Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='Knoell']Or the idea that somehow the roads were repaired with less money 15 years ago, but we simply don't have enough money today without raising taxes? They are right, it doesn't compute.[/QUOTE]

There could be technologies that control the lights that also add to the cost. And the cost of materials also go up (tied to gas, as mentioned above), more trucks from shipping internet orders damage roads faster... There really are legitimate reasons.

So yes, it really does cost more to repair roads now than 15 years ago. Unless you want gravel and stop signs everywhere, and a ban on non-local goods.

Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?
 
[quote name='elessar123']There could be technologies that control the lights that also add to the cost. And the cost of materials also go up (tied to gas, as mentioned above), more trucks from shipping internet orders damage roads faster... There really are legitimate reasons.

So yes, it really does cost more to repair roads now than 15 years ago. Unless you want gravel and stop signs everywhere, and a ban on non-local goods.

Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?[/QUOTE]

If technology adds something to the cost then it would be very minor. Major reasons would be due to inefficiency of the government, devaluation of the dollar, lazy workers on a government's payroll.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why can't I buy a gallon of gas in 2013 for the same price I paid in 1998?[/QUOTE]

That would be a valid argument if you had the same amount of money to pay. However why can't you buy a gallon of gas in 2013 with four times the money you had in 1998?
 
[quote name='elessar123']There could be technologies that control the lights that also add to the cost. And the cost of materials also go up (tied to gas, as mentioned above), more trucks from shipping internet orders damage roads faster... There really are legitimate reasons.

So yes, it really does cost more to repair roads now than 15 years ago. Unless you want gravel and stop signs everywhere, and a ban on non-local goods.

Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?[/QUOTE]

As I stated in the other post, prices have increased for things, but so has tax revenue despite what MSM and these guys will tell you.

Look it up.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You didn't have the energy the last two opportunities you had, so why would the future be any different? You've offered up precisely *two* sentences attempting to explain, so any talk of "energy" is a deflection from the actual matter: you have no point to articulate.
[/QUOTE]

I can only spend so much of my life pointing out to you that loss of human life = loss of human life and if you can't grasp that concept then no amount of explanation will ever suffice. I could go into great detail about it, but why should I have to when it's CLEAR that killing people is killing people is killing people and your expressed concern of one over the other shows your inconsistency and exposes an agenda in which you up-play any tragedy that furthers your agenda and downplay tragedies that make your guy in office look bad.

[quote name='mykevermin']
kids? I thought we were speaking of "civilians." What prompted your sudden shift in focus here? [/QUOTE]

:lol: Are kids not considered civilians? Kids, civilians, people, humans, call them whatever you like. Stop grasping at straws.


[quote name='mykevermin']
This thread is about discussing whether or not gun control measures should be considered as policy in order to reduce the remarkable difference in murder rates in the United States when compared to other nations. I'm asking you to explain how casualties that result from US military strategy abroad are related. You dodge. Clumsily, I might add.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty specific. Do I need to point out every single one of your posts that diverge from that very narrow path? Who determined that this thread was on that very topic? It certainly doesn't say that in the title. My comments are purely a commentary on what you and others have said thus far. Our police state has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and, as I said, start a thread about it and I'll be more than happy to give you my explanation.



[quote name='mykevermin']
I WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AND MONEY AND GIVE THEM TO POOR GAY SECULARISTS.

(komrade.)[/QUOTE]

There you go doing that whole caricature thing to avoid having to actually own up to the stupid shit you spew. Your insinuation that I hold a belief that you want to give my guns and money to poor, gay secularists is 100% just wasting my and everyone else's time.

[quote name='mykevermin']Back on topic, since we all know temp won't actually stand for his own argument and bother to explain it...[/QUOTE]

I've explained it more than should be required. Keep repeating that lie and I'm sure, sooner or later, the chirp chirps will come to accept it as truth.
 
killing is killing. pants are pants. bicycles are bicycles. happiness is happiness.

tautologies are not "explanations." neither are redundancies.

but you sure type a lot, so I guess that's "energy."
 
