I’m with you. I’m sick of hearing about them.
:rolleyes:
Um, you’re in the Pit right now. You might want to check your monitor settings if you can’t tell that.
You have not backed up your assertion that I was trying to get you to call someone a troll outside of the Pit (in fact, I nowhere said for you to call ANYONE a troll ANYWHERE). All I referred to in my first post in here, which is available for all to read, was piting people. As in, in “the Pit.” Where…we are right now. You know it, I know it, and your trying to state otherwise is indicative of some problem with comprehension.
You have not backed up your assertion that I was trying to get you banned, and you have not backed up your assertion that I was acting like a Moderator. I would think you would stand behind your words or else retract them. Are we going to be seeing any movement on that front anytime soon? And no, so we have maximum comprehension, I’m not referring to your bowel movements thus far deposited so lovingly in this thread…
So am I. But I am compelled to speak by the good number of insults, mischaracterizations, and outright lies that come up in gun threads. I have never said that you had to like guns. You may hate them. I can respect that. But when people talk about “penis compensators” and the like and make factual statements that are anything but I feel as though I am forced to educate people and try to cut through the disinformation. “Fighting ignorance” is a cliche around here, but a lot of it exists and is repeated over and over again. If it is not dispelled it will spread even further, and will be no more true than it is here, only more people will believe it and disseminate it as fact, making it even harder to have a good faith discussion.
Respect goes both ways, people. Rather than posting comments that seemingly have no other purpose than to start a fight, how about you try to respect the thoughts of others and make your points in good faith rather than insulting your opponents?
That goes for both sides of the argument, by the way.
Oh, Grampa, can you tell us the story about the definition of “automatic” weapons? We love that story!
I already have. And, unlike yourself, I have not stooped to using 3-year-old scataological insults. Your tone and statements regarding trolling were quite Mod-Like, hence my remarks. You know it, I know it, everyone reading knows it.
Airman Doors, USAF in principle I agree with your post, believe it or not. Respect is a word that gets bandied around an awful lot. Here on the Dope, it goes hand in hand with the Rules of the road, doesn’t it?
The fight for ignorance cannot take place where cold hard facts cannot be applied. Here are two simple facts that I bet even you would not dispute.
-
Firearms are owned in the United States largely by people who have had at least a reasonable amount of education as to the proper use, storage and transport of the weapons.
-
Firearms allow people to reach out with a level of sudden and irreversable violence unlike any other kind of weapon and in the hands of some people this leads to tragic results.
We’ve gone around and around a lot in these threads, ok? I know you and I have. I believe both of the statements above to be true, and on an abstract intellectual level I can respect those who believe statement 1 but not statement 2. However, I have zero respect for people who live their lives insisting that statement 2 is the result of frothing irrational terror towards guns and gun owners.
You want to go into G.D. and start a clearly defined rational debate, I am not sure I could control the emotional responses I may feel but I would try hard, in the cause of a good honest RESPECTFUL debate.
This is The Pit. A quick perusal of the Rules of this Board make it clear that this is the place to come to flame. Within the framework of even the most current alterations and interpretations, I can come in here and flame and express my upset and outrage without taking the serious care required in other Forums of our message board.
And not for nothing, but " So am I " doesn’t really quite ring true. I suspect that you’re not tired of hearing about gun threads and guns one bit. You are tired of hearing from members of this board, like myself, who do not believe in the same values and lifestyle that you believe in.
The difference here is that my value and lifestyle do not threaten your life or the life of your family in any way. The reverse, quite obviously, is not true. People who insist on carrying loaded weapons in public when not involved directly in law enforcement are not a part of the solution, they are a very sick and sad part of the problem.
If you do not agree with that, I respect you right not to. It appears you do not respect my right to this point of view. So, who is misusing the idea of respect now ? :rolleyes:
Irony.
I walked away from this post on Preview because I know I’m angered by this kind of back-and-forth. I went outside. It’s just beautiful out today, high 70’s, warm sunshing. I sat on the back deck to read a magazine and chill out before coming back in to re-read this and post it ( or not ). As I sat, I heard a tremendous bang. Then, another. And another and another. Birds flew off of tree limbs. Every few seconds, another resounding bang.
It was gunfire. I live about 1.5 miles from a range and since it is nice out, I guess people are shooting outside as well as inside today. Apparently I cannot get away from the sound of this thread, even if I’m not sitting at my computer. 
Cartooniverse
Since this is the pit and you don’t want discourse just bile I’ll help you out.
If cross climbing were an Olympic sport you’d be a gold medalist.
