Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wells]

You do it, a lot, come in to refute shit that has already been proven. Simply because you may read the last 2-3 pages of the thread and think you are caught up.

You can't keep bringing up the claim and refusing the back it up. Either the discussion is over or it isn't, but you can't bring it up then claim its already close when you're asking for evidence. That's not intellectual honesty.

Also don't confuse "I think I'm right" with "It is proven". I suspect you do that a lot.

[Schattenlied]

So that stats haven't been posted? Which is it?

I just told you that they have, it's like you're ignoring what I'm saying for the sake of being difficult.

Read

The

Thread.

I have nothing more to say to you two, stop trying to play devil's advocate, don't read the last 2 pages of a thread a think you know everything about it, go get caught up and stop acting high and mighty.

[Todgruppe]

You can't keep bringing up the claim and refusing the back it up. Either the discussion is over or it isn't, but you can't bring it up then claim its already close when you're asking for evidence. That's not intellectual honesty.

It's when the evidence can simply be looked at in a static conversation that hasn't changed, but because of laziness you choose not to, and since you want to be a lazy tool I'll give you a hint the page it is on starts with a 3!!

[Wells]

The thread is 51 pages. Your demands are no more rational than demanding people google it for themselves. If you want to make claims be prepared to provide evidence rather than demanding people go find evidence for your claim.

No one is playing Devil's Advocate. We're just trying to get you to do what you learn to do in a 7th grade science report and cite a claim.

It's when the evidence can simply be looked at in a static conversation that hasn't changed, but because of laziness you choose not to, and since you want to be a lazy tool I'll give you a hint the page it is on starts with a 3!!

wait I'm lazy because I don't want to look up evidence for your claim you refuse to provide?

[Todgruppe]

The thread is 51 pages. Your demands are no more rational than demanding people google it for themselves. If you want to make claims be prepared to provide evidence rather than demanding people go find evidence for your claim.

No one is playing Devil's Advocate. We're just trying to get you to do what you learn to do in a 7th grade science report and cite a claim.



wait I'm lazy because I don't want to look up evidence for your claim you refuse to provide?

Yes, you are the website is literally IN this thread, which is an on going conversation, which can easily be caught up on. I am not going to reiterate a point that has already been discussed because you choose not to read the entirety of the thread.

[Wells]

So tell me what page its on? Going through page by page would take 10 minutes. I don't need to spend 10 minutes looking up your data for you.

[obdigore]

It's when the evidence can simply be looked at in a static conversation that hasn't changed, but because of laziness you choose not to, and since you want to be a lazy tool I'll give you a hint the page it is on starts with a 3!!

Are we talking about the CDC study that says:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...guns-shut-down

"We started looking at gun violence as a public health problem at the CDC in the late 80s and early 90s." Rosenberg says. "The standard line from the NRA is that you should have a gun in your house to protect you."

The results of their study speak for themselves: not only does owning a gun not protect you, but it increases the risk of homicide for people in the home three times, and increases the risk of suicide five times.

That study? That had funding removed after extensive lobbying by the NRA?

Or we could talk about the fact that Guns are the second leading cause of deaths among citizens aged 10-19? http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchi...xecSummary.pdf

Or we could talk about how the NRA blocks all scientific research into the cause and effects of firearms in the US? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Or we could talk about how the US continues to have more and more firearms, in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and yet the level of violence has gone up instead of down, seeming to disagree with any statements that 'more armed people means less mass murderers'?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...igation?page=1

[Todgruppe]

Are we talking about the CDC study that says:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...guns-shut-down
That study? That had funding removed after extensive lobbying by the NRA?

Or we could talk about the fact that Guns are the second leading cause of deaths among citizens aged 10-19? http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchi...xecSummary.pdf

Or we could talk about how the NRA blocks all scientific research into the cause and effects of firearms in the US? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Or we could talk about how the US continues to have more and more firearms, in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and yet the level of violence has gone up instead of down, seeming to disagree with any statements that 'more armed people means less mass murderers'?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...igation?page=1

None of which has anything to do with your original "problem" of crime prevention by firearms.

[obdigore]

None of which has anything to do with your original "problem" of crime prevention by firearms.

My problem? I didn't claim that a more armed populace is a safer populace. Which the last article talks about, ironically enough.

