Firearms and Freedom

[Magical Realist]

Read this!

How the Gun Industry Preys on Paranoid, Insecure Men Like Elliot Rodger

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...try-preys-paranoid-insecure-men-elliot-rodger

 

[Dr_Toad]

You aren't interested in a rational discussion. Plonk.

 

[Magical Realist]

You aren't interested in a rational discussion. Plonk.

So how many guns do you own cowboy?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

That completely refutes your claim.

it doesn't refute my claim any more than it supports yours

Absolutely is 5 people rushing 1 guy with a gun more effective than the guy with the gun. That's common sense.

see... you thought of a situation... problem is: it is subjective - it depends upon not only who the 5 unarmed rushing people are, but also upon the armed assailiant
but that was my point already... are you intentionally ignoring that?

I'd expect them to rush the assailant saving mine and their own lives in the process.

you would really expect that?
sorry, i have a hard time believing that one. i went to basic twice... and i would expect only about 3-5% TOPS of either group to rush an assailiant.... and a lot of the action would be totally dependent. but then again... maybe you were in the one exceptional class. i don't know, so i guess i will not judge.
to continue...

Wouldn't you do it if you didn't have a gun?

would i if i didn't have a gun? that entirely depends on the situation and location as well as who is in the crowd around me.
it would be stupid to try if said criminal exhibited certain behavior patterns, so that is a serious consideration. Then there is the limitations of the crowd, myself and who i considered likely to actually step in and assist. you can tell a lot about a person though observation in a stressful situation

You're ignoring data I've posted that refutes your position that carrying guns makes the world a safer place.

no, i am not. but i will also not give feedback on data that i am not more familiar with... and that includes looking at other data - you know, like looking at Switzerland as an example of support for being armed, which you seem to have ignored (but that is not the point, right? you want me to make a comment NOW about YOUR data... and of course, only YOUR data is the important data, right? never mind a logical or evidence based refute - right? )

worse still - this is also assuming that i am a basement dwelling troll living with Mom letting her do my laundry, cooking etc... there IS such a thing as having a life, you know...
not to say it is wrong to be a basement dweller and troll, if that is what you are.
to each their own

It's the same thing since unarmed people would only "seize up" out of fear.

actually no, it's NOT the same thing.
what about indecision? or perhaps lack of clearly defined action?

are you just looking to pick a fight with your own arguments????
... because i can just stop and let you argue with yourself...

at this point it really isn't necessary for me, apparently, to be in the conversation since you are making all the arguments you want to hear to "refute" .... and simply making your own comments based on your own cognitive bias and assuming that is what i am saying....

so... tell you what. i will just put this on pause until i get a clear feedback from you.
OK?

thanks...

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You aren't interested in a rational discussion. Plonk.

apparently not... he doesn't want anyone to actually take time to review a study (i wonder why? is there something wrong with it? the authors?)
he is actually making all the arguments up himself while believing in a delusional reality where there are, apparently, super-human and mega-brave people around him everywhere!

i mean... look at this, Dr. Toad!

I've never encountered anyone with a gun in public yet. How many times have you? What reality do you live in?

now, i know where you live, Toad... and it is similar to where i live. i can't say for sure, but around my parts it is rare to see someone who is NOT armed!

plus, anyone with even crappy eyesight can walk around any large city and see armed bangers or similar... but even ignoring that point: i find it very hard to believe that a former military person could walk around the US and never encounter anyone with a gun in public... i mean, what do the cops carry where he lives? are there no detectives? no undercover? no investigators? no marshals?no crime at all? do the bangers use assisted opening combs? or is it just illegal so everyone willingly complies with the law ? [intentional sarc/hyperbole]
Now, i know the first rule of CC is the "concealed" part... but this guy claims to be military and trained with firearms...

maybe he is a former AF butterbar or equivalent ?? lives in a gated patrolled community? do they patrol with flashlights? *"you are committing a criminal act! stop! ... or i'll yell stop again!" LMFAO)
sorry... tangent, but relevant

Where's the realist in you, dude? We can all see the "magical" part...

wondering a little about this myself
LOL

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

LOL! I bet my life on that everyday in that I continuously mingle in crowds and go to public places without carrying a gun or having an armed escort. But as I said the chances of this happening are so slim it's not even worth worrying about. Only paranoid gun freaks like you think about how they're going to get shot every day by some other pissed off gun carrier. That's your little world, not mine sweetie.

only a paranoid freak?
really?

personally, i carry not only because it is a habit ingrained by a legal requirement to carry most of my life (as former investigator) but also because it is my job to protect others... and because i know, from experience, that criminals don't obey laws.

