Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Don't Think I've Ever Heard it Put So Well

Don't Think I've Ever Heard it Put So Well (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, I quoted that point. Which you keep ignoring.
Which point is that? You quoted the piece of the article which is the obvious satire - that we can't do anything about it.

I continue to argue that the premise of the article's point, that this is "the only nation where this happens" is demonstrably false with an example cited the same day as you posted the article. Regardless of the accuracy of the article itself, this notion is absurd and one which despite plenty of supporting evidence you choose to wholly ignore.

Someone's overly aggressive.
Well, the advanced high school writing techniques seem to be lost here which kinda ups my frustration level when trying to take the issue seriously. No one wants to see mass killings of any kind, but you anti-gunners point to comedians and satires as if they hold some kind of intrinsic value to the debate. They don't. Beyond that, one of your citations is completely lost on you as you demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the author's message.

It would be akin to me citing John Rambo in support of gun-rights, and be completely serious about it. If i didn't get some snark from you doing the same thing, well we'd all be skiing in hell.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 23, 2015 at 12:26 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which point is that?
No thank you.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:03 PM
 
The emotional intensity of this thread and conversations like this should have been one of the other points in the comedian's act.

America's gun culture is just ****ing weird.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:38 PM
 
Here's a clue for you, from the outside, any foreign culture that you aren't a part of is "just ****ing weird".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Here's a clue for you, from the outside, any foreign culture that you aren't a part of is "just ****ing weird".
I'm an American citizen. I lived in the US for 15 years. It's weird, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this. The comedian's points outline why it might be seen as weird pretty well, but he didn't say anything I hadn't heard before, it was just a nice consolidated presentation.

The reason for being strongly pro-gun that makes the most sense to me is the government tyranny thing, but I really doubt that this is Joe Sixpack's most common rationale. I think the most common rationale is simply what this comedian says: he just ****ing likes guns.

I'm mostly in this thread because I want to know how many more shootings it will take before the strong pro-gun crowd might be willing to try something different?
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Here's a clue for you, from the outside, any foreign culture that you aren't a part of is "just ****ing weird".
I don't find your gun culture weird, I get it. All except the bit where people invoke every irrational argument under the sun rather than admit that it needs to change in order to prevent needless deaths.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I continue to argue that the premise of the article's point, that this is "the only nation where this happens" is demonstrably false
No you continue to ignore the actual point of the article and this whole discussion in favour of a worthless semantic argument instead. Its a very common tactic from the right wing because its often all they can come up with.

So either debate the claim that America is "the only developed nation where this happens" or just don't bother at all.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm an American citizen. I lived in the US for 15 years. It's weird, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this. The comedian's points outline why it might be seen as weird pretty well, but he didn't say anything I hadn't heard before, it was just a nice consolidated presentation.

The reason for being strongly pro-gun that makes the most sense to me is the government tyranny thing, but I really doubt that this is Joe Sixpack's most common rationale. I think the most common rationale is simply what this comedian says: he just ****ing likes guns.

I'm mostly in this thread because I want to know how many more shootings it will take before the strong pro-gun crowd might be willing to try something different?
Well, that's nice, but you still don't understand the culture.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't find your gun culture weird, I get it. All except the bit where people invoke every irrational argument under the sun rather than admit that it needs to change in order to prevent needless deaths.
If you guys are just going to ignore the numbers and facts presented and instead resort to throwing in more pleas to emotion, what's the point of talking with you about the subject?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The emotional intensity of this thread and conversations like this should have been one of the other points in the comedian's act.

America's gun culture is just ****ing weird.
Yeah, gotta be the gun-culture and not the two hollow-ass arguments based on non-starting pop culture (and even including a misunderstanding of sources!) which caused the friction. We all have our gaffes from time to time, but instead of admitting that other perspectives could be valid and are worth exploring, you've doubled down on the folly. It's definitely the guns culture that made your argument fall apart at cursory inspection.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No you continue to ignore the actual point of the article and this whole discussion in favour of a worthless semantic argument instead. Its a very common tactic from the right wing because its often all they can come up with.
Which article? Do you even know what the onion is?? You might want to do a quick reality check on who actually understands what. It is typical of the right to treat satire news as satire news. That's because we all went to and graduated from high school english. Double points for the childish political jab too.
Originally Posted by wikiedia
The Onion is an American digital media company and news satire organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Onion. Holy shit, you can't make this stuff up!
So either debate the claim that America is "the only developed nation where this happens" or just don't bother at all.
In order to evaluate the message of the article (which is apparently flying right over your head) you must first either accept the premise of the article or reject it. I've heard no arguments to rebut my claim that mass killings happen all over the world and all the time, thus the premise of the article remains in doubt. I still cannot believe you're pointing to an onion article as a valid source of information worthy of discussion. Here's today's onion headlines. You tell me if we should bother at all:

