|
Let me tell you I'm not crazy Mind control Liberals maybe?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
I've decided arguing with the CRIMINALS WILL STILL GET GUNS people is too much effort and I'm exhausted from trying, so I've started responding to every one of those arguments with That Bors:  It's more fun and saves on sanity. Bonus points if I can wedge one or more of the Tom Tomorrows in there as well. It may not be productive but neither is a migraine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Taco knows what to do with guns. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Well if I ever need to kill myself I know what I'm doing right before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
 Oh poo poo Call of Juarez: Gunslinger! I just beat that game!  Is this the Barbie Doll Gun?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Government is putting a gun to your head for taxes by libertarian logic - so Donald is just removing the veil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:What's the twist of logic on this one? Is this like the thing Fox News does where they kick somebody out of the GOP on TV by putting a 'D' next to their name instead of an 'R?'
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
I've always been annoyed by that stance. "LOL look this politician used slightly incorrect terminology talking about this specific gun, this means no one who doesn't know extensive gun vocabulary should make any laws Are Guns!!!" Meanwhile those same people are usually cool with banning abortion based on lovely science and have no idea what an ectopic pregnancy is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Remember when the video game Doom caused mass shootings? Those were good times. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:The proprietor of EPROW is a fan of the theory that all the white male shooters were on psychotropic drugs. So if they're  on drugs then they're a Democrat?I don't know why I'm asking all this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
DEAN JAMES III% Do non-alphanumeric symbols force government officials to use your Corporate Name under admiralty law or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:DEAN JAMES III%
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:The proprietor of EPROW is a fan of the theory that all the white male shooters were on psychotropic drugs. There's often a second stage to this one that claims antidepressants make you susceptible to CIA mind control like the Manchurian Candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:I've always been annoyed by that stance. "LOL look this politician used slightly incorrect terminology talking about this specific gun, this means no one who doesn't know extensive gun vocabulary should make any laws Are Guns!!!" Slightly incorrect is an understatement - I don't think its beyond the pale to expect that when you write a law banning a thing, you know what it is you're banning, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U Or about basic functions of the item in question, like how magazines can be reloaded? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwnE-ubrVIY It would be one thing if a complete knowledge of archaic pin-fire development was demanded, but nobody is making that demand. It is a strawman. What would be a lot more valid is if the people attempting to pass this legislation did have at least a basic understanding of the subject of their legislation, though. You'd probably find it ridiculous if a politician writing a bank reform bill had no idea what a security or loan is, right? PUGGERNAUT posted:Meanwhile those same people are usually cool with banning abortion based on lovely science and have no idea what an ectopic pregnancy is. Ironic that you bring up abortion, since the anti-gun and anti-choice playbooks are a simple job of copy-paste and find-replace. From the rhetoric; Some frothing anti-choicer posted:"The baby's right to not be killed supersedes your right to convenience!" To the often incrementalist tactics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
I'm fine with experts in firearms writing the bills that will finally bring our insane firearms policy in line with every other developed country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm fine with experts in firearms writing the bills that will finally bring our insane firearms policy in line with every other developed country. I wonder what kinds of regulations we'd have for nuclear power if we had had several chernobyl scale disasters in the United States but all the nuclear experts circled the wagons and insisted that everything was fine and that it was operator error every time. The proposed regulations would probably be inconsistent and inadequate in many ways. I don't actually know enough about nuclear science to make a joke, but imagine a meme where one scientist is making fun of a politician for calling a proton a positron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
I like that the vaguely scary looking dark-skinned man MUST be evil, when he has an Assassin Glyph for his belt buckle, making him one of the good guys trying to protect personal your freedom from the God Aliens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
And Leonidas stood before the Persian Army, who demanded he lay down his weapons and surrender. He responded with "Come and Take Them!" The Persians then proceed to kill him and his entire force for resisting. They then proceeded to burn Athens to the loving ground. Because Leonidas was a loving retard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:So if they're More paranoid fantasies. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:If they're on drugs then they are crazy and it is the drugs fault. Not guns. As you've seen, people with guns are responsible and sane and not evil so don't you even DARE think about taking away their guns and their right to defend themselves by shooting anyone who comes within 1000 feet of their property unannounced. More likely he'd just accidentally shoot you in a panic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:If they're on drugs then they are crazy and it is the drugs fault. Not guns. As you've seen, people with guns are responsible and sane and not evil so don't you even DARE think about taking away their guns and their right to defend themselves by shooting anyone who comes within 1000 feet of their property unannounced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I wonder what kinds of regulations we'd have for nuclear power if we had had several chernobyl scale disasters in the United States but all the nuclear experts circled the wagons and insisted that everything was fine and that it was operator error every time. It'd probably look at lot like how old white men regulate abortion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Thump! posted:And Leonidas stood before the Persian Army, who demanded he lay down his weapons and surrender. He responded with "Come and Take Them!" Hey, that's not fair. Leonidas was the commander of a legitimate Spartan military engaging in lawful defense of his and his allies' lands. He (and his men) were almost certainly aware of the fact that they were going to die, and chose to fight rather than surrender knowing that. In contrast, that macro is attempting to compare a government sanctioned resistance to a foreign power's aggression to unlawful civilian rebellion against their own legitimately elected government imposing regulations that they disagree with, believing that they'll win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:More paranoid fantasies. People have said in this forum that this 'heroic civilian who saves everyone because they conceal carry' is a fantasy, but is there a statistics that back this up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
