Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

That´s more of an example about stupid implemented gun laws than an example for non compliance. I agree with you, gun control has to be thought through and with a proper incentive. I understand that there´s quite the gun culture and gun control should be implemented with that in mind. However i really doubt that the vast majority of people will risk their lifes just to not have their guns registered.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not a concern of risking their lives from the government, but a concern about the government confiscating them later or making it ether very expensive or intrusive to own them later. And the real concern for their lives is from the criminals who would take it. And as the links have noted, the real concern is the state is trying to make them do something the Constitution gives them the right to own in the first place. People have and will refuse to comply with a law they strongly disagree with. The distrust of the government here at this time is that strong.

[lockedout]

Any number is a tragedy, but that 94 is only a tiny fraction of the 5444 accidental deaths from all sources for the same 0-17 age range.

Yeah but if every gun was confiscated (mind you only law abiding people would turn them in) then those 94 kids would be alive! It's safe to believe that many more people would die though due to not being able to protect themselves and their families, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. But hey think of the children!

[Eroginous]

I´m asking for back up of your opinion.

Then what would be the point in sharing my opinion? If all you want is 'evidence,' why bother even posting here? Go scour the Googlez for your precious studies and avoid this thread, which is obviously full of people who don't agree with you in the first place.

Something that´s not just anecdotal evidence, 'common sense' or anything alike. You can´t be talking about real world and then think you can figure out everything on you own. We´d still be in the dark ages if we´d be doing it like that.

Dozens of studies? Go ahead.

The obvious point you keep on missing is that there's a pretty large disconnect between the real world and the World According to Studies About Gun Violence. You continue to argue based on the premise of studies you weren't involved in, basing the entirety of your opinion on the results of these studies, which are the opinions of the (glorified) researchers themselves. If you can't see the logical inconsistency between 'Here's a study' and 'my opinion is correct because X study confirms my bias,' then I don't know what to tell you.

There's a much larger problem than gun violence here in the US. First and foremost, the presence of money in politics. This money becomes a power source of the wealthy to influence public policy despite what may in fact be best for the public. When it's possible to purchase the political capital needed to pass or prevent the passage of certain legislature, regardless of what is actually needed, that becomes a huge burden to the people who inhabit this country. Additionally, the solution to a major problem (or what's perceived as a major problem, in this case) is never as simple as the passage of X, Y, or Z laws.

And therein lies the rub: Politicians will always make it seem like the passage of laws will fix the problem. That, and they'll always highlight their pet project as the Most Important Problem We Need To Fix Right This Moment. So here we have people like you parroting this insanity, causing threads like this one to reach 2.1k pages of zero consensus by either side. When I decide not to buy into a study it's not because I'm 'ignorant,' 'scientifically illiterate,' or any other trigger word you kids want to throw at me to invalidate my opinion. Quite simply, I don't buy into studies because I'm a skeptic who needs more than just the opinions of researchers in order to believe something. I remain skeptical until there's a compelling reason to believe something. Not just 'hey, here's a study, it agrees with my point of view, so I must be right.' Sorry, that's not compelling. That's just your opinion backed by the opinion of some random group being paid to produce a study that aligns with the agenda of the political party funding the study.

The final problem here is how you and others seem to value studies. They have no inherent value. They are the product of people using self selected methods to derive results from data sets. Data which can come from a variety of sources which may or may not be reliable, depending on the methodology of a study. The value of a study depends on the reliability of a study when applied to reality. Does the conclusion match the data? How much of the data is reflected in the actual study? Are the researchers cherry picking data that suits their agenda? Does the data come from a poll or some other easily skewed/unreliable source? Has the data been independently verified to be factual?

These are the reasons why I don't automatically buy into the bullshit frequently spewed here.

And right after you wrote how you could bring up dozens of legitimate points and studies you outright dismiss studies as pseudo science not worth taking seriously.

I guess you missed the part of my post that was meant to be hypothetical as a reason for me not doing what you and other people keep doing here. The people who conduct studies are not scientists (except in the cases where scientists are conducting a study), so the implications that studies are evidence, are erroneous. It has been implied numerous times here that studies are inherently scientific, that those conducting them are scientists, and that anyone who disagrees with a study is a science denier or scientifically illiterate.

Studies are not the be-all, end-all of science. Hell, studies aren't even a methodology of science. Therefore, they are pseudoscience, especially when thrown around here with the authority you kids pretend they have.

What are you even talking about? What do you think is my "stance against gun ownership"? Wait let me guess: 'BAN GUNS'. Right?

