|
lancemantis posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...5-deputies-say/ I wonder if that wacky law still applies if someone legally killed someone in self defense with a felony possession of a firearm?
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Tame by this thread's standards, but 2 friends are debating about  guns .One post this: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check The other posted this http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/foghorn/debunking-mother-jones-10-pro-gun-myths-shot/ The second one reads crazy AF making weird arguments like "more guns meaning more people are killed/injured with guns is just confusing causation with correlation  " and "the LIBERALS think women are inherently weaker than men, how sexist of them."Can anyone take a shot at rebutting the rebuttal, number for number?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
How about the fact that a woman in a domestic violence situation is way more likely to get murdered if there's a gun in the house? I also remember there was this pro gun mom that made a big stink about being allowed to open carry at her kids little league game or something. A few years later she was shot and killed by her husband 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
I just want to be prepared when I bring this up to my buddy when he's back from vacation 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:I just want to be prepared when I bring this up to my buddy when he's back from vacation the truth about guns article is pretty shoddy, just making bad rebuttals itself. point 7 is just a straight up "nuh uh", point 10 didn't even rebut the question asked, neither does point 5 or 6. point 6 even hilariously says "there are 50k to 100k defensive gun uses per year" not citing a specific study but obviously using a single source, then a paragraph later says "you can't cite a single study to make a point about gun use" which apparently you can if you don't actually cite the study i guess. point 4 uses anecdotal cherry picked evidence, saying "look here are two shootings stopped by a good guy with a gun" to which the response is columbine and umpqua community college - the columbine shooters were actually shot at by the school's police officer, and at umpqua at least one gun owner who could have responded chose wisely to flee instead. point 2 is also pretty egregious for not answering the question asked, but rather answering a more convenient question the whole rebuttal is full of bad arguments and if your buddy doesn't see that off the bat i dunno how you could convince them since they want to believe the bad article. i prefer to point out that firearms are the most effective form of suicide and the most popular method in the us, and that i wouldn't want to do anything to remove this god given right from proud independent americans boner confessor fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I wonder if that wacky law still applies if someone legally killed someone in self defense with a felony possession of a firearm? Like most questions involving the US legal system, that question is best answered with the help of a brown paper bag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Does that also mean black men killed by police are guilty of their own murder?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
I don't live in America and I mostly lurk this thread, so I can't give a point by point rebuttal. But some stuff leaps out of me. To counter Mother Jones' assertion that no one in Washington is proposing to take guns away, he links...a video from decades ago. He also says himself that politicians don't even want to use the word 'confiscation'. He also links a video of a senator complaining about gun owners on a hot mic. None of these contradict the statement that no one in Washington is proposing to take guns away. But he assures us "while we haven’t heard the proposition publicly, you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s still part of the discussion.". So basically, he has no evidence, but what he says is true, trust me. This is pretty ironic given that he attacks Mother Jones for having poor evidence later in the article. He very condescendingly explains away the difference between correlation and causation with a fun example of peanut butter consumption and murder rates being correlated. Yeah that sure would be a really stupid thing to link together. We're talking about gun owners and gun usage though. Hmm, I wonder why we would think to look for a link between those two things. I'm not good at statistics so I can't properly debunk the graph poo poo, but I feel like comparing his graph (homicide rate for the entire population) with the MJ linked study (homicide rate for individual states) does not invalidate the MJ claim. For example, if guns were outlawed/reduced/whatever in a heavily populated state, while in 2 other states a minority of people bought up a load of guns, then the overall homicide rate could go down for the country while the state homicide rate for the 2 smaller states could go up. The two points are not mutually exclusive. Like I say I don't really do statistics well so feel free to correct me anyone He does not address or even acknowledge point 3 in the MJ article, which mentions that Stand Your Ground laws lead to an increase in homicides. That seems like something to consider when you're arguing guns don't cause homicides, but hey whatever. To counter the "good guy with a gun cannot stop shootings" argument, he links a grand total of 2 examples. Even as someone who does not live in America, it's kind of clear that there are a lot more than 2 incidents of mass shootings in any given year recently. Sometimes there's more than 2 a week! So for the Good Guy With Gun argument to hold any water, you need to have evidence that a comparable number of shootings are stopped by guns. He claims that shootings that are stopped don't make the news, which is why we're not hearing about them. Wouldn't there be police incident reports, local news articles though? It seems a little convenient that his argument hinges on invisible gun heroes that definitely exist, for real you guys. If you attack MJ for having bad statistics and then turn around and support your argument with NO statistics then you'll forgive me for being a bit skeptical. It's the exact same for his argument against point #6. He complains that MJ only used cases where someone was justifiably shot dead. What about all the cases where everyone was scared off by a gun and everything was dandy?! Again he backs this up with nothing. "The reality is that (conservatively speaking) somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 defensive gun uses happen in the United States every year." There is no citation on this statistic. Again, this is from someone who attacks MJ for "pulling things out of the air" to back their arguments up. He explains Philadelphia's high rate of gun owner deaths away because it's the gangs that are getting shot, you see! They kill each other a lot so that's why the statistic is so high. How this is supposed to be an argument