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

Congrats, gun lovers, you've done it again Options · View
overmykneenow
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:38:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,022
Location: United Kingdom
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".


The figures in the report say 230 of the 8,500 gun related homicides in 2010 were self-defence, which is reasonably "rare", in this context (less than 3%).

Statistically speaking, 67,000 is rare compared to the 3,200,000 who threatened or attacked the assailant without a weapon or just shouted at them (just over 2%)

For the population as a whole those 67,000 cases represent 21.5 per 100,000 population. That doesn't necessarily make it "rare" per se but during any year you're eight times more likely to die of heart disease than protect your property with a gun.

What I found most shocking was the 232,000 firearms that end up in criminal hands each year as a result of guns being in domestic property, more than ELEVEN TIMES as many as the number of incidences where guns were used to protect the property.



Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
Liz
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:46:10 AM

Rank: Scarlet Seductress

Joined: 1/22/2013
Posts: 4,665
Location: In the sweet shop, United Kingdom
3D-printed firearm plans downloaded 100,000 times, State Department steps in



That didn't take long -- just days after its first test fire, the Liberator, a 3D-printed pistol designed by Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson, has caught the attention of the federal government. It's hardly a surprise: the arm's blueprints were downloaded more than 100,000 times since going live on DefCAD this week. It's not the amount of downloads that's causing trouble, though, it's who is downloading them. In a letter from the US State Department, Wilson was told that it's a violation of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations to "export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC (Directorate of Defense Trade Controls)."

The letter goes on to explain that these downloads legally count as exports under the law, telling Wilson to remove the plans from public access immediately. "That might be an impossible standard," Wilson told Forbes. "But we'll do our part to remove it from our servers." As it turns out, most of the gun's downloads were served via Mega, making full removal near impossible. Still, Wilson seems optimistic about the situation, explaining to Forbes that conversation will help mold the discussion on 3D printed weaponry. "Is this a workable regulatory regime? Can there be defense trade control in the era of the internet and 3D printing?"

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/09/3d-printed-firearm-removed-by-demand/


Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:00:50 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
Okay, I posted this on MrNudiePants thread but keeping true to his word he is deleting whatever he wants. So, here I want to thank Overmykneenow for pointing out...

I think it stems from her use of the saying "they shoot horse, don't they" - used, I'm pretty sure, in the context that it's cruel to let him go on like this and if he was a horse he'd have been put out of his misery.

OMG...I read my past posts over and over trying to find where MrNudiePants could possible get that I wanted him shot. I rolled right over that statement because that statement means putting YOURSELF OUT OF YOUR MISERY. The statement I made was

So, Puh-lease set me on ignore...better yet, let me block you.
Christ...they shoot horses don't they?


...to put me out of my misery. This guy who plays God with your opinions probably knows this but like I said before he is a classic manipulator. And now we know he is a Drama Queen as well.

But to anyone and everyone who read into that statement that I meant to do or wish harm on this guy...I sincerely apologize. I'm embarrassed This guy twisted it to mean something it doesn't mean. Google the term. You'll find I'm not lying. But I do apologize to any fellow Lushie who read that to mean something that was not intended.



WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:21:52 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
Yeah, that was a helluva reach, even for him.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
charlie1980
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:26:03 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/16/2011
Posts: 16
allowing kids guns is lunacy they are not responsible, and they do not need to learn about guns till way later in life.

How can it be deemed at all acceptable, when the child cannot vote for thirteen years or drink legally for another 16 years or are we saying that kids can vote if with an adult or drink with an adult or have sex supervised by an adult. If your going to have guns legally at least surely there should be an age restriction on them. Or is a 5 yr old childs right to bear arms more important than everything ever.
She
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:54:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
Kristind wrote:
Okay, I posted this on MrNudiePants thread but keeping true to his word he is deleting whatever he wants. So, here I want to thank Overmykneenow for pointing out...

I think it stems from her use of the saying "they shoot horse, don't they" - used, I'm pretty sure, in the context that it's cruel to let him go on like this and if he was a horse he'd have been put out of his misery.

OMG...I read my past posts over and over trying to find where MrNudiePants could possible get that I wanted him shot. I rolled right over that statement because that statement means putting YOURSELF OUT OF YOUR MISERY. The statement I made was

So, Puh-lease set me on ignore...better yet, let me block you.
Christ...they shoot horses don't they?


...to put me out of my misery. This guy who plays God with your opinions probably knows this but like I said before he is a classic manipulator. And now we know he is a Drama Queen as well.