No, you haven’t “stooped to using 3-year-old scataological[sic] insults” in this thread, you’ve merely lied repeatedly and refused to come clean when called on it. I guess in your book that must give you the higher moral ground. :rolleyes:
I request the “cold hard facts” which you would offer in support of #2 above allegation. Otherwise, you’re merely shooting off your mouth.
The edit function is only useful when the server connects. I attempted to change that from both to simply #2, but the hamsters weren’t willing. #1 struck me as a dig at the intelligence level of gun owners: “at least a reasonable”, but let’s let that one pass.
Calling me a liar does not make me one, though I suspect in your mind it does. You threw out a lot of crap about trolling and whatnot. I called you on your shit, you don’t like that I did. That does not make me a liar, it simply points out the rules of the road, sweetie.
danceswithcats, you would like me to go and find proof that guns fire projectiles that move faster than a human being can, and faster than a rock or knife or sword can? Really? --laughing-- my god, you make this so very easy. Cold hard facts? Fine. After I return, I will be delighted to provide you with the ballistics and velocity tests on a variety of pistols and small automatic firearms that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they allow the holder/user to lash out with lethal results with more speed than any other device that can be held in the hand.
Ok? I’ll be glad to do that for you, since you apparently don’t believe this to be the case.
Cold hard facts. You betcha. That is a bit of ignorance I will be honored to stamp out.
And, #1 was in no way meant as a dig at gun owners- I was being dead serious and not shooting off my mouth at all.
Wow, you really are an asshole. If you had a fact you still would not have a clue regarding what one should do with it. You just keep making up your paranoid shit and we’ll keep pointing and laughing.
And it’s not calling you a liar that makes you one, it’s the untruths coming out of your mouth.
Una, do you realize you just used “[sic]” (even in proper form, an aside that has an unmistakably needling subtext) on a typo? Can your intellectualism get any more fucking petty? And lying repeatedly? Before now I thought Cartooniverse was using unnecessarily strong language, but you just took that cake. How can a matter of interpretation be a lie?
See, despite the clever little dodge you provided ArchiveGuy, this is still a bullshit kind of thing to say. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you seem like you’re baiting Cartooniverse, or acting like a mod. But you are quite obviously trying to belittle what may or may not be a valid point by pulling out a total goose/gander canard. And it makes you seem very petty. Just sayin’.
And here’s the thing, I actually agree with you. I too think Cartooniverse’s outrage is rather selective. However, there’s a right way and a wrong way to point that out, but you skipped over both and settled instead on just being a total bitch. Of course, there’s a time and place for such a thing, and this being the pit and him being hyper-hyperbolic, this would seem to be both the time and place for being a total bitch. Just don’t expect your ensuing opinions to be taken the least bit seriously, at least not by me.
I used it correctly.
-
“Lying repeatedly” is “unnecessarily strong language?” Have you ever been in the Pit before? Seriously?
-
There is no reasonable and sane interpretation that I was a) trying to get him banned by getting him to call people trolls outside the Pit, or b) acting like a Moderator. No reasonable and sane interpretation. Cartooniverse prides himself on his intelligence, so I have to assume that he’s a liar.
Indeed? Although my language was blunt, I think that hijacks by both sides of the gun control debate are equally stupid. But Cartooniverse isn’t so bothered by anti-gun hijacks on this Board, he’s just bothered by pro-gun hijacks. Read his response to Bobotheoptimist for crying out loud:
He proved my own point for me.
So to summarize, because I used “[sic]” correctly, because I used the “unnecessarily strong language” of “lying repeatedly” (in the Pit!), and because I responded to Cartooniverse’s over-the-top one-sided screed here, now everything I opine on from this day forth is worthless in your eyes. But Cartooniverse is still OK in your book - or at least you won’t tell him he’s not - for blatantly lying about what I said and mendaciously accusing me of acting like a Moderator.
Right. :dubious:
Oh, and in case anyone’s wondering; I love guns. Love, love, love 'em. I love firing them, I love reading about them, I even love holding them.
And I think they should be outlawed in any but the most controlled environment (i.e. gun ranges). My reasoning for this is simple: guns are undemocratic, and anti-populist, because they put too much power into the hands of one person who was not elected to that position of power.
I also think, whether you’re for or against guns, it’s the least significant issue on the table today. If I could, I’d trade an assault weapons ban for universal healthcare in a second. Anyone who has “gun control” (for or against) as their pet issue, needs to get their fucking pet euthanized.
Weird With Words, we ask that you keep all editorial remarks beyond those related to formatting and clarification outside of quote tags. Please avoid doing so in the future.