[Judson]

I'm pretty sure this "Wells" guy is *snip*

He is pretty pointless to argue with since he will spend the entire argument discussing how you argue and not the issues themselves. He loves a "red herring" and will respond to almost everything you say with "wait, you mean I blah blah blah blah" which is just one of those "words in your mouth" questions..

<Infracted>
No idea if that was wells or not but naming another users wow character to put him in bad light is against forum rules, and so is posting just to insult another poster

[Raidenx]

Are we talking about the CDC study that says:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...guns-shut-down
That study? That had funding removed after extensive lobbying by the NRA?

Or we could talk about the fact that Guns are the second leading cause of deaths among citizens aged 10-19? http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchi...xecSummary.pdf

Or we could talk about how the NRA blocks all scientific research into the cause and effects of firearms in the US? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Or we could talk about how the US continues to have more and more firearms, in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and yet the level of violence has gone up instead of down, seeming to disagree with any statements that 'more armed people means less mass murderers'?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...igation?page=1

Irrelevant partisan crap, now here's the facts

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...can-t-be-right

[Wells]

No, that's not me, and the irony is pretty thick there.

[obdigore]

Irrelevant partisan crap, now here's the facts

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...can-t-be-right

You post partisan crap then claim I posted partisan crap. Excellent debate tactic, I applaud you.

Edit -> Ironically linking from one of the same sites I linked from. Hilarious. Note that less people have firearms but those that do have more firearms? Y/N? Kind of puts a giant hole in your theory there.

[Judson]

we could talk about how the US continues to have more and more firearms, in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and yet the level of violence has gone up instead of down

Umm..........

wouldn't that mean you want more people armed not less? talk about "shooting" holes in your own argument

[Wells]

Irrelevant partisan crap, now here's the facts

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...can-t-be-right

That's correlation, hardly a meaningful statistic.

But if we're going to go with correlation we could point out how we have a huge number of guns compared to other first world nations and are a lot less safe.

[Raidenx]

I'm pretty sure this "Wells" guy is Bensamr from my server (Thunderhorn)

He is pretty pointless to argue with since he will spend the entire argument discussing how you argue and not the issues themselves. He loves a "red herring" and will respond to almost everything you say with "wait, you mean I blah blah blah blah" which is just one of those "words in your mouth" questions..

Yeah, pretty much "I'll act like everything you say is a fallacy since Im the authority on them and I'll pretend that your point isn't more valid than mine in a passive aggressive tone that makes me seem like the reason of the conversation".

Better than huffpo commenters I guess

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 08:09 AM ----------

That's correlation, hardly a meaningful statistic.

But if we're going to go with correlation we could point out how we have a huge number of guns compared to other first world nations and are a lot less safe.

Read the facts in the first link, and then realize that while there isn't a causation between gun ownership and lower crime, there definitely is not an increase in crime with increased ownership

[Wells]

I love how when I say a guy should cite his claims everyone starts bitching about me. Bravo guys, well done.

@obdigore, yeah JustFacts annoys me because it takes some actual digging before you find out the guys who run it are largely right wing "free market" guys;

[Raidenx]

You post partisan crap then claim I posted partisan crap. Excellent debate tactic, I applaud you.

Edit -> Ironically linking from one of the same sites I linked from. Hilarious. Note that less people have firearms but those that do have more firearms? Y/N? Kind of puts a giant hole in your theory there.

Yeah. I'm done...lol

[obdigore]

Umm..........

wouldn't that mean you want more people armed not less? talk about "shooting" holes in your own argument

No, it wouldn't. Violence is much more related to social and economic pressures than gun ownership. The amount of violence a single person can do, however, is directly related to the tools they use, IE a person with a Bushmaster .223 is going to be able to do more damage to other people, more quickly, than someone with, say, a knife? A bat?

[Wells]

Read the facts in the first link, and then realize that while there isn't a causation between gun ownership and lower crime, there definitely is not an increase in crime with increased ownership

Honestly? I don't think guns really have anything to do with the crime rate. Either way. At least no in a meaningful way.

That's not to say some level of gun control isn't desirable.

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 08:12 AM ----------

Edit -> Ironically linking from one of the same sites I linked from. Hilarious. Note that less people have firearms but those that do have more firearms? Y/N? Kind of puts a giant hole in your theory there.

DailyKos is an aggregator. You cant compare a random blog post to a CDC study.