[quote name='elessar123']
Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?[/QUOTE]

Which has always been a hilarious thing because railroads had to pay for their maintenance of way themselves while truckers and trucking companies use publicly maintained roads and pay the same low gas tax as some dude in his Civic. In Los Angeles they are planning to improve the 710, which is utterly destroyed by trucks every minute of every day. And what funding source is being used to pay for it? County sales tax. Big rigs are good and necessary in society, but at some point you wonder why they do not pay a higher gas tax than those in small cars.

But even those in small cars should pay a higher gas tax. There is one tax I am in favor of raising *today* and that is the federal gas tax. It should have been raised a long time ago and again in increments over the years. In the long run I'd like to see us move to a vehicle mileage tax if we can come to a consensus on the privacy concerns.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?[/QUOTE]

Actually, if they raised gas taxes to cover road repairs and maintenance and stopped taking money from other funds, I'd be thrilled...

Would it raise the cost of goods? Yup. But if people knew what those cheap goods *really* cost them, they'd be less likely to buy so much crap (partially because they could no longer afford quite as much).

Allowing corporations to hide the true cost of goods (in this came, transportation of the goods) additionally allows them increase their profits - thanks to taxpayer money.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Which has always been a hilarious thing because railroads had to pay for their maintenance of way themselves while truckers and trucking companies use publicly maintained roads and pay the same low gas tax as some dude in his Civic.[/QUOTE]

The cost will get passed to consumers, so railroads paying the maintenance themselves is BS. Just like when the price of a barrel of oil shot up, Exxon somehow had record profits. The corporations don't share the cost at all.

[quote name='Spokker']But even those in small cars should pay a higher gas tax. There is one tax I am in favor of raising *today* and that is the federal gas tax. It should have been raised a long time ago and again in increments over the years. In the long run I'd like to see us move to a vehicle mileage tax if we can come to a consensus on the privacy concerns.[/QUOTE]

If people could get by everywhere without having to own cars, like in NYC, I'd support this. If I worked within walking distance of my work, it'd cost hundreds more a month in rent. To take public transit would take me over 2 hours per way, assuming I don't get to work after 8, and don't leave work past 6. Else it's 2-3 hours per way. Without traffic, driving is 17 minutes.

[quote name='UncleBob']Would it raise the cost of goods? Yup. But if people knew what those cheap goods *really* cost them, they'd be less likely to buy so much crap (partially because they could no longer afford quite as much).

Allowing corporations to hide the true cost of goods (in this came, transportation of the goods) additionally allows them increase their profits - thanks to taxpayer money.[/QUOTE]

I mostly agree, except if it causes a lot less spending, then the economy will also hit a recession. If Americans in general were smarter, maybe it'd be better.
 
So this seems like a good place to ask, just how much responsibility should a gun owner have when it comes to their firearms? I ask because I was reading up earlier on a few cases where kids accidentally shot themselves/others with a family member's gun. To me the owner should be charged with negligent homicide (and in many cases they were), but in a few cases they actually weren't, which pretty much leaves them free of any responsibility in the death of whomever was killed.

So, since the "liberals" are all about skirting responsibility, what would the conservative, responsibility loving answer be? ;)
 
It should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Just like if someone steals your car or your kitchen knifes, then goes out and kills people. A judge and a jury of your peers should be able to review the facts of the case and make a judgement based on those.
 
I'd be more comfortable with guns if:
  • I was fully confident any/all owner had specific training
  • We lost the GUNS R FUKKIN AWSUM YEEHAW mentality
So basically, education and maturity. It seems like the attitude of Americans is very much like your typical Call of Duty pre-game lobby. There's just so little respect paid toward this device that is designed to kill, kill quickly, and kill repeatedly. Instead, it's treated like a toy, complete with lack of understanding and near total lack of responsibility.

Note: I am not saying this is everyone, or all gun owner, or whatever bullshit words you want to say I said when I clearly didn't. Our culture is obsessed with violence, and there's little attempt to ever ask anyone if they have honest understanding of what a gun can do. We want the AMERICA fuck YEAH attitude colliding with potential deadly force, and that just seems unsettling.

