Typical Gun Control Debate

[Jackson1999]

Brady Campaign: The sky is purple

DU Gun Owner: No, it is blue

BC: I have a study done by the VPC that says the sky is purple

DU Gun Owner: NOAA, NASA and the Encyclopedia Britannica all agree that the sky is blue.

BC: Well, our analysis says otherwise.

DU Gun Owner: Look, just come outside with me and look up. You will see that the sky is, in fact blue.

BC: There you go again, despite years of reporting on the sky being purple, you still deny it. How about we compromise and agree that the sky is lavender?

DU Gun Owner: I can't do that, because the sky is not lavender, it is blue.

BC: Your response is proof that you are an uncompromising, hard-line extremist!!!


Washington Post Headline: No Consensus Reached on Color of Sky

[HERVEPA]

1. Is that the best you can do?

[villager]

2. It is -- the NRA defines the rhetorical limit of their colorful, pro-proliferation "arguments"

...nearly all of which involve personal insults, strawmen, and a telling lack of empathy for any victims of gun violence, or their survivors...

[Jackson1999]

3. Nope

The point is that the Brady Campaign arguments are devoid of commonsense and actual facts.

[villager]

5. As Jackson1999's post illustrates -- blanket assertions, yelling the loudest, etc...

No actual engagement on positions, recognizing any validity in what your opponent might be saying, etc...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. You are describing your tactics perfectly.

[jody]

18. villager you have described your posts perfectly. n/t

[villager]

27. Oh, Jody. After your insults yesterday?

Buh-bye.

[yay]

6. Funny you should say that

Because the anti-nuts are one in the same.

The brady campaign website is full of lies and logical falsities, and they've twisted statistics to an unrecognizable form to "prove" their point.

For example did you know any jackass can pick up a .50 rifle and start picking off targets at 2,000 yards? Or did you know if you're age 24 or under you're still a child?

[rl6214]

10. While not the best

It is fairly accurate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. I thought it was:

Person: The sky is blue.

Gun nut: Full auto is NOT illegal.

Person: Bunnies are cute.

Gun nut: I have a right to kill anyone who threatens me.

Person: Today is Tuesday.

Gun nut: Just TRY to come for MY guns, you gun grabber!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. More like...

Gun Owner: The sky is blue.

Gun Grabber: You are a racist, Nazi NRA member.

Gun Owner: I'm sorry that's not the case.

Gun Grabber: Oh so you are a liar also.

Gun Owner: Clearly you aren't willing to engage in a respectful rational discussion, good day.

Gun Grabber: Oh so you are a chicken too.

[beevul]

21. You forgot the last step Dave

Gun Owner: The sky is blue.

Gun Grabber: You are a racist, Nazi NRA member.

Gun Owner: I'm sorry that's not the case.

Gun Grabber: Oh so you are a liar also.

Gun Owner: Clearly you aren't willing to engage in a respectful rational discussion, good day.

Gun Grabber: Oh so you are a chicken too.



insert a few lines exchange here




Gun Grabber (in response to cold hard fact):You're on ignore asshole.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. That must be why so few gun grabbers respond to my posts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Maybe it's because there are REALLY very few "gun grabbers".

Not everyone wanting reasonable restrictions on dangerous equipment want to take your fucking guns. In fact, only the very thinnest slice of the gun control argument is that guns should be 'grabbed', and is advocated by a vanishingly small minority of gun control advocates.

There are gun owners, and there are gun control advocates.

Then, there are gun nuts, and there are gun grabbers.

I've never had a problem with gun owners. I was in the military. I liked shooting (caveat - I was lucky enough to never have to shoot at anything but targets).

I have BIG problems with gun nuts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. No gun nuts here that I know of.

Just the nature of the debate here currently.

David

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. I don't know - I sorta figure that anybody who call all gun control advocates

'gun grabbers' might be considered 'gun nuts'.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. I sorta figure anyone who calls all gun owners 'gun nuts' might be considered a gun grabber.

I have never heard anyone here call "all" gun control advocates gun grabbers. The NRA supports many gun control provisions, I don't think they would be referred to as gun grabbers.

David

[TheWraith]

11. Um...

Your strawman argument aside, full-auto weapons are NOT illegal. Insanely expensive and inconvenient to get, yes, but far from illegal. And a person is within their rights to exercise deadly force if they're reasonably in fear of death or severe bodily harm to themselves or others.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. As I said... nt

[TheWraith]

13. Which means what, you acknowledge getting facts wrong?

Do a Google search for National Firearms Act, and for "self defense."

