tnf wrote:
coming from a guy who is probably scared shitless when a game he is waiting for is delayed, that means a lot.
You dont know me, you know nothing about me... yet you deliver personal insults.
What's funny is that it pisses you off that i dident accept your apology back when you were being an ass about a joke.
I know that it pisses you off, because in 9 out of 10 threads im in you have to reply with some sort of lame attempt to make me feel hurt.
I know that you have noticed that i couldent care less about you or your childish flames/remarks... your nothing to me, your a name on a forum on the internet.
This is just a reminder.. you are ignored ... forever.
Fuck off
Show me 9 out of 10 threads you're in that I've tried to make you feel hurt?
Don't flatter yourself.
And reef, we both know the sequence of events...don't forget the truth of the situation and your anger that I wasn't 'moderating' as you saw fit...or actually that I wasn't sitting in front of my computer all day moderating everyone's posts...
The assumptions (basic figures) I'm working from are yours and tnf's - so you're saying that your own figures are baseless?
No, I'm saying that your moronic misinterpretations are baseless.
Holy bluster, batman. Do the math yourself, then try to come up with something. All you have so far is "well, my folks and some guys I know are responsible with guns".
I still don't see how your opinion that "you shouldn't own a gun below a certain age, and you shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon without adequate training" isn't approving of gun control.
TBH, I've been perfectly civil in this thread, and the fact that you and tnf have had to resort to name calling rather than intelligent debate is pretty sad.
Give me some raw data and I will do the math. You're trying to draw comparisons based on incomplete numbers. Wake up man, look back at your posts.
I'm not name calling, I'm calling a spade a spade. What you're doing is ignorant.
And the fact that you're dismissing firsthand evidence is sad. Where do you think the numbers in these statistics come from? From people just like me, and people like the folks that I know and the experiences they've had. Your dismissal of my real world example of where legal defensive use of a firearm would have saved a man's life is simply childish. That's not a real statistic? That's not a real piece of evidence? Did I say that it was an adequate sample size to extend an inference to the whole population?
I guess that the issue of gun control in this thread is largely one of semantics. Read my response to Hannibal for clarification.
Geebs wrote:
The assumptions (basic figures) I'm working from are yours and tnf's - so you're saying that your own figures are baseless?
No, I'm saying that your moronic misinterpretations are baseless.
Holy bluster, batman. Do the math yourself, then try to come up with something. All you have so far is "well, my folks and some guys I know are responsible with guns".
I still don't see how your opinion that "you shouldn't own a gun below a certain age, and you shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon without adequate training" isn't approving of gun control.
TBH, I've been perfectly civil in this thread, and the fact that you and tnf have had to resort to name calling rather than intelligent debate is pretty sad.
I never resorted to name calling in my conversations with you. I did retort to a few pot-shots at myself that including a complete mis-quote.
Nightshade wrote:Give me some raw data and I will do the math. You're trying to draw comparisons based on incomplete numbers. Wake up man, look back at your posts.
they're your numbers, which you tried to use to prove your argument. Two seconds' messing about with ballpark figures shows that they're nonsensical. You can't have it both ways.
And the fact that you're dismissing firsthand evidence is sad. Where do you think the numbers in these statistics come from? From people just like me, and people like the folks that I know and the experiences they've had. Your dismissal of my real world example of where legal defensive use of a firearm would have saved a man's life is simply childish. That's not a real statistic? That's not a real piece of evidence? Did I say that it was an adequate sample size to extend an inference to the whole population?
If it's not an adequate sample size, then it has no power to convey an argument apart from irrational appeal. You've also got absolutely no proof that having a gun would have helped in that situation apart from the frankly disputable 2.1 million, so it's doubly irrelevant.
Clarification - how is describing a real-life, actual situation where the legal use of a firearm could have saved someone's life an 'irrational appeal'? He's not implying that guns are the answer to every situation, just stating the simple fact that there are situations where they can be quite useful.
Nightshade wrote:Give me some raw data and I will do the math. You're trying to draw comparisons based on incomplete numbers. Wake up man, look back at your posts.
they're your numbers, which you tried to use to prove your argument. Two seconds' messing about with ballpark figures shows that they're nonsensical. You can't have it both ways.
And the fact that you're dismissing firsthand evidence is sad. Where do you think the numbers in these statistics come from? From people just like me, and people like the folks that I know and the experiences they've had. Your dismissal of my real world example of where legal defensive use of a firearm would have saved a man's life is simply childish. That's not a real statistic? That's not a real piece of evidence? Did I say that it was an adequate sample size to extend an inference to the whole population?
