It is not possible for a single person who gets angry, or drunk, or scared to launch them. A nation is not a person, and neither is a military.

Try again. Maybe you'll think of a cleverer retort, although I doubt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar
I just can't get my head around the NRA's Good Guy/ Bad Guy , everyone needs a handgun argument.
See, ask almost any person in the world if they're a good or bad person, and virtually every one will claim to be good. Most will even believe it. But for the name to mean anything, there have to be bad guys, people who are out to get you and your precious bodily fluids, people you need to defend against. They exist in the minds of people who are convinced of that, convinced they are the good guys, convinced they need arms to get the bad guys with. All that's left is to define the bad guys in such a way that you can tell yourself they're real, such as DA does with his "those neighborhoods" comment.

But somebody who does not share that childishly-simplistic psychosis has quite a bit of trouble seeing those increasing the danger level as "good", don't we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
This thread should be titled "The Stupid People with Opinions on Guns Thread."
And thanks for your participation.
  #2781  
Old 08-19-2013, 01:14 PM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
Twice? Wow. Either you hang out with some real swaggering bullies or you're just a total asshole who deserves to have a gun pointed in your face.

How do we know you are one of the good guys?
Deserves to have a gun pointed in my face?

Case in point # 1 Lumpy.

You're really not to swift, are you Acewiz?

I thought the idea was to convince all of us doubters that it's a great idea for yahoo's like you to have handguns as you wouldn't act like little kids with a toy and go pointing them at people whenever the idea strikes your fancy, but instead behave like an adult invested with a grave responsibility.

But thanks for being honest and confirming what I sort of already knew.

Last edited by sylmar; 08-19-2013 at 01:15 PM.
  #2782  
Old 08-19-2013, 02:03 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You have to start with the first point before you can get on with the second. So, uncomfortable as it might be for you, yes, we are.
No we're not. For the sake of argument, we have by and large assumed away the constitutional problems associated with banning guns. We have also assumed away the political impossibility of passing a gun ban. Now you want us to assume that a gun ban would do more than prevent a small sliver of the gun murders in America?

We don't need to know how many gun murders there are in total to determine how many gun deaths will be prevented by banning guns. Its like saying we need to know how many incidents of cancer there are in total to determine how many incidents of cancer could be prevented by eliminating X-rays.

Quote:
Sure we have, it just hasn't made it through your shields. No, I'm not going to try it again.
No you haven't, hentor and I have had some discussions about it but you obviously didn't understand the conversation because at no point did hentor establish that more lives are lost than saved by having guns in private hands. In fact most of his argument has been that I have failed to meet the burden of proving that more lives are saved than lost, I don't think he has ever even attempted to prove the opposite.

Quote:
Every single fucking time you use it, except when claiming that there are, yes, some small minority of "bad guys" who own their guns legally. You even use it to refer to people whose ownership would be outlawed as "law abiding citizens". You are unaware of how your use of a favorite buzzword signifies the depth to which you have considered an issue. True, your volume of invective shows it even more, though.
My volume of invective??? Pffft! Are you fucking kidding me. you're so fucking stupid everyone on your side of the arugment wishes you would just stop trying to help because youa re so fucking stupid. How old are you anyways?

Quote:
Except you also use it for legal owners who commit crimes.
So what? Legal gun owners commit crimes. Previously law abiding people commit crimes but they do so at a far lower rate than criminals. What's your fucking point?

Quote:
You oppose it whenever it comes up. You opposed Manchin-Toomey. You laughed at its proponents. You blame them instead of yourself for its failure. You oppose those things. Your claim to support them is a lie. You are lying. You do not advocate those things, you oppose them. You are fooling no one but yourself. When it's time to support any measure at all, reasonable or otherwise, you oppose it. You Oppose It.
So when did licensing and registration come up? When did I oppose it? You're either lying or stupid... probably both (I'm gonna guess you were born into a liberal environment because if you were born in a more neutral environment, it is clear you would be a Republican today, you seem to adopt their mentality naturally).