[Hoopla Phil]

15. I think this sub-thread proves the O.P. got it right. LOL

[villager]

16. What is with the over-compensatory use of "LOL" among the pro-proliferators?

Or is that part of the "automatic snark" reflex?

[Hoopla Phil]

17. It as to do with the Anti's unflappable logic. HaHaHaHa (oh I mean LOL)

[villager]

19. Well, I guess it beats having to actually form a coherent argument, eh?

"LOL!"

[yay]

20. Funny, because while I've been here

I have yet to see you post a "coherent" argument. You tend to dip into emotions, personal insults, and when called on a claim, or asked to site a source you tend to flake.

But who am I, you're the psychology expert here.

lol?

[villager]

22. Typical projection Yay -- attack someone else, hurl insults, etc.

Scarcely anyone in the gungeon is capable of "discussion" at higher than a 5th grade playground insult level.

Your post typifies that.

You want to hurl insults? Do it elsewhere...

Here's a link to some stats on the nexus of guns and gang violence, which affect us in cities like L.A.:

http://www.violencepreventioninstitute.org/gangs.html

Want to discuss?

Are you capable?

[yay]

24. Definition of hypocrisy right here folks.

Just look at your own posts. Don't just limit yourself to this thread either. At least I'll admit I get heated sometimes.

"my shit don't stink, hell no my shit don't stink!"

[villager]

25. Can you rebut the statistics on the link? are you capable of discussing *anything*

or can you only hurl insults?

What are you here for besides the thrill of the snark?

[yay]

26. Nice ninja edit.

I'll read it.

[villager]

28. huh? The link was there all along. If you'd bothered to read it originally.

Let's see if you're the rare gungeon-er who can enter the give-and-take of an actual discussion, rather than assuming a shouting match loading with invective is the same thing...

[yay]

30. No it wasn't

I did read it. No link, notta no way to prove it of course since you edited it.

[villager]

31. It was there before your reply posted. I posted will deliberating over which website to include

and then went back and linked to the one you see now..the point is, the post came with a link from the earliest seconds.

You can't really be hanging on my every word that attentively while I'm still sussing out links can you!?

In any case, I look forward to the discussion...

[yay]

32. Considering you chose to reply to this post first

And my actual reply second, I have a feeling no matter what I do I'll be a lunatic and you'll be an angel as far as you're concerned.

"my shit don't stink, yours sure does but mine sure don't"

[villager]

34. why are you so hung up on stinky shit tonight?

n/t

[yay]

35. I took a narly shit...

I have all the doors and windows open with fans blowing.... it really sucks.

[yay]

29. Alright

I scimed it, a lot of it is redundant and I found the financial burden portion fascinating. But what exactly are we supposed to discuss? I mean there is a lot of data there and many different topics one could gleam from those stats.

Let me ask you this, why do you feel the need to label everyone who owns a gun in some other way mentally inferior or unstable? From your posts in other topics you seem to have an obsession with labeling the personality or mentality of others. Are YOU capable of discussions without bias or resorting to insults?

[villager]

33. I don't -- as a reading of many of my posts in fact bears out..

...but gungeon folk constantly attack those who veer from their orthodoxy -- "gun grabbers," "LOL!", etc., etc. -- barely distinguishable from the "discourse" on Free Republic, actually...

There've been some breakthroughs, though last night I was accused of having a personality disorder for the crime of disagreeing with a pro-gun poster's positions (actually, anyone who disagreed was, in a kind of blanket assertion), and then I was subsequently accused of insulting language... by the same poster!

I find that kind of cognitive dissonance typical here. It's too much like arguing with my ex-wife, frankly.

I suppose I should just ditch the gungeon, and let you all rhapsodize over AR-15 modifications, or whatever it is that rings your bells, in the weapons dept...

[yay]

36. Dude...honestly

Your posts are VERY provocative, you throw blanket statements and insults constantly. Just look at your posts alone on this page, I think about 2 don't include direct insults too a member or pro-gun people in general.

[villager]

37. okay -- give me an example of a direct, personal insult

I initiated in this thread (keeping in mind what the OP says about gun regulation advocates, a.k.a. "gun grabbers" -- you *are* keeping in mind the OP, yes?)

[yay]

38. So you have to reply in kind? N/T

[villager]

46. Well, we're getting somewhere - I trust this means you acknowledge the insulting nature of the OP?

n/t

[yay]

56. I trust this means you acknowledge that you're no better than the OP?

BTW, again, you're supposed to put "N/T" in the title line. defeats the purpose to put it in the message box. Or can you not comprehend that?

[villager]

58. So you can't resist insulting me, after all...

Figures.

All too predictable, alas.

[yay]

61. Nope, it was too easy.

But glad to see your still practicing your side stepping.

