Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Congrats, gun lovers, you've done it again Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:00:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:


It's amazing how you cherry pick your arguments and dismiss or simply ignore ANY fact put forward. Rather boring really. Doesn't make for a constructive debate. If you read the proposed legislation that I posted you will see the where and why there is a need for strengthening background checks. But reading and doing your homework isn't your style is it? So, sad to say, all that is left for me to cherry pick is your closed mind, your ignorance...OH! And that little weenie. But then it ain't the meat it's the motion, isn't it?

...RIGHT!

But it does beg the question...why do guys with little dicks have the smallest brains and the biggest mouths?


Present an argument once, and I'll have something to refute. And why the fuck are you so obsessed with my dick? You can't have it. Shit, with your personality, I wouldn't let you within ten feet of it.

Dani
Posted: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:02:44 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,720
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
LadyX wrote:


They won't even attempt that rationale. They'll just keep yammering about the 2nd Amendment and quoting stats that may or may not be true about how much safer we are with tons of guns in everyone's hands. It's almost not even worth talking about anymore.

Like many, I'm not advocating for zero guns; mostly, I'm just put off by what passes for gun advocacy among its supporters. The discussion escalates into absolutism immediately, and the loudest spokespeople for 'gun culture' seem to be shirtless booger-eaters drinking a constant cocktail of fear and intolerance. Even the official NRA spokesperson, LaPierre, is an inflammatory troll, and it would appear that the gun-people like it this way.

Find better advocates, gun-people.


That's just the thing. They won't. They like having the blowhards on display to distract people...it renders arguing with them a pointless endeavor because they just scream and shout as loudly as possible in hopes that you'll give up trying to get a word in. It's quite interesting to observe. Annoying...and ridiculous...but interesting, nonetheless. And when the booger-eating blowhards are keeping you busy, what do you think the suits and ties are doing?



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 6:58:46 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
MrNudiePants wrote:


Present an argument once, and I'll have something to refute. And why the fuck are you so obsessed with my dick? You can't have it. Shit, with your personality, I wouldn't let you within ten feet of it.


Mr.JelloFor Brains...if you do not see even a single argument for background checks, yet...with what I have posted, the actual bill that you obviously ignored, supporting arguments for why it is needed (arguments laid out by people smarter than you or me) and all the debate this nation has had since Sandy Hook, then once again, you are a waste of time and space and willfully ignoring the evidence you ask for. You've been given opportunities and you don't debate the arguments. You ignore the arguments presented and then insert your snarky personality attacks. So, you betcha dude...I can be a rude bitch when I'm talked down to. I challenge you to show me in any of my responses where I said I wanted that pathetic extension of your (manhood?)...lol.

Manhood is developed between the ears, Mr.JelloForBrains.

And btw...10 feet...to even that sparkling, charismatic personality you put on display...is waaaay to close.
Dani
Posted: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 7:20:35 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,720
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
Kristind wrote:


Mr.JelloFor Brains...if you do not see an argument for background checks, yet...with what I have posted, the actual bill that you obviously ignored, supporting arguments for why it is needed (arguments laid out by people smarter than you or me) and all the debate this nation has had since Sandy Hook, then once again, either you are a waste of time and space and willfully ignoring the evidence you ask for. You've been given opportunities and you don't debate the arguments. You ignore the arguments presented and then insert your snarky response. So, you betcha dude...I can be a rude bitch when I'm talked down to. I challenge you to show me in any of my responses where I said I wanted that pathetic extension of your (manhood?)...lol.

Manhood is developed between the ears, Mr.JelloForBrains.

And btw...10 feet...to even that sparkling, charismatic personality you put on display...is waaaay to close.






Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 8:52:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:


Mr.JelloFor Brains...if you do not see even a single argument for background checks, yet...with what I have posted, the actual bill that you obviously ignored, supporting arguments for why it is needed (arguments laid out by people smarter than you or me) and all the debate this nation has had since Sandy Hook, then once again, you are a waste of time and space and willfully ignoring the evidence you ask for. You've been given opportunities and you don't debate the arguments. You ignore the arguments presented and then insert your snarky personality attacks. So, you betcha dude...I can be a rude bitch when I'm talked down to. I challenge you to show me in any of my responses where I said I wanted that pathetic extension of your (manhood?)...lol.