When did I oppose Manchin Toomey? You have a cite for that?

I laughed at its proponents because they deserved to be laughed at. They overreached with an AWB and that overreach caused their failure with the gun show loophole.

Quote:
Clear now? Psychopath.
No, you still haven't provided anything other than your muddlede opinions. You havea cite for any of what you are saying? You didn't have much credibility to begin with but you are deep into negative territory now and theer is almost no hope for a recovery. yopu might as well just delete your account and start over with a new user name.

Quote:
To repeat the question you're ducking: What is your definition, and how would anyone else know?
My definition of good guy is anyone that's not a bad guy.

The overwhelming majority of people fall into the category of good guys. The murder rate is 4.7/100,000/year (about half what it was 20 years ago). The aggravated assault rate is 2.4/1000/year (a little more than double what it was 20 years ago). The vast majority of people are good law abiding people. There is a small minority of people that account for the large majority of all murders and violent crimes.

The incidence of violent behaviour is not randomly distributed. We have a really good idea of who is likely to commit violence in the future. They tend to have a history of violence and they tend to be younger. A woman over 30 with no history of violence is not nearly as likely to commit a violent crime as a 22 year old male with a history of violence and incarceration. Assuming competence and proper safety habits, I would feel safe around that 30 year old female even if she had a gun. I wouldn't feel safe around that male even if he only had a spork.

Of course this doesn't mean that law abiding citizens will always remain so but when we compare the incidence of gun murders committed by law abiding citizens to the number of defensive gun uses, it seems likely that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent more harm than they cause.

Quote:
Says the guy who uses the terms "good guy" and "bad guy" unironically. As if they have clear meanings at all.
IIRC, you're the one who started using those terms in this debate.

Quote:
Says the guy who thinks he's waving a Magic Wand of Protection and Goodness.


Quote:
So, you think banning guns would make more of them appear in "these neighborhoods" (watch it now)?
No but you would elimnate much of the defensive gun use in this country and turn those incidents of defensive gun use into things like murder, assault, robbery, rape, etc.

Quote:
And you don't get that the owners of guns who refuse to comply with the law would then be the violent criminals, not the "law-abiding citizens" you continue to refer to them as?
Yes, I agree, they would no longer be law abiding citizens but why would that make them violent criminals? We will have more than a few waco and ruby ridge type incidents. but I suspect that a lot of the folks who don't comply with an order to turn in their guns will keep them buried in the back yard.

Quote:
No, gun ownership is the primordial right to you, isn't it?
The right to effective self defense is a primordial right. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, like the right to an abortion or freedom of the press.

Quote:
You really believe that shit, don't you? He brought his vote with him. So what was the gun for?
To express his opinion.

I don't think its a good way to express your opinion because it doesn't look good but I don't for a moment think he was trying to threaten his legislators with assassination. Do you?

Quote:
See the "we've been over that" discussion.
Cite. Where have you provided any evidence to support your position? Do you really think there aren't at least 12,000 defensive gun uses every year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
It is only in your cowering sheep's mind that carrying a gun is ipso facto a threat.
Not a slam on cops but according to a study (its over 20 years old) by Don Kates (civil rights lawyer and criminaologist focused on police misconduct), 11% of police shootings are erroneous while only 2% of civilian shootings are not justified.

Its not just cowering, its delusion wrapped in a veil of calling everyone else a baby killer.
  #2783  
Old 08-19-2013, 06:48 PM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post

Not a slam on cops but according to a study (its over 20 years old) by Don Kates (civil rights lawyer and criminaologist focused on police misconduct), 11% of police shootings are erroneous while only 2% of civilian shootings are not justified.

Its not just cowering, its delusion wrapped in a veil of calling everyone else a baby killer.
Hmmm. Sounds like an awkwardly quoted or badly defined "study".

Murderers are civilians. Pretty scary to contemplate a scenario where there are enough shootings that only 2% weren't justified (murders)...

