Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2601  
Old 07-27-2013, 12:22 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.e. none. You're not well-regulated if you're not even fucking organized.
As usual from the peanut gallery, we have the standard "I can't pick up a dictionary with historical references! I have no idea what 'well-regulated' means in a late 1700s context!"
  #2602  
Old 07-27-2013, 01:23 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Here's a hint: It did not include "unorganized".

You're welcome.
  #2603  
Old 07-27-2013, 02:33 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Here's a hint: It did not include "unorganized".

You're welcome.
A few things you might want to consider:
  • The word "militia" from the original Latin is plural, as in "all the militia".
  • That every document contemporary with the Constitution that mentions the militia (such as the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers) uses the term in a context that unambiguously refers to the population at large, the people.
  • That in the Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton gives us the contemporary definition of "well-regulated"; and that the term "disciplined" is used wherever the authors meant under the command of appointed officers.
  • That, as I said earlier, the Federal Government itself acknowledges that the population at large is "The Militia".
Gun owners are the militia. If the states have allowed the practice of mustering and drilling the armed populace to grow moribund, if the state doesn't want us, don't blame gun owners.
  #2604  
Old 07-28-2013, 10:12 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You're really not capable of understanding the concept of the value of human life, or you wouldn't even ask. That's a symptom of your psychopathy, of course, not really your fault but it does mean we need to take measures to keep ourselves safe from you.
I'm asking because your habit of vomiting slogans as a form of argument results in a lot of non-sequitors.

I said that there is no reason to infer that the people who commit murder with guns are any less likely to be felons than people who commit murder by other means and you by saying: "of course there is, because its easier to kill or commit suicide if you have a gun handy" So WTF are you talking about? What the fuck does the lethality of guns have to do with the demographics of gun murderers?

Why are gun murderers any less likely to be felons than people who commit murder by some other means?

If you recall, we were discussing talking about how frequently some previously law abiding citizen just flips out and kills people compared to criminals and people who are otherwise not permitted to posses guns. You seemed to believe that most people who commit murder were just law abiding citizens until one day they just flip out.

But if you want to keep vomitting slogans and bumper stickers onto the page, well, I guess noone can stop you even though almost everyone on your side of the argument probably wishes you would stop and go away.

Quote:
You can't even understand that more deaths occur when there are deadly weapons available than when there aren't. That could be your unfortunate psychopathy again, or it could just be simplemindedness.
Of course I understand that more deaths occur when people have guns, guns are lethal and if nothing else, we know that there are hundreds of accidental gun deaths every year that wouldn't occur if some genie could make all the guns disappear. What you don't seem to be able to get your head around is the fact that not every gun owner is equally likely to commit murder. What you don't seem to be able to get your head around is the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun murders are committed by people who are not allowed to possess guns. And instead of focusing on how to solve the problem you continue to make gun grabbers look stupid and irrational.

And putting the second amendment aside, if you ban and confiscate guns, you are not likely to get a lot of compliance from the criminals and all you achieve is disarming the law abiding public and the only murders you eliminate is that tiny sliver of gun murders that are committed by law abiding citizens that flip out. And THAT is why it is relevant to discuss how many gun murders are caused by law abiding citizens because that is the most you can expect to reduce gun murders by if you banned and confiscated all the guns (and in a country where we have basically admitted that we cannot locate and deport about 10 million illegal aliens, you seem awfully confident that we could get rid of 300 million guns).

Quote:
And you can't even understand what "law-abiding" even means (and probably not "citizen" either), since to you it includes murderers.
Once again, wtf are you talking about?

Quote:
Maybe someday you'll read the entire Heller decision, as you've been urged multiple times without effect. Or maybe you're simply incapable of comprehending something that makes you uncomfortable.
What part of the Heller decision are you fucking talking about? Why are you so coy? Is there some secret language in the heller decision that wasn't part of the published opinion that contradicted the holding? Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you parroting some shit you saw on the pierce morgan show?

Quote:
Bottom line is still that, in combination with being an ideologue and a fetishist, you're a demonstrated psychopath, you're a danger to everyone around you, and you need to be contained.
Bottom line is that your best arguments boil down to calling people names. Why not just call us all baby-killers again?
  #2605  
Old 07-29-2013, 09:45 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
A few things you might want to consider:
Hmm, not seeing "unorganized" anywhere in there. But you apparently seem to think you're making a coherent and valid point of some kind. Whatever. If all you and Damuri have to reassure you, against a world full of scary reasoning and morality, is your mantras, then no wonder.

When come back, bring argument.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 07-29-2013 at 09:47 PM.
  #2606  
Old 07-30-2013, 12:03 AM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Hmm, not seeing "unorganized" anywhere in there.
If you don't actually know what the "unorganized militia" is in terms of Federal law, you probably shouldn't bother being in a debate on this topic. Lumpy's 4th point speaks directly to it (although he is mistaken in that it's not "the population at large"--by the letter of the law, it's men of military age (17-45) AND people in organized militias such as the National Guard.)

For your reference--11 USC § 311 B2 defines a broad swath of citizens as belonging de jure to the Federal unorganized militia.

Being "unorganized", mind you, does not preclude being "well-regulated". At the moment, for example, I am both--I report to no commander or unit, and I am capable and regularly practice with my firearms so that I can use them in the appropriate contexts with skill and safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
reasoning and morality
It'd be honestly surprising if you ever brought either of those things to a discussion.

Last edited by Zeriel; 07-30-2013 at 12:08 AM.
  #2607  
Old 07-30-2013, 08:58 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
The point of this sidetrack, since you apparently haven't been reading for comprehension, is Damuri's retreat inside a claim of supporting the Second Amendment, to the exclusion of all other considerations. That means being in a well-regulated militia, per a plain reading of the text, something you too seem incapable of doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Being "unorganized", mind you, does not preclude being "well-regulated". At the moment, for example, I am both--I report to no commander or unit, and I am capable and regularly practice with my firearms so that I can use them in the appropriate contexts with skill and safety.
IOW you're just another lone yeehawing yahoo with the same perverted fantasies of "resisting tyranny" as Damuri. Don't flatter yourself. Preserving the republic and public safety etc. doesn't depend on the likes of you, it depends on containing the likes of you.