Hell, I'd be up for mandatory military service for all 18 year olds if I thought everyone came out of that at least knowing how to operate a gun, how to aim properly, how to assess situations, etc. I think that would be a better deterrent than anything - this idea that everyone you're around is trained and mentality capable of utilizing a firearm. And again - I'm well aware there are individuals like this already.

In the same way that other societal constructs are treated with a complete lack of respect and empathy, it bothers me to think that people can pick up a gun relatively easily and start empowering themselves to ending life should that situation arise. I'd feel a lot better about it if the culture seemed less proud of that kind of thing, showcasing instead reverence instead of fuckYEAHness.

But I'm conservative in this manner, in the sense that I think empathy has practically disappeared from society at large. I'm the guy walking around wanting to help, assist, protect, donate, be charitable, let others go before me, etc. And this earns me - by society's standards - the wonderful label of being a pussy. Haha, ok.
 
I think that needs to be stated, that it isn't guns that worry me, it's dumbasses with guns. You take your average dumbass (they aren't hard to find...) and arm him, now that dumbass is dangerous.

Now before I hear one more damn comparison between guns and cars, yeah I worry about the dumbass drivers out there too, but cars are necessary for a lot of people, guns aren't.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'd be more comfortable with guns if:
  • I was fully confident any/all owner had specific training
  • We lost the GUNS R FUKKIN AWSUM YEEHAW mentality
So basically, education and maturity. It seems like the attitude of Americans is very much like your typical Call of Duty pre-game lobby. There's just so little respect paid toward this device that is designed to kill, kill quickly, and kill repeatedly. Instead, it's treated like a toy, complete with lack of understanding and near total lack of responsibility.

Note: I am not saying this is everyone, or all gun owner, or whatever bullshit words you want to say I said when I clearly didn't. Our culture is obsessed with violence, and there's little attempt to ever ask anyone if they have honest understanding of what a gun can do. We want the AMERICA fuck YEAH attitude colliding with potential deadly force, and that just seems unsettling.

Hell, I'd be up for mandatory military service for all 18 year olds if I thought everyone came out of that at least knowing how to operate a gun, how to aim properly, how to assess situations, etc. I think that would be a better deterrent than anything - this idea that everyone you're around is trained and mentality capable of utilizing a firearm. And again - I'm well aware there are individuals like this already.

In the same way that other societal constructs are treated with a complete lack of respect and empathy, it bothers me to think that people can pick up a gun relatively easily and start empowering themselves to ending life should that situation arise. I'd feel a lot better about it if the culture seemed less proud of that kind of thing, showcasing instead reverence instead of fuckYEAHness.

But I'm conservative in this manner, in the sense that I think empathy has practically disappeared from society at large. I'm the guy walking around wanting to help, assist, protect, donate, be charitable, let others go before me, etc. And this earns me - by society's standards - the wonderful label of being a pussy. Haha, ok.[/QUOTE]

Your problem is that your tone makes people assume that you think most people do not treat firearms with respect.

"It seems like the attitude of Americans is very much like your typical Call of Duty pre-game lobby."

What kind of out of touch BS is that?

Just as people driving get into accidents because they do not drive with the maturity they should, stupid people will do stupid things with guns. And for the most part they ARE held responsible. You can pick out the individual cases in which they aren't but for the most part they are.

Kind of like the video the guy posted a few posts ago of people doing stupid things with guns. Then I posted a video of people walking into walls/random objects. You can't get rid of stupid no matter how hard you try. You can't try to legislate it away either.

And you are overstating the whole "fuckyeah" mentality. Having and shooting a gun and being excited over it, is very similar to having that sports car, or 70 inch tv. Maybe we should get over that 160mph sportscar fuckyeah mentality, those things are dangerous.

[quote name='Clak']I think that needs to be stated, that it isn't guns that worry me, it's dumbasses with guns. You take your average dumbass (they aren't hard to find...) and arm him, now that dumbass is dangerous.

Now before I hear one more damn comparison between guns and cars, yeah I worry about the dumbass drivers out there too, but cars are necessary for a lot of people, guns aren't.[/QUOTE]

Oops, there is your one more comparison.