well... that kinda does settle the whole reason you are posting though ...doesn't it?
you are not wanting rational discussion at all... you have a firm delusional belief and you are going to shove it down everyone's throat ... and especially down those who disagree with you!

i mean... you said, specifically

Only paranoid gun freaks like you think about how they're going to get shot every day by some other pissed off gun carrier. That's your little world, not mine sweetie

and did you ever consider why?
... because there are delusional idiots like you running around with their head so far up their own backsides that they can't see light...and because criminals, by definition, don't obey the law
... it is because some of us actually have seen what reality is like ... you know: COPS, FIREFIGHTERS, INVESTIGATORS, EMT'S, ER STAFF... ETC

oh, and also, mr. i-live-surrounded-by-hero's-who-don't-need-guns-to-save-the-world... i have been surrounded by the bravest people in the world (other cops, investigators, Firefighters, etc)... and even i wouldn't say that, if we were all unarmed, they would charge an armed assailant to disarm them. (because the situation really does matter, and making that decision means knowing WTF is actually going on... and causing a life to be taken because of a stupid mistake or an adrenaline spurned thoughtless act would and does haunt you)

 

[Magical Realist]

see... you thought of a situation... problem is: it is subjective - it depends upon not only who the 5 unarmed rushing people are, but also upon the armed assailiant
but that was my point already... are you intentionally ignoring that?

You're the one thinking up the hypotheticals here. Why are they more valid than mine? At least mine is based in the FBI stats I quoted. I am 4 times more likely to be saved by unarmed people in a shooting than by an armed person. That's what they concluded. You have nothing to support your own made up situation but specious speculations.

you would really expect that?
sorry, i have a hard time believing that one. i went to basic twice... and i would expect only about 3-5% TOPS of either group to rush an assailiant.... and a lot of the action would be totally dependent. but then again... maybe you were in the one exceptional class. i don't know, so i guess i will not judge.
to continue...

It doesn't matter what you believe. You asked me a question and I answered it. End of story.

would i if i didn't have a gun? that entirely depends on the situation and location as well as who is in the crowd around me.
it would be stupid to try if said criminal exhibited certain behavior patterns, so that is a serious consideration. Then there is the limitations of the crowd, myself and who i considered likely to actually step in and assist. you can tell a lot about a person though observation in a stressful situation

And so while you're standing there accessing the behavior patterns and the limitations of the crowd and who is more likely to assist, people all around are getting shot. Talk about seizing up. lol!

no, i am not. but i will also not give feedback on data that i am not more familiar with

How long does it take for you to read 2 or 3 articles? Are you learning impaired?

worse still - this is also assuming that i am a basement dwelling troll living with Mom letting her do my laundry, cooking etc... there IS such a thing as having a life, you know...
not to say it is wrong to be a basement dweller and troll, if that is what you are.
to each their own

Insult me again and I'll report your ass. Are we clear?

actually no, it's NOT the same thing.

I see. So people now seize up in a mass shooting situation but not out fear. Out of indecision? You're digging your hole deeper and deeper. lol!

at this point it really isn't necessary for me, apparently, to be in the conversation since you are making all the arguments you want to hear to "refute" .... and simply making your own comments based on your own cognitive bias and assuming that is what i am saying..

Still waiting for your response to the articles I posted. Wadda ya think? Maybe another week or so? lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

...

 

[Tiassa]

now - because the few don't properly care for their car and take responsibility, will you also advocate for the removal of all cars?
no... because you will find a way to justify your argument because [insert claim here] etc... this analogy is exactly the same thing as what you are doing above. you are against firearms because:

You know, the problem with laboring to construct such a straw man is that at some point you actually need to stuff it.

Let me know when you're ready to try something other than desperately changing the subject.

 

[Magical Realist]

apparently not... he doesn't want anyone to actually take time to review a study (i wonder why? is there something wrong with it? the authors?)
he is actually making all the arguments up himself while believing in a delusional reality where there are, apparently, super-human and mega-brave people around him everywhere!

You're the one living in a fantasy world where you will suddenly save the day when a shooter starts shooting people all around you. I realize this is a necessary compensation for your enormous lack of machismo and purpose in life. But really it's a ridiculous paranoid delusion you need to grow out of. Noone is waiting on your ass to save them from the boogey man. People like you who think guns are the solution are part of the problem in fact. That's why countries and states with more gun owners always have more gun violence. That's the sad reality we are dealing with here:

"If you compared gun ownership levels with homicide rates, what would you expect to see? Fewer people willing to start a fight when everyone is armed? No correlation at all? Well, not exactly: according to decades of data analyzed by the Harvard School of Public Health, guns and homicides go together like Nicholas Cage and terrible movies.

Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too."===http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/

now, i know where you live, Toad... and it is similar to where i live. i can't say for sure, but around my parts it is rare to see someone who is NOT armed!

plus, anyone with even crappy eyesight can walk around any large city and see armed bangers or similar... but even ignoring that point: i find it very hard to believe that a former military person could walk around the US and never encounter anyone with a gun in public... i mean, what do the cops carry where he lives? are there no detectives? no undercover? no investigators? no marshals?no crime at all? do the bangers use assisted opening combs? or is it just illegal so everyone willingly complies with the law ? [intentional sarc/hyperbole]
Now, i know the first rule of CC is the "concealed" part... but this guy claims to be military and trained with firearms...

maybe he is a former AF butterbar or equivalent ?? lives in a gated patrolled community? do they patrol with flashlights? *"you are committing a criminal act! stop! ... or i'll yell stop again!" LMFAO)
sorry... tangent, but relevant

Oooo..how scary. All those people out there on the city streets of Portland not carrying weapons but that you know, perhaps telepathically? are really there. lol! I'm so glad I don't live in your paranoid little world where mass shooters hide around every corner. Really dude. You should spend more time worrying about a heart attack than getting shot at in public, seeing that happens way more often to people.

it is because some of us actually have seen what reality is like ... you know: COPS, FIREFIGHTERS, INVESTIGATORS, EMT'S, ER STAFF... ETC

This is where I reverently bow before your massive experience and ballistic authority in taking down shooters in public isn't it? Don't hold your breath dearier. Noone's buying into your Rambo bullshit here except you. Now... crawl back to your ammo bunker and your old war hero magazines and let the normal grown-ups get on with their peaceful lives, ok? We're all SO much better off without you gun freaks running around looking for reasons to shoot people.

 

[pjdude1219]

You aren't interested in a rational discussion. Plonk.

thats rich coming someone from some whose side uses threats when they can't refute the arguments. its impossible to have a rational debate with gun owners because they refuse to be rational on the subject.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Who has made threats? That sounds like a logical fallacy on your part.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You know, the problem with laboring to construct such a straw man is that at some point you actually need to stuff it.

Let me know when you're ready to try something other than desperately changing the subject.

1- not a straw man- it's an analogy and it is perfectly accurate
the bulk of your argument and posts are about the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place: therefore, taking an analogous tool that is also a part of society, it would be the same as the above mentioned.

2- it isn't changing the subject. let me reiterate: the bulk of your argument and posts are about the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place

lets review that again, T...
the bulk of your argument and posts are about the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place... plus, you are intentionally misrepresenting "responsible" gun owners (obvious as you choose to typically put the word "responsible" in quotes) because you want a criminal act to be punished (well, so do i) but they were NOT... but somehow that is the fault of everyone else BUT the legal system?!?!?!!

You don't even hide the fact that you group anyone who claims to be a responsible gun owner in with the group of criminals who were not responsible... again as demonstrated by your use of quotes and choice of argument while ignoring, IGNORING the fact that it was the fault of the legal system in most of your cases.... NOT, and i must repeat this.... not the fault of "responsible" gun owners. it is NOT responsible to shoot a kid with an unloaded gun anymore than it's responsible to let a 5 year old to play with your loaded one. that is NOT responsible... it is criminally negligent!

you want to fight about what constitutes a definition of responsibility while ignoring the fact that it is the court and legal system being the irresponsible one! Where is your righteous indignation in the lack of prosecution? why aren't your arguments targeted at the "responsible prosecutor representing the people and the state"????

lets review:

The "responsible gun owner" who shot someone in a movie theater last year? Or how about the one who shot someone in a movie theater this year↱?

you see? your misinterpretation of reality (and the word responsible) and the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place (this is analogous to the "responsible car owner" who didn't service their vehicle and drove into a theater killing [x]# people.)

There was the "responsible gun owner" who killed his seven year-old son while illegally carrying a handgun he apparently thought was unloaded but didn't check.

your misinterpretation of reality (and the word responsible) and the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place (this is analogous to the "responsible car owner" who ran over his kid because he wasn't paying attention)

Or the sheriff's deputy who left a gun for his three year-old to find and kill himself with?

your misinterpretation of reality (and the word responsible) and the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place (this is analogous to the "responsible car owner" who let his three-year-old have the keys to the car and drive ... and the kid got killed in an accident)

like "responsible gun owners" head on down to the range and someone ends up shooting a child↱.

