Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I know the butthurt of losing on all fronts stings (pro-tip, next time don’t go for retarded shit like an AWB) but when we last had this “conversation” it was clear that by “CDC report” I was referring to the CDC funded report. Do you really want to argue over this detail?

The CDC funded report? God damn you’re a dumbass. Do you think there’s one CDC funded project? Do you think there is “the NIH report” or “the NIMH report”? These agencies fund many projects, which produce many papers. Their funding sources are identified, but they are not referred to as “the CDC” report.

So which fucking report are you talking about? Do you even know?

Really? So where have you measured the negative impact of guns in society with the positive impact of guns? I don’t recall you ever conceding that guns have any measurable positive effect.

When people actually defend themselves against harm, I’m quite happy.

Your entire argument relies on not having to argue against actual facts. You prefer to argue against facts you have manufactured to justify your extremist position.

Eat shit. All you can do at this point is misrepresent and lie. You not only have no empirical evidence for your position, you don’t even understand empirical evidence and you cannot recall that which has been patiently explained to you. You appear to be too stupid to know what you don’t really understand.

And all in service of an effort to cover up your own personal feelings of inadequacy.

Yeah, and you pretend that there is no data.

Again, I took pains to explain the varied surveys on the topic, to link you to papers that discussed the problems, and to provide examples to help you understand.

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia

Your example of a time that I did not rebut a cite of yours is a link to Wikipedia? Is there some place on that Wikipedia page that documents this time that I failed to respond to your evidence? Goddamn, you’re a fucking moron, and now you’re adding being a lying weasel to that as well.

Give it a rest. You do know that CCWs are safer than the general population, right?

Now they are safer? Got a cite for that?

Honestly, at this point, I think you’re about as useful as Kable. You have no integrity, you misrepresent and lie, you conveniently forget what others have taught you, you simplistically accuse others of displaying all of your own limitations, and to top it off you hurl insults at people who can actually think through the matter.

I really don’t know if your fear has caused you to be so cognitively impaired, but at this point it doesn’t matter. You’ve got nothing. You’re a scared little person who can only react emotionally from that position.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Zeriel

This guy? Again, IMHO, unless it’s a provable manufacturer defect or it’s stolen/lost and you report it PROMPTLY, you should always be 100% responsible for any bullets that leave a firearm that you own or is in your possession.

Criminally or just civilly?

Also, I am pretty sure I can pull a gun from most non-serpa type holsters if you aren’t paying attention.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

T..You appear to be too stupid to know what you don’t really understand. …And all in service of an effort to cover up your own personal feelings of inadequacy. … Goddamn, you’re a fucking moron, and now you’re adding being a lying weasel to that as well…You have no integrity, you misrepresent and lie, you conveniently forget what others have taught you, you simplistically accuse others of displaying all of your own limitations, and to top it off you hurl insults at people who can actually think through the matter.

Yep, this is basically what your argument has come down to (well this and the whole “you approve of dead babies” rhetoric).

I understand. You’re upset. You thought you were going to get some significant firearm legislation to make your irrational fear of inanimate objects (especially black rifles with pistol grips) go away and not only did you not get your retarded AWB you didn’t even get a background check requirement at gun shows, a fucking slam dunk (and a sacrificial lamb proposede by Manchin Toomey that sounded laughably insufficient in January) because you lost all your credibility chasing an AWB.

Your side shot itself in the foot by going after that retarded AWB and you still can’t get over all the butthurt you have from the failed AWB. Don’t worry, you can bring it up again the next time there is national outrage over gun violence to sabotage the chances at any gun control with another push towards a reatarded AWB (although I suspect that the next time there qwon’t be a push for an AWB just like noone pushes for handgun bans anymore).

I really don’t know if your fear has caused you to be so cognitively impaired, but at this point it doesn’t matter. You’ve got nothing. You’re a scared little person who can only react emotionally from that position.

What do I have to be afraid of. I live in a safe suburban community with a very low crime rate. I don’t think urban rioting and violence will ever spill over into my community and I don’t fear government tyranny in my lifetime.

90% of gun murder suspects are felons, domestic abusers, or subject to a restraining order. In (or near) large cities this percentage approaches 99%. These are all people who cannot legally own a gun (along with minors and the mentally ill). And yet you focus on restricting guns from the people who commit the slim minority of gun murders. Thats why my proposal for licensing and registration is much better than your retarded AWB. It imposes moderate inconvenience on legal gun owners and really significant restrictions on a felon’s and wifebeater’s ability to get a gun.

Keep fucking that chicken, maybe one day it will lay an AWB at your feet.