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit? The foundation of this thread is a strong stance against gun ownership, perpetrated by people who present varying degrees of anti gun rhetoric. We have the soft ballers who just want stronger gun control policies. We have people who want more extreme actions taken, including changes to the second amendment and policies relating to mental health. Then we have the fanatics who want guns banned outright.

My statement wasn't necessarily directed at you, it was more of a general response to the sentiment found here which has spawned a 2.1k page thread. If there wasn't a strong stance against gun ownership present in this thread, it wouldn't even exist.

But thanks for attempting to put words in my mouth?

[Mayhem]

But thanks for attempting to put words in my mouth?

This is probably the most ironic ending your post could´ve had. After you did nothing but putting words in my mouth you end your post with this gem.

Comedy gold

For everything else i don´t know if i should be offended by your ignorance or entertained. All i know is that you have not the slightest clue what my stance on the matter is and obviously haven´t read anything i´ve posted so far in this thread.

Just a hint for future discussions, if you don´t want your statements to be perceived as directed at someone, try avoiding words like you and your.

[Eroginous]

This is probably the most ironic ending your post could´ve had. After you did nothing but putting words in my mouth you end your post with this gem.

Comedy gold

For everything else i don´t know if i should be offended by your ignorance or entertained. All i know is that you have not the slightest clue what my stance on the matter is and obviously haven´t read anything i´ve posted so far in this thread.

Just a hint for future discussions, if you don´t want your statements to be perceived as directed at someone, try avoiding words like you and your.

Feel free to quote all the instances where I 'put words into your mouth.'

Something tells me that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also, I don't really much care if you're offended or entertained. I came here to discuss a topic, not appease you. Feel free to make a post discussing your stance on gun control, it would be a delightful read.

[lockedout]

Feel free to quote all the instances where I 'put words into your mouth.'

Something tells me that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also, I don't really much care if you're offended or entertained. I came here to discuss a topic, not appease you.

Don't feel bad he put quotes around words I never said and then told me they mean the same thing so it doesn't matter. I don't think he knows what a quote is.

[Mayhem]

Feel free to quote all the instances where I 'put words into your mouth.'

all you want is 'evidence,'

basing the entirety of your opinion on the results of these studies

'Here's a study' and 'my opinion is correct because X study confirms my bias,'

like you parroting this insanity

'hey, here's a study, it agrees with my point of view, so I must be right.'

Reading all of that again almost gave me a headache.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't feel bad he put quotes around words I never said and then told me they mean the same thing so it doesn't matter. I don't think he knows what a quote is.

Don´t worry it´s in my signature. All i did was reduce the group of people you were talking about to only include the ones that actually go through with suicide. I do wonder if you´d manage to phrase a better explaination for "weak minded people" than the circular logic you came up with.

[Eroginous]

Reading all of that again almost gave me a headache.

I knew it: the phrase 'putting words in my mouth' doesn't mean what you think it means.

all you want is 'evidence,'

Was an 'if then' statement. The big part of which is 'if,' which you conveniently left out of what you quoted from me.

basing the entirety of your opinion on the results of these studies

This was me pointing out the way you've behaved on the forums. Not 'putting words in your mouth.'

'Here's a study' and 'my opinion is correct because X study confirms my bias,'

I'm not sure how this qualifies as 'putting words in your mouth.' All I was doing was illustrating a difference between the way you should be treating studies and the way you actually are treating them.

like you parroting this insanity

Again, I'm not 'putting words in your mouth' so much as discussing the behavior of people like you (PRE 9-11, The Batman, ect).

'hey, here's a study, it agrees with my point of view, so I must be right.'

Really not sure how this qualifies as 'putting words in your mouth.' I didn't claim you said it. Rather, this statement is the general sentiment I've observed from your side in regard to studies.

So here's an example of what 'putting words in your mouth' looks like:

What do you think is my "stance against gun ownership"? Wait let me guess: 'BAN GUNS'. Right?

[Mayhem]

I knew it: the phrase 'putting words in my mouth' doesn't mean what you think it means.



Was an 'if then' statement. The big part of which is 'if,' which you conveniently left out of what you quoted from me.



This was me pointing out the way you've behaved on the forums. Not 'putting words in your mouth.'



I'm not sure how this qualifies as 'putting words in your mouth.' All I was doing was illustrating a difference between the way you should be treating studies and the way you actually are treating them.



Again, I'm not 'putting words in your mouth' so much as discussing the behavior of people like you (PRE 9-11, The Batman, ect).



