Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

In 9-11's defense I added that 2nd quote a minute or two later, didn't expect you guys to be so quick to respond lol.

The specific post is really irrelevant, imo. He's been vocal about reducing ownership for years. The first post hints at it (even though he deflected it as "sarcasm" despite him using his opinion as an example) but the second post really seals it up.

I wonder if he'll take a page from the anti-gun playbook and delete the post and claim he never said it.

[TZucchini]

Back peddle, away!

I guess this is an admission that you've now gone back, realized it was blatant sarcasm, and have run out of productive things to say.

Good.

No, their laws are not preventing criminals from accessing illegal firearms.

You have no idea whether or not that's true. The 70% number tells us nothing.

There could have been 10 firearm crimes, and 7 of them came from the United States. Meanwhile, in a country of millions, you'd say "Well, 70% of those guns were trafficked...therefore their laws are not working.

What a ridiculous statement. Again. What's their firearm homicide rate? Firearm suicide rate?

Keep on back peddling, you might just convince yourself:

Guess you missed my previous explanation as well:

Yes, I've spoken to reducing ownership. And to clarify, while additional restrictions and regulations might reduce the ownership rate, it would only do so by disenfranchising individuals that shouldn't (imo) have access to firearms to begin with. That would be the only ownership decrease that I'd actively seek.

[Tinykong]

I guess this is an admission that you've now gone back, realized it was blatant sarcasm, and have run out of productive things to say.

No, it wasn't. It was you, using your opinion, to create a "sarcastic" example of someone making a ludicrous claim.

Let's sum this up:

I guess flat out saying you don't care about ownership rates isn't good enough to prove it.

No, because it's contrary to the position you've been building for over two years.

Then provide a quote directly from me that supports your assumption. It shouldn't be difficult.

An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.

Thanks for playing PRE-911!

[TZucchini]

He's been vocal about reducing ownership for years.

I've been vocal about reducing irresponsible ownership. There's no sense in reducing ownership for the sake of reducing ownership. And even though I just said that, you still won't believe me. /shrug

[Tinykong]

I've been vocal about reducing irresponsible ownership. There's no sense in reducing ownership for the sake of reducing ownership. And even though I just said that, you still won't believe me. /shrug

Holy fucking goal post movement.

I wish I could dub Rush Limbaugh stuttering and chortling here as you wiggle and deflect your way out of having to admit you are wrong.

[TZucchini]

Holy fucking goal post movement.

I wish I could dub Rush Limbaugh stuttering and chortling here as you wiggle and deflect your way out of having to admit you are wrong.

Goal post movement? "Negligent and accidental discharges" are examples of irresponsible ownership. That's the type of ownership I want to reduce. It's right there in the entire quote.

[Tinykong]

Goal post movement? "Negligent and accidental discharges" are examples of irresponsible ownership. That's the type of ownership I want to reduce. It's right there in the entire quote.

Did you read?

You said, in clear and unambiguous language, that negligent and accidental discharge was yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership.

That clearly implies there are more reasons. This "irresponsible" ownership is the goal post movement you're currently gyrating through because you got caught lying.

[TZucchini]

You said, in clear and unambiguous language, that negligent and accidental discharge was yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership.

That clearly implies there are more reasons.

Well yes, there are more reasons. There's several other examples of irresponsible ownership. Those are all reasons. They're all a type of ownership that I'd like to eliminate.

But restricting access for the sake of restricting access is idiotic, and I do not support it.

[Tinykong]

Well yes, there are more reasons. There's several other examples of irresponsible ownership. Those are all reasons. They're all a type of ownership that I'd like to eliminate.

But restricting access for the sake of restricting access is idiotic, and I do not support it.

Who said anything about restricting just for the hell of it? More goal post moving.

You have been vocal about repealing the second and reducing ownership, for various reasons, and have provided the studies you believe support that position. I would say that it's almost unbelievable that someone would claim that they never said something...but, then again, we've got people on these forums who delete their posts and claim they never posted them.

[TZucchini]

Who said anything about restricting just for the hell of it? More goal post moving.

Are you fucking kidding me? I stated that reduction in ownership is not my endgame. You replied with "The internet isn't big enough to contain the number of eye rolls needed here."

So you do think that reduction in ownership is my endgame? That would be reduction for the sake of reduction. It would mean that all I care about is reduction in ownership. Even though I was quite clear that that's not my endgame.

Oh, and TwoNine said it was about restricting just for the hell of it. So yeah. No goal post moves. Just false fallacy claims from Tiny.