[jasg]

Just what is needed, a legal reason to fire more shots into the air - hunting licenses for drones…with a bounty if you down one!

[Stealth_Potato]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Socialists don’t like guns? :dubious:

I’m a socialist and I like guns. Therefore, all socialists like guns.

[ElvisL1ves]

DA, you can *claim *all you want that you favor increased background checks etc. But when you celebrate the failure of efforts to actually implement them, gloating as crassly as you did in that last post, that shows what you *really *believe. When you show a willingness to accept the deaths of children, that too shows what you *really *believe.

When do you plan to stop lying to the man in the mirror?

[Condescending_Robot]

The current approach to long-term crime prevention in the United States has done an amazing job at lowering the death rate for children and everybody else. What are the real motives of people who would throw it all away in terms of a crusade about guns?

[Stealth_Potato]

@ElvisL1ves

When you show a willingness to accept the deaths of children, that too shows what you *really *believe.

Your first point may well be true (I cannot speak for the man) but this part is a disingenuous emotional appeal. Public policy is full of statistical risk analysis where that risk manifests in the real world as actual, concrete, horrible things happening to children and other innocent people. To suggest in any one of those cases that a person on either side of a particular analysis “accepts the deaths of children” is either mindless or dishonest; to harp on it on only one of your personal hot-button issues and not others is sheer hypocrisy to boot.

[ElvisL1ves]

Read his post 2519 and get back to us, willya? There’s a good lad. :rolleyes: Consider also our friend’s absolute refusal to accept any preventive measures when they’re on the table, and somehow blame their proponents for their having been filibustered.

Public policy, btw, is about the values we hold as a society, not just risk/reward numbers. Even if it were, what would you consider to an appropriate gun-to-child ratio to put in your analysis? What do you assess to be the benefit?

If you’re going to dismiss arguments based on the principles of simple humanity and go for numerical ones instead, you had damn well better have something to offer instead. Or else the evidence is that you’re just as sick a psychopath as he is.

[Condescending_Robot]

@ElvisL1ves

If you’re going to dismiss arguments based on the principles of simple humanity and go for numerical ones instead, you had damn well better have something to offer instead. Or else the evidence is that you’re just as sick a psychopath as he is.

So we can’t use statistics and evidence to show what actually helps reduce deaths, and instead we have to use the “principles of simple humanity,” which for some reason involve switching to a crime control regime that will cause more deaths, which is OK, because that will show how much we dislike deaths.

With arguments like this, it’s no wonder the gun confiscation movement has been so successful!

[Stealth_Potato]

@ElvisL1ves

Consider also our friend’s absolute refusal to accept any preventive measures when they’re on the table, and somehow blame their proponents for their having been filibustered.

You’re assuming that any of the measures on the table were actually preventive, a fact not presently in evidence. Protesting a refusal to accept the unreasonable that is within reach is classic “must do something” fallacy. But he’s right on the money there; gun control advocates pushed too hard for unreasonable measures and got their whole platform tanked as a result.

@ElvisL1ves

Public policy, btw, is about the values we hold as a society, not just risk/reward numbers. Even if it were, what would you consider to an appropriate gun-to-child ratio to put in your analysis? What do you assess to be the benefit?

Unless you’re talking risk/reward and concrete facts, “values” doesn’t mean anything except “my personal opinion.” As for your question, one gun per child should be plenty, and no big ones either; they have small hands.

@ElvisL1ves

If you’re going to dismiss arguments based on the principles of simple humanity and go for numerical ones instead, you had damn well better have something to offer instead. Or else the evidence is that you’re just as sick a psychopath as he is.

It’s easy to throw out simple emotional appeals like “simple humanity,” but the only reason to do is to disguise the lack of a factual argument. I’m under no obligation to offer you anything, especially since, as far as I can tell, there is no particular public policy question under discussion in this thread, but if one did want to accelerate our already declining violence trends, ending the war on drugs and putting that money into education and anti-gang programs would be a monumental step. That means fewer dead children and everybody goes home happy.

I’ll leave by the side of the road your insinuation that I’m a sick psychopath if I don’t play by whatever rules you happen to choose. If you’d get some control over your emotional knee-jerking for once, you might realize that this is counterproductive.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Stealth_Potato

You’re assuming that any of the measures on the table were actually preventive, a fact not presently in evidence.

You don’t even know what the bill was, do you?

But he’s right on the money there; gun control advocates pushed too hard for unreasonable measures and got their whole platform tanked as a result.

Tell us again who opposed it? Hint: It was you. And the reason you give is that you were butthurt. Meanwhile, the killings continue …

Unless you’re talking risk/reward and concrete facts, “values” doesn’t mean anything except “my personal opinion.”