So you are pretty much derailing a constitutional right, because you are paranoid that someone is going to shoot you accidentally or otherwise. Excellent reason.

Also it doesn't matter in the least that you see guns as unneccessary. Not one bit.

edit: I also enjoy how all of this anti gun talk is increasing gun sales. Tell us how you really feel America. Great effect you guys are having, you may get rid of those damn scary black rifles, but there are a million more pistols around than before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']http://gawker.com/5979907/georgia-h...o-followed-gps-to-wrong-address?post=56767489[/QUOTE]

A tragedy, not just for Mr. Diaz's family and friends but the community Lillburn & Gwinett County as well.

Mr. Sailors is currently in jail, held without bond and charged with malice-murder (for those unaware, GA doesn't use murder 1/2 designations but instead Murder and two types of manslaughter); That fact, coupled with an incident that seems to have transpired with no considerable provocation means he is likely looking at facing the death-penalty GA and if not, life in prison w/o parole and a 30 year life sentence at a minimum.

Would Diaz still be alive had Sailors not been weilding a .22 rimfire pistol? Possibly.

So what does one make of your post?

Do you want use this as a springboard to justify a ban .22 rim-fire pistols too, in addition to an AWB, or is this yet another anecdotal assault on ERRREZPAHWNSEEBLE GUHN-NUHTZ ARMED TO THE TEETH?! (Annoying isn't it, talk about pablum.) Certainly don't let it go to waste.

A better link with more context:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/man-69-accused-of-killing-man-who-went-to-wrong-ho/nT8xp/
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']another anecdotal assault on ERRREZPAHWNSEEBLE GUHN-NUHTZ ARMED TO THE TEETH?![/QUOTE]

Please, indulge me. How else might you categorize Sailors?

[satire]My point was that more people should carry firearms, of course. Clearly Diaz could have saved his own life if he has pulled up on the driveway and started firing at Sailors first.[/satire]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Please, indulge me. How else might you categorize Sailors?

[satire]My point was that more people should carry firearms, of course. Clearly Diaz could have saved his own life if he has pulled up on the driveway and started firing at Sailors first.[/satire][/QUOTE]

It's clearly what the founders intended.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Please, indulge me. How else might you categorize Sailors?
[/QUOTE]
You tell me, other than calling 911 because a strange car was in his driveway, firing a warning shot before waiting and discharging it at a stranger (who was not inside his home, but according to Sailors' attorney, lurched his car towards him and his home) and owning a .22 pistol is all I know of the man. You apparently know something I don't?

I'm not so quick to jump to conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Naturally one is inclined to wonder who the heck is in your driveway but the act of leaving your house with a gun to confront that person is reckless and any violence that ensues should be considered criminal. Growing up I lived on a dead end street. I cannot even count the number of people pulling into my house's driveway at all hours. Sometimes they would pause there while maybe figuring out directions. Never once did my parent says let go out there and see who it is much less say lets take the rifle out with us. This is not a gun issue really (except that a gun made it easy for this elderly man to kill a kid) but rather an issue of the fear mongering in today's United States. My county sheriff (Milwaukee) is in a big what to do because he is going out and telling people to get a gun because "911 is not a great option". When law enforcement is saying YOU can do a better job at protecting yourself than the police can you are going have things like this happen.
 
I always brandish a firearm when I open my front door. don't you? sure, it freaks out the mail carrier *daily*, but that's the price of freedom.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I always brandish a firearm when I open my front door. don't you? sure, it freaks out the mail carrier *daily*, but that's the price of freedom.[/QUOTE]

Do you think, or are you implying that Mr. Sailors made a daily habit of this?

Would the fact that your neighbor's home had been recently robbed make you more skittish?

Do you think that might have induced a degree of hypervigilence on Sailors part?
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Do you think, or are you implying that Mr. Sailors made a daily habit of this?

Would the fact that your neighbor's home had been recently robbed make you more skittish?

Do you think that might have induced a degree of hypervigilence on Sailors part on his behalf?[/QUOTE]

vigilance. with an a.