Mom Recommends Previously Unheard-Of Form Of Transportation Son Could Take To Get Home - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Disney World Forced To Euthanize Character That Attacked Visitor - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Serial Killer Admits He’s Lost Track Of Pattern He Was Going For Originally - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

you seriously can't make this up!!!!
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 23, 2015 at 04:59 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:52 PM
 
it's ok, you guys aren't alone: 6 Times The Onion Had People Completely Fooled | Mental Floss. Now, if you want to have a serious discussion on gun rights and their relation to mass killings in the US and abroad, I'm all ears and I will be happy to present my argument for you guys to evaluate. But please, this time make an honest effort for an honest discussion and be willing to admit you don't know everything, and also that you can be wrong. I certainly can, have and will.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 05:36 PM
 
BTW, betcha guys didn't hear about this one:

Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Open Carrier Stops Liquor Store Mass Shooting - The Truth About Guns

Or this one

Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Concealed Carrier Holds Carjacker for Police (NSFW) - The Truth About Guns

Or this one

Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Good Samaritan Rescues Woman From Ex - The Truth About Guns

And look, I only had to go back to May for three quick US examples. Plenty more if you guys want to focus on real news and discuss these situations.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 05:36 PM
 
Snow-i: how many more shootings before you are okay with considering trying something different and new that you might not like?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 06:28 PM
 
While the video in the OP was very funny and made a lot of good points, the fact of the matter is that the horse is out of the barn when it comes to guns in America. There are literally more firearms in circulation than people in this country. An outright ban on firearms is impractical to the point of being a waste of time to even discuss. Even if it weren't a political non-starter it's simply not a logistical reality. The best that can be done to address the issue of mass shootings would be to ban high-capacity magazines. And that would only be good for giving bystanders a chance to tackle a shooter while reloading sooner rather than later. Naturally, that would have done nothing to prevent the latest mass shooting in South Carolina where the shooter used a handgun. Personally, I could support an outright ban on the possession of handguns for civilians ... with an exception for those who can successfully complete a criminal background check for violent felonies and rigorous concealed carry training. This would allow long guns like shotguns or rifles for hunting or home defense while keeping handguns away from "casual" owners where it could do more harm than good. It's one thing to be able to purchase a handgun at a gun show no questions asked that could end up being used in a domestic violence incident or accidental. It's quite another if there were more hurdles to clear. Those who truly need to carry a concealed weapon will undergo the training. Whereas most people (hopefully) who just want a handgun for the hell of it probably wouldn't want to be bothered. Just my two cents ...

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow-i: how many more shootings before you are okay with considering trying something different and new that you might not like?
I'm not okay with any more mass killings. What does that have to do with our constitutional right to bear arms?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
While the video in the OP was very funny and made a lot of good points, the fact of the matter is that the horse is out of the barn when it comes to guns in America. There are literally more firearms in circulation than people in this country. An outright ban on firearms is impractical to the point of being a waste of time to even discuss.
I was hoping you'd show up here OAW.

Even if it weren't a political non-starter it's simply not a logistical reality. The best that can be done to address the issue of mass shootings would be to ban high-capacity magazines. And that would only be good for giving bystanders a chance to tackle a shooter while reloading sooner rather than later. Naturally, that would have done nothing to prevent the latest mass shooting in South Carolina where the shooter used a handgun.

Personally, I could support an outright ban on the possession of handguns for civilians ... with an exception for those who can successfully complete a criminal background check for violent felonies and rigorous concealed carry training.
Again, Over 99% of murders committed with firearms were with handguns, according to FBI crime data. Even then, those with intent to go on rampages have endless possible tools at their disposal including bombs, vehicles, biological agents, chemical agents, etc. The root of the problem would remain unaddressed though perhaps we could cut down on a lot of the gang and street shootings that occur through out our cities.

This would allow long guns like shotguns or rifles for hunting or home defense while keeping handguns away from "casual" owners where it could do more harm than good. It's one thing to be able to purchase a handgun at a gun show no questions asked that could end up being used in a domestic violence incident or accidental. It's quite another if there were more hurdles to clear. Those who truly need to carry a concealed weapon will undergo the training. Whereas most people (hopefully) who just want a handgun for the hell of it probably wouldn't want to be bothered. Just my two cents ...

