Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

Hahaha what a joke, Vancouver and Seattle are totally fair comparisons. Never mind that both have a completely different ethnic make up


http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html
For anyone that wants to look even further into the source to see how unscientific studies on guns in medical literature really is, check it out. I love how you just drop a bunch of links without quoting anything or giving any sort of commentary whatsoever. Reeks of ignorance to me. As for suicide rates, ever heard of Japan or South Korea? Hardly anyone owns guns in those countries and yet the suicide rates are astronomically higher than that of the US.

Aghogday wrote:

Not a good reason. During times like Katrina (and there could be worse in the future) being armed against those who would do harm against you and yours becomes a necessity. I'm talking about people that have no interest or mental capability to sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya with you or anyone else. Call me part of the problem but I'm not going to sacrifice my life and limb to reason with people like that, especially during such trying times as a major disaster.
That's just how it is.....


To be honest I haven’t even checked to see what the effect of the Aurora massacre has had on the market but I figure it has had at least some effect. I’ve had other things on my plate lately.

A word about the Obama hording in ’09: Regardless of whatever those media nitwits might have reported, most of us gun people didn’t panic. Enough did panic, though, and started a hording fest that caused a domino effect, for lack of a better term, and we all had to start hording just to have enough ammo and supplies for our regular needs since we had no way of knowing how long the buying spree would last.
I actually saw people waiting in lines in gun shops to buy guns, magazines, and ammo. The shelves and store rooms could not be kept stocked. Even reloading components were hard to get and even rationed in some cases. People that were not gun owners before became gun owners all the sudden. This is just what I observed here where I live and this is a rather cosmopolitan area by regional standards.

The Obama administration has been an unintentional windfall for the commercial firearms, accessories, and ammunition industry.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be able to defend yourself with the guns and ammunition you already have stockpiled. But, the sale of guns and ammunition have already been restricted for a month during Hurricane Katrina where the mayor declared a "state of public health emergency". And if Martial Law was ever determined as a need in the country, for a disaster or any other determined reason sales would be banned as well.

And, oh yeah, gun sales have definitely spiked, reported up to 300 percent in Georgia.

It's also a great way to get republican fired up and ready to vote in November, out of fear of gun control legislation, next Obama go around.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57479435/gun-sale-background-checks-spike-after-aurora/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#Hurricane_Katrina

Katrina was a disaster in more ways than just hurricane damage and the related subsequent suffering and displacement.
It should stand as a model of how NOT to handle a hurricane or the aftermath of it and this is taking the uniqueness of New Orleans into account.
I could write a dissertation on Katrina focusing on how it was mismanaged to put it gently.

Also, there have been laws passed that prohibit the confiscation of firearms during emergencies like that.

You are using a straw man argument. I never said anything about trust. Again, I don't think that people should be walking the streets armed.



Now you are engaging in ad hominem attacks. By definition, you just lost the argument. However, the media did not make up the concept of "assault weapons" or the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban."



I have no idea whether it is a "technical firearms term." It was, however, a legal term.



Once again, I am not an expert on firearms. My position is that no one (except for law enforcement) should be roaming the streets with any weapons. I don't care whether they are called assault weapons or pistols.

Given the quality of people that are hired as LEO's, why should they get fire arms either? Give them night sticks at best.

If this isn't about trust, then what the hell is it supposed to be? And I didn't say anything about taking freedom of speech away from those who disagree with me did I? Neither have I said anything about the left wing media enacting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Are you sure it isn't you that's making straw man arguments?

I didn't attack your motives or your character and I do believe I addressed the position you maintain. On the other hand, you've attacked me by saying that libertarians only believe in liberty for themselves, which is an attack on both my motives and character. I've attacked your reading comprehension in response to you misrepresenting my arguments. So why should I take your word for who won and lost the argument? I don't give a rat's ass about "winning" anyways, the fact that people care more about their ego than intellectual honesty is exactly why ignorance and smugness is so rampant in this world.

...And?

BS, you've made it clear that you have an issue with assault weapons and that anyone who wants to go hunting should buy a hunting rifle, which is why I asked you what specific features make military rifles more lethal than hunting rifles. You're obviously dodging my question since you can't justify your stance on "assault weapons" and hunting rifles.
But hey, I'm not surprised at all. You've made up your mind about an issue before you even had adequate knowledge on it. This is exactly what I've been taught not to do in my critical thinking course, because that would mean I'm guided by prejudice rather than reason.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 28 Jul 2012, 3:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.

The state laws that have been passed in fear of the Katrina potential, aren't going to matter, if actual martial law is imposed by the federal government, if the disaster, natural or man made is large enough.

And while there may be this notion that civilians would rise up against the government if guns were confiscated, there might be that potential in rare cases, with not good outcomes for those that might attempt to resist, but not much choice for law abiding citizens if the scope of the disaster is large enough where one will have to rely on the government for subsistence for some time to come.

People tend to talk bigger than they act, if they value their life.

I have given my reasons several times. I never once mentioned "trust." Everything I talked about is related to public safety.



You attacked my supposed "reading comprehension." Your definition of an ad hominem attack (a logical fallacy) was incomplete. Here is a clearer definition:





No I did not. I was pointing out another logical fallacy. In other words, I was responding to your attempt to shut me up or get me out of the way.



That is another ad hominem attack.



You would need to ask a lawyer. As I said before, I oppose all weapons (other than by law enforcement or licensed hunters).



No, I have responded to everything you have said. I think you are confusing disagreement with "dodging."