Quote:
It'd be honestly surprising if you ever brought either of those things to a discussion.
It'd be honestly surprising if you could demonstrate a comprehension of either one.
  #2608  
Old 07-30-2013, 09:09 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
A few things you might want to consider:[LIST][*]The word "militia" from the original Latin is plural, as in "all the militia".
I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this, but for nitpickery's sake the Latin militia is a singular form meaning army. The plural form is militiae.
  #2609  
Old 07-30-2013, 10:11 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The point of this sidetrack, since you apparently haven't been reading for comprehension, is Damuri's retreat inside a claim of supporting the Second Amendment, to the exclusion of all other considerations.
What?!?!

I'm not really sure what you mean but are you saying that the second amendment is my only rationale for supporting gun rights? This is clearly not the case if you've been paying even a little bit of attention.

Or are you saying that I hide behind the secondamendment ion some way (which is also clearly not the case).

I do rely on the second amendment as evidence that I have a legal right to own guns regardless of what you might want. But let me know when they make you king so I will know what to expect.

Quote:
That means being in a well-regulated militia, per a plain reading of the text, something you too seem incapable of doing.
Yeah, him and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Personally, I think its a lot easier to find a right to bear arms in the bill of rights than it was to find a right to an abortion there.

Quote:
IOW you're just another lone yeehawing yahoo with the same perverted fantasies of "resisting tyranny" as Damuri.
Where do I fantasize about resisting tyranny? Do you order these straw men in bulk or do you make them yourself?
  #2610  
Old 07-30-2013, 10:51 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
So now that we have established for the umpteenth time (I can't believe its so hard to get people to acknowledge facts on this board; I feel like I'm posting on the CNN site) that CCW are generally safer and more law abiding than the general public (although I suspect that we will have to do so again in another 10 pages or so). Therefore, we can probably stop painting at least THIS particular class of gun owner (probably more hardcore than the average gun owner) as a bunch of trigger happy menaces to society (and maybe the same applies to the less hardcore gun owners who don't go through the trouble of getting a concealed weapon permit).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
-wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._United_States

-The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinio...ett-gun-rights

And while there is no causal link that concealed carry is the reason crime rates have gone down in places that have adopted concealed carry laws, there is no evidence that adopting concealed carry leads to more violence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e391_blog.html
And now that we have established once again that most gun murders are committed by people who are legally not allowed to own guns, maybe we can focus on preventing gun deaths rather than preventing gun ownership by reduciing gun possession among this group that is most likely to commit gun murder (and perhaps by interpolation, most gun crimes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
...WTF!?!?! I provide this cite every 6 or 7 pages. Your memory is like a seive.

Here's one. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2472

It does not segregate the gun murders from murdes generally but there is no reason to believe that the there would be uneven distribution between the rate of felonies among gun people who commit murder with guns versus people who commit murder by other means. When you add underage kids, people subject to a restraining order, wifebeaters, the mentally ill, and others who are not leaglly allowed to posses guns you get all but a slim minority of gun murders being committed by people who are not allowed to possess a gun.
We have also established elsewhere that the incidences of accidentally killing yourself or a loved one (~700/year) is far lower than the incidences of defensive gun use (~350,000/year as determined by the Department of Justice and Accepted by the Violence Policy Center). So we can at least make a plausible argument that on average, people are better off having a gun than just leaving themselves to the tender mercies of criminals (maybe not middle aged guys in nice suburban neighborhoods who never venture beyond the local malls, but on average).

- www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Given all this, its hard to see how the gun grabbers can be so fucking sure that they are right in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and so very little evidence that things like assault weapons bans make any difference at all or the absence of any evidence that the confiscation of guns from all law abiding gun owners will reduce gun crime committe overwhelmingly by people who aren't allowed to have those guns in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What part of the Heller decision are you fucking talking about? Why are you so coy? Is there some secret language in the heller decision that wasn't part of the published opinion that contradicted the holding? Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you parroting some shit you saw on the pierce morgan show?
So I've read the Heller decision again and I am still having trouble finding the secret part of the Heller decision that Elvis keeps referring to. I don't hold out a lot of hope that he knew what the fuck he was talking about (beyond parroting something he THOUGHT he read in some gun grabber blog somewhere) but I don't see where the heller decision contradicts its own holding that I have a personal right to possess firearms.
  #2611  
Old 07-30-2013, 02:34 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
I fucking promised myself I would not do this! Shit, here I am wasting my time on this dumbass fuckstick again.

Damuri Ajashi, my intent is to successfully ignore you in the future, after this last corrective effort. Do not interpret any future silence from me as assent. You are an irredeemable moron and an asshole of the highest order.

Your effort here has been to baffle with bullshit. To Google vomit in order to make people look like you’ve produced something. Clearly without reviewing what you are linking to, you foist a bunch of links on us en masse, hoping that like yourself, we will have the cognitive capacities of a young child and think that the size of your contribution is equivalent to some measure of quality.

I will review each of your links for you. But I would like to start out with a question: How many actual studies would you say would be needed for a gun control advocate to assert that he or she has established a particular point? For instance, would one study showing that people who live in a household where firearms are present are more likely to be killed by those weapons than they are to use them in self-defense be enough to establish the fact that guns are more dangerous, rather than protective, to home residents?

I suspect you would say no, that more than one such study would be needed. So, let’s review your cites, and I will provide each with a rating as to its success as a cite establishing your proposition:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
Here, you link to a wiki page with 11,099 words that I have to scan in order to conclude that the only piece of evidence regarding CCW being relatively safer is this: “While these crimes are often firearm-related (including unlawful carry), a 3-year study of Texas crime statistics immediately following passage of CHL legislation found that the most common crime committed by CHL holders that would be grounds for revocation was actually DUI, followed by unlawful carry and then aggravated assault. The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.[10]” That links to this source: http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm.

You know what that is? That is a report done by some guy with no academic affiliation who just requested a dataset from the State of Texas on arrests among CCW people, wrote up his summary and posted it to the web. It’s not a published article. It’s not a peer reviewed work. I read through it, and the guy doesn’t even give the actual numbers of CCW people in his data set, nor does he provide information about the population of the state of Texas. He’s scant on how well the CCW data actually capture criminal acts, which requires coordination between individual jurisdictional police records and state CCW records. He refers to oddities in the data and other sources of error, but does not provide any information about how he accounted for these. He does not provide any information about how much missing data there was or how he handled that.