OAW


So long as that training is available any and all citizens that qualify I am A-OK with heavier restrictions on handguns which are easy to conceal, transport, and use. Long guns, even "assault rifles" do not fit into this category and are a politically motivated red herring.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 07:21 PM
 
^^^

Gun Control is one of those issues that I've always been very "center-right" on. Interestingly enough I'm also pretty "center-right" on tax policy since I can conceptually support a flat tax. The devil would be in the details naturally. But that's a topic for another thread.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not okay with any more mass killings. What does that have to do with our constitutional right to bear arms?
I don't know, you tell me. I don't get your goofy belief system.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow-i: how many more shootings before you are okay with considering trying something different and new that you might not like?
How many more times do you need to use the appeal to emotion fallacy instead of addressing facts and statistics?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
How many more times do you need to use the appeal to emotion fallacy instead of addressing facts and statistics?

Statistics like the abnormal number of shootings?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Statistics like the abnormal number of shootings?
A lie, how surprising. You mean the number that historically isn't abnormal at all? The number that has been dropping precipitously year-over-year, without the need for absurd measures such as gun control (which wouldn't do shit, anyway)?

Yep, talking with you has been a waste of time. Again.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 12:17 AM
 
More semantic games again. I obviously meant Newtown, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. sorts of shootings, not just general murder rate stats. This thread was put in the context of the SC incident, right?

Don't we think it's time to try something different other than arming ourselves as much as possible, which is what we've been encouraging? Every argument for this strange gun culture this country has a fixation with is logically unsatisfying to me for many of the same reasons this comedian lays out. I just want to know when we might be willing to try something different, because every time one of these incidents occur we just kind of shrug our shoulders and carry on.

Look at the murder rates in a city like Tokyo (the most populated city in the world) and any large American city. What is going on there that accounts for this difference? There are mentally ill people all over the world, mental illness doesn't explain this to me. A significant enough percentage of these are not drug related, so drugs as a culprit doesn't satisfy me either. I really don't think Joe Sixpack gun owner is really that intensely worried about government tyranny, and as this comedian pointed out, a gun you keep in your safe is not going to help you with self defence in the event your house is broken into. Maybe he's right that Americans just have lots of guns because they like them.

To return to my earlier question, when do we start to figure out what Tokyo is doing right and try to copy some of these things, including different gun policy? It is sad that we are settling for these occurrences as some sort of norm.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 01:28 AM
 
"Semantics"? It's what you ****ing said. Whatever, I'm done with you on this.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which article? Do you even know what the onion is?? You might want to do a quick reality check on who actually understands what.
Yes I do know. Do you really think that satire can't make a valid point? Do you even know what satire is?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Double points for the childish political jab too.
Just a valid observation. I get it a lot debating religious people. When you can't actually make good relevant points, you make irrelevant ones and try to make them sound relevant. Normally people try to sneak them under the radar but you are really running with this one.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
In order to evaluate the message of the article (which is apparently flying right over your head) you must first either accept the premise of the article or reject it. I've heard no arguments to rebut my claim that mass killings happen all over the world and all the time, thus the premise of the article remains in doubt. I still cannot believe you're pointing to an onion article as a valid source of information worthy of discussion.
And yet you are the one treating it as a verbatim news statement. It really isn't scoring you any points and it doesn't make you look clever. Quite the opposite.

You might as well state that the sky is blue and ask us to refute that. There is no value in comparing America to Sudan or Iraq on the statistics of gun deaths. Thats why no-one else is making those comparisons.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 05:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I almost want to give you this one. But of course gun control would likely have meant that the maniac didn't have a gun so your hero wouldn't have needed one either.

Man saves a car or two from being stolen. Totally worth several thousand unnecessary deaths per year.

Skimming the article says three guys rescued her from an unarmed assailant. Seems like they probably could have overpowered him without a gun. What if he grabbed her and used her as a shield? Since he was on top of her punching her in the face I might have just run over and kicked him in the head. Then stomped on him a bit.