your misinterpretation of reality (and the word responsible) and the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place (this is analogous to the "responsible car owner" who isn't paying attention to the road, in public or on a race-track, who kills a pedestrian -lets just assume it's a kid who ran out on the track to get a better view, because obviously an adult would never do that... which, ironically enough, i just watched happen in a video recently in a French mountain race )

now, T... i can PROVE this is the motivation and argument that you are intentionally making...because you have said this

That "responsible gun owner" should never handle a firearm again. If there was any real accountability, that's what would happen.

again, you misrepresent "responsible"... if there was a criminally negligent driver who ran over a bus full of nuns escorting children, that person would not be considered "responsible driver" would they... NO they wouldn't.
and your non-sensical argument of "Every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until he or she isn't" is crap, because this applies to cars, busses, tankers, trucks, and everyone else in life...
it is how the court system and cops stay in business because, like it or not, this is the exact same thing as saying : Every "responsible citizen" is a "responsible citizen" until he or she isn't... and since i don't see you advocating for the removal of rights from all citizens on the potential possibility that they (you) may, at some time in the future, become irresponsible... then your argument is actually the strawman (unstuffed, to boot).

lets re-cap: it isn't changing the subject to keep pointing out that the primary argument of yours is a strawman, and flawed fatally, because you are not only intentionally misinterpreting and misrepresenting the legal (and every other) definition of "responsible" , but your argument (as noted above) has nothing to do with the gun laws or the responsible gun owners (of which there are tens of thousands for every irresponsible idiot you've posted about above)

the bulk of your arguments are NOT about "responsible gun owners", but rather irresponsible prosecutors who don't actually enforce the existing laws

so the only one here that is changing the subject is you... by ignoring the part played by the legal system and intentional misrepresentation of definitions. and by repeating the exact same argument ad nauseum while ignoring the fact that you are actually reinforcing MY argument

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You're the one living in a fantasy world where you will suddenly save the day when a shooter starts shooting people all around you.

now see... this is the reason you can't have a rational discussion at all.
you make assumptions, consider them infallible, and then argue your point based upon the delusion you've created.... as demonstrated by this comment as well as the following:

How long does it take for you to read 2 or 3 articles? Are you learning impaired?

you see... your first ASSumption is that everyone has all the free time in the world... (and that you can insult people by making up shit and saying this is what they said... which can also be reported, magi-boy... so before you start throwing around your report button, consider your own actions)

you also ASSume that everyone is haphazard (or as haphazard as you? logical deduction considering your anger at my slow methodical search for answers). I would prefer to be methodical in this approach because, unlike you, i am not someone who ignores evidence. I follow the evidence. it's a job-thing that carried over into real life... you know, where everyone is a hero and will willingly risk their lives to rescue you? so, by your haste and impatience, it appears that it is not evidence or argument you want but rather self validation of a belief (or delusion, depending). the refusal to consider options or other evidence is demonstration enough to support this argument. Psych 101

just to demonstrate your delusion as noted above

This is where I reverently bow before your massive experience and ballistic authority in taking down shooters in public isn't it?... Noone's buying into your Rambo bullshit here except you

this is a perfect example of how you not only misrepresent what is said but also ignore anything you dont' like, then rewrite it to say what you want and then argue the point.
rambo wasn't a cop... he was SF, delusional-boy...
you go into any cop-shop, sheriff's office, metropolitan police department and tell them the bulk of the unarmed public is going to jump into the fray to save you from an armed assailant.. then tell them that they're delusional and paranoid for carrying their guns... go ahead! thanks!
Don't forget to tell them "... Noone's buying into your Rambo bullshit here except you"...

in the real world - an article that references a study or that lists statistics must be verified (validated) ... is there a refute? is there a better set of stat's? is there a more valid or realistic representation

so, by demonstration, you are saying that, because YOU read it and want to argue it's points as infallible, i should accept it as is and refute with no means of research?

i guess there really IS NO REASON for anyone to be here if you are going to be all parts of the argument and simply ignore any evidence you don't like... so...

you go ahead and argue. i will just watch and throw peanuts.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Insult me again and I'll report your ass. Are we clear?

i just had to respond to this... LMFAO
this seemed to hit a sore spot (?!?!)... but it should also be addressed!

so... basically, it is ok for YOU to lie, make sh*t up, misrepresent someone, make fun of them and insult them???
but when i say that, should you be predisposed to a lifestyle that i do not personally subscribe to... it is insulting you?

Why is that? there is no direct insult to you there at all ... in fact, it specifically says that, should that be your flavour of life, then by all means, enjoy it and be proud of your choices!
So, why do you consider it an insult to you?

tell you what... lets just go tit-for-tat, ok?
every time you insult me by intentional misrepresentation, lie, calling me learning disabled because i would prefer to be methodical and get FACTS...etc etc etc... i will report you for baiting into a flame war...
DEAL?