for adding more guns into the mix, I'm not sure. You touched on his "Mother Jones apparently believes that women are weaker than men" comment but yeah thats 100% projection. All it says in the MJ article is that guns do not make women safer, and lists some statistics. It does not say or imply anywhere that women are weaker. This feels like he had a "liberals are the real sexists" argument lined up, and then never got a chance to use it, and then just wrote it anyway. He complains about correlation and causation again. I'm not seeing how "A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun" is meant to be an outlandish jump to the conclusion that guns do not protect women. He goes completely stupid in trying to rebut the argument that we need more gun laws Quoting him directly: "Apparently in their fantasy world, the simple act of taping a “no guns allowed” sign on the door of that Newtown Elementary School would have stopped Adam Lanza cold and saved 26 lives." I think the author also lives in a fantasy world, with a bunch of straw people in it, because the MJ article doesn't say a single loving thing about gun-free zones. All of the statistics quoted by MJ are in relation to how easy it is to buy a firearm with no background check. Yeah a gun-free zone sign won't stop a shooter. You know what might stop a shooter? A background check that stops them from getting the gun in the first place. This is exactly the argument MJ is making - current laws are so sloppy that its extremely easy for felons etc. to get ahold of guns, even when the laws are enforced. "It is already a crime to sell a gun to a felon" he states. "I really don’t see any room for improvement " It's a good thing that every felon has their crime printed on their forehead like that guy in Snow Crash, so you can instantly tell they're a felon. Oh hang on, they don't, and the only way to tell is by doing a background check. Which legally you do not even need to do, in 40% of cases according to the MJ article. At this point I think he stopped reading the article entirely and was arguing with some imaginary opponent. Basically he accuses the MJ article of being backed up with bad evidence and does the same thing himself, while also making weird strawman arguments. It's not a great rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Ah, but you see I will be the King rear end in a top hat, and therefore this system maximises my utility/happiness/liberty/erection. That's an okay result from the thought experiment. If you can get the libertarian to admit that they want to be Immortan Joe, then there's nothing to really argue about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Gun argument guy: Have you considered just posting "gently caress your guns, Repeal the Second Amendment" and then photos of children killed by gun violence until he blocks you? Because I mean, your time is precious on this dying Earth
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
There's also a boatload of these, in a pinch    
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:There's also a boatload of these, in a pinch Reading these is always a horrifying glimpse into a bizarro murder world for those of us in saner countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
iajanus posted:Reading these is always a horrifying glimpse into a bizarro murder world for those of us in saner countries. And in the US this is just the accepted price for having our freedoms
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
I Greyhound posted:And in the US this is just the accepted price for having our freedoms I wish 2nd amendment people would at least be honest about that. Instead they try to twist and squirm their way out of acknowledging the fairly damning evidence of "more guns = more deaths" so they don't have to admit that they believe their freedom to own guns is more important than all the people who would still be alive if there were fewer guns. If you can't even admit to yourself what your principles are then maybe your principles suck
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Sometimes they get called roundabouts. Hell you can Google "playground roundabout" and get them. They were actually horrifyingly unsafe and children, being children, are guaranteed to all gather around it to try to get it going as fast as possible. Then invariably somebody will jump off of it. If you can get under it there's always That One Kid that wants to see how it looks underneath when it's spinning. In retrospect I'm baffled that nobody got hurt on the old pre-safety anything ones that existed where I grew up. I imagine there were probably a few broken bones here and there but good lord are the old style ones basically guaranteed to hurt people. There's some pretty funny videos online where people use the back wheel of a scooter or motorcycle to power the "roundabout". Cue people flying in all directions and possibly dying. Good ole fashioned fun
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
iajanus posted:Reading these is always a horrifying glimpse into a bizarro murder world for those of us in saner countries. Do your other countries not have murders?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I wish 2nd amendment people would at least be honest about that. Instead they try to twist and squirm their way out of acknowledging the fairly damning evidence of "more guns = more deaths" so they don't have to admit that they believe their freedom to own guns is more important than all the people who would still be alive if there were fewer guns. If you can't even admit to yourself what your principles are then maybe your principles suck Nobody wants to admit they are [insert negative connotation]. Especially when they do something stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I wish 2nd amendment people would at least be honest about that. Instead they try to twist and squirm their way out of acknowledging the fairly damning evidence of "more guns = more deaths" so they don't have to admit that they believe their freedom to own guns is more important than all the people who would still be alive if there were fewer guns. If you can't even admit to yourself what your principles are then maybe your principles suck More guns does not equal more deaths, but yes; every freedom has a cost. All human rights are one half of the balance between security and autonomy. Everyone would be 'safer' in a highly restrictive police state but that isn't the social system we'd prefer. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:More guns does not equal more deaths, but yes; every freedom has a cost. All human rights are one half of the balance between security and autonomy. Everyone would be 'safer' in a highly restrictive police state but that isn't the social system we'd prefer. Mediguns aren't real, those are only in videogames.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:More guns does not equal more deaths, but yes; every freedom has a cost. All human rights are one half of the balance between security and autonomy. Everyone would be 'safer' in a highly restrictive police state but that isn't the social system we'd prefer. Do you just have an alert set up whenever someone mentions guns on SA? Does it trigger (heh) all the time from the Games forum?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Do your other countries not have murders? Well, if you commit war crimes as a British citizen, the most you'll get convicted of is manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