Here are some:

Man Allegedly Shoots Neighbor in Dispute Over Dog Poop | NBC 6 South Florida

Woman Killed After ‘Messing Around’ With Gun At Antioch Home « CBS San Francisco

7-year-old boy shot in back in accidental shooting | AL.com

Benton Harbor woman accused of shooting sister over clothing dispute | Local - WSBT.com

Wife of man found shot in Groveland home charged with attempted murder | News - Home

No charges for mom whose 3-year-old son fatally shot self | Local News - WLWT Home

Man accidentally shot at gun safety class | Local News - WESH Home

1 killed, 11 wounded at birthday party in Detroit - CNN.com

10 Hurt After Men With Shotgun Open Fire on Father's Day Block Party in West Philadelphia | NBC 10 Philadelphia

Police: Woman shot herself in stomach, killing unborn baby | Local News - WESH Home

4-Year-Old Accidentally Shot By Columbus Police Officer | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio

Tulane student charged in boyfriend's accidental shooting death, police say | NOLA.com

‘Send the n*****s back to Youngstown where they belong:’ Ohio man terrorizes children with gun

You went back to May to find 3 to make your point, and I have mostly dismissed all your links. The oldest of these articles is from 7 days ago.


Perhaps I'm only citing the biased liberal media though? Did you see this section on your site?

Irresponsible Gun Owner... Archives - The Truth About Guns

The three most recent entires there go back to June 12th.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
How many more times do you need to use the appeal to emotion fallacy instead of addressing facts and statistics?
You and I have never agreed on much, but you are normally far better at justifying your viewpoints than you are in this thread. Clutching at "lies" that we all know to be truths and repeatedly complaining about emotional responses to this issue (though I have seen you do that one before on this subject).

But you know, you're damned right its an emotional response. What other kind could there be, or should there be to a situation like this?
I'm pretty sure that if we suggested that anyone in your financial situation should pay 90% tax on every cent of their income we'd get a pretty emotional response too.
Lets not pretend that gun rights advocates are the ones being objective and logical here.

What Jim didn't say about the "**** off, I like guns" argument, is the reason that people don't actually use it. The reason is that it is morally indefensible. Because the long version is more like this:

"**** off, I like guns so much that I literally don't care how many 7 year-old children have to spend their last moments on Earth cowering in terror behind their teacher in a cupboard before being shot like dogs by a stroppy teenager."

You're damned ****ing right its emotional. Why else would someone on the other side of the planet give a shit either way?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
While the video in the OP was very funny and made a lot of good points, the fact of the matter is that the horse is out of the barn when it comes to guns in America. There are literally more firearms in circulation than people in this country. An outright ban on firearms is impractical to the point of being a waste of time to even discuss.
It can be done, you just need to accept that there is no overnight solution. This isn't something that can be changed in 20 years, but more like 80 or 100. Slowly removing them from the streets (buy backs), tightening access, winding down manufacturing, and promoting and researching non-lethal forms of protection all could have a real effect.

As for the amount of guns in circulation, it bears stating that while we have tons of guns, the amount of households that own guns has declined dramatically in the past 40 years – from half to almost 30%. So while we have a lot of guns out there, they're in a lot fewer hands.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You and I have never agreed on much, but you are normally far better at justifying your viewpoints than you are in this thread. Clutching at "lies" that we all know to be truths and repeatedly complaining about emotional responses to this issue (though I have seen you do that one before on this subject).

But you know, you're damned right its an emotional response. What other kind could there be, or should there be to a situation like this?
I'm pretty sure that if we suggested that anyone in your financial situation should pay 90% tax on every cent of their income we'd get a pretty emotional response too.
Lets not pretend that gun rights advocates are the ones being objective and logical here.

What Jim didn't say about the "**** off, I like guns" argument, is the reason that people don't actually use it. The reason is that it is morally indefensible. Because the long version is more like this:

"**** off, I like guns so much that I literally don't care how many 7 year-old children have to spend their last moments on Earth cowering in terror behind their teacher in a cupboard before being shot like dogs by a stroppy teenager."

You're damned ****ing right its emotional. Why else would someone on the other side of the planet give a shit either way?
This isn't your country, you getting emotional about private citizens owning firearms is unreasonable. Listen, I go to the UK a lot, I'm a landowner (quite a bit of it), but I'm not pushing for more guns there, despite the fact they're much easier to illegally acquire than many citizens want to admit. Why not? Because it isn't the same culture.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes I do know. Do you really think that satire can't make a valid point? Do you even know what satire is?
Can't you f8cking read? I said exactly the same thing 10 posts up. Seriously, go look for yourself!

You're so desperate to save face here your recycling my words not even a full page later. It's ok man, we all make mistakes but if you fall into a hole the first thing you ought to do is quit digging.



