I believe I have proven my points. You are free to disagree. I pointed out that the statistics that some what to rely on may not be accurate. I refuse to debate inaccurate statistics. Again, you are free to disagree. I don’t care.
As to the rest of your BS, perhaps if you get down on your knees and put your face up REAL close to where you allude I am talking from, you might be better able to see and smell the big picture. 
No, you have no response because you have demonstrated quite admirably that you have no concept of logic whatsoever!
It saves a lot of people from getting murdered (purposefully or accidentally). Also, injuries from firearms would be [eventually] eliminated. Both of these ends will make people safer and happier. I’m unsure if it will make us more prosperous. You imply that the cost wouldn’t be worth the results. I’ve stated my reasons for why I believe that the cost would be worthwhile throughout the thread. I don’t know what else to say other than we’ll have to agree to disagree. <shrug>.
Are you alleging that the statistic you posted about the 11,000 deaths was inaccurate? Why then did you post it?
If you allege that it was accurate, why do you think so, and why do you dismiss statistics from the CDC but rely completely on those provided by advocacy groups?
Nope, not even begun to do so. All you have done is to dismiss and ignore all the points you realize you cannot refute, and generally behaved like an asshole towards everyone else.
For instance:
Address this point. If you wish to provide statistics, explain why your caveat regarding the unreliability of statistics does not apply.
Another example:
Please explain why a ban on guns would bring about all these happy events, whereas a ban on alcohol or cocaine has not done the same.
You have failed to address any other counter-arguments except to repeat that you don’t care, so I don’t expect much more here, but the exercise of pointing out how poor your reasoning and debate skills are is entertaining.
Let’s hear it, bubs.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a number I had seen somewhere. Apparently, if you choose to believe the CDC numbers, then that number is far off, since those statistics are about 3 times higher than what I quoted. If anything, I would believe that whatever the CDC is reporting is too low, since as the cite says, many crimes are not reported accurately or downgraded for a number of reasons. So who knows - maybe the CDC numbers are 20, 50 or 100% off themselves. So what’s your point?
No, I only behave a certain way to people who justify such behavior, like yourself.
Was addressed much eariler in this thread. Alcohol and anything other than guns are not the subject of the thread. So I will not dicuss them here. Go start your own thread if you want to address other subjects.
Well, you must lead quite the boring existence if this is how you get entertained. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
WARNING
POTENTIAL POSTERS TO THIS THREAD
BEWARE
Some individuals on this thread have consistantly shown that they may be here for reasons other than civilized discussion.
If you find yourself frustrated with an answer to your posts here:
DO NOT attempt to use logic with that poster; it refuses to listen to or answer logical, rational posts, questions or statements, and reserves itself to answering only those items which it can use to try to support its (sometimes self-referred to as “we.”) personal propaganda.
It, or they, will back off of arguments if you are right, but will not acknowledge them as being right. It also will refuse to retract statements which have been proven to be false, misrepresented or lies.
Others who continue to post here, recognize its right to have a thread all to itself and even to find gratification emotionally by being unreasonable. Freedom of screech, and all that…
If you wish to post to this thread, it is just better that you know this in advance. If you don’t believe the author of this post, start at post # 1 and read for yourself. If it turns out that I’m wrong, report me to Cecil or the moderators; the moderators are aware of the situation already.
It is only fair that you know what you are getting into by posting here. Those of us who CHOOSE to continue posting here are mostly doing so for our own reasons; I’m trying to fight ignorance.
IF you get “hooked” by someone on this thread in the above mentioned situations, strategic withdrawal will be seen as an honorable recourse by the rest of us.
If you want to stay and play, come join the fun. Just don’t expect everybody here to play by the rules.
You have been Warned!
:rolleyes:72 point red font repeatedly is not helping the situation any.
Originally Posted by BMalion
Would you give me an example of a well made analogy?
That is an example of a good analogy? You avoided the issue ONCE AGAIN!
:rolleyes:
Yes. All your points stink to high heaven. You have proven NOTHING. You have made yourself look foolish, which I guess you think is real fun or you wouldn’t keep doing it.
Repeating that you believe you have proven your points without offering eith some kind of mutually acceptable proof, or at least reconcatinating your argument in a concise and elucitating manner is like the three year old saying,“I’m NOT a baby!” over and over as if repitition equals verification. Difference is, eventually the BABY will be right; you won’t.
Well, as my sacred duty to conquering ignorance I must hereby pledge that as long as you keep lying, evading, and repeating nonsense I’ll keep pointing out your flaws.