Manhood is developed between the ears, Mr.JelloForBrains.

And btw...10 feet...to even that sparkling, charismatic personality you put on display...is waaaay to close.


Yep. Lack of cogent debate. Obligatory presence of ad hominem attacks. Another poster I can put on ignore.

Buz
Posted: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:23:50 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,834
Location: Atlanta, United States
I am a gun advocate. I do not mind background checks when purchasing a gun. Background checks already mostly exist. The database for background checks already in existence is national. Convicted felons and people with severe mental problems do not need to have guns!

As far as 'assault rifles' that is mostly a look or styling. In actuality assault rifles pale greatly in comparison to handguns for use in violent crimes. I personally have no problem with 'assault rifles.' I own a few myself, mostly for shooting practice but I do use an AR-15 with nightscope to hunt wild pigs at night. They taste excellent when slow barbecued. It is fairly common for AK-47s to be used in deer hunting, but they are not as accurate as your average deer rifle. Of course some people possess the knowledge of turning guns to fully automatic, which is illegal. With the right equipment and knowledge any rifle or pistol can be made fully automatic. Not very many people possess that skill.

Fully automatic guns are illegal, unless you have a special license. That means that the police are well aware that you own and use that particular gun. The license is mostly used for commercial use. You pay the owner at the gunrange to shoot the weapon at targets, under their supervision.

Guns designed to look like toys or marketed to children, well, I don't like that at all. I don't even like the pink handguns marketed for women. I think that a gun should look very serious and intimidating so that people will fully understand how careful they need to be around them and how serious they are.

I truly get disgusted at anyone not taking gun safety seriously and especially leaving unsecure loaded guns where children can get at them. I want to see anyone who does that prosecuted, because it is illegal. If someone is injured or killed because of that, there is a host of other felonious charges that they can face.

I actually would like to see tougher standards required to get hunting licenses, There are just a few complete idiots in the woods. It only takes one unsafe stupid idiot to ruin something for everyone else by not following proper safety and etiquette.

Truthfully my favorite hunting is done with old-fashioned black powder rifles or bows. The best challenge is hunting with a non-compound bow. Just my skill and arm strength. I love it!

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:11:29 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
MrNudiePants wrote:

Yep. Lack of cogent debate. Obligatory presence of ad hominem attacks. Another poster I can put on ignore.


Ad hominem attacks? What a fuckin' head trip you are Mr. Cellophane.

Another poster you can set to ignore? Sounds like a pattern with you. I guess I'm not the first to be frustrated with the bullshit 'ad hominem' dance you bring.
And I'm still searching for just a glimmer of manhood from you but all I hear is a sloshing sound. I still have to wonder...why do the guys with the littlest dicks also have the smallest brains and the biggest mouths?

So, Puh-lease set me on ignore...better yet, let me block you.

Christ...they shoot horses don't they?
CleverFox
Posted: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:46:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 482
Location: United States
Buz wrote:
I am a gun advocate. I do not mind background checks when purchasing a gun. Background checks already mostly exist. The database for background checks already in existence is national. Convicted felons and people with severe mental problems do not need to have guns!

As far as 'assault rifles' that is mostly a look or styling. In actuality assault rifles pale greatly in comparison to handguns for use in violent crimes. I personally have no problem with 'assault rifles.' I own a few myself, mostly for shooting practice but I do use an AR-15 with nightscope to hunt wild pigs at night. They taste excellent when slow barbecued. It is fairly common for AK-47s to be used in deer hunting, but they are not as accurate as your average deer rifle. Of course some people possess the knowledge of turning guns to fully automatic, which is illegal. With the right equipment and knowledge any rifle or pistol can be made fully automatic. Not very many people possess that skill.

Fully automatic guns are illegal, unless you have a special license. That means that the police are well aware that you own and use that particular gun. The license is mostly used for commercial use. You pay the owner at the gunrange to shoot the weapon at targets, under their supervision.

