10 Reasons to Ban Guns

[editec]

In other words you plagerized this piece and have no idea if the statistics found in it are even valid?

Yet when I first asked you about those stats, you told me that you got from:

Some of the anti-gun nuts used them.

So in other words, your source created a anti-gun straw man and made UP statistics, too?

In the world of intelligent discourse and debate, what you just did was a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

Putting words into you opponents mouths, just so that you can easily mock them for what they have not said is inherently dishonest.

Typical, but still ... basically you are doing nothing but promoting a great big fat lie, dear.

 

[del]

In other words you plagerized this piece and have no idea if the statistics found in it are even valid?

Yet when I first asked you you told me that the stats I questioned you got from:

Some of the anti-gun nuts used them.

So in other words, your source created a anti-gun straw man and made UP statistics, too?

In the word of intelligent discourse, what you just did was very dishonest.

Putting words into you opponents mouths so that you can mock them is inherently dishonest.

Trpical, but still ...basically you are doing nothing but promoting a great big fat lie, dear.

might want to crank back just a whisker on the self righteousness, ace. KK didn't post the OP but she's the one you're quoting and then going on to excoriate for ""plagiarism", dear.

lighten up, francis.

your pal.

a gun queer

 

[DamnYankee]

Where did you get that statistic?



Or that one?

Some of the anti-gun nuts used them.

Yeah, okay...

Where did YOU get them?

In other words you plagerized this piece and have no idea if the statistics found in it are even valid?

Yet when I first asked you about those stats, you told me that you got from:

Some of the anti-gun nuts used them.

So in other words, your source created a anti-gun straw man and made UP statistics, too?

In the world of intelligent discourse and debate, what you just did was a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

Putting words into you opponents mouths, just so that you can easily mock them for what they have not said is inherently dishonest.

Typical, but still ... basically you are doing nothing but promoting a great big fat lie, dear.

Sorry, those were not MY words.... Go back and check.... Putting words into your opponents mouths so you can easily mock them for what they have not said is inherently dishonest.... LMAO!

I'm terribly sorry, truly I am, that you didn't recognize the original post, as it's been floating around the internet for ages! Not copyrighted, BTW.... However, each "claim" made was substantiated, in a satirical fashion, in order to make a point. The point being that the Brady Bill and the Feinberg Amendment was a "great big fat lie".

Scare the public. Make them believe that the nutcases are the majority when it comes to gun ownership, and that it's an impossibility for owners to be responsible owners. Make them believe that if cops have the guns, and no one else does, we'll be living in Camelot. Bullshit!

 

[KittenKoder]

In other words you plagerized this piece and have no idea if the statistics found in it are even valid?

Yet when I first asked you about those stats, you told me that you got from:

Some of the anti-gun nuts used them.

So in other words, your source created a anti-gun straw man and made UP statistics, too?

In the world of intelligent discourse and debate, what you just did was a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

Putting words into you opponents mouths, just so that you can easily mock them for what they have not said is inherently dishonest.

Typical, but still ... basically you are doing nothing but promoting a great big fat lie, dear.

Wow ... um .. where the hell is your sense of humor this morning? The whole thread was made to point out the flaws of those who are anti-gun, I call them anti-gun nuts. I didn't create it, nor did I make the sarcastic posts. What those who did post those use were common arguments used by those so against guns they don't use logic to argue their point, so ... it's just a turn about. It's interesting that the people against gun ownership have done nothing to counter it ...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

In other words you plagerized this piece and have no idea if the statistics found in it are even valid?

Yet when I first asked you about those stats, you told me that you got from:

Some of the anti-gun nuts used them.

So in other words, your source created a anti-gun straw man and made UP statistics, too?

This is why lefties are lefties. They cannot comprehend what they read, and can't even keep up with who said what in a conversation. And, like a blind squirrel occasionally finding a nut, when they do they cannot help but be dishonest and disingenuous.

In the world of intelligent discourse and debate

A world completely foreign and alien to you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In other words you plagerized this piece and have no idea if the statistics found in it are even valid?

Yet when I first asked you about those stats, you told me that you got from:

Some of the anti-gun nuts used them.

So in other words, your source created a anti-gun straw man and made UP statistics, too?

In the world of intelligent discourse and debate, what you just did was a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

Putting words into you opponents mouths, just so that you can easily mock them for what they have not said is inherently dishonest.

Typical, but still ... basically you are doing nothing but promoting a great big fat lie, dear.

ROFLMNAO...

This entire ARGUMENT is a STRAWMAN!... you've come to denounce the stats; you claim, at the minimum by implication, that the stats are inaccurate and in so doing you've posted NOTHING but the lament of inaccurate stats in an argument which provides absolutely NO contesting statistics... and emphatically conclude, that the argument which you’re contesting: is a LIE.

I'd say that the number, while perhaps not directly being supported by a SPECIFIC statistical analysis, is supported by common sense. To wit:

For the purposes of this demonstration, a ‘gun crime’ will be defined as being where an injury is resultant from the use of a gun; either intentionally or accidentally… and yes I realize that the scope of this argument lacks perfection… but this is a response to a leftist screed, thus the premise to which it is responding, is such where perfection is impossible, but it is also, absolutely unnecessary…

There are Hundreds of millions of guns in the US... arguably around 260 MILLION...

Are there hundreds of millions of gun crimes in the US? No...

Are there Millions of guns crimes in the US? No...

Hundreds of thousands? No...

Tens of thousands? Yep... The CDC reported 75,000 accidental and deliberate incidents which invoved a gun and resulted in an injury or death in 2000. Which was the latest data I was able to cull in the 30 seconds it took to find it.

Now just to make this easy, for purposes of demonstration... IF there were only 75 million guns in the US... 7.5 million such incidents would be 10%.

750,000 such incidents would be 1%...

75,000 would be 10% of 1% .... or 0.1 But we know there are nearly 4 times the math made easy reference... Which is what? .0001

The actual number is roughly .000289 of the guns in the US were used to commit an injury, where such is intentional or ACCIDENTAL.

Now you will no doubt claim that this doesn't reflect the number of incidents of 'gun crime'... but such would be a very difficult figure to accurately compile, as no doubt a fair percentages of the gun crimes, particularly in the inner cities where the VAST MAJORITY OF GUN CRIMES ARE COMMITTED, are committed with the same gun... so simply counting up the number of incidents and dividing them by the number of guns would significantly inflate the figure, to your favor... but such would still leave you wanting... IN THE EXTREME!

The distinction of .0004 or .004, .04 or even .4; which would be the figure represented in the wildest anti-American, gun grabbing wet dream... where 4/10ths of 1% of guns owned in America could be argued to have been used in gun crimes; would STILL mean that you're desire to strip the individual of their sacred right to defend themselves, their rights and their neighbors, rests upon the statistical basis that 99.6 % of Gun owners who do NOT misuse their firearms, should be responsible for and bear the burden of losing their means to exercise their OWN RIGHTS, because of the 4/10s of 1% who have been infected with same left-think reasoning on which your entire thesis rests... which would be absurd in and of itself...

But is just made MORE absurd when we find that 99.9998% of gun owners do not misuse their firearms and you want to turn the world on it's head to manage the .0002 who do...

ROFLMNAO... That is HYSTERICAL! (in at least two contexts and on several levels...)

Which once again, conclusively demonstrates a leftist, who comes to lament the lack of veracity in the argument which they're contesting, does so through no discernible honesty... Ya lying sack of shit.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"Of all the words... the last is surely the sweetests." Publius Infinitum... 2006

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I think it's safe to declare this one... a decided victory for the Americans.