Just a valid observation. I get it a lot debating religious people. When you can't actually make good relevant points, you make irrelevant ones and try to make them sound relevant. Normally people try to sneak them under the radar but you are really running with this one.
I'm running with this one? Go ahead and refute my claims, if you dare. You haven't addressed a single one of my claims and it's quite obvious to me you have no interest in honest debate.



And yet you are the one treating it as a verbatim news statement. It really isn't scoring you any points and it doesn't make you look clever. Quite the opposite.
Right. I really don't feel like repeating myself here, but if you have any interest at all in debating the merits of this issue go right ahead.

You might as well state that the sky is blue and ask us to refute that. There is no value in comparing America to Sudan or Iraq on the statistics of gun deaths.
Please point out to me where I compared America to Sudan or Iraq. You're grasping at straw mans and its painfully obvious you have no substance to add to the debate.
Thats why no-one else is making those comparisons.
Except the article in question? That is after all the entire premise of the satire. I'm still not convinced you understand the article on a fundamental level.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 24, 2015 at 02:20 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I almost want to give you this one. But of course gun control would likely have meant that the maniac didn't have a gun so your hero wouldn't have needed one either.
Right because the gunman was so interested in staying within the confines of the law.


Laws don't magically make criminals behave better.
Man saves a car or two from being stolen. Totally worth several thousand unnecessary deaths per year.
So you're now comparing isolated incidents to the stats at large? Not only that, a felony was prevented lawfully. Is this a problem for you?

Skimming the article says three guys rescued her from an unarmed assailant. Seems like they probably could have overpowered him without a gun. What if he grabbed her and used her as a shield?
What if a purple unicorn shit out gold? What ifs have no place in an honest debate.
Since he was on top of her punching her in the face I might have just run over and kicked him in the head. Then stomped on him a bit.
I doubt you could have taken that guy.

You ever been in a fight before? With someone bigger than you? With someone on speed, meth, or crack?

You went back to May to find 3 to make your point, and I have mostly dismissed all your links.
How so? Just saying if you were there you would have kicked a guy in the head isn't dismissing them any more than dropping a deuce is. It's meaningless conjecture.

Perhaps I'm only citing the biased liberal media though? Did you see this section on your site?
Back to the straw mans again?

Absolutely! It's great information for gun owners on what not to do.

The three most recent entires there go back to June 12th.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here?
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 24, 2015 at 02:21 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Can't you f8cking read? I said exactly the same thing 10 posts up. Seriously, go look for yourself!
I am aware that you asked us if we understood satire, then you demonstrated that you don't by missing the point of it. And the fact that it often has point to make. Just makes it worse that you don't seem to understand exactly what you are complaining about others not understanding.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm running with this one? Go ahead and refute my claims, if you dare. You haven't addressed a single one of my claims and it's quite obvious to me you have no interest in honest debate.
Still asking me to refute irrelevant claims, still running.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Right. I really don't feel like repeating myself here, but if you have any interest at all in debating the merits of this issue go right ahead.
...and running....


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Please point out to me where I compared America to Sudan or Iraq. You're grasping at straw mans and its painfully obvious you have no substance to add to the debate.
You compared it to every country in the world because you could refute that claim. Everyone else was comparing it to countries with similar levels of development in terms of standard of living, moral standards, infrastructure, lack of corruption in the government or police forces, absence of open warfare being fought within their borders. That sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Except the article in question?
...and running.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Right because the gunman was so interested in staying within the confines of the law. :roll eyes:
I'll refer you to Jim Jefferies comments about people going down to the docks and yelling "Does anyone want to sell me a gun?"


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Laws don't magically make criminals behave better.
Yawn.
Despite the fact that banning guns will have no effect at all on gun crime, everywhere it happens it has a massive positive effect on gun crime. Keep flogging this dead horse like a good NRA stooge though.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So you're now comparing isolated incidents to the stats at large? Not only that, a felony was prevented lawfully. Is this a problem for you?
So lets take it as representative shall we? How many cars, TVs, laptops and iPads not getting stolen is each life worth?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What if a purple unicorn shit out gold? What ifs have no place in an honest debate.
Your claim that spree shooters won't obey gun laws is a what if.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I doubt you could have taken that guy.
If I have the drop on him, there aren't many guys I couldn't take. Maybe I grab a bat or a crowbar or a brick or any number of other legal items to bash him with. Plus I don't need to take him, just stop him killing her.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You ever been in a fight before? With someone bigger than you? With someone on speed, meth, or crack?
No, but theres a good reason for that. You're turning this into an isolated incident though. Statistically, 3 guys can pull one guy off a girl. And will. Even with some disparity in size.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How so? Just saying if you were there you would have kicked a guy in the head isn't dismissing them any more than dropping a deuce is. It's meaningless conjecture.
Clearly giving you specifics to fixate on is a bad idea. They seem to be like shiny things to you. Like I say, Thieves aren't usually killers, violent spouses can usually be stopped without guns. These are the relevant points.