Interesting. " liar…untruths…paranoid shit… "
It is an untruth to say that a gun can kill more rapidly than a fist or a knife? Dude, you need some serious help. However, this IS the Pit, so… here you go, you snivelling little cocksucker. I have facts, I have a clue and I can present proof that the statement you are calling bullshit on is a simple fact of life. You’re so desperate to jump on the flame-fest that you picked on a simple fact of the modern world that I stated and called bullshit. Fine. Read on.
From The Range of a Handgun Bullet, we glean the following facts: ( cannot paste chart, so I cannot use a Quote )
Caliber === Muzzle Velocity ( ft./sec. )
9mm Luger ==== 1, 120
45 ACP ( Automatic Colt Pistol ) ==== 850
44 Magnum ==== 1, 760
From this we learn that a “slower” velocity of ammunition is 850 feet per second. I can envision fairly large parties, even outdoor parties, but any reasonably crowded party will afford someone firing a pistol the chance to hit someone in a fraction of a second. If someone disses you and you are carrying a 44 Magnum, and they are standing 20 feet away, the time elapsed between firing the weapon and striking them with the ammunition is exactly 1/88th of a second.
You wanted facts? There you go. I stated- and you called me a liar on the statement- that a gun is without doubt a faster way to lash out at someone than a fist or a knife. I said, in my #2 assertion,
danceswithcats responded with
.
I have done so. Seems to me that both danceswithcats and brownie55 owe me an apology, as I have ably backed up my statement with “cold hard fact”. Of course, you are both free to call bullshit on my cite- which would be mighty amusing to me, since a source for that cite is the N.R.A. Firearms Factbook as well as the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center.
You cannot possily disprove my statement because it is physically impossible to strike out as rapidly with a fist, knife or any other weapon that is non-ballistic in nature.
So. Feel free to say I cannot prove my assertion. If it makes you happy. Meanwhile, back in Reality, I have proven a core point here, which is that standing at a crowded party with someone wearing a loaded firearm places other partygoers in a much more immediate and irreversible danger than standing at a crowded part with nobody carrying a loaded firearm.
Interesting. The OP is doing a gun-hating hijack of this thread, which he started to Pit gun-loving hijacks of other threads.
I never said you didn’t, just that it was unecessary (since [sic] is usually used to note that you did not change the content, and nobody would think you did anyway) and petty (since it points out a mistake for no apparent reason other than needling him).
In response to point 1: You’re right, actually. Unnecessary was the wrong word, as the necessity or lack thereof wasn’t really what I was talking about. I guess I’d just dub it “baselessly inflammatory”, to call someone a liar (certainly rasing the shrillness factor a notch) without what I would call adequate basis for such an accusation.
In response to point 2 subsection a: Reasonable and sane are both completely subjective words given entirely to ahem interpretation. Maybe he wasn’t aware of the rule change (I wasn’t). Maybe he was mistaken (it’s happened to me). Maybe he’s just stupid (no comment). Interpretations abound, why cling to just one? In my opinion, when he first read your first post, he probably did think it was a legitimate accusation (I did, on first read) and was only made aware of the improbability of that when you referred him to the rule change, at which point he kind of tried to retroactively change his argument in an attempt to save face. But I’m not sure, so I won’t pretend to be.
In response to point 2 subsection b: I took that to be a comment on your attitude in the post, which seemed kinda bossy to me. In any case, it’s based on how he thinks you’re conducting yourself.
Also, you do know he wasn’t the only one you accused of lying, right?
I’d disagree, I thought it had quite an edge to it. A one-sided edge, but an edge nonetheless.
I took that to be an acknowledgement of his own prejudices. In other words, I may be against chemical warfare, but not find compelling enough reason to speak up unless it’s used on U.S. soldiers.
Replace “summarize” with “inversely paraphrase for unflattering effect with transparent prejudice” and you’ve got it about right.
No disrespect intended, oh long-necked one, but… Huh? I don’t get it. Does this mean I could use [sic] but not [ed note:]? Like, you can use modifiers, but nothing can actually be added? Or can they be corrective?
IOW, if I quoted you, then inserted a note saying, “[actually, I said ed note not ed remark]” in the text of the quote, that would be okay. But if the text is a response of any kind, it can’t be contained anywhere within the quote field.
Have I got it about right?
:dubious: I…see. What a strangely over-the-top position to take, especially when put into context. It implies there is more going on here than meets the eye. So it’s time to say “Stop the Planet of Cartooniverse, I want to get off!”, because to quote Willow Rosenberg, “Bored now.”