Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Being doxxed by fanatics/lunatics on the internet is a very real thing, especially in the anti-gun community.

Do you have examples of people in the "anti-gun community" doxing other people? Since it's a "very real thing", you should have plenty of examples.

We can discuss the study once it's finally released to the public.

Oh good. I can't wait for the armchair-forum-posters to dissect the study and figure out why then think it's wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm in agreement with you that the study should not be spouted as gospel until people actually get to read it, however your back tracking over your initial comment about another website that had "torn apart the study" (your actual wording) makes you seem like you are talking out of your rectum...

He's also refusing to link to that website out of irrational fear.

Or more likely, it doesn't exist.

[Tinykong]

So you didn't say:

I'm in agreement with you that the study should not be spouted as gospel until people actually get to read it, however your back tracking over your initial comment about another website that had "torn apart the study" (your actual wording) makes you seem like you are talking out of your rectum...

I consider it "torn apart," since the study is claiming total numbers (60 more people dead) when per capita rates are the only thing that really matter, and those rates don't agree with the assertion the study is making.

Do you have examples of people in the "anti-gun community" doxing other people? Since it's a "very real thing", you should have plenty of examples.

Oh good. I can't wait for the armchair-forum-posters to dissect the study and figure out why then think it's wrong.

He's also refusing to link to that website out of irrational fear.

Or more likely, it doesn't exist.

I like how you have abandoned the premature touting of the study, and are now focusing on the doxxing/other website strawman. Nice.

I won't link to the site, but, I posted the rebuttal's logic above.

[Deleted]

i never condoned shooting someone for breaking into a parked car, i merely mentioned that his state allows it. I also didnt "worship prisoner beatings". You really pulled that out of your ass...keep digging that hole though.

Sorry to keep doing this to people, but we need some consistancy on these forums! You do make it far too easy to point out where you contradict yourself over and over again. See below:

You also have the culture of extreme respect out there...that and the fact that when criminals are caught the police beat them within an inch of their life and their justice system actually works. Criminals here are usually let off easy so they dont get hurt in the feels.

That almost sounds like you agree with criminals being beaten "within an inch of their life", as you follow it up with how their justice system works... Maybe not "worshiping" prisoner beatings, but it seems you have no issue with it?

Please, don't state you haven't said something when people can just quote you from other threads. There is no fun in that...

[TZucchini]

I like how you have abandoned the premature touting of the study, and are now focusing on the doxxing/other website strawman.

I haven't abandoned anything. I've discussed it about as far as I could with you. I still find the conclusion of the study to be relevant. You don't. There's nothing more to discuss.


Now, once again you've decided to make a claim, and when asked for evidence, you've failed to produce it.

Let's try again:

Being doxxed by fanatics/lunatics on the internet is a very real thing, especially in the anti-gun community.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Since it's a "very real thing", you should have plenty of examples.

[Tinykong]

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Since it's a "very real thing", you should have plenty of examples.

You want me to provide you with proof people have been doxxed on the internet?

LMGTFY.

Here's one example I can recall off the top of my head:

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10...-vigilanteism/

Do you trust the moderators of this forum (or others, like reddit) with your livelihood/personal life?

I certainly don't.

[TZucchini]

You want me to provide you with proof people have been doxxed on the internet?

LMGTFY/

especially in the anti-gun community.

A single incident is all I'm looking for.

[Tinykong]

A single incident is all I'm looking for.

There simply isn't going to be the kind of evidence that is going to satisfy you. Browse /r/guncontrol or /r/gunsarecool, people get shadowbanned for doxxing from time to time, last one I can recall was ~4-6 months ago. Those threads get almost instantly deleted, so I can't link you one (even though you're going to argue that is proof it can't happen.) Fanatics on both sides of the issue use the tactic as a weapon.

Considering the potential risk, I'm not going to indulge you. We'll discuss the study (and your premature lemming's position on it's authority) when it's released.

[Deleted]

The more this discussion goes on the more I enjoy tinykong's signature

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The more this discussion goes on the more I enjoy tinykong's signature

Pure baiting on your part.

[Tinykong]

The more this discussion goes on the more I enjoy tinykong's signature

Do you actually have anything substantive to offer to the discussion?

Edit: I also believe you missed the part where I provided the logic behind the other website's rebuttal of the study. Given your post history, I hope you now understand that per capita rates are more relevant than totals, unless you want to make an appeal to emotion argument.

[TZucchini]

OK. Would you like to retract your statement that the anti-gun community is especially keen on doxing people? You know. Since you can't find a single incident of it happening. Or is this just another one of your opinions?

[Deleted]

Pure baiting on your part.

It takes guts to say that actually. Like I mean, iron balls really.

[Tinykong]

OK. Would you like to retract your statement that the anti-gun community is especially keen on doxing people? You know. Since you can't find a single incident of it happening. Or is this just another one of your opinions?

So, you're going to go with what I suspected you would?

"Since you can't give me a link, it's never happened."

I'm not sure what's more funny, arguing a fallacy or expecting someone to provide you with irrefutable proof of illegal conduct on the internet.

[Deleted]

Do you actually have anything substantive to offer to the discussion?

Edit: I also believe you missed the part where I provided the logic behind the other website's rebuttal of the study. Given your post history, I hope you now understand that per capita rates are more relevant than totals, unless you want to make an appeal to emotion argument.

I'm actually just enjoying watching as per now. You're doing exactly the same thing you were doing with me x pages ago and it's interesting to see how someone else reacts to your claims.

[TZucchini]

Edit: I also believe you missed the part where I provided the logic behind the other website's rebuttal of the study. Given your post history, I hope you now understand that per capita rates are more relevant than totals, unless you want to make an appeal to emotion argument.

Except that's completely false.

"Coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri," said Prof Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Wow. I was able to debunk your special website's total destruction of the study in one fell swoop.

[Tinykong]

Except that's completely false.

"Coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri," said Prof Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Wow. I was able to debunk your special website's total destruction of the study in one fell swoop.

By quoting a researcher who's [b]data set hasn't been published, and is contradictory to publicly available statistics.[b]

[TZucchini]

So, you're going to go with what I suspected you would?

"Since you can't give me a link, it's never happened."

I'm not sure what's more funny, arguing a fallacy or expecting someone to provide you with irrefutable proof of illegal conduct on the internet.

You made the claim that it was a very real thing. You failed to provide a single example of it happening.

Something that's "very real" usually exists. You've failed to provide evidence for existence.

Don't blame me for calling you out, yet again.

[Tinykong]

I'm actually just enjoying watching as per now. You're doing exactly the same thing you were doing with me x pages ago and it's interesting to see how someone else reacts to your claims.

So you don't have anything to offer?

[Deleted]

Except that's completely false.

"Coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri," said Prof Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Wow. I was able to debunk your special website's total destruction of the study in one fell swoop.

Pre 9-11 don't you know? the important thing is saying it, not backing it up.

- - - Updated - - -

So you don't have anything to offer?

Can you read or do you want me to spell it out for you?

[TZucchini]

By quoting a researcher who's [b]data set hasn't been published, and is contradictory to publicly available statistics.[b]

I completely debunked your magical website with 2 seconds of reading. I'd be upset too. /shrug