He makes statements like “Note: the author believes that all inappropriate, threatening behavior where a weapon is involved is by definition “violent.” By this all-inclusive definition, therefore, in a discussion of arrest data where the effect of licensed handguns is of interest, “non-violent” arrests become moot, as there is no connection between non-violent behavior and gun possession.)” I cannot figure out what this means, particularly in regards to how he handled the data.

In short, I applaud the effort, as it is better than just making an assertion out of your asshole, but it does not qualify as any sort of a study, and is entirely dubious as a piece of evidence.

My rating: MOSTLY FAIL

Here, you made me read through a roughly 7,000 word article to find the following claim:

“According to Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, permit holders in the U.S. commit crimes at a rate lower than that of the general population. “We don’t see much bloodshed from concealed-carry permit holders, because they are law-abiding people,” Winkler said. “That’s not to say that permit holders don’t commit crimes, but they do so at a lower rate than the general population.”

Here, by the way, is Winkler’s publication record. Please indicate for me which article provides the results from his empirical study of the question regarding the relative safety of CCW people.

That’s simply not evidence. That’s a claim made by someone who is in no better position to clarify the nature of the evidence for the claim than Kable or Lumpy or you. It just happened to come up in your braindead google search, so you vomited it on my screen.

My rating: TOTAL FAIL

This one is blessedly briefer, but it’s just an opinion piece by Bill Bennett for fuck’s sake. To top that off, the only bit on the safety of CCW people is a reference to the SAME Goldberg article from the Atlantic that you linked to above, and which, again, CONTAINED NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

My rating: TOTAL FAIL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
And while there is no causal link that concealed carry is the reason crime rates have gone down in places that have adopted concealed carry laws, there is no evidence that adopting concealed carry leads to more violence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e391_blog.html
As you note yourself, this cite has fuck all to do with the relative safety of CCW people, and doesn’t even provide unequivocal information about the effect of CCW on overall crime rates. Why you have repeatedly cited it regarding the question of the safety of CCW people relative to non-CCW people is a mystery.

My rating: TOTAL FAIL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
Here's one. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2472

It does not segregate the gun murders from murdes generally but there is no reason to believe that the there would be uneven distribution between the rate of felonies among gun people who commit murder with guns versus people who commit murder by other means. When you add underage kids, people subject to a restraining order, wifebeaters, the mentally ill, and others who are not leaglly allowed to posses guns you get all but a slim minority of gun murders being committed by people who are not allowed to possess a gun.
This is from an opinion piece on a website called “The Independent Institute”, which features a banner stating “THE INCONVENIENT FACTS THAT EXPOSE THE MYTHS OF FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE.”

It’s by a guy who is purportedly a criminologist, and he is claiming that 90% of murders had a criminal record. First, so fucking what? Secondly, his “cites” are to a New York Times analysis. A cursory google search finds this from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that across the 75 most populous US counties, 67% of murders had a history of any arrest, and 53% had a history of any convictions. So, depending on what level of criminal record you mean (and I do not believe that just being arrested would be sufficient to prohibit firearms possession; I think it requires a conviction) about one-half to one-third of people in heavily populated areas who commit murder have no criminal record. So, you say a slim minority, the data says about one-half.

Finally, you know what other group of people have disproportionately high rates of criminal histories? Those who end up getting murdered. It’s because murder occurs disproportionately in areas that also engender other criminal offending.

My rating: TOTAL FAIL

Quote:
We have also established elsewhere that the incidences of accidentally killing yourself or a loved one (~700/year) is far lower than the incidences of defensive gun use (~350,000/year as determined by the Department of Justice and Accepted by the Violence Policy Center). So we can at least make a plausible argument that on average, people are better off having a gun than just leaving themselves to the tender mercies of criminals (maybe not middle aged guys in nice suburban neighborhoods who never venture beyond the local malls, but on average).

- www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
There’s two elements of bullshit here. First, there’s just no good reason to believe that there are 350,000 defensive gun uses. As you would say, WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT this estimate is unreliable. Secondly, you’re including only accidental deaths, rather than any firearms deaths. A dead wife is just as dead if the gun went off accidentally or if her husband, in a singular fit of rage, shot her.

Actual researchers who have looked at this in a rigorous empirical fashion, in contrast to your effort to pull shit from your ass, and have published those results in peer reviewed journals, find that people with guns in the home are more likely to die from firearms than people without, by a factor of somewhere between double the risk to 43 times the risk.

My rating: TOTAL FAIL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
Given all this, its hard to see how the gun grabbers can be so fucking sure that they are right in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and so very little evidence that things like assault weapons bans make any difference at all or the absence of any evidence that the confiscation of guns from all law abiding gun owners will reduce gun crime committe overwhelmingly by people who aren't allowed to have those guns in the first place.
“Given all this”!!! All of what? The sum total of your Google vomit, which you undoubtedly did not review yourself, is one report written up by a guy on the internet based on a Texas state dataset and a bunch of assertions made by other people either without direct expertise or without relevance to the question of the safety of CCW people.

So again, you are worthless. You are a disingenuous bullshitter and a little scared man who spends his time practicing his quick draw so that he can get the drop on the boogie man. Do not expect me to waste another second on you.
  #2612  
Old 07-30-2013, 02:52 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
I have no idea what 'well-regulated' means in a late 1700s context!"
As I reflect upon how important the wording of the Constitution is for interpretation, I is a wonder that the authors weren't more precise.
I figure they just wanted to go home and have a drink.
  #2613  
Old 07-30-2013, 04:04 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,662
This must be about the tenth time I've posted this in various gun threads, but here we go again: Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist #29, "Concerning The Militia", using the phrase "well-regulated militia" while specifically arguing against the idea of regimenting every armed man.
Quote:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
  #2614  
Old 07-30-2013, 05:48 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Dude. My bowel movements are more well-regulated than you and your binkies. By any century's standards.
  #2615  
Old 07-30-2013, 06:29 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
This must be about the tenth time I've posted this in various gun threads, but here we go again: Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist #29, "Concerning The Militia", using the phrase "well-regulated militia" while specifically arguing against the idea of regimenting every armed man.
Hamilton was arguing against having the phrase 'well-regulated" in the Second Amendment. F29 was not a definition of 'well regulated' so much as it was a rejection that the militia should be regulated at all. Hamilton argued against having the whole Bill of Rights, and the constitutional convention rejected that idea as well. The Founders concluded the militia should be well regulated, against the views of Hamilton.
  #2616  
Old 07-30-2013, 06:33 PM
sinjin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
This must be about the tenth time I've posted this in various gun threads, but here we go again: Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist #29, "Concerning The Militia", using the phrase "well-regulated militia" while specifically arguing against the idea of regimenting every armed man.
So when was the last time that you kids all assembled for your twice yearly reasonable training?
  #2617  
Old 07-30-2013, 07:48 PM
Condescending Robot is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ubekibekibekibekistanstan
Posts: 1,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjin View Post
So when was the last time that you kids all assembled for your twice yearly reasonable training?
When was the last time you shared your political opinions by going to the town square and shouting them?
  #2618  
Old 07-30-2013, 07:53 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The point of this sidetrack, since you apparently haven't been reading for comprehension, is Damuri's retreat inside a claim of supporting the Second Amendment, to the exclusion of all other considerations. That means being in a well-regulated militia, per a plain reading of the text, something you too seem incapable of doing.
Actually, as I've pointed out repeatedly, I AM well-regulated by the 1700s definition of the term--I know how to properly use and maintain the firearms I own, and I am capable of following reasonable orders.

