Argument:
Rebuttal:
Fuck off. Imbecile.
I’m confused on a point. Why don’t you think that deliberate family shootings should be of a concern to society in evaluating whether people should be allowed the ability to use guns to defend themselves?
They’re called “honor killings,” not honor murders! Stopping hippie generations begins at home.
I presume SA’s argument is that, in the absence of guns, the killer would simply resort to another method such as substituting poison for the sugar the victims add to their porridge.
[ron swanson]Poison in the sugar bowl is for housewives and degenerates.[/ron swanson]
Stranger
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You can call me old as much as you like. People like you seem to think your schoolyard insults bother me…probably because schoolyard insults are so troubling to you…but you’re wrong. I’d much rather be me at my age than you at any age.
Wow, how clever is that? One would think I’d never heard it before, or that it had any significant meaning. You may choose to accept certain facts at face value, but as for me, I’m perfectly happy to ask questions to see if those facts support the conclusions they appear to find.
There’s no game on my part to give away. Is it not perfectly obvious for example that a simple statement such as ‘the states with the most guns have the most shootings’ may very well not mean what people like you prefer to claim it means, which is that a preponderance of guns leads to more shootings? In the first place I demonstrated upthread that there are approximately 20,000 guns in this country for every gun murder in a year. I was told by someone on your side that this is meaningless and that the number of guns in the country isn’t relevant, only the ones used in shooting someone. Now here you and Stranger are, arguing just the opposite.
But I digress. Is it not reasonable in the very least to question whether the reason that more shootings happen in states with more guns is because more people live there? And I’m not ‘just’ asking questions, I’m purposely asking it for the very good reason that such a fact is pertinent and may very well undermine the message that the so-called and likely biased fact is intended to convey.
Congratulations, Hector, you’re finally right about something after all these years. Clearly I misspoke and didn’t mean that the way it came out. I’m sure you and everyone else knows what I meant, but then if I were you I’d take my little victories wherever I can find them.
As I’ve said before, your constant and never-ending obsession with the underlying subject of these kinds of comments appear to me to be the result of a demented and depraved mind. It’s worthy of note that I never feel the need whatsoever to revisit the subject but you can’t let go of it. I’d say the unhealthy fixation you have with it is something that you as a current or former psychologist (whatever that entails, I can’t imagine you have any sort of job in the mental health field beyond that of a low-level flunky of some sort) should not even remotely have. I certainly wouldn’t let you within a mile of anyone I know who’s having mental issues.
Just gonna leave this here.
Because they aren’t a danger to the public at large, whereas street crime of the sort that gun ownership is intended to defend against is.
:eek: I’d say if someone kills their family, it’s reasonable to be concerned that they might be willing to kill others.
Is it your opinion that partial facts can’t be presented in such a way as to lead to a conclusion that is desired by a biased presenter? That every fact, no matter how incomplete or ill-considered, has value?
It certainly isn’t mine.
Well, if my questions and concerns are so wrongheaded and meaningless it should be easy for you to answer or refute them. Instead you merely fall back on the same things you said already. I’ll grant that I could have done a better job of composing that post, but it was late and I had other things that I needed to get on with. I didn’t even preview it first and am surprised it doesn’t contain worse than it does.
This is all well and good, and if this is as far as it would go, I and many other gun protection advocates would be fine with it. But guns are a leftie hotspot and we all know that the ultimate goal of the left is to do away with them altogether. This is obvious by their constant referral to other countries who’ve done so. The fact is that the left in this country never stops pushing once they’ve set their sights on some hot-button issue, and we on the right know that once gun control of the sort you propose takes effect it’ll be merely a foot in the door to further restrictions and further restrictions until finally they’re outlawed or done away with altogether. There simply never comes a time when the left in this country decides that things have gone far enough to remedy something they oppose short of doing away with it altogether.
I have a lot of respect for you, Stanger, and I share the admiration of many on the board for your intelligence, so it isn’t necessarily fun for me to cross swords with you. But I think that on this subject you are just too willing to take certain facts at face value because they support actions you’d like to see the country take on gun control and you aren’t wanting or willing to take a deeper look at them to see if the conclusions they arrive at take all the pertinent facts into consideration.
I’m sorry, I’m still confused; is it possible you’ve got my question the other way around? I’m not asking why you don’t think deliberate family shootings should be a concern to evaluate why people should be deprived of guns to defend themselves. I’m asking why you don’t think they should be a concern to evaluate why people should be allowed guns to defend themselves.
Put another way; if John Smith decides he’d like to kill his wife Jane to collect on the insurance money or something, and Jane defends herself when he attacks by shooting John with her gun, you would say “Well, we shouldn’t use this to evaluate why people should be allowed guns to defend themselves.”?
Sorry, I’m about to leave and don’t have much time, but basically I don’t think issues among family members have a rightful place in the national dialog when it comes to gun ownership intended to allow people to defend themselves from robberies, home intrusions, carjackings, etc. First of all, because such murders among family are rare compared to instances of street crime. Second, because they’re usually the result of anger, jealousy or some other emotionally issue and not related to criminal intent. And because I can’t imagine anyone taking seriously a pro-gun argument that guns are needed in order for citizens to protect oneself from family members. :smack: 
Of course, Starving Artist is wrong when he says that familial homicides are rare relative to other homicides. Half of homicides are committed by people who know the victim. 25% are committed by a family member.
Among women, about half of homicides are intimate partner violence.
To nobody’s surprise, Starving Artist is a fucking moron.
Whew. All the ominibus threads are throwing off the script that detects old threads. So I thought this was a new thread.
What do you guys think of putting the date in the title for these? I’m thinking of asking a mod to add it this one. That way it’s clear if there’s a new shooting vs. ongoing discussion of an older one.
It is JAQing off because anyone with actual interest in knowing the answer and a brain would simply read the evidence. It’s also a stupid question because any researcher would account for population size in such an analysis.
What are you talking about, dotard? Trying to distinguish “family killings” from “murders” is depraved, you sick demented fuck.
Fun facts: There are about 11 murder-suicide incidents per week in the US. Good thing that we can discount those suicides, since they are just suicides, and most of those victims, since those are just “family issues”. It’s the car jackings that really matter!
[Moderating]
I’ve edited the title to make it clear which school shooting this thread refers to.
Now I’m going to go get drunk, because Jesus fucking Christ.
[/Moderating]
Just gonna leave this here.
I agree that they (we) should advocate for the responsible oversight of firearms that you suggest, but I’m not sure I agree that the right will be heavily restricted or eliminated if we don’t…because, frankly, the anti-gun people just don’t have the power to do it. I’m pretty sure the status quo will continue indefinitely until a majority of gun owners themselves can see their way clear to supporting increased restrictions. This is unlikely to happen in numbers enough to make a difference if the NRA continues to maintain its hard line against any new gun-related legislation, though.