And yes, I wholly agree with you. Which is *precisely* what makes bring trigger-happy a problem. Hypervigilant and armed *is* a problem; you see it as sensible. That freaks me the fuck out.

Don't pull the "I'm not so quick to jump to conclusions" card at the same time that you have already shown that you are more than willing to do nothing but consider one side of the matter. You, depending on your age, had already decided your opinion on this before Diaz was born. Your whole approach is to see only the perspective that implies that Sailors was totally justified in killing someone with his firearm. If I had the energy and interest, I'd love to delve into the Trayvon Martin shooting thread to see if you had anything to say there, too.
 
I think that was before he decided to grace us with his presence. I would however like to point out that Sailors is one of the dumbasses I was speaking of above.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']vigilance. with an a.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, i should speel chek.


[quote name='mykevermin']Your whole approach is to see only the perspective that implies that Sailors was totally justified in killing someone with his firearm. If I had the energy and interest, I'd love to delve into the Trayvon Martin shooting thread to see if you had anything to say there, too.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, my initial reaction is that Sailors is justifiably charged, I thought my first post after yours made that clear.

I was enjoying asking you questions to further ferret out your obvious bias and motives as you, depending on your youth, had already decided your opinion on this even before Sailors is tried. :roll:

[quote name='Clak']I think that was before he decided to grace us with his presence. I would however like to point out that Sailors is one of the dumbasses I was speaking of above.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I can't linger here 24/7 with the rest of the keyboard jockeys.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I was enjoying asking you questions to further ferret out your obvious bias and motives as you, depending on your youth, had already decided your opinion on this even before Sailors is tried. :roll:[/QUOTE]

I'm not a court, I'm not deciding whether or not he's guilty of murdering Diaz.

I'm simply stating that the presence of a firearm, in the hands of someone clearly overreacting to a situation from the moment they stepped outside, facilitated the taking of a life in way that was made far easier - far too easy.

The "too easy" part is my opinion; the rest is indisputable fact.

This is the precise kind of situation that shows that while ideologues may parade out "people kill people, not guns" rhetoric, the guns make it really fucking easy to kill people. And that's not noble, that's a problem.
 
That's the thing that people don't seem to understand when they talk about the increase in violence committed with knives in places like the UK where they ban most guns. Even if people did start using knives, it's a fair bit harder (and more personal) to kill someone with a knife. Shooting someone from feet away, vs running up to them and stabbing them is quite different.

Guns offer people the ability to distance themselves a bit from what they're doing, it's just point and click, so to speak.
 
[quote name='GUNNM']Why does no one ever mention that shit hole chicago when someone is murdered[/QUOTE]
Maybe because murders in the ghetto tend to be clear cut personal cases, whereas when it happens in some lily white suburb, it tends to be some white dude that freaks the fuck out and kills random people for whatever reason. The fact that these types of events are happening with increased frequency is something that needs to be looked at.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's the thing that people don't seem to understand when they talk about the increase in violence committed with knives in places like the UK where they ban most guns. Even if people did start using knives, it's a fair bit harder (and more personal) to kill someone with a knife. Shooting someone from feet away, vs running up to them and stabbing them is quite different.

Guns offer people the ability to distance themselves a bit from what they're doing, it's just point and click, so to speak.[/QUOTE]

So your solution is to make it more difficult for people to get guns, so that the scared people who are able to get guns accidentally shoot innocent people out of fear with their now law abiding gun?

Because Mr. Sailor wouldn't be able to get a gun with your "strict" gun laws? Or do you just want to ban them altogether?

And do your damn homework on the UK if you want to bring it up, the firearm ban there has done nothing. Absolutely nothing.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Maybe because murders in the ghetto tend to be clear cut personal cases, whereas when it happens in some lily white suburb, it tends to be some white dude that freaks the fuck out and kills random people for whatever reason. The fact that these types of events are happening with increased frequency is something that needs to be looked at.[/QUOTE]

Prove it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Prove it.[/QUOTE]

People don't like facts; like the fact that gun violence has increased in Chicago just about every year since they made Chicago a no carry zone (you can't say gun ban because the silly's on this thread will argue semantics)

Here are some interesting gun facts though:

Crime and Self-Defense

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

* Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."