Quote:
IOW you're just another lone yeehawing yahoo with the same perverted fantasies of "resisting tyranny" as Damuri. Don't flatter yourself. Preserving the republic and public safety etc. doesn't depend on the likes of you, it depends on containing the likes of you.
Dude, I live in a city. I practice with my firearms because it's fun, but at this point they aren't even at my house--I keep them at the range, because I didn't feel like moving my heavy-ass gun safe when I changed cities last. The odds of me having to defend myself are minuscule right now even in my relatively (by US standards, it's 4x the average violent crime rate) dangerous neighborhood (so I don't carry a gun), and the odds of my needing to be involved in an actual rebellion are so far off the radar I'd need an electron microscope.

I've argued repeatedly and loudly in many of these threads (including this one) for regulations that make gun nuts think I'm a gun grabber, including compulsory training, graduated licenses for firearms ownership with significantly stricter training requirements for handgun ownership, registration and harsh penalties for gun negligence (your bullet did it? you're charged with it).

The "stupid gun news of the day" is that you can't distinguish my clearly and repeatedly stated position from someone with "resisting tyranny" fantasies, apparently based SOLELY on the fact that you don't know what well-regulated meant in a 1700s context and that you know I practice enough with firearms to not be a menace when I choose to use them recreationally.

Last edited by Zeriel; 07-30-2013 at 07:54 PM.
  #2619  
Old 07-31-2013, 01:59 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Damuri Ajashi, my intent is to successfully ignore you in the future, after this last corrective effort. Do not interpret any future silence from me as assent. You are an irredeemable moron and an asshole of the highest order.
Well, I think you're an idiot too but unlike you, its just not the crux of my argument.

Quote:
Your effort here has been to baffle with bullshit.
The fact that you are easily baffled doesn't make it bullshit. It just means that you have trouble understanding things that aren't consistent with what you already believe.

Quote:
To Google vomit in order to make people look like you’ve produced something.
IOW, you ask me for cites and then don't like the fact that I can provide them. So you call them google vomitting. So where are all your cites?

Quote:
How many actual studies would you say would be needed for a gun control advocate to assert that he or she has established a particular point? For instance, would one study showing that people who live in a household where firearms are present are more likely to be killed by those weapons than they are to use them in self-defense be enough to establish the fact that guns are more dangerous, rather than protective, to home residents?
Wait. It sounds like you are saying that if you or someone in your home owns a gun then you are more likely to be murdered by THAT gun than you are to use that gun self defense?

Or are you really saying that you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound (frequently self inflicted or inflicted by the criminals you were afraid of when you got the gun in the first place)?

Because if you meant the first thing, then I would indeed be interesting information. BUT, if you mean thte second thing and phrased it the way you just did then that would make you a lying scumbag who distorts information to support their arguments (IOW, it would make you a Republican).

Quote:
I will provide each with a rating as to its success as a cite establishing your proposition:
So your response to my cites is to give your OPINION about how good my cites are?

You go on to dismiss these cites without providing countercites of your own because they are not perr reviewed (or if they are peer reviewed, you disagree with their assumptions and therefore their conclusions)

Quote:
It’s by a guy who is purportedly a criminologist, and he is claiming that 90% of murders had a criminal record. First, so fucking what? Secondly, his “cites” are to a New York Times analysis. A cursory google search finds this from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that across the 75 most populous US counties, 67% of murders had a history of any arrest, and 53% had a history of any convictions. So, depending on what level of criminal record you mean (and I do not believe that just being arrested would be sufficient to prohibit firearms possession; I think it requires a conviction) about one-half to one-third of people in heavily populated areas who commit murder have no criminal record. So, you say a slim minority, the data says about one-half.
Ahh so now you aren't arguing that felons are disproportionately more likely to commit murder, you are arguing that it may not be 90% the way it is in NYC or Baltimore. I agree that murderers in NYC might not be representative of the whole country.

So what percentage of gun murders does your cursory google search tell you is committed by previously law abiding citizens who are permitted to possess a gun?

Quote:
Finally, you know what other group of people have disproportionately high rates of criminal histories? Those who end up getting murdered. It’s because murder occurs disproportionately in areas that also engender other criminal offending.
Do these people also have a disproportionately high rate of having a gun in the home? Would this be relevant to the study you reference at the beginning of your post?

Quote:
There’s two elements of bullshit here. First, there’s just no good reason to believe that there are 350,000 defensive gun uses.
So the Bureau of Justice Statistics are good evidence when they say that 67% of murderers have previous arrest records but not such a good source when they say that there are ~350,000 defensive gun uses every year?

Its like there are two standards of evidence depending on which side the evidence helps.

Quote:
As you would say, WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT this estimate is unreliable.
We've established that YOU don't like the estimate because it undermines your argument but you can't cite the BJS when it helps you and totally dismiss them when it undermines you.

I know you don't believe anything published by outfits like the Independent Institute (because obviously they must be lying) but the Violence Policy Center? You think they're making up pro-gun stuff too? theya re using the exact same evidence I am presenting to argue in favor of gun control its just that they are honest enough to stipulate to the facts, they just present them in way that makes their argument seem to make sense.

