Guns, weapons and society

[SnakeSpirit]

@iamme99

But when someone refuses to accept the statement and says they disagree, then we are at a standoff and there is nothing more for me to say, other than I disagree with you, UNLESS you can produce something valid that shows I am wrong. Do so, and I will reply.

OK, here it IS!

Here is a rational question for you to answer:

Are you aware that the United States was attacked several years ago on the 11th of September?
and
Are you aware that this is counter to your statement earlier?

@iamme99

It’s always fascinating to see how gun proponents turn any question of the value or need for gun ownership by the general populace **to the extremely unlikely scenario of “what if the country were attacked ** or what if the government needs to be overthrown”. Puh-leeze.

Emphasis mine…

Now:

Do you still hang on to the fallicious notion that our country being attacked is an “extremely unlikely scenario?”

It just can’t get clearer than that, Mimi. I predict that you won’t answer, and that if you do it will be some underhanded attempt to squirm out of it or redirect it (perhaps with an attack on me as you have in the past, or with slight-handed prestidigitation and misdirection).

You won’t admit that you were wrong. Your ego just won’t allow it.

I won’t call you a fool. I don’t have to. All one needs to do is read your answers and the answers you refused to make and the fallicious reasonings you use to misdirect the qustions and the label you deserve is obvious.

You prove who you are.

ATTENTION MODERATORS!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Now, you said:

@iamme99

UNLESS you can produce something valid that shows I am wrong. Do so, and I will reply.

I have produced something valid that shows you are wrong. You said you would reply. Now reply, or be forever banished from this thread!

:dubious:

[SnakeSpirit]

@iamme99

apparently rabid gun owners.

Wrong again. 99 me’s. There is NO rabies in Hawai`i. :smack:
But I’ve heard that Northern California is awash with it!

Please don’t reply to this one…

Oh, PLEASE…

[SnakeSpirit]

@iamme99

If you don’t like it, all I can say is - go away.

And ruin all your fun? Do you really want us all to go away?

Are you kidding? And spoil all OUR fun?

Watching you squirm away from TRUTH by pretending it doesn’t exist is more fun than “The Cat in the Hat!”

See, we can’t have F U N without “U” in the middle!

You are more slapstick than “Saturday Night Live” re-runs. You bumble better than John Belushi samurai-swording his teddy bear! You are funnier and sadder than Buster Keaton!

Oh, I know, don’t say it. Except for the Cat in the Hat you don’t know who those others are. Sorry - to elucidate, Buster Keaton was a sad-sack comedian that always messed up everything he tried to do, when HE thought he was “right.”

John Belushi was on TV late on Saturday nights about 20+ years ago (it was before 9-11), and he was another bumbling fellow.

Go away? No, thank you; I’m having too much
F U N !

[SnakeSpirit]

@BMalion

I’m still waiting for your answer to my questions.
(…)
Merely being snarky on a message board
(…)
Please try and read a question, then answer, directly, the question asked.

AND - iamme99 answered this one by saying:

@iamme99

I only get snarky in return to others acting the same way. Time and again here, all I’ve seen are poorly made analogies, hyperbole to the extreme and many, many personal attacks by apparently rabid gun owners. I’ve answered all REASONABLE (and actually some unreasonable) questions that have been presented. Unfortunately, you and others don’t like the answers. There’s nothing I can do about that. And I have no intention of changing how I do anything. If you don’t like it, all I can say is - go away.

In other words: It misdirected again. It never answered BMalion’s question. It slimed out.

[SnakeSpirit]

It says:

@iamme99

go away.

It’s all about ME!

Or in this case it’s about:

**ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME **

Which is, 99 Me’s.

Itisme99

Kinda reminds me of the egotistical opera singer…

[asterion]

@Snakespirit

You never responded to your statement to the effect that gun owners were ridiculous to believe the US could be attacked when IN FACT, it was attacked on 9-11, and that the effect of that attack could have been minimized by gun owners.

Well, to be fair, I doubt that the hijackings could have been minimized by gun owners. Carrying a gun into the cabin is not, was not, and as far as I know has never been allowed. So I suppose someone could have slipped their gun through security and then use it to stop the hijackers, but I doubt it. Plus, until that morning we all knew that what to do in the event of a hijacking was to cooperate while the hijackers get some prisoners released or fly the plane to Cuba or whatever and the passengers and crew would most likely make it out okay. Far better would be to have an armed air marshal on every flight.

