Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[THE Bigzoman]

Why didn't he just punch him?

Or live somewhere else?

Or use magic?

Ughh.

Why didn't he just shoot him in the leg to impair him?


Note: Post is meant to satirize comments on facebook and not towards anyone here. I just think this kind of idiocy hit a all time high with this story.

[Tinykong]

You. You've moved the goalposts.

The adolescents were not asked about illegal use of firearms for defensive purposes. It would only be illegal if you move the goalposts to include "unsupervised adolescents", which they didn't specifically ask.

All uses, except supervised/written permission, are illegal.

You moved the goal posts to claim the scope of the study was supervised legal uses.

You.

[TZucchini]

All uses, except supervised/written permission, are illegal.

Oh, OK. So there are some uses which are legal, correct?

So then the question "Have you ever brought out, shown, or used a gun against another person in self defense?" also encompasses those legal uses, correct?

So if the question entails legal and illegal uses, then the question isn't specifically asking about illegality.

Like I said. This isn't difficult.

[petej0]

Ughh.

Why didn't he just shoot him in the leg to impair him?


Note: Post is meant to satirize comments on facebook and not towards anyone here. I just think this kind of idiocy hit a all time high with this story.

People love to play armchair QB. I would have just huddled together and chanted "Like a good neighbor State Farm is there!" and ended up at a police station. Much quicker and no one gets hurt, but thats me.

[Tinykong]

Oh, OK. So there are some uses which are legal, correct?

So then the question "Have you ever brought out, shown, or used a gun against another person in self defense?" also encompasses those legal uses, correct?

So if the question entails legal and illegal uses, then the question isn't specifically asking about illegality.

Who said it was?

The entire point here is that the phone survey results are circumspect, as they are asking children to disclose criminal acts in front of their parents. That is different than calling someone's house and asking them if they like PRE-911's brand Texas Failsauce.

...which is the entire point of this discussion, which started with you trying to score points against lockedout for calling this bullshit "study" bullshit.

Like I said. This isn't difficult.

Sure seems like you're having a really hard time, probably why you're strawmanning and refusing to answer simple questions.

[THE Bigzoman]

People love to play armchair QB. I would have just huddled together and chanted "Like a good neighbor State Farm is there!" and ended up at a police station. Much quicker and no one gets hurt, but thats me.

This was good.

[Ghostpanther]

jesus christ can you at least once read what i´m writing? i´m not in favor of banning guns, get this in your head

great example you found yourself there, so the cops were unarmed i guess, because if they were armed they could´ve defended themselfes

- - - Updated - - -

I know you are not for banning ownership of guns. You just hate the idea it is a right over here in the US. The two cops who were murdered where sneaked up on by a scumbag who was carrying one illegally I bet. And the policemen in France, ( the two who got killed ) not sure in their case, but most do not carry a firearm because guns are strictly controlled there and there is suppose to not be a need to. :P

- - - Updated - - -

i agree, i thought you were arguing against this ^^

It would be the same if the house was locked and a person broke in and stole a firearm. Right? Or does it have to be in a safe to qualify for that?

[TZucchini]

...which is the entire point of this discussion, which started with you trying to score points against lockedout for calling this bullshit "study" bullshit.

I didn't "try" to score points. I did score points. I pointed out the hypocrisy of lockedout saying he doesn't trust studies that use randomized telephone surveys, while simultaneously linking randomized telephone surveys that he agrees with.

If you'd like to criticize the study with something more than your opinions, feel free. Meanwhile, randomized telephone surveys are used by professional organizations, and there's evidence to suggest that they accrue accurate results. Actual evidence. Not just opinions. Which is all you seem to have.

[Ghostpanther]

i wonder how insurance companies are able to verify such information

My insurance company does not require me to store my gun in a safe to be covered for lost due to being stolen. Just like if my car is stolen , even if it is not locked. They still will replace it.

[Tinykong]

I didn't "try" to score points. I did score points. I pointed out the hypocrisy of lockedout saying he doesn't trust studies that use randomized telephone surveys, while simultaneously linking randomized telephone surveys that he agrees with.

Is that what you think you did? Aww, how cute.

If you'd like to criticize the study with something more than your opinions, feel free. Meanwhile, randomized telephone surveys are used by professional organizations, and there's evidence to suggest that they accrue accurate results. Actual evidence. Not just opinions. Which is all you seem to have.

The study doesn't even attempt to validate these results. Do children consistently incriminate themselves in front of their parents?

Given your track record of confirmation bias I'm not surprised you're stroking this "study" so hard.

[TZucchini]

Is that what you think you did? Aww, how cute.

That's exactly what I did, yes. Felt good too.

