Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Spoonman]

Quit dancing around that fact that you want all guns banned and gun confiscation.

He didn't say will we be a gun-free society, he said you want a gun-free society.


.

Who is HE?

I left the United States 16 years ago. You all do whatever you want with your guns. My family lives in a much safer place.

Do not try to tell people what they think, you are not very good at it.

Then why the hell are you still trying to force your warped values on the people that stayed. Aren't there any political discussion forums in the Utopia you live in now, or do they not allow dissent?

Do not try to tell people what to think, you are not very good at it and you no longer have any business trying to influence what goes on in a country you abandoned.

because he is a liberal and thats what they do.

 

[Saigon]

Australia Gun Laws Provided No Extra Safety | Wall Street Journal

Weird, given the homicide rate fell significantly...

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

 

[Spoonman]

Classic, its start off by saying "They're coming for your guns" is false, and then goes on to list a bunch of bogus reason to support the gun-grabber agenda.

Nothing you listed is basis for overturning the second amendment.

Thx bye.

--- and if you actually read them, there is nothing in the link, or the OP, or in any of my posts anywhere, that suggests anything about gun grabbing, gun control, or the Second Amendment. Absolutely zero. What there is is a plugged-in assumption. I can't fathom what's so difficult about reading actual words on a page without plugging in others that are not there. This is Strawman writ large. Strawman is not debate; it's the opposite.

I opened this thread up last night around midnight and it's got 130 posts, so to me that's mission accomplished, since the mission was to open a dialogue about how we view these things; people are talking. Whether any of us are hearing is quite another hurdle, but it's not gonna happen if we plug in our own fantasies of "here's what you really mean". That's just perpetuating ignorance.

One other note about this conversation and the fear of having it: I've been negged three times (so far) just for starting this dialogue, i.e. for the thread itself. I would guess they're all from the " right" -- one of them (California Girl) I've never heard of or intetracted with at all and she's got her inbox turned off so I can't even ask what her basis was. Not one of these lifted a finger to come into the thread and debate a particular point; not one of them tried to refute any point in the neg; they just negged the whole thread. Rather than talk about how we view these things, some would rather they not be talked about at all, ever.

That brings up a larger question -- what kind of people is it that wants to shut down entire dialogue? What does it say when you'd rather tell (what you perceive to be) an opponent to STFU, rather than have the courage to actually engage in the conversation we obviously need to have? Is it insecurity, or just intellectual laziness? In one sense I see it as a manifestation of the raw emotion with which some approach this topic as if it's all they have. We can't make rational judgements out of emotion.

As I said to a poster last night, this list and the resources behind it were not done overnight; so it's not necessary to jump on it, positively or negatively in five minutes, without due diligence -- it's not a race. The message board isn't going anywhere, so let's take the time to talk and ponder what we're saying and why we're saying it. Lashing out with emotional outbursts is counterproductive and makes no point. When we construct our points rationally/calmly, we can finally stop wasting time on all that crap.

The sad fact is you're dealing with selfish, uneducated, dishonest people who lack the ability or intelligence to have an honest discussion about this issue.

They only care about preserving their ability to keep their toys so that their fantasy of playing out a Red Dawn scenario against their own government can live on in their warped minds.

They're all snipers who never miss and taking away their guns is taking away the very identity they've created of themselves in their own minds. This is why a logical discussion can not take place.

well that and a little thing called a constitutional right. but we all know how those are absolutely meaningless to liberals.

 

[Saigon]

please, they are the new liberal standard. of course they cant show any link to the placement of strict gun laws and a reduction of homicides.

Are you sure?

Try and think a little bit about what you post, Spoonman.

 

[Pogo]

I am not going to say these figures are perfect because I haven't looked at the methodology - BUT, I have read research with excellent peer-reviewed statistical methodology conducted at Harvard - and the conclusions were broadly similar.

I suggest reading some of the Harvard research before attacking these too harshly.

These were obviously thrown together by a hack trying to push an agenda, you can't come up with accurate numbers looking at only 626 cases that had injuries and come up with the conclusions represented in the article. I'm just calling BS when I see it and this is BS. EDIT: I simply took his numbers and applied them to the country as a whole to show how far out they were.

The OP is utter bullshit.

And gainsaying is not an argument. Pick something and be specific. "is utter bullshit" doesn't make a statement. Again there's no hurry here, this is not some kind of race. Take your time.

FWIW we established last night that the poster with the "626 cases in three cities" had been looking at the wrong link, and it was actually several thousand cases over 50 states. It's back there in the early posts from last night. Take the time.

 

[RDD_1210]

a lot of good the laws do. ooh i know. lets make more laws and just pretend we are solving a problem

We need the right laws. Like they have in numerous other countries that have figured out which laws are needed and how to enforce them.

You fail again.

funny when we had pretty much no laws we had far less issues. keep on failing, that's your motto

Link? Of course not. You don't need to base anything you say on actual facts.