more gun owners kill themselves every year than they kill other people, and i heartily support this freedom
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:More guns does not equal more deaths. look. look at this loving idiot. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:More guns does not equal more deaths, but yes; every freedom has a cost. All human rights are one half of the balance between security and autonomy. Everyone would be 'safer' in a highly restrictive police state but that isn't the social system we'd prefer. I think you were trying to disagree with my point, but
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I think you were trying to disagree with my point, but You made two arguments, one I agree with and another I don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Play posted:look. look at this loving idiot. No he's right, the guy who shot a woman's car and killed her three year old grandson? If he hadn't had a gun, he would've just thrown a rock or a fast food cup really hard and it would have still killed the kid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Quit quoting LeJackal, you all know what he's going to say anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
I'm new 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
We've all gotta learn sometime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I'm new Let me tell you what causes death, then. Its a system of racist, classist inequality that put human lives into a grinder to squeeze out a few dollars in profit. Its a decades long government entrenched system of race based oppression that traps people in cycles of abuse, poverty, and violence. It is a system that creates a school to prison pipeline to fatten the bank accounts of private prison CEOs, fueled by race-based disparity in the justice system at practice and enshrined in the law itself. It is a war on drugs that puts out the fire of organized crime with gasoline and tries to smother the resulting flames with the corpses of the poor and the desperate. It is a predatory system of 'healthcare' where human suffering and misery is prolonged and deepened to bleed the American people literally and figuratively until somebody gets their cut of an overpriced grave. It is a toxic culture where the theft of a candybar will put you in jail for life (assuming the police don't execute you on the spot for being a minority) but the theft of billions and destruction of the economy results in no penalty. These are the things causing death, these are the factors that drive people to violence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Let me tell you what causes death, then. Its a system of racist, classist inequality that put human lives into a grinder to squeeze out a few dollars in profit. Its a decades long government entrenched system of race based oppression that traps people in cycles of abuse, poverty, and violence. It is a system that creates a school to prison pipeline to fatten the bank accounts of private prison CEOs, fueled by race-based disparity in the justice system at practice and enshrined in the law itself. It is a war on drugs that puts out the fire of organized crime with gasoline and tries to smother the resulting flames with the corpses of the poor and the desperate. It is a predatory system of 'healthcare' where human suffering and misery is prolonged and deepened to bleed the American people literally and figuratively until somebody gets their cut of an overpriced grave. It is a toxic culture where the theft of a candybar will put you in jail for life (assuming the police don't execute you on the spot for being a minority) but the theft of billions and destruction of the economy results in no penalty. And while I don't disagree with the vast majority of this, a lot fewer people would die to gun violence if there were fewer guns around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
jivjov posted:And while I don't disagree with the vast majority of this, a lot fewer people would die to gun violence if there were fewer guns around. No poo poo, and less people would die in truck accidents if we outlawed trucks. Would less people die overall, though? Are you interested in keeping people from getting murdered, or are you alright with homicide if its done with a knife or rock? People are less inclined to violence in general if you can work on certain societal factors, and every time political capital is spent (wasted, really) on gun control it can never be spent to address the real underlying issues that are destroying people's lives. Edit: I'm not posting any more on this. Sorry for even starting. Just put me on ignore where I belong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Please don't reply to LeJackal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Oh my I'm so sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Extremely Pissed Off Right Wingers to the rescue The only moral constitutional right to protest is my constitutional right to protest (Whereas tea party people protest when other people's rights aren't being violated enough for their tastes)  such blatant racism against limos smdh  no one like this fool Comey  EPORW seems to be anti-Pizzagate. Unexpected  terrified of everything  old lady points head downward: incompetence!  wow still
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
Like...what? Really...just...WHAT? I'm more confused by this than anything. It just looks like she's looking at something. Everybody is obviously watching something but -SHOCKER- individuals in a crowd looking at something occasionally look at another thing. Hell that might have just been her sneezing. People do that, you know. Sneeze. I just...what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Guns for everyone. A barrel of guns on every street corner. A box of guns at the end of every bar. Guns at every schoolchild's desk. Guns in every crib. Machine guns on the front of every car. Every arcade game: real guns. Universal Basic Gun Stamps for all. Gun Security checks to every old. Guns in every Christmas present, guns everywhere all the time. More guns, more guns, more guns, don't worry there will be no more deaths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Like...what? It's assuming she's sleeping.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
She appears to be reaching into a bag. Possibly for some kind of feminine product?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
I'm very angry that she's clearly bowing her head in prayer, as God has no place within our court rooms. Hats off to EPORW for standing up for separation of church and state. But yeah, her left hand does look like it's reaching into a small bag of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:40
|
|