But to anyone and everyone who read into that statement that I meant to do or wish harm on this guy...I sincerely apologize. I'm embarrassed This guy twisted it to mean something it doesn't mean. Google the term. You'll find I'm not lying. But I do apologize to any fellow Lushie who read that to mean something that was not intended.





Fact that he is deleting opinions he cannot handle, is just so bad for this site. Is this means that here is no credibility anymore?

here was some name calling, and as far as I know that is not allowed, site Thread Mediators should regulate that, or at least I was living in this believe, but deleting posts in his thread is just pathetic and thrutfuly I don't like where this is going, specially because this is not first thread where people are suggesting or in this case performingchensirship.

You are farely new to this site, so you might not know, but most of us who ever debated naked guy came to the same conclusion as they were mentioned in this thread.. I am not regular anymore but as far as I can see, no one seems to be bothered with nakeg guy. He lost his personal credibility years ago, I am just wondering if this site will go on the same road as he went..

Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:24:36 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
She wrote:


Fact that he is deleting opinions he cannot handle, is just so bad for this site. Is this means that here is no credibility anymore?

here was some name calling, and as far as I know that is not allowed, site Thread Mediators should regulate that, or at least I was living in this believe, but deleting posts in his thread is just pathetic and thrutfuly I don't like where this is going, specially because this is not first thread where people are suggesting or in this case performingchensirship.

You are farely new to this site, so you might not know, but most of us who ever debated naked guy came to the same conclusion as they were mentioned in this thread.. I am not regular anymore but as far as I can see, no one seems to be bothered with nakeg guy. He lost his personal credibility years ago, I am just wondering if this site will go on the same road as he went..




Planet-cohabitants...fellow lushies...

Let us just bury this and go on with our various debates, hopefully intelligent discussion based on supportive truths and not opinion. Peace.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:35:32 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
She wrote:


Fact that he is deleting opinions he cannot handle, is just so bad for this site. Is this means that here is no credibility anymore?



As much as I think Nudiepants' political views are completely and utter bonkers, I doubt he's abusing his powers on Lush to delete posts in here that crushes his points in order to make himself look better. Not only would it eventually strike back at him should Nicola find out and that he'd also add more fuel to the fire of us having the opposite view of him, he also seems more than intelligent enough to see that that serves no purpose at all. If he has deleted any posts(I haven't read all the posts in here and I don't know which ones have been deleted if any at all) then I'm quite confident that these were posts that would have been deleted by LadyX or any other moderator with the powers to do so.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Brandi
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:46:07 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

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


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



Since you are against gun ownership, how do you plan to defend yourself against an armed intruder? or mugger? or if you find yourself in a dangerous situation?
CleverFox
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:00:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

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



Since you are against gun ownership, how do you plan to defend yourself against an armed intruder? or mugger? or if you find yourself in a dangerous situation?


I am not against gun ownership, I am for responsible regulation for gun ownership. Don't think you are safer with a gun and that you will fend off attackers when the numbers show that you are more of a danger to the people you are trying to protect and yourself than any attacker is to you.

By the way, I had somebody attempt to break into my house and before I could have gotten any gun my 95lb Great Dane-Boxer mix and my housemate's 45lb German Shepherd-Sharpei mix had the intruder high jumping a 6ft privacy fence and running for his life.

As far as a mugger goes, if he is holding a gun on me then I doubt I could get a gun out if a holster, aimed properly and pull the trigger before he twitches a finger and shoots me. He can take my watch, wallet and phone. I can replace those items. I never carry a large amount cash anyway.

I have never been in any sort of dangerous situation that I required a gun. What kind of situation is that anyway? A police shot out? I doubt the police want me to pull out a gun and try to help them. I think they would want me to get away from there.

If you want to own a gun that is fine with me but you had better not endanger me.
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:18:03 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
"As much as I think Nudiepants' political views are completely and utter bonkers, I doubt he's abusing his powers on Lush to delete posts in here that crushes his points in order to make himself look better."

It has been done. By him or not, I am not "in the know." But it has, and those that actually follow a debate, no matter how heated, know it to be so. I've even called others on certain erasures on other threads, but it happens and not just in this neck of the woods.

Further, "I am for responsible regulation for gun ownership." My sentiments exactly. Just because you, you, whomever you are, have put time in on the gun range, and see yourself as a last line of defense for you and yours, does not mean that your call for no restrictions, means others will restrict themselves, or put time into responsibility that it espoused upon at times.