The study doesn't even attempt to validate these results. Do children consistently incriminate themselves in front of their parents?

How do you know the adolescents were in front of their parents while on the phone? How do you know that the parents heard the questions that were being asked?

Again. Evidence is greater than opinions. I have evidence. You have opinions.

[Tinykong]

How do you know the adolescents were in front of their parents while on the phone? How do you know that the parents heard the questions that were being asked?

Again. Evidence is greater than opinions. I have evidence. You have opinions.

Because I read the link you Google-foo'd?

Parent's permission was received prior to interviewing the children. The burden is on you to prove that parents were not listening in on the interview if you want to claim the answers given were done in private and not influenced by the possibility of being punished.

Too bad the study doesn't have that information. Which is why it's circumspect bullshit.

All you have is more of your typical, lazy "www.google.com/canIfindastudytosupportmyopinion" confirmation bias blathering.

[TZucchini]

The burden is on you to prove that parents were not listening in on the interview if you want to claim the answers given were done in private and not influenced by the possibility of being punished.

You're asking me to prove a negative. You understand that, right? "Prove that parents were not listening."

Not only are you devoid of scientific evidence, but you're also devoid of scientific knowledge.

[Tinykong]

You're asking me to prove a negative. You understand that, right? "Prove that parents were not listening."

Not only are you devoid of scientific evidence, but you're also devoid of scientific knowledge.

You could have proved it, if the study was conducted correctly.

Confirmation bias, much?

[TZucchini]

You could have proved it, if the study was conducted correctly.

I'm sure Harvard's Department of Public Health could learn a lot from you Tiny. Maybe you should teach them how to conduct studies properly. You could teach them how to prove negatives while you're at it.

[TITAN308]

Ughh.

Why didn't he just shoot him in the leg to impair him?

Because the way the US Courts work the criminal who is shot in the leg can then seek disability which is paid by the tax payers and in a round about way, being paid by the person who shot him.

And further more may find a shyster lawyer able to convience a dumbass judge to allow him to sue the person who shot him.

If you can legally shoot someone then you have been granted the use of deadly force.

You don't use deadly force to wing the bad guy. I think this was some sort of thought pattern developed after someone watched to many old westerns or movies.

Cops don't shoot to impair bad guys, so citizens sure as hell shouldn't either.

[Tinykong]

I'm sure Harvard's Department of Public Health could learn a lot from you Tiny. Maybe you should teach them how to conduct studies properly. You could teach them how to prove negatives while you're at it.

An appeal to authority as well!

It's not "proving a negative" by conducting a study in which parents don't supervise children's responses, but rather, you can't prove it because the study is poorly conducted.

Confirmation bias, appeals to authority...care to try for the fallacy trifecta?

[Mayhem]

I know you are not for banning ownership of guns. You just hate the idea it is a right over here in the US. The two cops who were murdered where sneaked up on by a scumbag who was carrying one illegally I bet. And the policemen in France, ( the two who got killed ) not sure in their case, but most do not carry a firearm because guns are strictly controlled there and there is suppose to not be a need to. :P

you know, it would be alot easier if you´d read the stuff i´m posting and not make me have to repeat every other thing just for you again, you´d also would probably stop making stuff up, like what i hate or what i want

maybe you´d have a point if you took the time to look up what you´re trying to bring in as proof of some sorts

It would be the same if the house was locked and a person broke in and stole a firearm. Right? Or does it have to be in a safe to qualify for that?

we we´re talking about safe storage regulations/laws, i think you can figure this one out

My insurance company does not require me to store my gun in a safe to be covered for lost due to being stolen. Just like if my car is stolen , even if it is not locked. They still will replace it.

that wasn´t the argument at all

[TZucchini]

An appeal to authority as well!

It's not "proving a negative" by conducting a study in which parents don't supervise children's responses, but rather, you can't prove it because the study is poorly conducted.

Confirmation bias, appeals to authority...care to try for the fallacy trifecta?

Trusting a study conducted by an expert in the field, compared to the analysis of armchair forum-poster who doesn't have a shred of evidence, is not an appeal to authority.

I'm not saying the study is correct because Harvard conducted it, I'm saying that your analysis is complete shit comparatively.

[Tinykong]

Trusting a study conducted by an expert in the field, compared to the analysis of armchair forum-poster who doesn't have a shred of evidence, is not an appeal to authority.

I'm not saying the study is correct because Harvard conducted it, I'm saying that your analysis is complete shit comparatively.

You're saying the study was conducted correctly because it was conducted by an expert. That's an appeal to authority, champ.

Put one up on the board for Tinykong, scoring points all over PRE911 today. Feels good, man.

Am I anti-gunning correctly?