I'm always kind of bemused by D&D on the subject of gun control, it is the one subject that seems to make everyone go crazy over. For what it is worth I simply can't conceive of legislation that will be effective, and honestly I feel the real problem is the climate of fear and shift to the right that has been steadily occurring since Nixon. The Real vs. Fake Americans mindset seems to be what really fuels this problem. How you end this and get people to not be in constant fear of their neighbors, minorities, homeless, etc is the real question to me. Sadly, I can't think of anything other than arguing the progressive points just as loudly and hope they resonate with young people more than regressive ones do and hope conservatives die out at a greater rate than they are replaced, pushing the people who earnestly wish for a race war, 2nd civil war, etc into a more isolated corner as the decades crawl on.toanoradian posted:People have said in this forum that this 'heroic civilian who saves everyone because they conceal carry' is a fantasy, but is there a statistics that back this up? Doubtful there is anything to back up either, but not having accurate statistics of all the various violent scenarios in which guns are used once again falls on the anti-control crowd because they even block funding for that kind of stuff, because even putting their claims to the test is forbidden, they are already true, so studies are not needed. TheArmorOfContempt fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:People have said in this forum that this 'heroic civilian who saves everyone because they conceal carry' is a fantasy, but is there a statistics that back this up? I dunno what stats you'd be looking for exactly. It'd have to be something like the percentage of attempted shootings with a non-police armed civilian that resulted in more than x fatalities (for whatever you want to count as an acceptable level, i.e. maybe the shooter kills a dude before anyone realizes what happens). That seems very hard to determine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Hard to find figures because, as pro-gun people will correctly point out, a foiled mass shooting isn't reported as a mass shooting. It's complicated further by how relatively rare mass shootings really are. I think you'd have to be very careful in making any claims on what is or is not effective on preventing rare events.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Hard to find figures because, as pro-gun people will correctly point out, a foiled mass shooting isn't reported as a mass shooting. It's actually a hard to find figure because any national agency is outlawed from doing any research on gun violence. Which should be all you need to know about if the NRA think's it would actually end up being a net positive or not. "No, guys this is way super effective and it's obvious that the facts are disputable! Wait, no I don't actually want it studied and quantified, just take our word for it."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:People have said in this forum that this 'heroic civilian who saves everyone because they conceal carry' is a fantasy, but is there a statistics that back this up? It's not common or statistically significant, but it does happen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
poo poo someone actually said to me: "Should we have a three day waiting period on bridges? See? That's why it doesn't make sense to regulate guns."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Anubis posted:It's actually a hard to find figure because any national agency is outlawed from doing any research on gun violence. This is blatantly untrue. It is not the case currently, and never has been the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
I just saw this one in the wild and came to post it. It was accompanied by this comment: quote:Our country has a mental health problem not a gun problem. And unless Canada and Mexico get rid of guns too, banning them won't do any good. Weren't all four guns legally acquired within the US? I don't understand what they're trying to say here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:People have said in this forum that this 'heroic civilian who saves everyone because they conceal carry' is a fantasy, but is there a statistics that back this up? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
I actually posted a link above with documented examples of actual stops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:People have said in this forum that this 'heroic civilian who saves everyone because they conceal carry' is a fantasy, but is there a statistics that back this up? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=opinion LeJackal posted:This is blatantly untrue. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html Pomplamoose fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:This is blatantly untrue. http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7 http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ies_at_cdc.html http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347 "Never has been the case" huh? Currently, no. It's free. But in doing so they'd basically shred their own funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-two-years-ago/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist So they have to decide between still being able to keep the doors open, or researching gun violence. Sounds pretty coercive towards ensuring gun violence is not researched. But I'm sure you'll just explain that it'd be a waste of money better poured elsewhere, that's your usual deflection. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
There are no laws that literally say "gun research is banned forever because of the NRA" ergo it is in no way hindered and never has been. It only counts if it uses those exact words and phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:So they have to decide between still being able to keep the doors open, or researching gun violence. Sounds pretty coercive towards ensuring gun violence is not researched. But I'm sure you'll just explain that it'd be a waste of money better poured elsewhere, that's your usual deflection. Wait, you mean LeJackal is being a motherfuck about guns again? Oh my god, who would have thought!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
E-Tank posted:
More to the point, there are a number of federal agencies like the ATF, FBI, and DOJ that study gun violence as part of their overall studies of criminology and law enforcement. Even the most generous reading of these articles (and ignoring that the goalpost shifted from 'full on ban' to 'we can't get funding') does not support the  ALL NATIONAL AGENCIES ARE BARRED FROM STUDYING FIREARMS! line that is being touted as fact. (Though its true that the CDC was wasting that money on some really garbage 'science' rife with selection bias and attribution errors.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:02
|
|