All I got is time.
Snakespirit, you want to tone down the screaming a bit. Extra-large fonts and colors are not needed. If you want to take part in this “debate,” then feel free. But please stop shouting. You aren’t helping.
Iammae99, why is it ok for you to spout of statistics, but not anyone else? Is it because the statistics don’t back up your fantasies? Hmmmmm? Statistics can be found to fit any view, but why is it ok for you and not for the rest of us? A direct anser, if you please. No waffling or evasions.
Quite right, catsix (btw, nice tag!). That post is not an attempt to help the situation, but to warn newbies that this area is mined.
I tried to get it on the top of the page, but… oh well. Maybe on page 8.
I’ll keep them to a minimum. If anyone finds them offensive or against the rules or even the spirit, I’d consider stopping, but I do feel an obligation to protect the innocent.
Well, they’re annoying as all hell. Most people here, believe it or not, are smart enough to figure out for themselves that iamme99 is not interested in genuine debate.
OK, silenus, that’s two requests in a short period of time. Snakespirit can be reasonable, and responsive. My justification is in my previous post.
For the record, I feel that your quotes around the word “debate” are apt. This is no longer a debate. Debates have two reasonable, arguable points of view with consideration given by both sides to the other.
IMNSHO, this is a war.
Good question. So, iamme99, please put up or shut up. If you really think you have proven your point, then you can go away, your job is done. You’re not convincing anyone anymore, you have lost all your credibility (except for newbies, and I’m warning them), so why don’t you take your satisfaction and go home?
OR, even better, comply with everyone’s request and turn this into a REAL debate. I’m betting you won’t. Prove me wrong.
OK gang. I don’t want to annoy innocents (not implying that … oh never mind).
No more shouting.
No more pushing the envelope to find out how far I can go before I become a jerk.
No more anything offensive.
I’ll attack ideas, not people.
I even re-read the rules, and others here have violated the rules!
I think we could all use a nice mint julip under yonder magnolia tree.
Wish I could say “welcome to the new me,” but the best I can do is say:
Behold, a wiser Snakespirit. Thank you all for your input.
If I have offended anyone, I apologise.
:eek:
Wow.
Just… wow
For someone trying to prevent gun deaths and injuries this seems a little over the top, yes? Wow - this is really bloodthirsty for someone advocating civilization and the general welfare.
:rolleyes:
Now, here’s an excerpt from the SDMB Rules: (Emphasis mine)
I think iamme99’s taunt to Shodan fits nicely into those categories. Conversely, Shodan’s reference to **iamme99 ** “talking out your ass” is a well-known and widely accepted euphamism meaning that a person doesn’t know what they are talking about, and though crude, I think it doesn’t violate the criteria.
This should not be read as a personal issue, I talk about the intent of the words used, not who is saying them.
So, I’m cleaning up my act, and I expect a clean showroom, too.
I’m not going to bring the attention of the moderators to the above violation, this time; I still am just newly moved out of my glass house.
I’m sure this confession of ignorance surprises no one.
You see, this is why you need to educate yourself on a topic prior to debate.
Knife to a gunfight? No… you brought a sharp pointy stick to the invasion of Normandy…
No law can ever “supersede” the Constitution.
Tell me - do you have any comprehension of how the United States government is supposed to work?
You just don’t get it.
No law can EVER supercede the Constitution
What you are proposing is called an ammendment. Got it? Please make an effort to use the correct terminology when attempting to debate.
Nor is an ammendment ever “removed”. You pass another ammendment to nullify it, but it still remains part of the list.
If you wish to take a hiatus from this thread to educate yourself on the workings of the Federal government with a special emphasis on the Constitution I, for one, will be willing to wait a long time for your return. I mean, I want you to learn this subject thoroughly so an actual discussion can take place.
Actually, there was a time when it was not forbidden.
I don’t have the exact date or year, but at some point guns were forbidden, but prior to that people could and did carry firearms aboard.
They were banned to prevent armed people from hijacking airliners. Prior to 9/11/01, this ban was presented as part of the argument that hijackings of domestic airliners was so unlikely that it did not require as much attention and priority as, say, bombs or overseas attacks.
And, it is true, no guns were used on 9/11/01. See - we should all be happy! It’s been what, 30 years since we had the gun-crime of a passenger jet hijacking occur? Now all we have to do is worry about the freakin’ BOX CUTTERS. But, you know, at least all those thousands dead can rest in peace because it wasn’t a gun that killed them all.
(Oh, wow - didja see that? Steam just came out of my ears.)