|
Liquid Communism posted:How do you manage to cook with nothing but spoons? Kitchen knives especially are literally manufactured for the express purpose of converting an animal into convenient chunks for the purpose of cooking. Hell, filet knives are for slicing the living flesh off of slowly suffocating recently caught fish. Why, exactly, do you think guns were invented if knives and bows already fill it's niche just as effectively? Why do you need a gun if you can seemingly just keep a filet knife on you for a fraction of the cost? Plus a filet knife is way lighter, to boot. Additionally, how loving heinous are your dumps if you never eat a fruit or vegetable, since knives can only be used to cut meat, according to you?
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:Its a lot faster to travel via SR-71 Blackbird. Obviously this makes it the most important issue in the larger subject of transportation. Why do you want a gun if they're such ineffective pieces of poo poo? Just yank a butter knife from the cafeteria at work, apparently it's just as deadly as any rifle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Do-ho, yes, when you completely change what I said it looks like I said something completely different! Aren't you just smart as a whip?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:We weren't discussing utility, but intent. Take your tired shitposting somewhere else. Then I don't think you understand the intent of guns or knives.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:I hadn't realized the likes of Benjamin Franklin and company were complete whackjobs. lol if you don't know enough about American history to realize the Founding Fathers were garbage human beings.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Nope. Gun nuts refuse to give them up, no matter how much blood is soaked into their collective hands.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So, like I said, "gun nuts" having "blood on their hands" is an attempt to conflate lawful gun owners with those committing the vast majority of gun murders. There is no such thing as a "lawful gun owner". Merely a gun owner who hasn't taken the opportunity to kill yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
There's no argument to have. Pro-gun people will never give up a chance to shoot blah- people. So the only solution is to at least have fun mocking them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So, what you are left with is making fun of gun owners because neither facts nor logic are on your side What good are facts and logic to you? The fact is is that you, personally, care more about owning guns than you do the deaths of innocent people. All of your ilk does.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'd be more receptive to this argument if A) you applied the same utility logic to every thing else that causes deaths, and B) citizens' legal access to guns was significantly correlated to homicide rate, which it is not. You would never be receptive of the argument. Nothing is more important to you than gun ownership. All the facts and logic in the world won't change that, so what's the point in even trying? Better to just point and laugh at the psychopaths that love objects more than innocent life.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:That's cool. We laugh at your pearl clutching and fear of inanimate objects. Wanna go get some beers after? I don't fear guns. I fear idiots with guns. Because they are a real and proven danger.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Good news for you then, if we go for beers in my state, it's illegal to carry in a bar, so there will be no idiots with guns. I'll even pick up the first round. Yeah, and I bet this "bar" is located deep in the woods and just so happens to look like a freshly-dug shallow grave. You can't fool me. Edit Also the first round is a .45
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Lots of murderers seem pretty innocuous at first.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Cheese it, fellas. He's onto us!!!! I own and shoot guns regularly. However, unlike you gun nuts I have no illusions about using my guns to kill
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I'll add something else while I'm add it, and it feels strange to say it, but Tezzor is a higher quality poster than you are Hey, do you have anything to say about this: SedanChair posted:The NRA's general counsel Robert Dowlut was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's mother in 1963 You know, the exact thing you asked for (even if I didn't provide it)?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:I showed on the last page that owning a car increases your chance of dying on the way to work by 1000x. Why the second amendment was written doesn't matter. It has no place in today's society and should be abolished. SedanChair posted:No he's their general counsel right now. Like, he is their guy. Yes, because accidents aren't a thing that happens. Oh, and mistaking your own spouse or children for an intruder and gunning them down in cold blood. Yeah, that's totally a thing that has literally never happened in all of human history. You got it. Great job!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:How do those accidents realistically happen with firearms kept secured and unloaded by an owner uninterested in using them for self defense? Good question. Ask the ones with the kids who were shot by the guns the owned.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you really have such a low opinion of yourself? How the hell can you trust yourself to transport people in an automobile, or mow your lawn? Can you tell me how my life is improved by keeping my guns in my house?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:I have. The local cop whose son offed himself using dad's duty pistol didn't secure it and just hung his duty belt with sidearm in a closet. Not secured. Does it matter? My life isn't improved and is actively made more dangerous if I make a mistake or slip up in securing my firearms at home. There is no advantage to keeping my guns in my house, none at all, so why should I?