Quote:
Secondly, you’re including only accidental deaths, rather than any firearms deaths. A dead wife is just as dead if the gun went off accidentally or if her husband, in a singular fit of rage, shot her.
We were talking about the safety of having a gun in the house (this was most broadly discussed on this board in the context of accidentally shooting your kid to death). I was comparing it to accidental deaths because these are deaths that absolutely wouldn't have occurred if a gun wasn't invoved. Some abusive husband shooting his wife to death might have happened anyway with the husband beating his wife to death with his fists (more common than all deaths by rifles of any sort (including almost all assault weapons)).

If you want to give me some number of deaths that were committed by angry (but previously law abiding husbands) who would not have killed his wife but for having a gun, let me know how you figure that one out.

But, if we ignore your childish attempt to impeach the Violence Policy Center (a pro-gun control outfit) on the number of defensive gun use, we have ~350,000 incidents of defensive gun use compared to whatever number you can support.

Quote:
Actual researchers who have looked at this in a rigorous empirical fashion, in contrast to your effort to pull shit from your ass, and have published those results in peer reviewed journals, find that people with guns in the home are more likely to die from firearms than people without, by a factor of somewhere between double the risk to 43 times the risk.
How much of that is suicide? How much of that is because they were simply more likely to die by the gun with or without having a gun in the house? How many of those people got a gun because they were afraid something like that was going to happen? How many of those people were criminals getting shot by other criminals? Your study didn't seem to give a shit about those factors. Or is that sort of rigor only expected of people who support gun rights?

We've looked at those studies and they are bullshit and you know it. They infer causation where we only find correlation.

Your arguments largely amount to:
"You're a poopyhead"
"you have not proved your case to a scientific certainty so your cite is worthless"
"my cite (from the same source as your cite) is the word of god"
"my opinion peices are better than your opinion peices"

Your unwavering certainty in your position (despite at least some evidence that you might be wrong) makes me wonder what knowable thing (if anything) would make you change your position on guns?

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 07-31-2013 at 02:02 PM.
  #2620  
Old 07-31-2013, 02:02 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
Actually, as I've pointed out repeatedly, I AM well-regulated by the 1700s definition of the term
As if that mattered in the 2000's. You may nor may not know, but many words have evolved in meaning over the centuries, and the meaning of the Constitution has, yes, evolved too.

Quote:
I am capable of following reasonable orders.
But not the ones you consider unreasonable? Your CO would have to persuade you first? Here's a hint: No, you are not capable of following orders. You don't know the meaning of the word, by any century's standards. You are not capable of being well-regulated. You would not be part of a functioning militia at all.

A member or a military unit follows orders, period. Not only the ones he himself judges to be reasonable. You would not; you've just told us.

A member of an actual military unit actually trains as one. You do not; you just imagine yourself to be doing so at times.

A member of an actual military unit knows what it's named, who's in it, who he is commanded by (and commands), what its mission is, and how it's executed. You do not, none of those things.

IOW, you are indeed a lone yahoo who luvs hiz bangstick and exercises some perverted fantasies., that's all.

Quote:
I don't carry a gun
Then what good are you when the jackboots come?

Quote:
The "stupid gun news of the day" is that you can't distinguish my clearly and repeatedly stated position from someone with "resisting tyranny" fantasies
Pardon me for not giving a damn about your previous posts enough to read and memorize them, then. Where's that Putz smiley when we need it?

Quote:
I practice enough with firearms to not be a menace when I choose to use them recreationally.
It isn't about well you fucking aim, fella. It's about how you control yourself enough not to even draw. Are you incapable of getting drunk, or angry, or scared? If you are, then yes, you're a menace any time you're carrying. We're only talking a matter of degree.
  #2621  
Old 07-31-2013, 03:55 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You may nor may not know, but many words have evolved in meaning over the centuries, and the meaning of the Constitution has, yes, evolved too.
Does that mean that when the King James Bible quotes Jesus as saying "Suffer the little children to come unto me", it meant Jesus was advising us to use corporal punishment to raise our children to be good Christians?
  #2622  
Old 07-31-2013, 09:02 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
As if that mattered in the 2000's. You may nor may not know, but many words have evolved in meaning over the centuries, and the meaning of the Constitution has, yes, evolved too.
Original INTENT may be a somewhat controversial method of interpreting the constitution, original DEFINITIONS are not. The meaning of the constitution doesn't change, the application of consistent principles are applied to new facts as society and technology evolves. Constitutional principles don't really change. There was arguably always a right to an abortion just as there was always a right not to have a tracking device attached to your car and a right to spend a billion dollars on political campaigns.

Quote:
A member or a military unit follows orders, period. Not only the ones he himself judges to be reasonable.
Not militias. Militias are irregulars and one of the more important distinctions between regulars and irregulars was not how good of a shot they are but how disciplined they are.

Quote:
A member of an actual military unit actually trains as one.
But the militia does not.

Quote:
A member of an actual military unit knows what it's named, who's in it, who he is commanded by (and commands), what its mission is, and how it's executed. You do not, none of those things.
And this is not necessarily true of militias. I think we are all militia.

Quote:
It isn't about well you fucking aim, fella. It's about how you control yourself enough not to even draw. Are you incapable of getting drunk, or angry, or scared? If you are, then yes, you're a menace any time you're carrying. We're only talking a matter of degree.
You would have to prove that people who carry are more likely to pull that sort of shit than others. People with carry permits tend to commit virtually all crimes at a lower rate than the general public. So he is in fact less of a menace to society than the average person without a carry permit. And there is always the chance (small as it is) that he will save someone's life one day.
  #2623  
Old 07-31-2013, 09:28 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
You want to insist on 1700's definitions of terms when reading the Constitution? OK. Then "arms" means flintlock muskets. You have the right to bear all of those you care to. But that's all it covers.

And no, you are not a member of anything that the word "militia" covers, however "regulated" including none at all, in any reality-based sense it has ever had.

Now go back and dream your little porn dreams of adequacy, psychopath.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 07-31-2013 at 09:29 PM.
  #2624  
Old 07-31-2013, 11:07 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And no, you are not a member of anything that the word "militia" covers
As a bare matter of legal fact, you are 100% incorrect.
  #2625  
Old 07-31-2013, 11:17 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
As if that mattered in the 2000's. You may nor may not know, but many words have evolved in meaning over the centuries, and the meaning of the Constitution has, yes, evolved too.
This is so idiotic as to not bear addressing--not to mention the fact that "well-regulated" STILL means "in good order", when speaking for example of a timepiece.