[SnakeSpirit]

@iamme99

to bring “democracy” to the rest of the heathens. We don’t seem to really care what the rest of the world thinks. And who exactly is going to try to impose sanctions against the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Should we care?

Only if you are human and have some compassion for the rest of humanity.

Hitler and his “WE” group didn’t care either.

Hitler, like you, wanted to eliminate private gun ownership.

Hitler said the rest of the world would follow in Germany’s footsteps.

It didn’t.

So, like you, he had plans to enforce his delusions of grandeur.

Oh, I know you’ve already stopped reading this, this is only to warn other possible posters about you.

Like you, he thought that people who didn’t listen to him should be imprisoned or killed.

He killed 6,000,000 Jews, just cause they were jewish.

You would kill 87.6 million gun owners if they refused to turn in their guns, because “your law” made them criminals.

Now, I’m not going to call you a rabid, brain-damaged, mentally ill, gun-banning, gun-hating kook. Let people read your posts and make their own decision.

I’ll just tag along and point out your inconsistencies and irrationalities whenever you post them and let you further embarrass yourself and ignore us by covering your eyes and ears and going,

"ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME Me can’t hear you… ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME Me ignoring you!.. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME Me not answer your questions!!! ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

But don’t worry. I’m here to stay.

Cause you’re dangerous.

And people need to be warned.

And I’m your Snake.

[SnakeSpirit]

@asterion

Well, to be fair, I doubt that the hijackings could have been minimized by gun owners. Carrying a gun into the cabin is not, was not, and as far as I know has never been allowed. So I suppose someone could have slipped their gun through security and then use it to stop the hijackers, but I doubt it. Plus, until that morning we all knew that what to do in the event of a hijacking was to cooperate while the hijackers get some prisoners released or fly the plane to Cuba or whatever and the passengers and crew would most likely make it out okay. Far better would be to have an armed air marshal on every flight.

To clarify, I was supposing that it were legal to carry guns on airplanes. (Within my lifetime it has been legal.) There IS currently legislation that is striving to have pilots carry pistols IN THE CABIN. It’s a good idea. And armed air marshalls are a good ldea, but our government dropped the ball on that one. (Surprise!)

Remember, there were four planes hijacked.

Two had the people cooperate and they hit the World Trade Center, and thousands of people died.

One had the people cooperate and it hit the Pentagon, and more people died.

The fourth one was over Pennsylvania, and a half-dozen people realized they weren’t going to live if the hijackers got their way.

They attacked the hijackers, and died in the process.

Everyone on that plane died, but we don’t really know where that plane was heading, only that if those people had NOT fought back, many more would have died.

And that’s without guns.

Now I’m NOT proposing that people carry guns onto airplanes. Frankly, I think that having the pilots and some air marshalls carry guns on the plane would be good enough, and there are too many kooks out there that have hate for people unlike themselves (no, not you, I’m thinking of someone else that posts here) for us to permit guns to be carried openly on planes.

Using the same suppositions here as the threadleader uised in its arguments, I’m simply saying that IF some of the people on those four planes were carrying guns, a lot fewer people would have died.

You are free to disagree; I just ask you to be fair, and think about it.

[Gaudere]

iamme99

It will be entirely solved when we remove guns from all of your “cold, dead hands”.

SnakeSpirit

Now, I’m not going to call you a rabid, brain-damaged, mentally ill, gun-banning, gun-hating kook.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Guys, calm DOWN. I can and will lock this thread if people don’t stop namecalling and hinted death threats.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[SnakeSpirit]

@iamme99

But 11,000+ gun deaths per year in the USA and most of them were not from an act of self-defense.

No. Most of them were police shooting "suspects.

[SnakeSpirit]

@iamme99

Did you see the NYPD Blue show a couple of weeks ago where someone accidentally fired a gun in an apartment and the bullet went through the wall of the next door unit and killed an innocent person?

Yes, very logical. Let’s get our take on reality from TV.

[Kaboodle]

@iamme99

@UncleBeer

And I’m still waiting for substantiation of your claim that gun crime is increasing in proportion to the increase in the number of guns in the U.S. Cough it up, or retract your lie.