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So don't. Nobody cares if you do or don't. You're the one being a carehard about it. Half a dozen people jumped down my throat for not keeping my guns in my house. But yeah, you guys totally don't care. Butch Cassidy posted:I don't care how you store you firearms or if you own any at all. I am curious how a secured firearm owned by a person with zero intent to use one defensively could possibly accidently be taken from a safe, accidentally find the cable locl removed, be reassembled by accident, before someone accidentally unlocks the ammo to accidentally load the gun and then accidentally aim and be fired unintentionally at another person. That fear is not realistic. Not trusting yourself is fine and you can admit it. Not trusting your housemates also fine. Not wantimg them in the house is fine. But insisting that a secured firearm is a risk because of statistics is phobic. But a secured firearm is a risk. Precisely because of other people and the chance for human errors. You seem to only believe that active malevolent intentions can result in a gun death. That's dumb as poo poo and ignores the countless accidental gun deaths that happen every single year.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So you go on and wear 2 belts and two sets of suspenders, and continue to live your pitiful mewling existence of being terrified of your own shadow. Maybe firearm ownership isn't for you. You seem like the exact kind of person who shoots a girlfriend because dinner wasn't ready when you got home.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
^^^^^ Are you having a stroke or are you dyslexic? Pauline Kael posted:constant insults Pauline Kael posted:continue to live your pitiful mewling existence of being terrified of your own shadow. Pauline Kael posted:You're the one being a carehard Pauline Kael posted:I'll add something else while I'm add it, and it feels strange to say it, but Tezzor is a higher quality poster than you are Pauline Kael posted:Yeah I imagine a guy like you doesn't have any friends and has never been invited out for a beer. It helps explain your inability to discuss things like an adult and treasuring juvenile snark over rational discourse. You are just too precious. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, of course not. It's for you to decide, it just always strikes me as weird when people talk about statistics for accidentally or intentionally killing family members. It would be like citing statistics for alcohol use and domestic violence. You have the power not to do it, regardless of whatever the statistics are. Then why the incredulity and the pushback? It's it suddenly not ok to do something if I don't have ideologically pure reasoning to do it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm just saying, you can't casually drop "I don't keep guns in the house because I don't want to end up capping my wife" and not expect to raise a few eyebrows. I don't want to keep guns in my house because it increases the risk of death by gun, usually accidental death. Not all gun deaths are intentional homicides. NathanScottPhillips posted:Hell, there's no constitutional right to own a car! I don't give a gently caress about the second amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:Not one of has told me how a gun can accidentally be unlocked from a safe, separately stored ammo be accidentally unlocked and loaded into the gun, and then the gun be used to, still accidentally, kill or maim a person. Any example I could give you would be instantly dismissed since you have accepted a priori that it can't possibly happen. So what's the point in engaging with someone who isn't interested in a discussion?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:To people who are anti bill of rights I suppose. To rational adults though, those really aren't analogous things at all. So the second amendment doesn't allow you to keep mortars? A weapon that is nearly as old as personal firearms? Interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Unlike Effectronica, gun nuts, and whoever the rear end in a top hat who's always not so subtly suggesting gun owners should use their guns to off themselves, I don't wish death upon other posters. I do think that you, specifically, Pauline, are probably a danger to the people around you and should seek help, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
SealHammer posted:i wonder what it's like to live an entire life dictated by statistical probability I save a lot of money by not gambling.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Fool and the World posted:I hope you can understand the crushing irony of using "statistics" to justify your neurotic behavior around guns but then not batting an eye about driving to work, or having a drink at home. Self awareness does not seem to be your strong suit. I have weighed the costs of those against their benefits and the benefits came out on top. There's literally no benefit to keeping guns in the house to offset the risk, so I don't. Simple.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
I 100% support making driving illegal if there are adequate public transportation methods for everyone. So if that's the case then yeah, I'll take that deal in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Now tell us about how bread used to cost a nickel and you had to walk to school uphill both ways.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Getting rid of the second amendment is something I fully support, yes. Tenth too, because I see no reason to have 50 sets of oft-times contradictory laws.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
So, stealie, tell me about the times growing up where you and the neighborhood kids would wile away the hours playing Russian Roulette with only one chamber unloaded. Since, you know, ever considering safety for a single reason is for pussies and all. A big manly man like you probably drives on the wrong side of the freeway while blind drunk all the time, too, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