No, you never gave any goddamn reasons, all you did was use conclusions to support conclusions, which by definition is circular logic. Ok you didn't literally use the word "trust", but you made it clear that you think most people online who oppose gun control are the type of people who shouldn't have guns so what else am I supposed to infer from that other than mistrust?

I never once mentioned "freedom of speech" before you accuse me of being against it. So keep pointing the finger at me buddy, you have three pointed right back at you.

Your accusation of what I stand for when it comes to freedom of speech falls under this definition. You can sue Google if you don't like the definition I copied and pasted.

So it's different when you do it. I'm ad homing you while you're just pointing out logical fallacies. And matter of fact, you're still ad homing me with that very post by accusing me of attempting to shut you up. Oh the irony. Here's some logical fallacies I'd like to point out: Red herrings and appeal to motives. You use them an awful lot.

So who's trying to shut who up now? You're getting real ridiculous with these ad hom accusations. That was a general statement that wasn't directed at anyone. But if you take it personally, then I'm not the one in the wrong since being more concerned about winning an argument than intellectual honesty is a failing on your part.

You know what you also said? That there's no reason for anyone to have an assault weapon. And that anyone who wants to go hunting should get a hunting rifle. You clearly oppose certain weapons more than others.

Nice try.

I'm gonna make this as simple and specific as possible so that there's little room for ambiguous interpretation. You said you have an issue with assault weapons and that anyone who wants to go hunting can get a hunting rifle. I asked you what makes military rifles more lethal than hunting rifles when they're the same mechanically. Then you respond by saying no one except for law enforcement should be roaming the streets with weapons. Which lead me to think you were dodging the question because I specifically asked you what your issue was with assault weapons since you had no problems with hunting rifles and all you did was tell me something irrelevant rather than explain why you're against assault weapons but not hunting rifles.

I can't break it down any simpler than that, so if you still don't get the message I'm trying to get across then I give up. You make communication difficult enough.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 28 Jul 2012, 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Almost your entire posting consists of ad hominem attacks and repetitions of subjects we have already covered. By definition, you have already lost the argument on those grounds alone.

I continued this discussion because I found it mildly entertaining and, hopefully, instructive to others. However, I am now bored.

That's right, cop out and pretend we already covered everything when I asked you to clarify on a couple things, the most relevant being why you're against assault weapons while you think it's okay for hunters to have hunting rifles. I shouldn't have wasted my time when I get the same result over and over from the gun control crowd. I always get tempted to waste time typing up paragraphs and responding to every single statement (or at least most of them) while I get nothing more than selective replies which are one or two sentences long. No wonder you took my comment about "winning" and intellectual honesty so personal. But hey, if the shoe fits wear it.

Anyways, I'm done with you. There's no sense in continuing to debate with someone who's intellectually dishonest and goes out of way to make himself a pain in the ass to communicate with. Good to know you enjoyed it, but I lose what little faith I have in humanity every time I have to go through this BS. I guess I'll have to accept the fact that true intellectualism is as rare as true journalism.

LKL: Your blunder here was to ignore the rule about Conservation of Ninjutsu As you posted tons of links in a single group. AceOfSpades needed only the effort to dismiss one group instead of 15.

What you should have done is post them one by one.

That is true, but wounding and maiming is not something to be ambivalent about.



I will need to read into that further to verify, I don't consider myself an expert on mass murderers. Plenty clearly had issues of narcissism, besides whatever else was wrong with them that drove them to be so inhumane; narcissism exemplified by super-gay posing pictures on their social media profiles and etc



How do you guarantee their inexperience? I can understand why you and a few others here are quite blasé on the subject, but I think because of this you underestimate the gravity of what you are positing



So... four people shooting from the aisles in the smokey dark while people run and crouch around in panic, lie bleeding, screaming, crying, human carnage lies open upon the ground; versus a killer in black body armor and besides being much more heavily armed than them, is also armed with the cold, unsympathetic and relentless determination that makes his half of the fight that much easier since he does not have to worry about collateral damage? What we are talking about is a battle, and all of the uncertainty that goes into one



While I do find that interesting (next time, German weapons circa 1872-1945!! ) I did make it clear I don't expect someone to just aim in the general direction of their target/s from the hip, close their eyes and squeeze the trigger...

I should also add I'm not trying to argue in favor or disfavor of anything, I am just interested

Maybe not but at least with a law enacted it will help curb disarmament.


Maybe civilians will and maybe civilians won't. It appears they did not fight back in New Orleans and this has been noted and discussed a lot in the years since on some forums, trust me. I could write a few pages on those discussions just from memory.
There are way too many variables to determine the final outcome of that kind of insurrection and we could debate if for 10+ pages in this thread alone without arriving at a conclusion.
If you want to discuss that, and I'm not sure I recommend it, then start a dedicated thread for it.


And depending on the situation they can act bigger than they talk. Again, too many unknown variables to do more than speculate on it....

Well excuse me for not taking the time to address all 15 links at once. I can just easily drop a link right now and make one big clusterf*ck of a quote box that s**ts all over every gun myth brought to the table, but obviously that's too much information for anyone to digest at once. I already made the mistake of ignoring the rule when it came to nominal, so I'm not about to waste even more time on all 15 links she didn't even take the time to put any effort providing quotes and commentaries on. I'll be more than happy to address whatever she wants to do so on, I just can't bite off more than what I can chew.

Yeah, there's really no telling how it would've gone but I'm willing to bet there would've been major casualties one way or the other. The killer had the element of surprise plus the psychological preparation to carry out violence to such a shocking extent. It's traumatizing for anyone to go through such a situation, so the odds are inherently stacked against the victims.