I'll put the over/under at 4.5 in regards to the number of posts it takes someone to say "ayuhh dat informaztion isn't legitz like da stuff iz pulz from CNBC"


But keep feeding the agenda
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The site's called Just Facts, so you know it contains...just facts.

derrrrrp. What's a "whois" search?[/QUOTE]

I guess I should have taken the under.....

So you are going to dispute the information in that webpage? Typical....
 
[quote name='Knoell']Prove it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I totally meant that it happens every day now.

[quote name='GBAstar']I guess I should have taken the under.....

So you are going to dispute the information in that webpage? Typical....[/QUOTE]
The only determining factor as to why people commit crimes with guns is because their victims don't have guns, you say? And then you wonder why that source isn't taken seriously?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, I totally meant that it happens every day now.


The only determining factor as to why people commit crimes with guns is because their victims don't have guns, you say? And then you wonder why that source isn't taken seriously?[/QUOTE]

So you are disputing the information in that article or how it is presented?

I would like you to point out any information in that article that is not accurate.

Go ahead.

And when you can't find anything to pick apart you can just fall back on "Duh study iz racist"; by now it is expected
 
[quote name='GBAstar']So you are disputing the information in that article or how it is presented?

I would like you to point out any information in that article that is not accurate.

Go ahead.

And when you can't find anything to pick apart you can just fall back on "Duh study iz racist"; by now it is expected[/QUOTE]
Strawman much? My post was three whole sentences and hard to misinterpret. But since you're the one that brought up race first, aren't you the one actually guilty of "race-baiting" here?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Strawman much? My post was three whole sentences and hard to misinterpret. But since you're the one that brought up race first, aren't you the one actually guilty of "race-baiting" here?[/QUOTE]

Yes so to elaborate on your three sentences the data is not factual because it is used to strengthen the arguments of members of the NRA (to which I don't belong) and gun owners (to which I'm not) who happen to believe that the solution to gun violence is arming more citizens (which I don't agree with).

But because that is how the data "may" be used then it is not no longer factual?

reeeallly?

So if data supports your agenda then it is factual?

Edit: Nice to have you back by the way. I'll try to keep the race baiting to a minimum.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Yes so to elaborate on your three sentences the data is not factual because it is used to strengthen the arguments of members of the NRA (to which I don't belong) and gun owners (to which I'm not) who happen to believe that the solution to gun violence is arming more citizens (which I don't agree with).

But because that is how the data "may" be used then it is not no longer factual?

reeeallly?

So if data supports your agenda then it is factual?

Edit: Nice to have you back by the way. I'll try to keep the race baiting to a minimum.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should've included the first paragraph instead of shotgunning facts? Cause instead of doing so, you're implying the exact opposite of what you just said especially in the context of quoting knoell.

Either way, focusing on guns aspect of crimes take attention away from focusing on what causes crime to begin with...and it has nothing to do with how armed the populace is or isn't, muchless incarceration being a deterrent.

And yes, how one uses facts is important. I've actually read a lot of what the site has to say and some of it is highly questionable and even if I accept your little snippet, which I do, facts by themselves are meaningless. There's obviously so much more to it that it's disingenuous and inaccurate to solely use what that site is selling as definitive. That's the point.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, I totally meant that it happens every day now.


The only determining factor as to why people commit crimes with guns is because their victims don't have guns, you say? And then you wonder why that source isn't taken seriously?[/QUOTE]

What? You just stated something that would cause many misinformed people to be up in arms. I am asking you to prove what you stated. Of course you won't though.

No he isn't saying the only determing factor as to why people commit crimes with guns is because their victims don't have guns. He is saying that you guys do not pay attention to the fact that having a gun has saved many lives but is a unnoticed statistic.

Funny how the story of Mr. Sailor shooting someone because he was overly aggressive on his property, causes you to be up in arms and make claims that "this is happening in increased frequency", yet you discard statistics that show having a gun for personal protection has protected many, many people from harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top