Every civilization opposes murder. That’s what this is about - reducing murders. Only a psychopath could dismiss murder as “opinion”.

As for your question, one gun per child should be plenty, and no big ones either; they have small hands.

Either you’re joking about something damn serious, or you’re unable to grasp the concept of human life.

It’s easy to throw out simple emotional appeals like “simple humanity,” but the only reason to do is to disguise the lack of a factual argument.

What does life mean to you? Anything at all?

I’m under no obligation to offer you anything, especially since, as far as I can tell, there is no particular public policy question under discussion

Only if you want to convince anybody of your position. No wonder you aren’t even trying - there is no defense for your pro-murder-rights position.

ending the war on drugs and putting that money into education and anti-gang programs would be a monumental step.

So where’s your bill that does that? Oh, wait, it was right here …

[quote]
'll leave by the side of the road your insinuation that I’m a sick psychopath if I don’t play by whateMurder is bad. Gawdammn, does this really require explanation? Do you really recognize any code of morality at all?

Only a psychopath could dismiss opposition to murder as “personal opinion”, but you do. You do. As such, you are an immediate danger to everyone around you and should not be permitted to touch a gun.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ElvisL1ves

DA, you can *claim *all you want that you favor increased background checks etc. But when you celebrate the failure of efforts to actually implement them, gloating as crassly as you did in that last post, that shows what you *really *believe. When you show a willingness to accept the deaths of children, that too shows what you *really *believe.

Background checks at gun shows? No I didn’t celebrate its failure (I didn’t think it would help much but I didn’t think it would hurt much either). I did a bit of “I told you so” with respect to how you guys shot yourselves in the foot with your push for an AWB and then you guys whined about how background checks at gu shows never had a chance. Whatever chance background checks had, YOUR side destroyed. After Wayne LaPierre’s response to Newtown, people were ready to marginalize the NRA and you guys pulled his ass out of the fire by outstupidding him (not an easy feat).

Gratz on that, I hope you’re proud.

@Condescending_Robot

The current approach to long-term crime prevention in the United States has done an amazing job at lowering the death rate for children and everybody else. What are the real motives of people who would throw it all away in terms of a crusade about guns?

Since when did irrational fear have a motive?

@Condescending_Robot

So we can’t use statistics and evidence to show what actually helps reduce deaths, and instead we have to use the “principles of simple humanity,” which for some reason involve switching to a crime control regime that will cause more deaths, which is OK, because that will show how much we dislike deaths.

With arguments like this, it’s no wonder the gun confiscation movement has been so successful!

They would rather make a political point than make a practical difference.

@ElvisL1ves

Only a psychopath could dismiss opposition to murder as “personal opinion”, but you do. You do. As such, you are an immediate danger to everyone around you and should not be permitted to touch a gun.

Noone has ever said murder is bad and that sort of argument is what has been undermining your credibility from the beginning. What we are saying is that what you THINK will reduce gun violence has no relationship with what will actually reduce gun violence. Legalizing most recreational drugs doesn’t seem like a horrible idea, its certainly a lot better than a retarded AWB.

And how is licensing and registration not a preventative measure. You’re just butthurt that you didn’t get to reenact an AWB that had 10 years to make a difference and failed to make any measurable difference in gun violence.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

It’s amusing to note that Damuri Ajashi both failed to cite an example to support his claim that I run away from his cites, and that he also ignored my request for a cite re: his claim that CCW people are safer than everyone else.

I also note that he continues to claim causation regarding AWB and the failure of other gun safety measures, despite his prior failures to show any evidence of causation. Remember, he is the one who accused gun researchers of making such silly claims of causation that they would be laughed out of our own GD.

@Damuri_Ajashi

What do I have to be afraid of. I live in a safe suburban community with a very low crime rate. I don’t think urban rioting and violence will ever spill over into my community and I don’t fear government tyranny in my lifetime.

You tell me. You’re the one who fantasizes about getting the drop on the bad guy when you have your showdown. You’re the one who talks about practicing your quick draw. You’re the one who cited rioting as a motivator for your own desires for guns.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

It’s amusing to note that Damuri Ajashi both failed to cite an example to support his claim that I run away from his cites, and that he also ignored my request for a cite re: his claim that CCW people are safer than everyone else.

If you need a cite for this again then you haven’t been paying attention. Go use google.

I also note that he continues to claim causation regarding AWB and the failure of other gun safety measures, despite his prior failures to show any evidence of causation.