How is not keeping my guns in my home "extreme", exactly? EDIT lol at "supposed" guns. You literally can't conceive of a someone owning guns who isn't exactly like you? That's kinda hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Not so much your not keeping them there, as your certainty that someone will get hurt if you do. I'm not certain that it will happen, just that it could happen. I could be sloppy and forget to unload my gun after shooting, put it on the table with the safety off while I take a quick piss, and have it fall off the table and go off (they're pretty old guns, so not impossible). I could improperly lock my safe, leaving it open to anyone getting to my guns. My depression could worsen again and suddenly having immediate access to guns is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a two hour drive to the storage locker. I can think of a lot of scenarios where keeping the guns in the house leads to a bad outcome for me or my family either through accident or human error. I can't think of any unique problem to storing them elsewhere. But somehow this is "extreme" and unreasonable. quote:Nah, most gun owners aren't like me. I just have a hard time conceiving that one of the loudest voices in an anti-gun discussion is a gun owner. I own guns, a Remington .22lr and a single-shot .410 shotgun, but I don't define myself as a Gun Owner. I take them out to shoot once a month at most, maybe every other month, clean them, and immediately put them back and go home. They have some sentimental value because I inherited them, and I enjoy shooting them and all guns in general, but that's it's. I can live without them and will gladly do so if it leads to a reduction in deaths. Guns aren't some magical thing where if you shoot one all of a sudden they become the most important thing in your life. Guns aren't a cult, and it's really loving weird how people like you think it must be. You literally can't conceive of someone not loving guns who doesn't have one. It's sad, really. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
I only support gun-control in theory. In reality the discussion is done and over with, and guns won hands down. No amount of mass shootings will ever get meaningful gun laws passed in this country and I don't want politicians to waste time pursuing it when they could be trying but to pass legislation that actually has a chance. So take heart, I'm not coming for your guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:We could talk about how every mass shooter in the past 10 years were suffering from mental health issues and were medicated. *gasp* Medical treatment?! Horror of horrors anything but that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Medical treatment and medication are different. Doctors in America are heavily financially incentivized to prescribe drugs and this leads to doctors prescribing drugs when they may not be needed or alternate treatments can be given. Drugs are also being administered more and more for off-label uses. Lots of these drugs are doing all sorts of things to pleasure centers, emotion centers, and apathy centers of the brain that aren't understood well. If you say that they aren't well understood then why do you feel confident enough to blame mass shootings on them? So either we do have enough data to make a claim of a causal link, in which case I'd like to see this data for myself and we need to discuss why you believe doctors care more about getting a few hundred bucks extra a year is worth endangering people's lives, or there isn't enough data to make that claim in which case you're talking out of your rear end. The former is conspiracy thinking, the latter is bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:It's rich that you're asking me for more info, as you give one sentence responses to everything thrown at you. You ignored 90% of my post for instance and threw out a one-line contradiction like you're god just now, actually. I, huh? I made a snarky comment and then called bullshit on your assertion that mis-prescribed medications are a cause of gun violence/mass shootings, and now I think I'm a god? How exactly does that follow? quote:I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the 2nd amendment doesn't fit in today's world but I doubt you'll ever expand on that opinion. Because it's been proven that first-world developed nations survive just fine without firearms. quote:I never blamed shootings on prescription drugs, in fact I brought the topic up in an effort to learn more about it. What we do know is that every mass shooting (except Giffords' shooting and Bernardino maybe a few others) has been perpetrated by someone diagnosed with mental issues who is taking or was taking medication for their mental health issues. That's far more correlation that you need to ban guns when it comes to accidents in the house going by your posts so I'm not sure why you have trouble with me bringing it up. First, I don't agree that 100% of mass shootings were committed by the mentally ill, and I'm going to need better stats on whether or not they were currently medicated during the time of the attack than your say-so. Being "recently" medicated is horseshit, because of course someone off their meds isn't going to act rationally, that's why they were on the meds in the first place, dipshit. This is also literally conspiracy thinking, as in actual conspiracy theorists look for "takes SSRIs" as an indication that a shooting was a false flag or something. Plus, by shifting the blame to "mental illness" all you do is put forward the idea that only the mentally ill can be violent. And I don't see any reason to believe that and I especially see no reason to accept armchair diagnosis of shooters. There is already a lot of stigma about being mentally ill that prevents people from seeking treatment, and trying to paint all mass shooters as instantly being in that same group just makes it all the harder for people to justify seeking treatment than it already is. Additionally, I do know that the mentally ill are [url= https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/about-us/our-blog/69-no-state/2030-new-study-mentally-ill-are-often-targets-of-violence]more likely to be victims of violence[/url]. quote:Obama's recent Executive Action attempts to help this issue by allowing doctors to breach HIPAA privacy to report gun owners they think are a danger to others. That's a meaningful change that will lead to a reduction in gun deaths. I can agree that it lead to a decrease in suicides, but not mass shootings. quote:We know that cash incentives can lead to unethical behavior throughout all walks of life, so expecting doctors to be immune is silly. Two of those have nothing to do with the kind of situations we're talking about and the third is a guy acting as a drug dealer, not doctors prescribing supposedly dangerous medications.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
stealie72 posted:This, of course, assumes that the US is a first-world developed nation. I'd personally argue that our massive inequalities ensure that there are large swaths of it that are not. So you need your gun to protected you from certain "less-developed" people?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 21:48
|
|