If it's not an adequate sample size, then it has no power to convey an argument apart from irrational appeal. You've also got absolutely no proof that having a gun would have helped in that situation apart from the frankly disputable 2.1 million, so it's doubly irrelevant.
They weren't solely my numbers. You're trying to extrapolate results from two incomplete sets of data, and that makes no sense. Also, you're dismissing statistics because they don't support your argument. Not the most scientific thing I've seen you do.
No proof? If that guy had picked up the shotgun that was right in front of him and blasted the idiot, he'd still be alive. How is that not proof? And as I said, and you conveniently ignored, where do you think all these figures come from? Do you think that's the only time something like that has happened?
Nightshade wrote:They weren't solely my numbers. You're trying to extrapolate results from two incomplete sets of data, and that makes no sense. Also, you're dismissing statistics because they don't support your argument. Not the most scientific thing I've seen you do.
No proof? If that guy had picked up the shotgun that was right in front of him and blasted the idiot, he'd still be alive. How is that not proof?
One thing I'm noticing is what seems to be lack of reporting of legitimate use of firearms in self-defense. Could this be because it's NOT A CRIME?!?!?! I'm dead serious here, too.
1) Nonfatal gun crime has fallen. This is surely misleading if you're not also counting fatal gun crime as well? There's nothing on that page to show that fatal gun crime hasn't increased!
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2003, 449,150 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
2) That's a heck of a lot less than the 2.1 million uses of a gun in defense! So, guns are used in personal defence FOUR times as often as they are used in offence! Really measured and proportional use of force.
3) Percentage of violent crimes involving firearms falling: as I outlined earlier in the thread, this is very easily skewed.
4) Those graphs' y axis is just labelled "number". If the DoJ is really this sloppy, I'm surprised you want to associate yourself with their figures....
5) Same page states that 12% of gun crime involves a legally bought firearm - therefore, presumably b people with no criminal record. Assuming that the "number" means total US population, that's still 50,000 crimes a year involving a licensed firearm. I feel safer already.
Nightshade wrote:One thing I'm noticing is what seems to be lack of reporting of legitimate use of firearms in self-defense. Could this be because it's NOT A CRIME?!?!?! I'm dead serious here, too.
I'm the only person in this thread who has posted reputable figures on use of guns in personal or home defense; I note that you didn't make any comments on them.
2.)This is simply ridiculous. Is that 449,150 the total number of crimes committed in the US? I doubt it, and you don't know, yet it doesn't stop you from leaping to a conclusion about it.
3.) Right, reported data that doesn't support your case is 'easily skewed' and will therefore be dismissed.
4.)"just labeled 'number'"? Are you really trying to infer something from this? Seriously? Because that's pathetic.
Nightshade wrote:One thing I'm noticing is what seems to be lack of reporting of legitimate use of firearms in self-defense. Could this be because it's NOT A CRIME?!?!?! I'm dead serious here, too.
I'm the only person in this thread who has posted reputable figures on use of guns in personal or home defense; I note that you didn't make any comments on them.
This crap?
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
And people keep throwing the word 'proof' around. "show me proof that guns would have helped in those sitautions" - for example. What about the other side of the coin - show me proof that a gun would NOT have helped in every situation?
What I'm getting at here is the fact that we aren't going to be able to prove either point of view. Despite what the anti-gun zealots in here want to believe, there are situations where guns can save lives. Rare or not, they exist. I've made the claim again and again that guns are not often a favorable means of ending or avoiding violent crime, and that I don't think everyone needs to be or even should be armed (but its been conveniently ignored in an attempt to keep this whole thing as polarized as possible).
Concealed weapons are legal in the states. Fact. Period. Deal with it. I agree that some of the laws need to be adjusted or modified, but that's not what I was ever debating.
The initial post that got this whole fucking thing rolling was a law clarifying what actions are legally justified for a victim of a violent crime who is carrying a gun.
The anti-gunners took that and claimed the some of the following (remember, it is NS and I who are making exaggerated claims that are completely unfounded and lacking logic, based on fear, assumptions, brainwashed, etc ) -
- the US is the Wild Wild West
- this law is going to result in more shootings, since less restrictions will lead to more guns on the streets - probably the most baseless argument from either side in this entire discussion
- that people are glad to live in a country where they don't NEED a gun to protect themselves (implying that NS and I and the rest of America have been arguing all along that you do)
- that this law is basically legalizing the pre-emptive shooting of people (because its just like the Iraq war)
- that nobody who might be shot is a criminal, because criminals are only criminals after being found guilty in the courts - this was a real pathetic stretch on semantics...but apparently you shouldn't be macing someone while they are attacking you either, because they aren't really a criminal until they've been found guilty - and don't try and go with the 'but mace isn't designed to KILL' - the bottom line is the person defending themselves from a real attack shouldn't have to try and predict the motives of the attacker (do they want to just hurt me bad, hurt me and take my wallet, kill me, beat me until I might die beat me so bad they might accidentally kill me, beat me so that I might have brain damage?) and then choose their method of retaliation accordingly.