[QUOTE=Snow-i;4324824]Back to the straw mans again? [QUOTE]

A straw man is where you refute an argument that no-one made at all. Like you have been doing by refuting comparisons between gun crimes in America to those in Nigeria or Yemen.
I was refuting an argument that you hadn't made yet. Just getting out ahead of that one.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here?
You said the three examples you posted were from a quick search that only went back as far as May. The implication being that heroic acts of protection and justice involving guns were super common. I found substantially more examples of preventable crimes and irresponsible use of guns from legal owners in a shorter time frame. The implication there being that for every crime prevented by guns being legal, several lives can be saved by them not being legal.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I am aware that you asked us if we understood satire then you demonstrated that you don't by missing the point of it. And the fact that it often has point to make. Just makes it worse that you don't seem to understand exactly what you are complaining about others not understanding.
You're saying I don't understand the article here? Your last sentence doesn't read. Can you please explain what you're getting at here? Are you accusing me of misunderstanding the article? Please go right ahead and explain to me what I'm missing.





Still asking me to refute irrelevant claims, still running.
Please demonstrate how my claims are irrelevant. Show your work!!



...and running....
You're not saying anything here. You've made an accusation but have not supported in the least (repeating it over and over doesn't count).



You compared it to every country in the world because you could refute that claim.
No, the article made that comparison which I refuted.

Everyone else was comparing it to countries with similar levels of development in terms of standard of living, moral standards, infrastructure, lack of corruption in the government or police forces, absence of open warfare being fought within their borders. That sort of thing.
Well considering there are no countries that are that similar it kind of makes your point moot. You're cherry picking the countries that support your argument while saying the rest of the world is irrelevant. This isn't an honest way to go about evaluating the data.

Do you think Mexico is an advanced country? Or because there are a lot of mass killings there it's not comparable to the US?




...and running.
Whatever you say man. It's impossible to debate the issue when you make an accusation, repeat it over and over and leave out the justification for it. I would encourage you to enroll in your local community college and take a writing course or two - it'll really help you understand the source material and present your arguments in a meaningful way. Right now, all I've got for you are a couple emotional pleas, accusations which you've not supported using the subject material, and straw man arguments. I would really love to get closer to understanding your point of view, but in order to do so you've got to get past your ego and your close-minded approach to this issue.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2015, 05:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're saying I don't understand the article here? Your last sentence doesn't read. Can you please explain what you're getting at here? Are you accusing me of misunderstanding the article? Please go right ahead and explain to me what I'm missing. Please demonstrate how my claims are irrelevant. Show your work!!

A popular pro-gun statement is "we have no idea how to stop these mass shootings (and other gun related crimes and accidents) from happening so often". Said in the sort of tone which suggests they would like to find a solution. The pro-gun control movement already knows the answer, the statistics have been irrefutably clear for many years now. In any country that can be reasonably compared to the US, gun crime/accidents/mass shootings are lower. By far. Because ownership is restricted. (We know this because the number of incidents fell to near zero in most cases after stricter controls were enacted, its not just about different cultures)