Tried looking up the study, and pulled up tons of pro gun sites trumpeting it with that exact phrasing, but couldn't find it in the only article I found actually attributed to Mr. Kates.

Can you still find the original article DA ?

Last edited by sylmar; 08-19-2013 at 06:50 PM.
  #2784  
Old 08-19-2013, 08:19 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
Hmmm. Sounds like an awkwardly quoted or badly defined "study".

Murderers are civilians. Pretty scary to contemplate a scenario where there are enough shootings that only 2% weren't justified (murders)...

Tried looking up the study, and pulled up tons of pro gun sites trumpeting it with that exact phrasing, but couldn't find it in the only article I found actually attributed to Mr. Kates.

Can you still find the original article DA ?
Near as I can tell, sylmar, the stat was widely publicized in Jeffrey Snyder's Fall 1993 essay in The National Interest, titled, "A Nation of Cowards." In that, he cites the stat to an article from Carol Silver and Don Kates in the 1979 anthology, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out , titled, Self Defense, Handgun Ownership, and the Independence of Women In A Violent Sexist Society. The problem, as you note, is that the stat isn't anywhere in that article. Clayton Cramer and David Kopel also cited Kates's study in their 1995 article in the Tennessee Law Review, "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws," to the same Silver & Kates article. Cramer and Kopel note that Kates helped out with a lot of the data they used in their article. You'd think he'd have caught it if it were mistaken. Both Cramer and Kopel are frequent contributor/commenters at the Volokh Conspiracy, and both have responded to comments I've made on articles of either of theirs in the past. They might have some more data about where it came from, or preferably, something more recent that the late 1970s.

My guess is that the 1969-70 study of Chicago P.D. justifiable homicides mentioned in the Silver & Kates article was conflated with other data to come up with the stat. That, or it was in a previous version of the article that showed up in the printed book, yet didn't make it to the online version.

You could shoot Dr. Kates an e-mail, and see what he says. I'm kind of curious how the stat came to be too. In any event, the data is really old, and I'm not sure if it reflects current justifiable use of force findings for either LEOs or non-LEOs. But Damuri Ajashi wasn't inventing the stat out of thin air.
  #2785  
Old 08-19-2013, 09:30 PM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
I salute your superior sleuthing skills Gray Ghost. Didn't mean for anyone to think I was implying Ajashi wasn't on the level.

Just couldn't believe a credible study would use incredibly broad, decisively vague language like that. When I couldn't find a reasonable facsimile of the quote in original material, yeah, I started thinking stats/articles were being mashed up for an easy to remember talking point and was wondering how far from the original it had fallen.

Sorry for side tracking the discussion from "stupid things" to "things I'm curious about".
  #2786  
Old 08-20-2013, 12:45 AM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Still with the rubber-glue stuff, huh, kiddo?
Let's be clear here. "the rubber-glue stuff", in adult language, represents an accusation of hypocrisy. Which is a valid assertion, given that on the same page in this thread you have both asserted that your opponents don't even try to understand your position AND accused your opponents of having secret, insulting real reasons for their position.

Quote:
When come back, bring argument.
I brought several. However, as you so gleefully attempted to admonish me about, you've made no attempt whatsoever to understand or address them.
  #2787  
Old 08-20-2013, 12:48 AM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
It is only in your cowering sheep's mind
Get serious. I realize it's Elvis, but that's no excuse to be inaccurate.

There's no evidence that he HAS a mind.

In the general case, there's no reason to ascribe "cowardice" as an attribute of people merely because they differently assess a set of relatively insignificant risks with precious little empirical data to accurately quantify them.
  #2788  
Old 08-20-2013, 12:39 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
I salute your superior sleuthing skills Gray Ghost. Didn't mean for anyone to think I was implying Ajashi wasn't on the level.

Just couldn't believe a credible study would use incredibly broad, decisively vague language like that. When I couldn't find a reasonable facsimile of the quote in original material, yeah, I started thinking stats/articles were being mashed up for an easy to remember talking point and was wondering how far from the original it had fallen.