And, of course, that means it's someone else's fault for any and all oversight. As is usually the case, a call for mutual responsibility will be derailed by some editing of thoughts that just scramble everything into mush. Of course, again, that will be the pacifists fault, not theirs.

CleverFox
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:21:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 482
Location: United States
Highwayman wrote:
"As much as I think Nudiepants' political views are completely and utter bonkers, I doubt he's abusing his powers on Lush to delete posts in here that crushes his points in order to make himself look better."

It has been done. By him or not, I am not "in the know." But it has, and those that actually follow a debate, no matter how heated, know it to be so. I've even called others on certain erasures on other threads, but it happens and not just in this neck of the woods.

Further, "I am for responsible regulation for gun ownership." My sentiments exactly. Just because you, you, whomever you are, have put time in on the gun range, and see yourself as a last line of defense for you and yours, does not mean that your call for no restrictions, means others will restrict themselves, or put time into responsibility that it espoused upon at times.

And, of course, that means it's someone else's fault for any and all oversight. As is usually the case, a call for mutual responsibility will be derailed by some editing of thoughts that just scramble everything into mush. Of course, again, that will be the pacifists fault, not theirs.



occasion5
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:28:29 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Highwayman wrote:
"As much as I think Nudiepants' political views are completely and utter bonkers, I doubt he's abusing his powers on Lush to delete posts in here that crushes his points in order to make himself look better."

It has been done. By him or not, I am not "in the know." But it has, and those that actually follow a debate, no matter how heated, know it to be so. I've even called others on certain erasures on other threads, but it happens and not just in this neck of the woods.



And you are quite sure that the posts that were deleted did not contain elements that could somehow break the general lush rules? If a post says "We should have no guns due to (insert argument here), you maggy little cunt" that post thouroghly deserves to be deleted simply because of the comment in the end.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:29:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
Yes, very assured.

(edit)

People will say things in heat, but since we are all prone to such utterance, none of us would want any subtle hint of weakness known. And, sometimes for good reason. To allow the free flow of expression without consternation form "on high." But, we're all human.

(edit again)

case in point

In looking at this debate, and then looking at the "case in point." Do you thing the sudden skip in time were by chance?

I wish I were blissful.
She
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:42:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
elitfromnorth wrote:


And you are quite sure that the posts that were deleted did not contain elements that could somehow break the general lush rules? If a post says "We should have no guns due to (insert argument here), you maggy little cunt" that post thouroghly deserves to be deleted simply because of the comment in the end.


Exactly and if I know right, mamber has some kind of a consequences.
Anything eles is power abusing, and threating in his op (in another thread) what will he do if..shows that he is on the road of abusing his powers.. In a way I do understand why he said and did, what he did, he hes been called names after all.
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:56:55 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
"Anything eles is power abusing."

That is why some are frustrated. But a good cop, bad cop paradigm works well for those who don't retain.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:14:21 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
She wrote:


Exactly and if I know right, mamber has some kind of a consequences.
Anything eles is power abusing, and threating in his op (in another thread) what will he do if..shows that he is on the road of abusing his powers.. In a way I do understand why he said and did, what he did, he hes been called names after all.


I'm assuming you're referring to this bit

Quote:
Be warned... this is my thread and I won't tolerate any name-calling, ad hominem attacks, or other untoward behavior from either side. I'll delete them as fast as I see them,


name-calling and personal attacks are fully valid reasons to delete a post. As far as I see it, he could simply have said "Break the lush rules and I'll delete your post". I'm quite confident that's what he meant, even if it could have been worded a bit more diplomatic, but I don't hold that against him.

As for Highwayman, still don't see it, especially considering that there are periods with downtime(lately today) which could very well explain why there are time gaps between posts if that's what you're referring to.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
sprite
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:17:45 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,585
Location: My Tower, United States
Brandi wrote:



Since you are against gun ownership, how do you plan to defend yourself against an armed intruder? or mugger? or if you find yourself in a dangerous situation?


there are other ways to defend yourself besides guns. also, even if you have a gun, that doesn't automatically make you safe from armed intruders, muggers, or dangerous situations.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:18:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
elitfromnorth wrote:


And you are quite sure that the posts that were deleted did not contain elements that could somehow break the general lush rules? If a post says "We should have no guns due to (insert argument here), you maggy little cunt" that post thouroghly deserves to be deleted simply because of the comment in the end.