Guns designed to look like toys or marketed to children, well, I don't like that at all. I don't even like the pink handguns marketed for women. I think that a gun should look very serious and intimidating so that people will fully understand how careful they need to be around them and how serious they are.

I truly get disgusted at anyone not taking gun safety seriously and especially leaving unsecure loaded guns where children can get at them. I want to see anyone who does that prosecuted, because it is illegal. If someone is injured or killed because of that, there is a host of other felonious charges that they can face.

I actually would like to see tougher standards required to get hunting licenses, There are just a few complete idiots in the woods. It only takes one unsafe stupid idiot to ruin something for everyone else by not following proper safety and etiquette.

Truthfully my favorite hunting is done with old-fashioned black powder rifles or bows. The best challenge is hunting with a non-compound bow. Just my skill and arm strength. I love it!


This is exactly how I feel Buz though I am not a gun advocate. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thank you for your eloquence.

occasion5
ByronLord
Posted: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 4:16:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Buz wrote:

Fully automatic guns are illegal, unless you have a special license. That means that the police are well aware that you own and use that particular gun. The license is mostly used for commercial use. You pay the owner at the gunrange to shoot the weapon at targets, under their supervision.

Guns designed to look like toys or marketed to children, well, I don't like that at all. I don't even like the pink handguns marketed for women. I think that a gun should look very serious and intimidating so that people will fully understand how careful they need to be around them and how serious they are.

I truly get disgusted at anyone not taking gun safety seriously and especially leaving unsecure loaded guns where children can get at them. I want to see anyone who does that prosecuted, because it is illegal. If someone is injured or killed because of that, there is a host of other felonious charges that they can face.

I actually would like to see tougher standards required to get hunting licenses, There are just a few complete idiots in the woods. It only takes one unsafe stupid idiot to ruin something for everyone else by not following proper safety and etiquette.

Truthfully my favorite hunting is done with old-fashioned black powder rifles or bows. The best challenge is hunting with a non-compound bow. Just my skill and arm strength. I love it!


Fully automatic weapons are illegal but also pretty pointless. It takes only slightly longer to empty the magazine of a semi-auto AK-47 or Armalite than a full auto. They don't take all that many bullets so spray and pray is a good way to use up all your ammo to no point.

What I find ridiculous is the people who claim that they need such things for hunting. It is not like there is so much game that people need to make the task easier. People don't want those weapons to go hunting, they want to have them to play at being soldiers or act out scenes from first person shooter video games.

The NRA has been going round telling people that the answer is to ban sales of first person shooter video games. Only they sell those all over the world and only the US has a sudden increase in spree shootings. Its not the games, it is the guns. And the minute the NRA decided that it was OK to make other people's hobby subject to government regulation they lost any claim to stop regulation of their own hobby.

It is only a hobby.

If hunters can't find a way to make their hobby safe then all the guns are going to be going bye-byes sooner or later. Take a look at the opinion polling on the senators who voted the NRA line on the background checks bill - it is in the toilet. Blocking background checks is quite likely to cost the GOP the house in 2014.

Right now the NRA has their sheeple thinking that if they lose any battle, however small they are going to find themselves on a slippery slope to a total weapons ban. They have it the wrong way round. If the NRA and the even more whacko Gun Owners of America are allowed to dictate the terms of the debate then they will stave off any change for maybe a few years longer but not forever and when change comes it will be far more than the baby steps being proposed now.

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 5:13:43 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
"So, Puh-lease set me on ignore...better yet, let me block you."

If only this were possible. Healthy, linear debate even for gun rights sure, but the round around, I'm tired of. And, yes, as noted, no argument is good enough or rises to the level of contemplation when dealing with any gun lover. Especially when there are money matters behind the preach.

No assertion will be analyzed, just scrutinized, obscured, and then bent.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:37:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:


Fully automatic weapons are illegal but also pretty pointless. It takes only slightly longer to empty the magazine of a semi-auto AK-47 or Armalite than a full auto. They don't take all that many bullets so spray and pray is a good way to use up all your ammo to no point.