[villager]

62. What am I side-stepping? You still haven't provided a link to a single "insult" of mine

You can't provide a quote of mine, you can't do a damn thing except hurl more insults.

If you want to link to something, or quote something, do it now.

Else, this circle jerk ends....

[yay]

63. Here you go then.

"Typical projection Yay -- attack someone else, hurl insults, etc.

Edited on Tue Apr-21-09 09:18 PM by villager
Scarcely anyone in the gungeon is capable of "discussion" at higher than a 5th grade playground insult level.

Your post typifies that."

Jab at pro-gun people.

" What is with the over-compensatory use of "LOL" among the pro-proliferators?

Or is that part of the "automatic snark" reflex?"

Blanket statement.

"It is -- the NRA defines the rhetorical limit of their colorful, pro-proliferation "arguments"

...nearly all of which involve personal insults, strawmen, and a telling lack of empathy for any victims of gun violence, or their survivors... "

Blanket statement, stereo typing, provocative

I can pull more if you wish.

[villager]

64. Let me count the ways:

1) In response to your provocative post, where you came out with rhetorical guns blazing, as it were. I do find it sadly typical of the rhetoric here, but hey -- I was indeed wielding a broad brush, I suppose. (You have seemingly kept all your attacks directed at *me*! Bravo!)


2)In reaction to the snarky "LOL" thread -- void of substance -- that preceded it. Why the thin skins, if you guys can snark around? The rest of us can't even respond?


3)My response to the originally insulting OP (which you -- to your horror? -- came close to acknowledging was a broad-based attack on those whose disagree with the OP


Pull more, though. I'm wondering if I've done anything unprovoked, or not in response to rhetoric that was already flaming - like dog turds on a Halloween front porch!? -- when I got there...

cheers!

[yay]

66. You asked for instances where you were insulting or provocative

and I provided them. I do find it funny you feel the need to defend your "5th grade antics" though.

Eye for an eye right?

EDIT: I'm not entering this thread anymore... it's retarded. All I know is just like most other pro-prohibitionists you flake when the hard questions start flying or when you're asked to backup a ridicules claims.

go'day mate

[villager]

67. This coming from a guy who rhapsodized about his feces, last night?

you sure have a double-standard for everyone else, Yay.

And you don't listen too well.

Enjoy the firing range!

Bye!

[yay]

69. Yup

I'm the one with the double standard there. BTW pass the pipe I want some of whatever your smoking. :eyes:

[spin]

39. Interesting link...proves we should focus on gangs and criminals...

and their misuse of firearms rather than attempt to take guns away from law abiding citizens. True, this will not eliminate all the tragedies but should make a significant difference. As your link pointed out:

· 59% of all homicides in 2001 in Los Angeles and
· 53% in Chicago were gang related, there was a total of 698 gang related homicides in there two cities combined where as 130 other cities with population of at least 100,000 with gang problems reported having a total of 637 homicides between them.

An effort has been made in some communities and has shown success.

If you are open minded have the time and are willing...read the info in this Police Foundation Report on Richmond Virginia.

http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/preludetopsn.pdf

Or this newspaper report on Project Exile in Baltimore.

BALTIMORE (WJZ) ―

]Dozens of arrests have been made by Baltimore Police as part of Project Exile--a program aimed at getting guns off of Charm City's streets. (File)

The majority of violent crime in Baltimore is committed by repeat offenders carrying guns.

But one crime fighting program, Project Exile, was a huge success last year in putting hundreds of criminals behind bars.

http://wjz.com/topstories/Project.Exile.Baltimore.2.426452.html

Note: I apologize for interjecting myself into your entertaining argument with yay.

[villager]

47. It also shows you that gun problems are different in different areas

...and that part of our focus on gangs should be making guns less easily available to them.....

Glad you support things like Project Exile!

Thanks for reading!

[Taitertots]

60. We stop the gangs from getting guns by...

Enforcing current laws, not creating arbitrary and capricious burden to gun owners.

It is exactly what the gun community consensus is.

[villager]

65. Specifically, which current laws?

Which ones, in other words, do you deem not "arbitrary" and "capricious?"

[Taitertots]

68. Where to start

Already felons, domestic abusers, the mentally unfit, and those dishonorably discharged are prohibited. Lets make sure the NICS system has everyone who should be prohibited.

Lets start keeping criminals off the street longer, instead of bumping out violent criminals early. Lets bust traffickers as we have been doing. Enforce immigration laws to restrict cross border traffic. Increase usage of the death penalty. Launch anti-gang campaigns. Lets keep automatic weapons under the restrictive NFA system.