Ah hell - lets just copy and paste some of the other exaggerated gems:
"I'd fucking move out of the country if a law like this hit my city.
edit: then again, it'll never happen."
"But isn't that what you are saying? All the criminals already have guns, so everyone else also need to get them to defend themselves?" (yea, that exactly what we're saying...)
-"A society where everyone carries a weapon is not safer than one where only the police and a few criminals carry weapons." (everyone carries weapons? - I didn't realize everyone here in America did...in fact, I know a lot of people...don't know one that carries a gun with them)
"im going to America in Feb - only for 5 days though luckily.... might buy a kevlar vest..." (yea, that's logical)
"assuming of course that weirdo's will only shoot someone once they have proven criminal intent.... etc etc etc. Sounds like loop hole haven." - weirdo's who want to shoot people for criminal reasons are going to do it anyhow.
"Cant wait to hear about all the new murders. It seems every day there is another reason to be happy not to be in the US. " - yea, keep track, let's see how many new 'murders' there are...
"So the solution is for everyone to arm themselves? I'd say that's a pretty fucked up society. I for sure wouldn't want my children to grow up somewhere like that.
Here's your lunch money, and I put a few extra magazines in the bag for your 9mm. Remember to aim for the torso if they try to take your lunch money again, dear. Better run now, pumpkin, I can hear the school bus coming." - (again, a classic example of making a ridiculous extrapolation of the gun policies...didn't someone talk about ridiculous assumptions based on fear and whatnot?)
..here it is"You choose to ignore the obvious larger implications of this law (less restrictions = more guns = more shootings, any fool can figure that out) and make your decision on the issue by reducing it to a black and white hypothetical situation that appeals to fear. "
"Just by reading nightshades argument makes me scared shitless.. talk about brainwashed." - because someone who is carrying a gun (which is legal, and not what he was arguing) has the right to use it if they are being attacked? yea. brainwashed.
- The second bit of my argument is based on what i think i'd do if such a law was passed here: i'd immediately get a gun. If walking down the street could make some asshole shoot me because they'd consider me a threat, i'd want the oppertunity to kill him first, because hey, they'd be a threat to me.
- great line of reasoning there...isn't that based on a hypothetical response based on fear and assumptions..?
- The american goverment... obviously. (referring to 'arming morons' - apparently I missed the governments last 'arm yourself on us swap meet')
-"Otherwise we'll just have to assume you guys are compensating for basic insecurity...." - yea, that's why we've been arguing so vehemently for the blind arming of everyone in America.
- Prove that guns actually protect people, and you'd have a point. (see the 'proof' issue. prove that they never do.)
- "Such as? The only way you can protect yourself with a gun is to shoot the other person. Either way, someone gets shot.
There's no rationale for a law that encourages the escalation of violence while discouraging avoidance of violence. (So violence is never, ever, ever required to end a violent situation)?
Hannibal wrote:Anybody....the federal assault weapons ban (which expired last year)...why would anyone oppose it? (besides gun manufacturers of course).
I agree with the spirit of your question..I would not oppose it personally,...but both sides of these arguments are often governed by the fear of slippery-slope situations. As far as I can tell, the rabid gun-owner types who espouse the "need" to carry a gun for protection feel that if one type of gun can be banned, soon it will be another, and another, until the constitutional amendment is virtually gone.
The other side, the rabid anti-gun types, seem to believe that if guns were suddenly outlawed, things would change for the better, ignoring the stellar success that the outlawing of things like drugs has had.
Hannibal wrote:Anybody....the federal assault weapons ban (which expired last year)...why would anyone oppose it? (besides gun manufacturers of course).
Because it was a stupid piece of knee-jerk legislation designed to get idiot politicians re-elected. VERY few crimes involving guns are committed with "assault weapons", whatever the hell that means.
During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
The ban itself didn't make these weapons illegal, it simply prohibited the manufacture of new weapons. It did nothing but allow politards to pat themselves on the back and crow in front of their constituents. It did absolutely nothing of substance to reduce violent crime.
Dumbest argument I've seen yet. You can't attribute causality to existence. OMG! CARS DRIVEN BY DRUNKS KILL PEOPLE!!! WE MUST BAN CARS!!! Guns wielded by suicidal people cause fatal gunshot wounds, imagine that. The person pulling the trigger is the reason someone ends up dead.
Question: Do any of you think that linking suicides to guns is a valid argument for banning guns altogether?