Quote:
A member or a military unit follows orders, period. Not only the ones he himself judges to be reasonable. You would not; you've just told us.
You are incorrect, again, on a matter of legal fact. The UCMJ excludes unlawful orders from being obeyed, and "I believed that was against the law or standing regulations" is a valid affirmative defense to a charge of disobeying orders.

You really should stop talking straight out your asshole, and bother actually knowing the barest facts about what you are spouting incoherently about.

Quote:
Then what good are you when the jackboots come?
At the point that becomes a risk, you might ask again. Currently the only threat of that sort of thing is coming from the parlor pink cash-worshipers masquerading as right-wing politicians.

Quote:
Pardon me for not giving a damn about your previous posts enough to read and memorize them, then.
I'm sorry I assumed you were capable of following a thread you were posting in. My apologies.

Quote:
It isn't about well you fucking aim, fella. It's about how you control yourself enough not to even draw.
My point precisely. I specifically train in shoot/no-shoot scenarios in courses designed for law enforcement and security agents, because I have a serious concern about not making a mistake with any firearm I choose to carry.

Quote:
Are you incapable of getting drunk, or angry, or scared? If you are, then yes, you're a menace any time you're carrying. We're only talking a matter of degree.
Yet somehow, I'm supposed to NOT be worried about you getting drunk, angry, or scared and plowing your car into mine, or a crowd of kids at a bus stop, or whatever? You're asking me to trust you with a self-propelled multi-ton bludgeoning weapon, instead of making you ride a bus operated by a safe and properly-trained motor vehicle operator?

Last edited by Zeriel; 07-31-2013 at 11:19 PM.
  #2626  
Old 07-31-2013, 11:35 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Especially, it just occurred to me, because your insistence that none of us are in a "militia" is at least one piece of evidence that your attitude towards actual, signed laws that you don't like it to pretend they don't exist and get really angry.
  #2627  
Old 08-01-2013, 10:26 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You want to insist on 1700's definitions of terms when reading the Constitution? OK. Then "arms" means flintlock muskets. You have the right to bear all of those you care to. But that's all it covers.
Did you read what I wrote or are you being intentionally obtuse?

We don't reinterpret the definition of speech because there are new mediums of speech just like we don't redefine the definition fo arms because arms have gotten better.

The definition of speech and arms have not evolved, new forms of speech and new forms of arms have been invented. You are trying to redefine the word regulated to mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean. Now in today's day and age with a standing army and as the alrgest most powerful military force the world has ever known, perhaps we don't need the help of the militia to stave off the British hordes zerging down from Canada but we know that the Japanese were contemplating the invasion of the USA but decided against it because of our militia (armed citizenry).

I think the primary reason why so many gun advocates push the defense of tyranny angle is because there are not really very many people who think we need a militia for defense against Hirohito. Right now, the only country powerful enough to wage war on America is America, I don't know this will always be the case.

I don't think tyranny is very likely in my lifetime but it was only about 10 years ago when many people (myself included) thought we were headed down the road towards tyranny. If 9/11 had happened in the midst of the financial crisis, and the rise of the Tea party, don't you think tyranny might have been on the horizon?

Quote:
And no, you are not a member of anything that the word "militia" covers, however "regulated" including none at all, in any reality-based sense it has ever had.
You only believe that because you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't considermyself a militiaman but I am and you might be too. See the part below about the unorganized militia. If you want to go back to the 1700's it is even clearer that I (and perhaps you) would be part of the militia.

Quote:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Quote:
Now go back and dream your little porn dreams of adequacy, psychopath.
I hope you never regret not having a gun.
  #2628  
Old 08-01-2013, 10:46 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
we know that the Japanese were contemplating the invasion of the USA but decided against it because of our militia (armed citizenry).
Could you save me Googling and provide a link? I vaguely recall that there were civilians watching for submarines and aircraft on the West coast. I don't recall anything on the East coast, where German submarines were actually sinking merchant vessels.
Thanks.
  #2629  
Old 08-01-2013, 11:41 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Check the Snopes BB on it.

No, that's just another piece of gun porn that DA has embraced wholeheartedly, without even cursory fact-checking. It does after all provide him some reassurance, regardless of the laughter from the reality-based community. Typical.

When's the next militia drill, losers?
  #2630  
Old 08-01-2013, 11:47 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
This is so idiotic as to not bear addressing--not to mention the fact that "well-regulated" STILL means "in good order", when speaking for example of a timepiece.
And does not, and never has, included "unorganized". Not that I expect that ever to get through your wall of ideology.

Quote:
The UCMJ excludes unlawful orders from being obeyed, and "I believed that was against the law or standing regulations" is a valid affirmative defense to a charge of disobeying orders.
You can't even tell the truth about what you yourself have said. Your word, and you can scroll up and recheck, was "reasonable". Lawful orders can include lots of things that you might consider unreasonable, but you take exception to them. Your chance to explain their unlawfulness, if that's your argment , comes at your court-martial. In wartime, you might not even get the chance for that. IOW you are not capable of following orders, not capable of being part of a functioning military unit.

Quote:
At the point that becomes a risk, you might ask again.
And when might that be?

Quote:
My point precisely. I specifically train in shoot/no-shoot scenarios in courses designed for law enforcement and security agents, because I have a serious concern about not making a mistake with any firearm I choose to carry.
Nope, you're still missing the point about self-control. Are you a robot?

Quote:
Yet somehow, I'm supposed to NOT be worried about you getting drunk, angry, or scared and plowing your car into mine, or a crowd of kids at a bus stop, or whatever?
I have far less ability to kill or maim you if I'm not carrying a device designed to do just that, no. You are far safer from me than I am from you. Have you ever been diagnosed with a learning disorder?
  #2631  
Old 08-01-2013, 11:48 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Check the Snopes BB on it.

No, that's just another piece of gun porn that DA has embraced wholeheartedly, without even cursory fact-checking. It does after all provide him some reassurance, regardless of the laughter from the reality-based community. Typical.
. But it's a fact -some guy on the internet said it one time! What do you expect him to do, research? If only he could like to a YouTube video to prove it.
  #2632  
Old 08-01-2013, 11:57 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
It is true, in fairness, that a major reason for the Allies cancelling Operations Olympic and Coronet, the invasion OF Japan, was that essentially the entire civilian population, children included, had been armed and/or trained with swords, mainly bamboo but still deadly.