The article is making this point, but because they shortened the headline and left out the part about only comparing countries that have sufficient similarity to the US, you have seized on this because you can very easily point to corrupt, violent, war-torn and/or underdeveloped countries as having bigger problems than the US in this regard.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're not saying anything here. You've made an accusation but have not supported in the least (repeating it over and over doesn't count).
Frustrating isn't it?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, the article made that comparison which I refuted.
The article was cited because it was tackling the same topic we were. Our claims always included the caveat that the comparisons between countries had to be reasonable to be relevant. There would be little point in comparing the quality of your front lawn with a patch of ground on the moon. You chose to be deliberately pedantic and refute an oversimplified comparison because it was low hanging fruit and you have been crowing about it for half a dozen posts now. Textbook straw man.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Well considering there are no countries that are that similar it kind of makes your point moot. You're cherry picking the countries that support your argument while saying the rest of the world is irrelevant. This isn't an honest way to go about evaluating the data.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do you think Mexico is an advanced country? Or because there are a lot of mass killings there it's not comparable to the US?
Mexico would be getting there if it weren't for the massive influence of the drugs gangs, and the associated corruption in their police forces. They send messages by gunning down buildings full of people or whole families on a regular basis when they feel slighted and the people who are supposed to prevent them (who would also be tasked with enforcing gun laws) do little to prevent these shootings or punch the perpetrators. It skews the statistics and renders any gun control they might have worthless. These levels of corruption and this disregard for the value of human life do not apply in the US. Its not the wild west any more. Some similar arguments apply to places like Africa and areas of India, Pakistan, and the countries in that vicinity. Plus much of South America. Russia remains fairly corrupt too. These countries and more can be reasonably dismissed from the comparison because of these and other conditions that undermine any gun control measures in law or increase the levels of violence. Same for any political unrest or out and out war.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Whatever you say man. It's impossible to debate the issue when you make an accusation, repeat it over and over and leave out the justification for it. I would encourage you to enroll in your local community college and take a writing course or two - it'll really help you understand the source material and present your arguments in a meaningful way. Right now, all I've got for you are a couple emotional pleas, accusations which you've not supported using the subject material, and straw man arguments. I would really love to get closer to understanding your point of view, but in order to do so you've got to get past your ego and your close-minded approach to this issue.
Despite many significant differences, Canada, Britain and Australia are culturally very similar to the US. Infrastructure, stability, democracy, language, education, literacy, living standards, media, etc, etc. If you walked into a French or German supermarket you would find more similar products to the US than vastly different ones.

These are the countries we compare, just as we would when looking at changes to other laws like drug laws or traffic laws, or financial regulations or tax laws. This is a reasonable and therefore worthwhile comparison.

You say I am closed-minded on this but you are utterly utterly wrong. You see I like shooting guns too. And I've never fired anything more potent than an air rifle. I used to love setting up a target in my back garden and shooting at it. I totally get it. I'm sure if I had had access to handguns at a certain age, I might have been tempted to pose holding one sideways 'like in movies'. I probably did just that with toys or water pistols as a kid. I do get it. But knowing the inevitability of mental illness in society. Knowing that if anything its probably getting worse along with bad parenting and spoiled, entitled kids, I'd happily sacrifice my 'right' to own an assault weapon or a handgun in order to deprive that small percentage who simply can't be trusted with them, and never will be trustworthy. Because no-one should die so that I can shoot at targets for fun. Besides, I can still own an air rifle, a crossbow or a bow & arrow. I could probably get a full rifle licence if I wanted to. I'm not saying remove all guns.

Perhaps you think I'm being closed minded because I dismiss and distill your position down to that one argument like in OP video: "**** off, I like guns." But I think if you're honest with yourself, you know thats the truth.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
This might be the daftest thing I ever saw you post.

Firstly, I totally trust myself to handle and use a gun responsibly. Also to store it responsibly. Regular maintenance I may fall down on here and there. But generally, its not me I don't trust, I know me and I know I can be trusted. I am as certain as I can be that I won't get sad and top myself and that I won't get mad and top anyone else. Its you I don't trust.

Now you probably didn't mean you and me the individuals, you meant Europe and America. But I would trust Europe over America any day of the week. Our gun enthusiasts are enthusiasts. Yours are called gun nuts. With good reason.

I can only assume you are referring to two world wars? I suspect they are a big part of why we are more trustworthy now. I have long suspected they had a very sobering influence on our outlook when it comes to war and violence.

The attitude is superior because we experienced that problem, and we fixed it. Therefore you know the solution but you refuse to fix it. To paraphrase Einstein: "Taking no action whatsoever and expecting the same things not to happen again is the very definition of insanity."
Trust me, I've posted dafter shit.

Allow me to make my point with less snark.

If you factor out gangs, our homicide rate is about double the rate of your more savage westernized countries, like Belgium and Canada. Considering we have more guns than people, shouldn't we be doing worse for ourselves?

As for the superiority thing, I'll let you keep pretending you've learned your lesson, rather than it being the gun nuts in charge of NATO who finally stopped two millennia of slaughter.


I said less snark, not none.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 28, 2015 at 02:19 AM. )
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trust me, I've posted dafter shit.

Allow me to make my point with less snark.

If you factor out gangs, our homicide rate is about double the rate of your more savage westernized countries, like Belgium and Canada. Considering we have more guns than people, shouldn't we be doing worse for ourselves?
You aren't the only country with gangs you know. You can't factor them out altogether. Would your gangs be as bad as they are if not for the availability of guns? Probably not.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for the superiority thing, I'll let you keep pretending you've learned your lesson, rather than it being the gun nuts in charge of NATO who finally stopped two millennia of slaughter.