 

[Spoonman]

Australia Gun Laws Provided No Extra Safety | Wall Street Journal

Weird, given the homicide rate fell significantly...

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

one question, why does the data in all of your charts differ?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well here it is -- it was only a matter of time:

Today, 12:16 AM

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -583 reputation points from The Rabbi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
dunce

Regards,
The Rabbi

This is a first; I actually got negged for creating a topic. No discussion, no exchange, just a straight neg from a rhetorical pissant so drowning in his own insecurities that he just wants to shut people up. Too much of a spineless coward to debate. This is how afraid some people are of facing their hangups I guess.

Is this typical of the Right? Or of rabbis? Or just those who don't know baseball from their ass? You tell me.

Anybody else have the balls to discuss this without running to the neg machine like a little girl? (meant figuratively of course)

Actually this is illutrative; TheCrybabbi is illustrating the point that "gun nuts" go to their armamental paraphernalia to make up for the part of "gun nuts" that isn't "gun" -- and in the process demonstrate the whole fallacy of gun abuse: "shoot first, ask questions later". Literally.

Pogo,

Rabbi did exactly the same thing to me, with exactly the same comment. I simply put him on "ignore". His entire point of view is that anyone who disagrees with him is a dunce. He doesn't get any deeper than that.

 

[Spoonman]

We need the right laws. Like they have in numerous other countries that have figured out which laws are needed and how to enforce them.

You fail again.

funny when we had pretty much no laws we had far less issues. keep on failing, that's your motto

Link? Of course not. You don't need to base anything you say on actual facts.

i can just link any one of your posts to show your failure

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi -

This is the context.

If you can accept that this chart is accurate, then you simply have to ask what is going wrong with guns in the US and how the problem can be addressed.

Denial of the problem is exactly what led the US to the position it holds on that chart.

Tbat is not the context. That is another factoid which is meaningless in the absence of context.
So far no one has advocated any measure that has shown any promise of reducing gun violence as opposed to merely sticking it to lawful gun owners.

Countries that do not allow gun ownership have lower murder rates.

Like South Africa and Mexico?
Fail.

 

[Spoonman]

Well here it is -- it was only a matter of time:

Today, 12:16 AM

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -583 reputation points from The Rabbi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
dunce

Regards,
The Rabbi

This is a first; I actually got negged for creating a topic. No discussion, no exchange, just a straight neg from a rhetorical pissant so drowning in his own insecurities that he just wants to shut people up. Too much of a spineless coward to debate. This is how afraid some people are of facing their hangups I guess.

Is this typical of the Right? Or of rabbis? Or just those who don't know baseball from their ass? You tell me.

Anybody else have the balls to discuss this without running to the neg machine like a little girl? (meant figuratively of course)

Actually this is illutrative; TheCrybabbi is illustrating the point that "gun nuts" go to their armamental paraphernalia to make up for the part of "gun nuts" that isn't "gun" -- and in the process demonstrate the whole fallacy of gun abuse: "shoot first, ask questions later". Literally.

Pogo,

Rabbi did exactly the same thing to me, with exactly the same comment. I simply put him on "ignore". His entire point of view is that anyone who disagrees with him is a dunce. He doesn't get any deeper than that.

hmmmm, i disagree with you so i'll just ignore you.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

please, they are the new liberal standard. of course they cant show any link to the placement of strict gun laws and a reduction of homicides.

Are you sure?

Try and think a little bit about what you post, Spoonman.

You can thank Liberal cities like Chicago for national statistics like that.


.

 

[RDD_1210]

More dancing around the fact that you think America would be better off a gun-free society.


.

It would.

Australia Gun Laws Provided No Extra Safety | Wall Street Journal


.

From your own link....

"In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s"

Woops!

 

[Spoonman]

Tbat is not the context. That is another factoid which is meaningless in the absence of context.
So far no one has advocated any measure that has shown any promise of reducing gun violence as opposed to merely sticking it to lawful gun owners.

Countries that do not allow gun ownership have lower murder rates.

Like South Africa and Mexico?
Fail.

maybe he should take a stroll through the streets of brazil

hey remember when they banned guns in rwanda because they were worried about tribal retaliations?

 

[Pogo]

--- and if you actually read them, there is nothing in the link, or the OP, or in any of my posts anywhere, that suggests anything about gun grabbing, gun control, or the Second Amendment. Absolutely zero. What there is is a plugged-in assumption. I can't fathom what's so difficult about reading actual words on a page without plugging in others that are not there. This is Strawman writ large. Strawman is not debate; it's the opposite.

I opened this thread up last night around midnight and it's got 130 posts, so to me that's mission accomplished, since the mission was to open a dialogue about how we view these things; people are talking. Whether any of us are hearing is quite another hurdle, but it's not gonna happen if we plug in our own fantasies of "here's what you really mean". That's just perpetuating ignorance.