The fact that people refuse to admit that that is the endgame for a lot of folks is just sad.

[Tinykong]

Are you fucking kidding me? I stated that reduction in ownership is not my endgame. You replied with "The internet isn't big enough to contain the number of eye rolls needed here."

What a failure of a dodge. Now we're going to get into some pedantic argument about what you mean by "endgame." You're fucking exhausting.

You want to reduce ownership by repealing the second and enacting regulations and restrictions. You've been building that position for years as evidenced by your posts from 2013. You're now flailing around trying to move the goal posts so you can avoid admitting you were either wrong, or misspoke.

So you do think that reduction in ownership is my endgame? That would be reduction for the sake of reduction. It would mean that all I care about is reduction in ownership. Even though I was quite clear that that's not my endgame.

Oh, and TwoNine said it was about restricting just for the hell of it. So yeah. No goal post moves. Just false fallacy claims from Tiny.

Yes, reducing the number of people who own firearms is your endgame. You've made that very clear, up until today's flailing. I don't care what other posters have said, your posts are the ones I am responding to and quoting. Stop deflecting.

[TZucchini]

You're fucking exhausting.

I realize that constantly being on the ropes is exhausting. If you were right from time to time, you wouldn't need to be.

Yes, reducing the number of people who own firearms is your endgame.

No. Reducing the number of people who own firearms would possibly be a result of my endgame (that endgame being comprehensive laws that promote responsibility).

But it's by no means my endgame.

[Tinykong]

I realize that constantly being on the ropes is exhausting. If you were right from time to time, you wouldn't need to be.

Cool story, bro.



Real compelling stuff here. You're slowly turning into Rukentuts, snipping posts and posting one liner jabs. At least you're still quoting partial posts.

No. Reducing the number of people who own firearms would possibly be a result of my endgame (that endgame being comprehensive laws that promote responsibility).

But it's by no means my endgame.

Welcome to "Whose Post Is it Anyway" the show where we flip flop positions and our post history doesn't matter.

I'm thoroughly satisfied that we've shown you are lying or possibly just so woefully confused and steeped in confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that you don't even remember what you've said up until this point.

[TZucchini]

I'm thoroughly satisfied that we've shown you are lying or possibly just so woefully confused and steeped in confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that you don't even remember what you've said up until this point.

Well, I'm happy that you've finally convinced yourself that I hold a position which I specifically stated I do not hold.

[Tinykong]

Well, I'm happy that you've finally convinced yourself that I hold a position which I specifically stated I do not hold.

Your posting history says otherwise. Keep on lying, seems to be a central tenet of the anti-gun crowd.

[TZucchini]

Your posting history says otherwise. Keep on lying, seems to be a central tenet of the anti-gun crowd.

What possible motivation could I have to lie about a position I hold on an anonymous forum? Take the tin-foil hat off for a minute Tiny, and try to think logically.

[Tinykong]

What possible motivation could I have to lie about a position I hold on an anonymous forum? Take the tin-foil hat off for a minute Tiny, and try to think logically.

Because you are literally incapable of admitting you are wrong, especially when it comes to exchanges with people you disagree with.

You probably figured you could lie about it and no one would either be able to find the posts or care enough to. You got caught this time, champ.

[TZucchini]

Because you are literally incapable of admitting you are wrong

So no evidence for a motivation to lie. Just more tin-foil hat conspiracies about my anonymous online personality being incapable of admitting fault. Even though I've done so several times in this thread. How many times have you?

[Tinykong]

So no evidence for a motivation to lie. Just more tin-foil hat conspiracies about my anonymous online personality being incapable of admitting fault. Even though I've done so several times in this thread. How many times have you?

It's not a tinfoil conspiracy; it's demonstrable.

[TZucchini]

It's not a tinfoil conspiracy; it's demonstrable.

Demonstrable? Really? Here's a discussion with Eroginous:

Of course not. You quite clearly said 'firearms make ALL crimes much easier to commit.'

You're right. I did say "all crimes." And as a blanket statement, it's likely false.

Welp. There I am. Admitting I'm wrong, and that he's right.

Or how about this reply to Phaelix:

Yeah I'm wrong here. You're right.

Oh jeez. You did say demonstrable, correct?

Oh look. Here I am again admitting I'm wrong, and that I made an error:

You're right. I'm not sure why I included the 'firearm crime' imbalance, as I've already stated outright that certain studies show the imbalance being the other way around (2.5 million).

So yeah. It's a tinfoil conspiracy, because demonstrably, I've had no problem admitting I was wrong, when I was wrong.