Sorry for side tracking the discussion from "stupid things" to "things I'm curious about".
I got the quote from the same places you did. I think your suspsicions might be correct, i.e. someone paraphrased the study in a way that discounts the differences between the sort of situations cops find themselves in and the sort of situations law abiding citizens find themselves in. It think there might also bea difference between the standards that cops are subjected to versus the standards civilians are subjected to.
  #2789  
Old 08-20-2013, 01:42 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
No cowering sheep here, but I have had two instances of a handgun being pointed at me with no justification beyond the pointer being irritated.

So you can ID Good Guys/Bad Guys just by looking at them Lumpy? Because lacking the centuries of interaction we've had with the countries you've cited with someone you're just meeting, that seems to be the inference...
I've had a gun pointed at me about half a dozen times. Once by an idiot who thought that all guns had thumb safeties when he pointed a gun at my head (it was a glock), twice by criminals during a robbery (I was 11 years old the first time) and 3 times by cops (I was in Los Angeles during all 3 of these incidences).

I've never had some asshole try to use a gun to win an argument or something like that. It sounds like you live around an unusual concentration of assholes. Around here, just brandishing a gun at someone (as in opening your jacket and showing them your gun in a threatening manner) is enough to send you to jail and forefeit your right to possess firearms. I remember a story about a guy who was standing in the middle of a costco aisle talking on the phone when someone walked by him and gave him a dirty look for standing in the middle of the aisle so the first guy opened his jacket and pointed to his gun. He was arrested and he can no longer possess a firearm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
Yeah, I just can't get my head around the NRA's Good Guy/ Bad Guy , everyone needs a handgun argument. People don't come in just two flavors.
No but people are not all snowflakes either. We can predict the likelihood of committing gun murder by looking at demographic factors and prior criminal history.

Quote:
What's not a threat in one situation could be a whole different ballgame in another when forgetfullness, jealousy, road rage or biggus dickus syndrome kick in.
You seem new to this thread so let me ask you what I have asked others. Of the approximately 12,000 gun murders committed each year, how many do you think are committed by people who are legally permitted to possess a gun? Would you be surprised if I told you that over half of gun murders are committed by people who have been convicted of a felony (one of the categories of people who cannot possess a firearm), in some cities the percentage is above 90%. Would you be surprised if I told you that one in 6 gun homocides are committed by people age 10-19 (many of whom are too young to legally possess a firearm)?

The percentage of gun murders committed by people who are legally allowed to possess a firearm is slim.

According to the Department of Justice (the best information we have), people use guns in the defense of self or others about 250,000 times/year and people use guns to protect property about 100,000 times/year (there is some question whether these numbers are over a 4 year period, mostly because a guy wrote an article that implies that the numbers are cumulative rather than an average of 4 years).

Don't you think its at least worth considering whether or not legally owned guns do more good than harm?

Quote:
The NRA's push for a handgun in every pocket does nothing to make me feel safer.
That feeling might be mostly in your mind and unjustified by the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If they have the guts to close and do it hand to hand, then maybe you have a point.
You really want to make physical size and strength the criteria for justified use of force and self defense?

So the woman walking through a bad neighborhood at night is shit out of luck if a big strong rapist attackes her.

Quote:
A gun lets somebody be a coward, do it at a distance, and see the victim as less human, or a "bad guy" who had it coming.
A gun lets a 100 pound woman defend herself against a 200 pound rapist.

A gun lets a person defend their family against armed robbers.

A gun lets storeowners protect their livelihood against looters during a riot.

Guns are no more cowardly than a crossbow or a katan but you just seem deathly afraid of guns. You should see someonebody about your irrational fears, its one of the first signs of becoming a Republican.

Quote:
Wrong again. A nation with a military controlling nuclear weapons has all kinds of positive safeguards, with many persons involved who all have to participate. It is not possible for a single person who gets angry, or drunk, or scared to launch them. A nation is not a person, and neither is a military.
One person can make the deicision to launch and unless you have never heard of North korea, you should know that some nukes are in the hands of crazy people.