What I find ridiculous is the people who claim that they need such things for hunting. It is not like there is so much game that people need to make the task easier. People don't want those weapons to go hunting, they want to have them to play at being soldiers or act out scenes from first person shooter video games.

The NRA has been going round telling people that the answer is to ban sales of first person shooter video games. Only they sell those all over the world and only the US has a sudden increase in spree shootings. Its not the games, it is the guns. And the minute the NRA decided that it was OK to make other people's hobby subject to government regulation they lost any claim to stop regulation of their own hobby.

It is only a hobby.

If hunters can't find a way to make their hobby safe then all the guns are going to be going bye-byes sooner or later. Take a look at the opinion polling on the senators who voted the NRA line on the background checks bill - it is in the toilet. Blocking background checks is quite likely to cost the GOP the house in 2014.

Right now the NRA has their sheeple thinking that if they lose any battle, however small they are going to find themselves on a slippery slope to a total weapons ban. They have it the wrong way round. If the NRA and the even more whacko Gun Owners of America are allowed to dictate the terms of the debate then they will stave off any change for maybe a few years longer but not forever and when change comes it will be far more than the baby steps being proposed now.


For what it's worth, I've never heard or read a quote from anyone who says they "need" an AR-15 or AK-pattern rifle for hunting. Normal-capacity magazines would be relatively useless for hunting anyway, since everywhere I'm familiar with limits a hunter to having a five-round magazine capacity. That said, for people like ranchers in the western areas of the United States, AR-15's make good sense for hunting predators like coyotes. They're among the most accurate "varmint" rifles in existence, and they're easy to pack into and out of remote areas. That's why groups like the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management use them for predator control. Since AR-15's can be chambered in a large number of hunting rounds, they would also make excellent hunting rifles for deer-sized game, but I've never heard anyone say they "need" one.

Also for what it's worth, I agree with you about the video games. Blaming inanimate objects for the actions of deranged individuals is just crazy.

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:50:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
Highwayman wrote:
"So, Puh-lease set me on ignore...better yet, let me block you."

If only this were possible. Healthy, linear debate even for gun rights sure, but the round around, I'm tired of. And, yes, as noted, no argument is good enough or rises to the level of contemplation when dealing with any gun lover. Especially when there are money matters behind the preach.

No assertion will be analyzed, just scrutinized, obscured, and then bent.


You left out the best part of the quote Highwayman...Christ...they shoot horses don't they?

........lol
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:27:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
Gun homicides have gone down 39% in last 20 years.

Some excerpts...

A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country's growing population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found that non-fatal crimes involving guns were down by roughly 70 percent over that period. The Justice report said the number of such crimes diminished from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

Both studies concluded that most of the decline in gun homicide rates occurred in the 1990s. The Justice report found that since 1999, the number of firearm homicides increased from 10,828 to 12,791 in 2006 before declining to 11,101 in 2011.






When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dani
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:29:01 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,720
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
lafayettemister wrote:
Gun homicides have gone down 39% in last 20 years.

Some excerpts...

A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country's growing population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found that non-fatal crimes involving guns were down by roughly 70 percent over that period. The Justice report said the number of such crimes diminished from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

Both studies concluded that most of the decline in gun homicide rates occurred in the 1990s. The Justice report found that since 1999, the number of firearm homicides increased from 10,828 to 12,791 in 2006 before declining to 11,101 in 2011.


Is this supposed to be good news? It's a sad day when 11,101 deaths due to gun homicide is something to...I don't even know...celebrate?



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:54:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


Is this supposed to be good news? It's a sad day when 11,101 deaths due to gun homicide is something to...I don't even know...celebrate?


Celebrating 11k+ deaths, no. That's not it at all. But at least things are getting better. In the last 20 years the population has grown, but the percentage of deaths has gone down. What's causing the decrease... better education among gun owners or stricter gun laws, I don't know.