Firearms, though? Not so much. Especially not the flintlock muskets that a 1700's reading of the Second Amendment would have permitted them to bear.
  #2633  
Old 08-01-2013, 10:16 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Could you save me Googling and provide a link? I vaguely recall that there were civilians watching for submarines and aircraft on the West coast. I don't recall anything on the East coast, where German submarines were actually sinking merchant vessels.
Thanks.
Apparently there is no proof. And as far as the gun grabbers are concerned that means that their side is entirely vindicated and gun nuts have no arguments. Of course they can't counter the fact that the best information we have tells us that:

-there are ~350,000 defensive gun uses while there are only ~700 accidental deaths

-CCWs tend to be more law abiding than the general population

-the overwhelming majority of people who commit gun murders aren't allowed to possess guns in the first place (and therefore aren''t likely to comply with any new gun laws like an AWB).

-their precious AWB would have been entirely ineffective

-the last AWB made no noticable difference in gun deaths

-every time they go apeshit with things like AWB's they will actually hurt their own cause (like they did this last time around)

But no, they do a touchdown dance because some tangential thing I said turns out to be apocryphal. Its like they don't realize they are doomed to keep losing this fight unless they get their head out of their ass and deal with the fact that there are 300 million guns in private hands and that there is about as much chance of getting those guns out of society as there is of our democracy turning into the sort of tyranny that gun nuts think can be staved off by an armed populace.

I suppose that this sort of pettifoggery, lies and insults is really all they have left. Its kind of sad really. They are never going to get even moderate gun control because they keep thinking that they have a monopoly on good ideas.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 08-01-2013 at 10:18 PM.
  #2634  
Old 08-01-2013, 10:27 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And does not, and never has, included "unorganized". Not that I expect that ever to get through your wall of ideology.
The VERY WORD is in the Federal Code, dingbat. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
One can be in an unorganized militia and well-regulated if one is, for example, not currently organized into a unit, but knows the operation of his weaponry enough to be considered well-regulated in their use.

I'm sorry you can't get it through your wall of ideology.

Quote:
You can't even tell the truth about what you yourself have said. Your word, and you can scroll up and recheck, was "reasonable".
*sigh* Right. I can't actually think of a place where an order I'd find prima facie unreasonable would not also be unlawful in my opinion.

Quote:
And when might that be?
At the rate we're going, when the insane fundy Christian types finally decide to try to secede again. I rate it about a 0.0001% chance of happening in my lifetime, and that's the most plausible scenario.

Quote:
Nope, you're still missing the point about self-control. Are you a robot?
I'm not missing the point. I am pointing out that it cannot possibly apply ONLY to firearms.

Quote:
I have far less ability to kill or maim you if I'm not carrying a device designed to do just that, no.
No, you do not. Your car is an extremely deadly weapon--that is not its purpose, but that doesn't change the fact it's capable of delivering far more kinetic energy to a target than any firearm I could possibly buy.

At the wheel of the average car, any time you succumb to anger or fear or alcohol, you could choose to kill almost any person in your field of vision within seconds with no possibility of their survival--even my shitbox Neon could could generate more impact energy than 30 simultaneous shots of the most powerful bullet one can reasonably buy. Other uses of each tool nonwithstanding, the "angry/scared/drunk" argument applies equally to guns, vehicles, construction equipment, chainsaws, you name it--the only thing that even slightly varies is the potential effective range (but I've never seen the angry or drunk guy who was a good shot yet).

Last edited by Zeriel; 08-01-2013 at 10:31 PM.
  #2635  
Old 08-02-2013, 09:39 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,573
This Florida based CCW gun-owner has failed to learn anything from the Zimmerman case. If he would have just killed the vicious thugs attacking him, everything would have been fine.
  #2636  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:00 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
At the wheel of the average car, any time you succumb to anger or fear or alcohol, you could choose to kill almost any person in your field of vision within seconds with no possibility of their survival--even my shitbox Neon could could generate more impact energy than 30 simultaneous shots of the most powerful bullet one can reasonably buy. Other uses of each tool nonwithstanding, the "angry/scared/drunk" argument applies equally to guns, vehicles, construction equipment, chainsaws, you name it--the only thing that even slightly varies is the potential effective range (but I've never seen the angry or drunk guy who was a good shot yet).
Dude, NEVER bring a car to a gunfight. You will lose that shit every time.
  #2637  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:03 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Apparently there is no proof.

<snip>

But no, they do a touchdown dance because some tangential thing I said turns out to be apocryphal.
It's certainly hard to take you seriously when you repeat urban legends that are obviously bullshit to anyone who's given the matter a second's thought. I don't know if you want to call it a touchdown dance, but I'd be embarrassed all to hell if I repeated something like that with a straight face. And this is the 2nd time for you.
  #2638  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:34 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
One can be in an unorganized militia and well-regulated if one is, for example, not currently organized into a unit, but knows the operation of his weaponry enough to be considered well-regulated in their use.
Dude. The militia is the National Guard. It has been since 1903. You ain't in the Guard? Then you ain't in nothing out here in the real world that qualifies.

Quote:
I can't actually think of a place where an order I'd find prima facie unreasonable would not also be unlawful in my opinion.
You're really having trouble with the concept, aren't you? Your opinion don't mean jack. An order is an order. You don't know what an order is or you wouldn't be qualifying it.

Quote:
I rate it about a 0.0001% chance of happening in my lifetime, and that's the most plausible scenario.
Out here in the real world, meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of real gun deaths every year. But those, to you, are acceptable in order to prevent something that you recognize is not going to happen in the real world. How is that sane?

Quote:
I'm not missing the point. I am pointing out that it cannot possibly apply ONLY to firearms.
You're trying to pick definitional standards, on a word by word basis based on the result you wish to achieve. If you think that convinces anyone but your fellow fetishists, you're mistaken.

Quote:
No, you do not. Your car is an extremely deadly weapon--that is not its purpose, but that doesn't change the fact it's capable of delivering far more kinetic energy to a target than any firearm I could possibly buy.
OK, you can keep your damn gun if you stop driving. What, you want to drive too, not just keep something else that is intended to kill or maim? Then guess what, fool, you are more dangerous than me.