Whoa, cowboy. If you’re going to quote me, at least get the quote straight. I said nothing about “proportions” anywhere! That’s your addition. What I said was the number of murders, injuries, accidents and thefts caused by or related to guns keeps increasing. Most people can see this in their newspapers every day. I also provided a cite which makes the case that gun/weapon statistics are not valid since many incidents are not reported or are not classified as having been caused by a weapon. I have nothing to retract and you may as well stop asking, because I will retract nothing!

Bolding mine.

Here are the numbers I was able to find from the Center for Disease Control - National Center for Health Statistics

In 2001, 29,573 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 52, Number 3
In 2000 a total of 28,663 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 50, Number 15
In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 49, Number 8
In 1998 a total of 30,708 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 48, Number 11
In 1997 a total of 32,436 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 47, Number 19
In 1996 a total of 34,040 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 47, Number 09
In 1995 a total of 35,957 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. Monthly Vital Statistics Reports Volume 45, Number 11 Supplement 2

• Sorry, I couldn’t find the publication with 1994 deaths. *
  In 1993, 39,595 deaths were assigned to firearm injuries. Monthly Vital Statistics Reports Volume 44, Number 7 Supplement February 29, 1996

Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports:
Each year, about 4-1/2 million new firearms, including approximately 2 million handguns, are sold in the United States.

The CDC says the number of firearm deaths per year have decreased by over 10,000 from 1993 to 2001. The Department of the Treasury BATF says the number of guns in the U.S. is increasing by over 4 million a year. This conflicts with your statement, please explain.

[iamme99]

@tiglon1

Bolding mine.

Here are the numbers I was able to find from the Center for Disease Control - National Center for Health Statistics

In 2001, 29,573 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 52, Number 3
In 2000 a total of 28,663 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 50, Number 15
In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 49, Number 8
In 1998 a total of 30,708 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 48, Number 11
In 1997 a total of 32,436 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 47, Number 19
In 1996 a total of 34,040 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 47, Number 09
In 1995 a total of 35,957 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States. Monthly Vital Statistics Reports Volume 45, Number 11 Supplement 2

• Sorry, I couldn’t find the publication with 1994 deaths. *
  In 1993, 39,595 deaths were assigned to firearm injuries. Monthly Vital Statistics Reports Volume 44, Number 7 Supplement February 29, 1996

Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports:
Each year, about 4-1/2 million new firearms, including approximately 2 million handguns, are sold in the United States.

The CDC says the number of firearm deaths per year have decreased by over 10,000 from 1993 to 2001. The Department of the Treasury BATF says the number of guns in the U.S. is increasing by over 4 million a year. This conflicts with your statement, please explain.

For a variety of reasons, crime and gun statistics are questionable. I’d hate to get into a battle over numbers that are likely highly inaccurate. I’ll recite from post #224:

From Crime Statistics Questioned
Criminal justice experts are warning that crime statistics are unreliable. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently dropped Philadelphia from its national crime reporting program. And a decade ago, it dropped the entire states of Florida and Kentucky.

What are the problems?

Critics have accused the police of failing to take written reports of all crimes or of downgrading reports to less serious offenses.

Meanwhile, some police reports over-rate the seriousness of an offense.

Even if they were not intentionally undercounting or overcounting crime, no two agencies classify crime in exactly the same way, experts report.

[Shodan]

@iamme99

For a variety of reasons, crime and gun statistics are questionable. I’d hate to get into a battle over numbers that are likely highly inaccurate.

Especially when they prove you are talking out your ass.

In other words, we are supposed to believe statements you have hallucinated, and dismiss what the Center for Disease Control reports. Uh huh.

Now then - prove a single statement you have made, anywhere in this thread. For instance, you claimed that making the private ownership of guns would eliminate the incidence of gun crime. If that were a reasonable option, it would work in other cases - specifically, alcohol use. Please show that prohibition of alcohol eliminated the problem of alcohol use in the United States.

Or, if you can’t, stick your fingers in your ears and say, “Na nanananana - I can’t hear you!” That seems to be your first line of defense against arguments you cannot refute.

Your ears, or another orifice of your own choosing.