Three of my posts were deleted. The last was an apology. Yay...an apology with no names being called. The first post that was deleted I said "Overmykneenow is my hero". Aand the other one was an agreement with Lady X without snark.
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:21:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
"I'm assuming you're referring to this bit." Nope, that's not it. I have included in my post with "case in point" the actual event. Anyone there at that time that can remember that thread, and its progression, will note the fault.

Question? Will, and can one post the missing excerpt. If not, then my assertion is mute.

Monocle
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:33:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
Highwayman wrote:

It has been done. By him or not, I am not "in the know." But it has, and those that actually follow a debate, no matter how heated, know it to be so. I've even called others on certain erasures on other threads, but it happens and not just in this neck of the woods.


Indeed. This is why my post count is is still negative. Threads and posts vanishing. Even what I'm writing now doesn't really exist, either.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 8:06:25 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Highwayman wrote:
"I'm assuming you're referring to this bit." Nope, that's not it. I have included in my post with "case in point" the actual event. Anyone there at that time that can remember that thread, and its progression, will note the fault.



If you read it again then you'll see that was meant to She, and not you :)

And for the rest of you, I think it's time we leave this matter now until we hear from the Big Boss(ette?).

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 8:22:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'' -- Sir Walter Scott.

Oh, yet again, my bad.

Let us move on, I guess. Sleeping dogs, and all that rot.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 8:50:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Okay, to clear things up, I deleted three of Kristin's posts. They were all in the thread I started, and I deleted them because I refuse to let anyone who has called for me to be shot to post in my thread. Snarky, yes. Juvenile, yes. Every bit as juvenile as when she visited every one of my stories and tried to "one-bomb" them. I see now that she's trying to spin her comment so that it means something other than what it says. Tough. I'll still not allow her to post in my thread.

And also for the record, I've never deleted anyone else's posts or threads, here or in any other Lush forum. The most I've ever done as moderator has been to remove threats or insults that went over the top, and incidentally, I've never deleted anything aimed at me. As you can tell by the amount of derogatory and inflammatory posts aimed at me.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame fest. bootyshake

Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:10:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
MrNudiePants wrote:
Okay, to clear things up, I deleted three of Kristin's posts. They were all in the thread I started, and I deleted them because I refuse to let anyone who has called for me to be shot to post in my thread. Snarky, yes. Juvenile, yes. Every bit as juvenile as when she visited every one of my stories and tried to "one-bomb" them. I see now that she's trying to spin her comment so that it means something other than what it says. Tough. I'll still not allow her to post in my thread.



This will be my last post on any response to MrNudiPants. I clearly see you did not google the term that I used just like you did not read the background checks bill, just like you didn't read any of my supporting evidence. If you had googled the term you would come to understand just what the term "They Horses Don't They?" means instead of insisting that I'm spinning it. It means put me out of my misery. It's what the whole movie 'They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" culminated to. But instead of maybe a glimmer of a real man under your words you decide to continue with your Drama Queen whine.

Exactly what I anticipated. It woulda been easier to ignore you. From now on I will.

It would have been nice to have a debate where you provided proof and support of your opinion instead of just your opinion. And then where you actually read and actually respond to the support that I or anyone else provide. That would be called a debate. But that's not how you roll, is it?

btw...IMHO you're really no better than a 1 writer and a 1 debater. But then you know that already. That's why you play the 'better than thou' role. Pathetic man, really.

Buh-Bye
Monocle
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:14:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:
Okay, to clear things up, I deleted three of Kristin's posts. They were all in the thread I started, and I deleted them because I refuse to let anyone who has called for me to be shot to post in my thread.


She didn't. Your reaction to your mistaken interpretation is childish, and you broke your own thread's editing rules because of your misinterpretation and vindictiveness.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:26:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

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


She didn't. Your reaction to your mistaken interpretation is childish, and you broke your own thread's editing rules because of your misinterpretation and vindictiveness.


Of course she did. And I'm not alone in feeling this.

Monocle
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:28:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:


Of course she did. And I'm not alone in feeling this.


If you're talking about the "They shoot horses" line, that's complete bullshit. If it's some other line, show me.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:30:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

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


If you're talking about the "They shoot horses" line, that's complete bullshit. If it's some other line show me.



Whatever you say, spin doctor.

Monocle
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:37:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:



Whatever you say, spin doctor.


Ad hominem. And unsurprisingly inaccurate.
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.