Quote:
such as DA does with his "those neighborhoods" comment.
WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to call me a racist? Don't be coy, you've already called me a baby killer why the reluctance to call me a racist outright instead of being a pussy about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Let's be clear here. "the rubber-glue stuff", in adult language, represents an accusation of hypocrisy. Which is a valid assertion, given that on the same page in this thread you have both asserted that your opponents don't even try to understand your position AND accused your opponents of having secret, insulting real reasons for their position.
Its hard to have a conversation with irrational fear isn't it? Well, at least he's predictable, sort of.

Quote:
I brought several. However, as you so gleefully attempted to admonish me about, you've made no attempt whatsoever to understand or address them.
That is not his purpose. He's just butthurt that his side blew a perfectly good opportunity to get real gun control legislation passed and blew it to push a totally ineffective assault weapons ban.
  #2790  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:51 PM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
Okay, wall of text posts are not cool...

Nor is rattling off a bunch of random stats without context. Rural? Urban? Years? Affiliation of the group presenting the data?

Nor is using facts and opinions interchangeably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The percentage of gun murders committed by people who are legally allowed to possess a firearm is slim.
When just prior to this, you'd said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Would you be surprised if I told you that over half of gun murders are committed by people who have been convicted of a felony (one of the categories of people who cannot possess a firearm)
I don't think numbers approaching half of all murders being committed by non-felons rates being trivialized as "slim".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Don't you think its at least worth considering whether or not legally owned guns do more good than harm?
Sure. But that's not my dog here. My argument is we should be willing to rationally look at ways to make gun ownership safer for everyone without the knee jerk ,"They're coming to make my gunz" wailing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
That feeling might be mostly in your mind and unjustified by the facts.
I'm quite cognizant that my feelings are unrelated to "facts" at the present time. They're related to my personal experience. I've never seen any stats on number of incidents of gun pointing in face or percent of gun owners who are irresponsible/idiots.

There's more we can do Ajashi, it's not a zero sum argument.
  #2791  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:53 PM
sylmar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Irondequoit, NY
Posts: 644
And sorry, I realize this is supposed to be stupid gun news and not a debate. Is there a more relevant ongoing thread for that?
  #2792  
Old 08-20-2013, 06:19 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Let's be clear here. "the rubber-glue stuff", in adult language, represents an accusation of hypocrisy. Which is a valid assertion, given that on the same page in this thread you have both asserted that your opponents don't even try to understand your position AND accused your opponents of having secret, insulting real reasons for their position.
You have no idea what the word "hypocrisy" means at all, do you? Both things you say I do are indeed what I do. You both refuse to understand any position but your own, AND you have motivations other than the ones you admit to. It is not inconsistent for both things to be true, and to rub them both in your smirking, childish little face.

So what approach is effective on you? Apparently none. You should expect to be treated with the level of respectability you have earned here, as your following post illustrates.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 08-20-2013 at 06:22 PM.
  #2793  
Old 08-20-2013, 06:26 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
And sorry, I realize this is supposed to be stupid gun news and not a debate. Is there a more relevant ongoing thread for that?
Here's one. A coupla more fucking menaces lucky to be alive.
  #2794  
Old 08-20-2013, 09:07 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You have no idea what the word "hypocrisy" means at all, do you? Both things you say I do are indeed what I do. You both refuse to understand any position but your own, AND you have motivations other than the ones you admit to. It is not inconsistent for both things to be true, and to rub them both in your smirking, childish little face.
I invite you to take your psychic roadshow off to win Mr. Randi's eponymous prize, then, chucklefuck. The fact that you think you're winning or making any sort of point may be the stupid gun news of the decade.