Damuri, a point does not become tangential just because it blows up in your face. You've been proven once again to be a fantasizing little fool. Deal with it, learn from it, grow.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 08-02-2013 at 10:36 AM.
  #2639  
Old 08-02-2013, 12:06 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
It's certainly hard to take you seriously when you repeat urban legends that are obviously bullshit to anyone who's given the matter a second's thought. I don't know if you want to call it a touchdown dance, but I'd be embarrassed all to hell if I repeated something like that with a straight face. And this is the 2nd time for you.
You are welcome to take me seriously or not, I can't stop you either way. If you think I am generally uninformed or misinformed and that people like Elvis have a better factual understanding on the issue, then I can't stop you.

Does it undermine Hentor's credibility when I provide evidence that CCWs are more law abiding than the general public? Does it undermine Elvis's credibility when I provide evidence that the vast majority of gun murders are committed by people who are not allowed to possess guns? Of course not. It is their reaction to being presented with this evidence that undermines their credibility.

I try to admit mistakes visibly, vocally and immediately. My mistakes have been misreading a Texas report about no murders committed by a CCW in one year to say that CCW's don't commit murder and referring to a very frequently repeated apocryphal statement for which there is an absence of evidence (not an evidence of absence but certainly not enough to support making the statement). I think I recognized both of these immediately.

The people I am debating with spend their efforts weaseling around admitting mistake because their mistakes would undermine the structural supports of their arguments. I've turned around 180 degrees in some recent debates, I can't think of any examples of Elvis doing so (or Hentor for that matter), they are welcome to provide some examples (unless they insist that they have never been wrong about anything). Its part of what this board is supposed to be about but that's not how these guys seem to be built.

I am open minded on the gun issue (and hopefully all other issues) but if you want to change my mind on the AWB (or any type of confiscation) you have to bring new facts. I don't think any set of facts would change the minds of the gun grabbers like Elvis (and the same could probably be said of some of the gun nuts too) or Hentor (Hentor would just do a better job than Elvis of rationalizing why he can maintain his beliefs despite the new evidence, Elvis would just start calling people baby killer and assume he won the argument).

Aren't both of my mistakes are on really tangential points? It doesn't undermine my argument if CCW commit crime if I can provide evidence that they commit no more crime than the general population (and the evidence is that they commit less). It doesn't undermine the notion that an armed populace might one day dissuade invasion even if I can't prove that someone once contemplated it but was dissuaded by our armed populace. Nitpicking these things borders on pettifoggery.

Constantly digging up shit that someone admitted they got wrong is not just poor form it shows a weakness in their argument (and probably their character).

My main argument this entire debate can be boiled down to:

AWB is stupid, you are stupid or ignorant (or both) if you support it, we already tried it for 10 years and it didn't achieve diddly squat. All it does is rile up gun owners and undermine efforts at getting anything done. If you could prove to me that an AWB would prevent some percentage of future Newtowns, I would remove the pistol grips on my rifles tomorrow, but it won't make a difference.

There are 300 million guns in private hands, we are never going to confiscate them all. We have to expend our energy on making sure that they remain in the hands of law abiding citizens and reducing leakage into criminal hands. And yes that means enforcing gun laws rather than having the Milwaukee Police Chief tell us that “We don’t chase paper, we chase armed criminals” when we ask him why we don't go after the felons that tried to buy guns but failed the background check.

Licensing and registration is a far more effective means of achieving lower gun murders than an AWB and is at least as likely to be passed as an AWB. You can make a MUCH better principled argument for L&R than an AWB.

The gun grabbers had an opportunity for some real gun reform in the immediate aftermath of Newtown but the focus on an AWB killed any momentum for gun control.

The second amendment gives a right to private gun ownership.

Elvis is a poopyhead.

I am open minded on all but the last point.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 08-02-2013 at 12:08 PM.
  #2640  
Old 08-02-2013, 12:52 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Everyone should be mindful of the fact that Damuri Ajashi's evidence re: CCW safety was an write up of Texas data by some guy on the internet. That's it.

His other evidence consists of quotes from a lawyer in LA and from Bill Bennett. He considers this evidence.

Just so we're all clear on what's being asserted.
  #2641  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:07 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
And he still is yammering nonstop about the AWB, like an untreated OCD patient, still claiming that his side's efforts to stop Manchin-Toomey, which would have done what he claims he wants done but was not an AWB, was actually its proponents' fault!

His ability to fantasize even includes that. And it is not the mark of someone mentally healthy enough to be permitted even to look at a gun.
  #2642  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:26 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
I should have added that he isn't even bothering to support his claims even that far, when bloviating about how and why the AWB and Manchin-Toomey bills got defeated. No news reports, no commentary, not even some other guy on the Internet. Nothing, just his imagined butthurt.

But remember, this is a guy for whom tens of thousands of deaths are an excusable and rationalizable abstraction at best, while the jackboots of tyranny are a real threat. That syndrome would be laughable if it weren't so common and so rarely treated.
  #2643  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:33 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
But remember, this is a guy for whom tens of thousands of deaths
Are you referring to people killed by firearms?

That doesn't bother me as long as when the guys Mrs. Plant was to testify against come through the door, at 5' tall I have something to shoot them with.
  #2644  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:40 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
It's more likely something that can be grabbed away and used against you. Have you thought this out, practiced some tactics etc., or is this another case of compensatory fantasizing?

Yes, no doubt there are legitimate cases of successful defensive gun use. But the numbers of deaths from gun use are far, far greater. Now, what then should a responsible society do?
  #2645  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:43 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, no doubt there are legitimate cases of successful defensive gun use. But the numbers of deaths from gun use are far, far greater. Now, what then should a responsible society do?
Hm, be sure every one knows how to shoot safely and accurately, so that folks won't break into homes knowing that they could become shot?
  #2646  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:54 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Death is a more serious matter than that to some of us. Kindly indulge us, if you can.
  #2647  
Old 08-02-2013, 01:59 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Death is a more serious matter than that to some of us. Kindly indulge us, if you can.
I'll do my best
  #2648  
Old 08-02-2013, 02:03 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Smileys don't help your case.
  #2649  
Old 08-02-2013, 02:10 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Smileys don't help your case.
I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm indicating a friendly difference of opinion rather than a brawl.
  #2650  
Old 08-02-2013, 02:59 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It's more likely something that can be grabbed away and used against you.
No problem; if they grab my gun away from me, then they'll have the gun, so I'll grab it away from them.

Honestly, "they'll just grab your gun away from you" is the most retarded anti-gun argument I've ever heard.
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 04:05 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