I said less snark, not none.
This feels like you doing what you accuse us of when you talk about understanding your gun culture. Your country has never seen war like that on its own soil, your people cannot possibly understand what it is like. They would be vastly different people if they did.
On a smaller scale, it is widely believed that US sympathisers substantially reduced their contributions to the IRA after 1996 when the Atlanta bombs went off. I suspect this was because very few of you really appreciated what terrorism was having never had to really deal with it before.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 11:09 AM
 
Non-snarky half...

Whoops!

My factoring out gangs comment was supposed to include legalization of drugs.

That was how I was factoring them out... via stopping the homicides. Just saying "don't count these" isn't an acceptable way to analyze it.


Snarky half...

We've never seen war on our soil because no one has the ****ing balls to try it.

Okay... maybe the Japanese, so we tore those balls clean-off. Who says we can't learn a lesson?
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Snarky half...

We've never seen war on our soil because no one has the ****ing balls to try it.
Or because Hitler took power in Germany and not Mexico.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 05:27 PM
 
Having more fun with the snarky half? Me too.

You know, in America, after we've ripped your balls off, we throw you and your balls in the car and drive you to the ER.

Europeans forget to grab the balls, let the ****er bleed out in the Versailles parking lot, and then act all surprised when his kid brother wants revenge.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Having more fun with the snarky half? Me too.
I'm about to.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
You know, in America, after we've ripped your balls off, we throw you and your balls in the car and drive you to the ER.
Only so you can hand us a massive medical bill.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Europeans forget to grab the balls, let the ****er bleed out in the Versailles parking lot, and then act all surprised when his kid brother wants revenge.
Hello, have you met ISIS?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 09:27 PM
 
besson mentioned sober discussion in the other thread, so if this is no fun, blame him.

Free access to guns is a cost-benefit analysis, and a far simpler one than people make it out to be.

The cost of free access is X number of homicides per year, and I'd venture somewhere around 10X non-fatal injuries.

While one can generate a long list of benefits, I posit there is only one from that list which even comes close to justifying the high numbers we have for X: free access acts as a check against tyranny.

As someone who believes it acts as such, I see the death and injury inflicted due to free access as a sad but necessary exchange for the check against tyranny.

You're free to tell me my belief is incorrect, and you very well may be right.

On the other hand, if you think the conclusion I draw from the belief is irrational, that there is not some value of X which is a worthwhile exchange as a check against tyranny, well... that's going to require an argument.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Only so you can hand us a massive medical bill.
Which as a socialist, must really grind your gears.


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Hello, have you met ISIS?
I'm fine letting you win on this one. Too soon.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You know, in America, after we've ripped your balls off, we throw you and your balls in the car and drive you to the ER.

Europeans forget to grab the balls, let the ****er bleed out in the Versailles parking lot, and then act all surprised when his kid brother wants revenge.
Plot for F&F 8?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
besson mentioned sober discussion in the other thread, so if this is no fun, blame him.

Free access to guns is a cost-benefit analysis, and a far simpler one than people make it out to be.

The cost of free access is X number of homicides per year, and I'd venture somewhere around 10X non-fatal injuries.

While one can generate a long list of benefits, I posit there is only one from that list which even comes close to justifying the high numbers we have for X: free access acts as a check against tyranny.

As someone who believes it acts as such, I see the death and injury inflicted due to free access as a sad but necessary exchange for the check against tyranny.

You're free to tell me my belief is incorrect, and you very well may be right.

On the other hand, if you think the conclusion I draw from the belief is irrational, that there is not some value of X which is a worthwhile exchange as a check against tyranny, well... that's going to require an argument.
The problem is your benefit is impossible to quantify, let alone prove.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 09:50 AM
 
Well, except for the fact that history has proven that every country/empire/dynasty goes sour and collapses at some point.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well, except for the fact that history has proven that every country/empire/dynasty goes sour and collapses at some point.
And where's the evidence guns would have saved them?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
And where's the evidence guns would have saved them?
Afghanistan vs the USSR
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Afghanistan vs the USSR
Isn't that a war?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The problem is your benefit is impossible to quantify, let alone prove.
I fully admit it's impossible to prove, and have already implied such.

Impossible to quantify I'm not so sure.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I fully admit it's impossible to prove, and have already implied such.
Sorry, I tend to ignore discussions involving waragainstsleep.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,