Regards,
Shodan

[BMalion]

@iamme99

I only get snarky in return to others acting the same way. Time and again here, all I’ve seen are poorly made analogies, hyperbole to the extreme and many, many personal attacks by apparently rabid gun owners. I’ve answered all REASONABLE (and actually some unreasonable) questions that have been presented. Unfortunately, you and others don’t like the answers. There’s nothing I can do about that. And I have no intention of changing how I do anything. If you don’t like it, all I can say is - go away.

Ok you used the quote box, that’s good.

Yet you again did not answer the question(s).

You refuse to change.

So you’d be okay with an automatic message board that just fired random questions at you so you could rant awhile? I don’t think you’d really want that.

If you truly wish to help convince people of your argument you’ll have to learn a little give-and-take.

Answering direct questions put to you shows that you are knowledgable about the issues being discussed and that you are respectful of the other party.

For instance, If I have given you offense, I apologize. Please forgive me.

May I have an answer to my question?

Maybe if you helped me, and I’m serious here, I might change my stance on some of these issues. I do not own any guns myself. So right there I show that I am noy a “rabid gun-owner” I have no personal stake, at this time, in gun ownership by private individuals.

So again, please explain, briefly, how logic works, what is logic?

[smiling_bandit]

“Whosoever shall say, Thou fool in Great Debates, shall be in danger of not getting to post anymore.”

Moderator’s Note: No direct insults outside of the pit, smiling bandit.

I do apologize to you. I meant only that Iamme may not have thought out events clearly when implicitly asserting that martial arts training was an adequate defense against firearms.

…and deputise them. I’d ask them to join me in my crusade against lawlessness, and foreign interests. I’d call them “patriots”. They’d make a perfect paramilitary force, and they wouldn’t have the presumed impartialitry or preventive discipline of the military or police. Isn’t that what Mussolini did? Isn’t that what Mugabe is doing in Zombabwe?

Nah, they were never able to get a large proportion of the populace behind them. Hitler was better at it, but even so it was a matter of more people believed he was the only one capable of ending the chaos. It certainly wasn’t his street militia. Actually, Hitler’s Brownshirts (what you’re talking about here) mostly tussled on the streets with communists in big brawls, not gun-battles, anyway. They didn’t need firearms by the caseload, because they weren’t a paramilitary force, but rather more of a living public relations move.

I don’t have any desire to kill anyone either. But if the law was changed and you choose not to follow the law, then you will have to face the consequences. If you choose to use your guns and stores of ammunition to defend you “ideals”, with no regard for the law, what else would you expect?

Alright: in order to protect US citizens, you want to strip them of liberty, arrest or kill everyone who resists, and do house-to-house searches for illicit firearms? How does this make us safer? Happier? More prosperous?

[BMalion]

@iamme99

… all I’ve seen are poorly made analogies…

Remember:

You did not like…

the analogy that protection from attack with a gun is like protection from fire with a fire extinguisher.

That seemed like a decent analogy to me.
From here:

Analogy is the comparison of two pairs which have the same relationship. The key is to ascertain the relationship between the first so you can choose the correct second pair. Part to whole, opposites, results of are types of relationships you should find.

Example:
hot is to cold as fire is to ice OR hot:cold:ice

Would you give me an example of a well made analogy?

[pervert]

@iamme99

For a variety of reasons, crime and gun statistics are questionable. I’d hate to get into a battle over numbers that are likely highly inaccurate. I’ll recite from post #224:

Well, the numbers tiglon1 gave were not crime or gun statistics as such. They were death statistics. Are you saying that your cite from the National Center For Policy analysis claims that death certificates are unrealiable? I don’t think it says that.

[iamme99]

@BMalion

You did not like…

the analogy that protection from attack with a gun is like protection from fire with a fire extinguisher.

That seemed like a decent analogy to me.

From here:

Would you give me an example of a well made analogy?

And I said I disagreed and said why. Beating a dead horse will not bring it back to life.

[iamme99]

@BMalion

May I have an answer to my question?

Maybe if you helped me, and I’m serious here, I might change my stance on some of these issues. I do not own any guns myself. So right there I show that I am noy a “rabid gun-owner” I have no personal stake, at this time, in gun ownership by private individuals.

So again, please explain, briefly, how logic works, what is logic?

I don’t know what your question is. If you did have a valid question, it’s gotten lost in all the noise here. If your question is about logic, then I have no response since that is not the subject of the thread.