Really not sure how this qualifies as 'putting words in your mouth.' I didn't claim you said it. Rather, this statement is the general sentiment I've observed from your side in regard to studies.

So here's an example of what 'putting words in your mouth' looks like:

Wait so when you write stuff about me like 'it agrees with my point of view so i must be right' and 'my opinion is correct because of study x' it´s not putting words in my mouth but when i ask you a question it´s putting words in your mouth? Interesting. Of course you could´ve just answered the questions.

[Eroginous]

Wait so when you write stuff about me like 'it agrees with my point of view so i must be right' and 'my opinion is correct because of study x' it´s not putting words in my mouth but when i ask you a question it´s putting words in your mouth? Interesting. Of course you could´ve just answered the questions.

The phrase 'putting words in my mouth' is an idiom that means 'to interpret what someone said so that the words mean what you want and not what the speaker wanted, to tell someone what you think they mean or want to say, or to say what you think someone else should say.' None of the things you quoted of mine were me putting words in your mouth.

[Mayhem]

The phrase 'putting words in my mouth' is an idiom that means 'to interpret what someone said so that the words mean what you want and not what the speaker wanted, to tell someone what you think they mean or want to say, or to say what you think someone else should say.' None of the things you quoted of mine were me putting words in your mouth.

That is exactly what you are doing!

[Eroginous]

That is exactly what you are doing!

How so?

I think you need to reread my posts and come back with the correct answer.

[Mayhem]

How so?

I think you need to reread my posts and come back with the correct answer.

Yeah, i´m still waiting for the answer on those two questions.

[Eroginous]

Yeah, i´m still waiting for the answer on those two questions.

I just asked you to explain how I'm putting words into your mouth, based on the things you've recently quoted from me. Either you're unable or unwilling to do that.

Also, what questions?

[Mayhem]

I just asked you to explain how I'm putting words into your mouth, based on the things you've recently quoted from me. Either you're unable or unwilling to do that.

Also, what questions?

The two questions that triggered this. I already told you how you put words into my mouth, you even explained it yourself, you´re quite obviously unwilling to see it.

[Deleted]

This occurred yesterday.

"Police shot and killed a man Saturday after he turned violent as they tried to arrest him at an East Village halfway house, authorities said.

one of the officers fired one shot at David, striking him in the torso, police said."

http://nypost.com/2015/04/25/man-cri...-east-village/'

Is it just me or is the police getting more and more bloodthirsty in this country??
The job of the police is to protect the citizens, not to kill them. They should be used to getting a few hits here and there and shouldnt answer with a fucking headshot. Holy shit..

[Nerevar]

No, it's just that the media gives these things more attention than they used to since that's what people eat nowadays.

[Karlz0rz]

This occurred yesterday.

"Police shot and killed a man Saturday after he turned violent as they tried to arrest him at an East Village halfway house, authorities said.

one of the officers fired one shot at David, striking him in the torso, police said."

http://nypost.com/2015/04/25/man-cri...-east-village/'

Is it just me or is the police getting more and more bloodthirsty in this country??
The job of the police is to protect the citizens, not to kill them. They should be used to getting a few hits here and there and shouldnt answer with a fucking headshot. Holy shit..

Haha!

Ok, so he robbed a place, then turned violent?

Good fucking job officers! We need less people like that in the world .
If only I could shake the hands of these cleansing angels of purity...

[theostrichsays]

When they approached David on the building’s sixth floor, he fled out a window and down a fire escape.
But to get away, he had to re-enter the building’s first floor lobby — where the two officers were waiting for him.
David fought the officers for five minutes, and some of the fight was caught on video, cops said.
During the struggle, David — who police sources said had a record of arrests for violent offenses — grabbed one of the detectives’ radios, and used it to strike both officers in the head.
David hit the officers so hard, the radio broke, cops said.

It doesn't sound like they went in guns blazing mate.

Odd this was moved but this whole attempt Vodka is bullshit at flamebaiting:

Then, one of the officers fired one shot at David, striking him in the torso, police said.

When you said:

there and shouldnt answer with a fucking headshot

You're as fair and impartial as Fox News congrats man.

[chazus]

shouldnt answer with a fucking headshot. Holy shit..

O_o

Nobody was shot in the head.

Also, if you rob people, beat them, get in a fight with officers, beat them over the head with a radio... Yes you are going to get shot. That's... actually a pretty normal reaction.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, so he robbed a place, then turned violent?

He beat and robbed a woman, and beat up one of the officers with a potentially deadly weapon.