Math isn't my strong suit, but if 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people is the rate, that's what? 0.00036% of the population will die by gun homicide. Those are pretty good odds. I'm less scared of being shot than I am of having a heart attack or dying in a car accident.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Brandi
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 1:10:05 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/1/2013
Posts: 20
lafayettemister wrote:


Celebrating 11k+ deaths, no. That's not it at all. But at least things are getting better. In the last 20 years the population has grown, but the percentage of deaths has gone down. What's causing the decrease... better education among gun owners or stricter gun laws, I don't know.

Math isn't my strong suit, but if 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people is the rate, that's what? 0.00036% of the population will die by gun homicide. Those are pretty good odds. I'm less scared of being shot than I am of having a heart attack or dying in a car accident.


Nicely said. I'll take my chances with a gun vs without. I'd rather make someone a statistic than end up being a statistic. Don't more folks die in drunk driving accidents vs accidental shootings?

I can't imagine being without a gun for protection, even with the price of bullets going crazy. I lock my doors, take precautions but if they get in, then it's on. If someone breaks into my home, they are not there to sell Avon. I'll do what it takes to defend my family.
CleverFox
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 7:01:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 482
Location: United States
Brandi wrote:


Nicely said. I'll take my chances with a gun vs without. I'd rather make someone a statistic than end up being a statistic. Don't more folks die in drunk driving accidents vs accidental shootings?

I can't imagine being without a gun for protection, even with the price of bullets going crazy. I lock my doors, take precautions but if they get in, then it's on. If someone breaks into my home, they are not there to sell Avon. I'll do what it takes to defend my family.


Too bad your chances of shooting yourself or a family member are greater than you actually shooting an attacker.
Dani
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 7:08:16 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,720
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
CleverFox wrote:


Too bad your chances of shooting yourself or a family member are greater than you actually shooting an attacker.


Nicely said.



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:38:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
CleverFox wrote:


Too bad your chances of shooting yourself or a family member are greater than you actually shooting an attacker.


You can provide proof that this is true, of course...

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:44:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:


Celebrating 11k+ deaths, no. That's not it at all. But at least things are getting better. In the last 20 years the population has grown, but the percentage of deaths has gone down. What's causing the decrease... better education among gun owners or stricter gun laws, I don't know.

Math isn't my strong suit, but if 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people is the rate, that's what? 0.00036% of the population will die by gun homicide. Those are pretty good odds. I'm less scared of being shot than I am of having a heart attack or dying in a car accident.


According to the New York Times, guns are used an average of 67,740 times each year in self defense. That's worth noting.

Monocle
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:01:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
www dot nytimes dot com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html

Quote:
In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.


Quote:
he cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.

In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.


onlinelibrary dot wiley dot com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00003.x/abstract

Several studies cited here: skeptikai dot com/2012/07/30/does-owning-a-gun-increase-or-decrease-safety-science-answers/

And Ars Technica: arstechnica dot com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/ (uses the Hemenway paper as well, in greater detail)


Quote:
According to the New York Times, guns are used an average of 67,740 times each year in self defense. That's worth noting

Going to the actual report here:
www dot vpc dot org/studies/justifiable.pdf
NP's selected number is basically worth nothing. The report's conclusion:
Quote:

The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.7 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2010 the persons shot were known to the shooter.
The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and highcapacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.


MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:17:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Over sixty-seven thousand times a year is rare? And some estimates have the number much, much higher than that. I used the NYT number simply BECAUSE it's so low. If sixty-seven thousand times is rare, I'd hate to see what they consider "often".

Monocle
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:29:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
MrNudiePants wrote:
Over sixty-seven thousand times a year is rare? And some estimates have the number much, much higher than that. I used the NYT number simply BECAUSE it's so low. If sixty-seven thousand times is rare, I'd hate to see what they consider "often".


Useless statement.

Fact of the matter is, CelverFox's statement has ample support.
CleverFox
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:08:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 482
Location: United States
Thank you Monocle.
CleverFox
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:10:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 482
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


According to the New York Times, guns are used an average of 67,740 times each year in self defense. That's worth noting.


Show me the New York Times article and then show me the sources.