One other note about this conversation and the fear of having it: I've been negged three times (so far) just for starting this dialogue, i.e. for the thread itself. I would guess they're all from the " right" -- one of them (California Girl) I've never heard of or intetracted with at all and she's got her inbox turned off so I can't even ask what her basis was. Not one of these lifted a finger to come into the thread and debate a particular point; not one of them tried to refute any point in the neg; they just negged the whole thread. Rather than talk about how we view these things, some would rather they not be talked about at all, ever.

That brings up a larger question -- what kind of people is it that wants to shut down entire dialogue? What does it say when you'd rather tell (what you perceive to be) an opponent to STFU, rather than have the courage to actually engage in the conversation we obviously need to have? Is it insecurity, or just intellectual laziness? In one sense I see it as a manifestation of the raw emotion with which some approach this topic as if it's all they have. We can't make rational judgements out of emotion.

As I said to a poster last night, this list and the resources behind it were not done overnight; so it's not necessary to jump on it, positively or negatively in five minutes, without due diligence -- it's not a race. The message board isn't going anywhere, so let's take the time to talk and ponder what we're saying and why we're saying it. Lashing out with emotional outbursts is counterproductive and makes no point. When we construct our points rationally/calmly, we can finally stop wasting time on all that crap.

The sad fact is you're dealing with selfish, uneducated, dishonest people who lack the ability or intelligence to have an honest discussion about this issue.

They only care about preserving their ability to keep their toys so that their fantasy of playing out a Red Dawn scenario against their own government can live on in their warped minds.

They're all snipers who never miss and taking away their guns is taking away the very identity they've created of themselves in their own minds. This is why a logical discussion can not take place.

well that and a little thing called a constitutional right. but we all know how those are absolutely meaningless to liberals.

Strange conclusion since nothing was proposed here about any Constitutional rights at all. On the contrary, opposing the idea of even having the debate (see above) is disrespecting the First Amendment. So let's be clear about who stands where on the Constitution. Discuss.

 

[Spoonman]

It would.

Australia Gun Laws Provided No Extra Safety | Wall Street Journal


.

From your own link....

"In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s"

Woops!

pretty much what the usa has done since letting the assualt weapons ban expire - Next

 

[Ernie S.]

yet you will try to compare japan with the USA which are even more different societies. sorry your double standard fail is rejected

No one has mentioned Japan on this thread except you.

It is logical to compare the US with other large, developed western economies - Germany, France, the UK, Canada, perhaps Australia and Holland.

Less so with Switzerland, Japan, Fiji or China.

Why would Holland fit and not Switzerland?

 

[RDD_1210]

funny when we had pretty much no laws we had far less issues. keep on failing, that's your motto

Link? Of course not. You don't need to base anything you say on actual facts.

i can just link any one of your posts to show your failure

So you don't have a link again is what you're saying.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well here it is -- it was only a matter of time:

Today, 12:16 AM

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -583 reputation points from The Rabbi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
dunce

Regards,
The Rabbi

This is a first; I actually got negged for creating a topic. No discussion, no exchange, just a straight neg from a rhetorical pissant so drowning in his own insecurities that he just wants to shut people up. Too much of a spineless coward to debate. This is how afraid some people are of facing their hangups I guess.

Is this typical of the Right? Or of rabbis? Or just those who don't know baseball from their ass? You tell me.

Anybody else have the balls to discuss this without running to the neg machine like a little girl? (meant figuratively of course)

Actually this is illutrative; TheCrybabbi is illustrating the point that "gun nuts" go to their armamental paraphernalia to make up for the part of "gun nuts" that isn't "gun" -- and in the process demonstrate the whole fallacy of gun abuse: "shoot first, ask questions later". Literally.

Pogo,

Rabbi did exactly the same thing to me, with exactly the same comment. I simply put him on "ignore". His entire point of view is that anyone who disagrees with him is a dunce. He doesn't get any deeper than that.

hmmmm, i disagree with you so i'll just ignore you.

I would pretty much expect you to do that, if I told you that you were a dunce, or stupid, or an idiot, or retarded, or any other of dozens of deragatory personal names. I never do that, but, feel free to do as you please. That works for me!

 

[Spoonman]

The sad fact is you're dealing with selfish, uneducated, dishonest people who lack the ability or intelligence to have an honest discussion about this issue.

They only care about preserving their ability to keep their toys so that their fantasy of playing out a Red Dawn scenario against their own government can live on in their warped minds.

They're all snipers who never miss and taking away their guns is taking away the very identity they've created of themselves in their own minds. This is why a logical discussion can not take place.

well that and a little thing called a constitutional right. but we all know how those are absolutely meaningless to liberals.

Strange conclusion since nothing was proposed here about any Constitutional rights at all. On the contrary, opposing the idea of even having the debate (see above) is disrespecting the First Amendment. So let's be clear about who stands where on the Constitution. Discuss.

no, it isn't a strange conclusion. what is a strange conclusion is assuming we would be willing to give up our rights. see that is the crux of the issue.