What do you want a reasearch study? If you don’t think the backlash against the AWB didn’t affect the background check legislation then you’re being stupid, either intentionally or through no fault of your own.

Remember, he is the one who accused gun researchers of making such silly claims of causation that they would be laughed out of our own GD.

Yes, because I expect studies that are printed in journals to do more than make an argument based on correlation.

You tell me. You’re the one who fantasizes about getting the drop on the bad guy when you have your showdown. You’re the one who talks about practicing your quick draw. You’re the one who cited rioting as a motivator for your own desires for guns.

The LA riots aren’t so much a motivator as they are an example I use when people argue that the police is really all we need. They can’t be everywhere and when the rule of law breaks down, they will protect the neighborhoods of the rich and well connected.

BTW, when do I fantasize about getting the drop on the bad guy? I don’t really do a lot of quickdraw practice, I got one of those lasermax things when ammo was simply not to be found and because they require you to rack your slide every time you fire (and there are no bullets in the gun), I ended up trying some quickdraw drills (I don’t recall mentioning this on the boards). I tried quick release and reload of magazines for a while but you cap out on reloading speed pretty quick (less than an hour of practice will get you to under 2 seconds to release and reload a magazine into the well), I wouldn’t even call it a skill so much as a good way to ding up your magazines.

[Stealth_Potato]

@ElvisL1ves

Either you’re joking about something damn serious, or you’re unable to grasp the concept of human life.

Yes, this is a joke. It’s a joke because it’s impossible to take you seriously. All you’re offering is hyperbolic strawmen. I mention that some proposal for reducing violence would be ineffective? Your conclusion: I’m pro-murder! I say that opinions on public policy ought to be backed by facts? Your conclusion: I’m a psychopath who doesn’t value life and is probably pro-murder! I decline responsibility for solving all of America’s problems as a condition of debate, but offer what I think would be a reasonable suggestion for decreasing violence? Your conclusion: I’m a worthless psychopath unless I personally run for senate and sponsor a bill to implement it! Also I’m pro-murder!

Is this issue damn serious? Damn right it is. And if you think it deserves to be treated seriously, maybe you should not act like an unhinged, hysterical clown when discussing it. Your tactics are on par with WBC or the asshats who scream “baby murderer!” at abortion doctors. I hope I’m not the only one here (on any side of this issue) who wishes you would grow up already.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Stealth_Potato

Your tactics are on par with WBC or the asshats who scream “baby murderer!” at abortion doctors. I hope I’m not the only one here (on any side of this issue) who wishes you would grow up already.

These guys are like the lunatic fringe of the PETA of gun control. They really don’t care about the facts, they stopped caring about the facts as soon as they realized the facts weren’t helping them. Everry once ina while a fact will support their position and they will declare that fact dispositive.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Stealth_Potato

All you’re offering is hyperbolic strawmen.

Moi? Let’s see:

I mention that some proposal for reducing violence would be ineffective?

You *assert *it, without support, and offer nothing of your own that you can claim *would *be effective.

I say that opinions on public policy ought to be backed by facts?

No, you offer no facts of your own, and dismiss the very concept that basic principles of civilization should be considered.

I decline responsibility for solving all of America’s problems as a condition of debate

You decline *all *responsibility whatsoever for the consequences of your position, but insist on taking it anyway.

but offer what I think would be a reasonable suggestion for decreasing violence?

Even you don’t think you have an actual proposal there, much less a realistic one, nor are you willing to lift a trigger finger to actually do anything about it.

What’s that about hyperbolic strawmen? I’m simply pointing out to you the utter hollowness, both factually and morally, of your position. I call it pro-murder because that’s what it is.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I also note that he continues to claim causation regarding AWB and the failure of other gun safety measures, despite his prior failures to show any evidence of causation.

Amazing, isn’t it? In his world, his side’s filibuster against Manchin-Toomey is the fault of its proponents for making his side feel butthurt about something that wasn’t even it. He’s *proud *of that, too. And he still claims facts are critically important. :rolleyes:

Most people give up the “Now look what you made me do!” excuse after the age of seven or so. And most people set aside their security binkies even earlier.

[Condescending_Robot]

@ElvisL1ves

Amazing, isn’t it? In his world, his side’s filibuster against Manchin-Toomey is the fault of its proponents for making his side feel butthurt about something that wasn’t even it. He’s *proud *of that, too. And he still claims facts are critically important. :rolleyes:

I can’t imagine why people might think the background check bill was a stalking horse for people who want to confiscate all guns, brand every gun owner a murderous insurrectionist, or allow the murder rate to flare up again as long as people who own guns suffer.

You know, unless they read your posts.