If I walk down a street carrying a gun and nobody bothers me, is that considered a gun used successfully in self defense?
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 12:29:13 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
CleverFox wrote:


Show me the New York Times article and then show me the sources.

If I walk down a street carrying a gun and nobody bothers me, is that considered a gun used successfully in self defense?


You're asking this of MrNudiePants? He'll never do it CF. Scroll up and read literally ANY opinion MrNudiePants has posted. None are supported. Yet he demands it from you and follows up with ad hominem attacks while he demands links and facts from you. When you post your links and facts he NEVER refers to them to refute any position. He just sez "You haven't given me anything." This guy is swift with his rhetoric with only his OPINION to back him up.

Now he is running another thread where Mr.NudiePants stated that I suggested he be shot. And apparently I said this twice, according to his post. You will never find that kind of talk coming from me. It is not in my blood and not in any fiber in my body. It is a complete lie. That NEVER was said...in ANY way shape or form.

Mr.NudiePants is your typical right wing whack-nut manipulative blow-hard who thinks everything of the air he breaths but nothing of the air anybody else needs. He lies, but whats worse is controls the conversation with absolutely no facts to back him up. At least he doesn't provide any facts. Go back a few pages and read the exchanges between me this lunatic and you will see I ain't lying.

My entire argument in this gun debate...my ONLY argument in this discussion is for closing the loop holes in background checks. Thats it. Nothing more...nothing less. Here is a link from cspan where Sen Toomey talks about his background check bill. He states clearly what the background check bill would have done and what it doesn't do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc_TRGGr-zk

btw Mr.JelloForBrains...this is called supporting evidence

Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:00:59 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
I want to PROVE how MrNudiePants, or MR.ShitForBrains as I refer to him, plays on this subject in these gun debates.
I have copied and pasted a paragraph from his post on his thread that he is controlling by deleting entries he doesn't want showing up
Here is the statement by MrShitForBrains:




You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish... Hell, that Kristin thing actually posted that I should be shot. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in."



Alright, it is one thing for this guy to make a lie and multiply it by two. But...If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in. How do the rest of you feel about being pulled into this moron's fantasyland and being SCOLDED for not coming to his aid when actually no aid was needed?

WOW!

Psychologists call this kind of behavior - MANIPULATION. The demand for proof of your position and then rejecting your opinion with only his opinion and no proof to back him up...like he is God - MANIPULATION. When you Lushies do provide supporting links and he avoids mentioning them, only saying that you have no proof - MANIPULATION.

Now...I challenge ANYBODY and EVERYBODY to find the statement that I made about shooting this waste of space of a man...and show it to me and everyone. When you cannot find such a post by me your only deduction oughta be that MrNudiePants is a walking talking stinky squishy putrid pile of crap.

This guy is a manipulator, a liar and blows more hot air with nothing to backup his facts except his opinion. I am hard pressed to find any post of his where he backed it up with facts. yet he continually demands your facts. There were a few of my posts where i didn't didn't provide links to my facts that I was calling on, either. But when I did...MrAssWipe ignored it all. Typical textbook manipulative right wing blowhard bullshit.

You cannot lie or pass your personal opinion as fact in this or in any debate. On any forum.

But, then MrNudiePants does it daily..........and then........LIES about other people that he doesn't agree with.
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 2:58:45 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
Sorry...this was a double post.
nicola
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:29:28 AM

Rank: Matriarch

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 25,563
Location: The Orgasmatron
I don't think I've ever seen expletives and name-calling used as a winning strategy in any intelligent debate.

Let's keep these discussions on an adult level.

Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:37:14 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
Nicola...It is what it is. And I'm not using expletives unless you consider the word 'manipulation' an expletive. I play games with his name and endowment cuz...well...cuz he stepped on my bitch nerve. It isn't nearly as bad as making up a lie and then scolding people for not coming to his defense. The man is off his rocker. (The Politically Correct term for Psychotic).When someone resorts to posting blatant lies it REQUIRES a strong response. A person who pushes his opinion around a thread like this guy does...is manipulative and my claws come out...just like any bitchy cat.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.