[villager]

70. So you're pro death penalty?

We disagree there, but agree about NICS, for starters....

How do you keep guns out of the hands of known gang members who don't have records? In other words, you know who the gang is, not everyone has a "record" yet (and hopefully, many can find a way to leave before they do!), but how do you disarm them in advance, as it were, before the drive-by bullets start flying?

Which kind of traffickers, btw? Drugs? Weapons? both...

In any case, a good starting point/basis for discussion...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. His suggestions have been made by every "gun nut" here.

Now you think it's a good starting point. Is that really you villager?

[patriotvoice]

53. I doubt anyone here disbelieves a correlation between guns and gang violence.

Because it's a tautology. I think what we'd like to see from gun control advocates is *credible* evidence that *additional* checks and constraints on the purchase of firearms imply a measurable *reduction* in the use of firearms in the commission of crime.

Remember, the onus is on you, gun control advocates: the Second Amendment (as illuminated by Heller) defines that every individual has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Your position is to reduce that right. You have to provide justification. Hyperbole is not justification. Anecdotes are not justification. Measurable reductions from specific additional constraints are justification.

[Caliman73]

54. Agreed. Correlation is not causation

The problems I have with the gun control stance and the problem with the VPI's statistics are that they merely show a correlation, but then assume causation pointing to the gun as the problem. The problem is Violence and the violence has several motivating factors non of which are guns. Criminals prefer guns to other weapons because they are effective and easy to use. Similar to why I use a hammer to drive nails rather than a pipe wrench. It appears that the gun control argument hinges on the idea of supply. If the supply of guns goes down then violence will go down. Gun violence MAY go down, but violence in general will certainly not. That notion, which has been borne out in other countries where guns are highly restricted, makes it appear that the gun control advocates are not as concerned about violence prevention as they are about getting rid of guns. We need to be less concerned about the existence of guns and more concerned about addressing the factors which influence young people to join gangs, people to commit violent crimes, people to rob, and people to commit suicide.

No one has glorified gun violence. There have been threads which have made supportive comments about people defending themselves from criminals, but I haven't seen any advocate of gun ownership praise the death of innocent people.

I do agree that the name calling from both sides really needs to stop.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. That's funny. LOL

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Meaning, no matter what the comment, the gun nuts have their talking points.

Comments are immaterial because the gun nuts don't listen.

It's not a conversation - it is propaganda.

[X_Digger]

42. You say 'talking points' like it's a bad thing..

.. the fact that we're knowledgeable about the subject at hand, and can refute your emotional codswallop easily doesn't reflect badly on pro gun posters, it just highlights how asinine most of the positions the anti- crowd takes really is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. LOL. Emotional codswallop.

Such as, a gun ownwer, or a member of his family, is 4 times liklier to be shot with his own weapon than by a criminal intruder?

Facts are immaterial. It's all about who shout the loudest. And right now, as it has been for the past 50 years, since the NRA decided to become a RW political activist organization instead of a shooting sports organization, the shouting is all coming from the extraordinarily well-funded corporate, fascist NRA.

EDIT: Reading through a link provided above, I see a stated figure of a self-defense weapon being 22x, not 4x, likelier to kill a family member. My apologies.

[X_Digger]

45. Yes, francis correlation = causation.. not.

The study that your stat came from? It includes houses with drug dealers and sex trade workers without weighting them, and doesn't normalize for other factors that might tend to make one more likely to be the victim of a firearm.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Show me your source. nt

[X_Digger]

49. You start, I don't have it bookmarked..

That stat was what, from the CDC study?

Iverglas and I found all the salient studies surrounding that figure a while back.

eta:
first link, not topical, just funny- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/main576422.shtml

Ahh, think this is the one you quoted, the kellerman study in NEJOM - http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

"A subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) ("The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police .") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 <2001>.) "

[villager]

59. To them, the vey act of disagreement is, innately, "insulting"

thus, you're perceived as using "insulting language" first by daring to veer from the letter of their particular law.

They therefore feel the "need" to respond with insulting language "in kind," and when you call them on it, they insist you were insulting them first.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. That is typically the way things go here also.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. DAMN! That nails it right there! THANK YOU!!!!!!

[virginia mountainman]

55. LOL Great Post! NT

[Taitertots]

57. From what I have seen

Gun Prohibitionist:All these assault weapons are too dangerous

Gun Owner:They are not disproportionately used in crime.

Gun Prohibitionist:So, no one needs them, they can't be used in hunting, and have no sporting purpose

Gun Owner:We all use them for hunting, sport shooting, or self defense

Gun Prohibitionist:(crickets)


It is all about the drop in posters who want to stop in, make easily refutable claims and dip out.