I just want you to answer one little question, for the record:

If all gun owners are sniveling cowards who need their big mighty boomstick to feel powerful and safe, why are all the firearms I own more than an hour drive away from my current residence and expected to stay there for at least a year? Y'know, since I'm a paranoid psychopath who must have my murder device near at all times.

Last edited by Zeriel; 08-20-2013 at 09:10 PM.
  #2795  
Old 08-21-2013, 08:28 AM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Guns are fun!
  #2796  
Old 08-21-2013, 01:52 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
Guns are fun!
I agree with this.
  #2797  
Old 08-21-2013, 02:34 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
Okay, wall of text posts are not cool...
Its one of my many faults.

Quote:
Nor is rattling off a bunch of random stats without context. Rural? Urban? Years? Affiliation of the group presenting the data?
I thought they were pretty relevant stats. The stats are nationwide except where I expressly say otherwise. The stats are compiled by the Department of Justice/FBI. Its raw data.

Quote:
Nor is using facts and opinions interchangeably.
Where do I do this in a way that is murky or are you saying that (or are you referring to some other post of mine?

Quote:
When just prior to this, you'd said...
I don't think numbers approaching half of all murders being committed by non-felons rates being trivialized as "slim".
Convicted felons are not the only people prohibited from possessing firearms. But just that ONE of several categories of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms (convicted felons) accounts for over half of all gun murders. Add minors, domestic abusers and other people who are not permitted to possess firearms.

Quote:
Sure. But that's not my dog here. My argument is we should be willing to rationally look at ways to make gun ownership safer for everyone without the knee jerk ,"They're coming to make my gunz" wailing.
I've proposed licensing and registration of all firearms. Zeriel has proposed imposing strict criminal liability for any crime committed with any firearm you ever owned or sold. What knee jerk wailing are you talking about?

Quote:
I'm quite cognizant that my feelings are unrelated to "facts" at the present time. They're related to my personal experience. I've never seen any stats on number of incidents of gun pointing in face or percent of gun owners who are irresponsible/idiots.

There's more we can do Ajashi, it's not a zero sum argument.
Yeah, I agree. We can start by enforcing the laws that are already on the books. We can undo some of the stupider laws we have on the books. And I think licensing and registration would be a good idea as well. I don't know if you've caught on yet but there is one side of this argument that is absolutist and another side that is willing to compromise but keep getting called baby killer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylmar View Post
And sorry, I realize this is supposed to be stupid gun news and not a debate. Is there a more relevant ongoing thread for that?
Nah, the ones in great debates wither away when the gun control side can't sustain their arguments iwhtout the namecalling that is only allowed here. So this is where we have these debates. IOW, the debate is more or less over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
I invite you to take your psychic roadshow off to win Mr. Randi's eponymous prize, then, chucklefuck. The fact that you think you're winning or making any sort of point may be the stupid gun news of the decade.

I just want you to answer one little question, for the record:

If all gun owners are sniveling cowards who need their big mighty boomstick to feel powerful and safe, why are all the firearms I own more than an hour drive away from my current residence and expected to stay there for at least a year? Y'know, since I'm a paranoid psychopath who must have my murder device near at all times.
I don't think he really differentiates between you, me and Ted Nugent. As far as he is concerned, we are all disciples of Wayne LaPierre and hold monolithic views. If we don't support all gun control, we do not support any of it.
  #2798  
Old 08-22-2013, 10:22 AM
bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

-Wayne LaPierre
  #2799  
Old 08-22-2013, 03:40 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,515
Wayne LaPierre is an ass. Unarmed civilian incapatitate unarmed civilian frequently and visibly enough that he ought to know better. The guy that shot gabby Giffords was taken down by an unarmed civilian.

But this lady is something else. Talking down a crazy person that had already started shooting at cops and was reloading magazines!?!?! She ought to run for office.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 08-22-2013 at 03:45 PM.
  #2800  
Old 08-22-2013, 04:28 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,699
I'm glad it worked out well for all concerned, but talking down a would-be gunman is risky to say the least. I hope most people realize this isn't always- or even often- an option.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017