 

[Yazata]

thats rich coming someone from some whose side uses threats when they can't refute the arguments. its impossible to have a rational debate with gun owners because they refuse to be rational on the subject.

Who has made threats? That sounds like a logical fallacy on your part.

More accurately a false accusation.

For my part, I'll just say that I am a gun owner. What's more, I'm a strong supporter of the American Constitutional right to bear arms. I have what I believe are strong and convincing reasons for thinking that way.

I'm not interested in arguing about gun ownership or any other highly-divisive social issues with anyone on Sciforums.

 

[Magical Realist]

now see... this is the reason you can't have a rational discussion at all.
you make assumptions, consider them infallible, and then argue your point based upon the delusion you've created.... as demonstrated by this comment as well as the following:

you see... your first ASSumption is that everyone has all the free time in the world... (and that you can insult people by making up shit and saying this is what they said... which can also be reported, magi-boy... so before you start throwing around your report button, consider your own actions)

you also ASSume that everyone is haphazard (or as haphazard as you? logical deduction considering your anger at my slow methodical search for answers). I would prefer to be methodical in this approach because, unlike you, i am not someone who ignores evidence. I follow the evidence. it's a job-thing that carried over into real life... you know, where everyone is a hero and will willingly risk their lives to rescue you? so, by your haste and impatience, it appears that it is not evidence or argument you want but rather self validation of a belief (or delusion, depending). the refusal to consider options or other evidence is demonstration enough to support this argument. Psych 101

just to demonstrate your delusion as noted abovethis is a perfect example of how you not only misrepresent what is said but also ignore anything you dont' like, then rewrite it to say what you want and then argue the point.
rambo wasn't a cop... he was SF, delusional-boy...
you go into any cop-shop, sheriff's office, metropolitan police department and tell them the bulk of the unarmed public is going to jump into the fray to save you from an armed assailant.. then tell them that they're delusional and paranoid for carrying their guns... go ahead! thanks!
Don't forget to tell them "... Noone's buying into your Rambo bullshit here except you"...

in the real world - an article that references a study or that lists statistics must be verified (validated) ... is there a refute? is there a better set of stat's? is there a more valid or realistic representation

so, by demonstration, you are saying that, because YOU read it and want to argue it's points as infallible, i should accept it as is and refute with no means of research?

i guess there really IS NO REASON for anyone to be here if you are going to be all parts of the argument and simply ignore any evidence you don't like... so...

you go ahead and argue. i will just watch and throw peanuts.

You've quickly devolved into a hysterical ranting fool. You're a waste of my time. Enjoy your paranoid delusions.

 

[Tiassa]

1- not a straw man- it's an analogy and it is perfectly accurate
the bulk of your argument and posts are about the refusal of the legal system to actually prosecute the laws we have in place: therefore, taking an analogous tool that is also a part of society, it would be the same as the above mentioned.

Let me know when you're ready to try something other than changing the subject.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Let me know when you're ready to try something other than changing the subject.

how is trying to stay on the subject changing the subject?

you are the one trying to not only change the subject but also trying to introduce your own personal interpretations and definitions as legitimate!!

i mean... the entire bulk of your argument boils down to:
-you don't like the actions of the legal system
-you're pissed that the current laws are not being enforced

so, because of the above two, you will simply re-write the definitions of "responsible" ???
do you think, using the above, the pinnacle of logic... the solution... is to have more laws? or take away rights?

... you created a strawman argument that can't be justified by the links you provided
...and then use that as justification to redefine a few words to suit your beliefs
...which then allows you to justify your beliefs as valid
...
... so i point out the problem with that argument.... and the fact that you are simply reiterating the same argument with more links
...and then i use a cogent effective analogy to describe the whole problem with your argument as well as demonstrate the problem with your logic
...and i try to get you to address the argument you used and justify your redefinition (and more, etc)

but somehow this is me changing the subject?

Uhmmm..... ????

man... this calls for a frosty!
but don't worry... as a responsible driver, i've insured the brakes work so i can justify eating this in the car while driving!
[sarc/hyperbole]

 

[Tiassa]

how is trying to stay on the subject changing the subject?

Disgraceful. Absolutely, pathetically disgraceful.

You know that bit about how the Second Amendment protects all our other constitutional rights?

Go back and check the topic post. There is a real circumstance in the world acutally challenging that canard.

That is the subject.

How much of the content of your twenty-five posts in this thread actually attends that subject?

So when you get down to straw men built on false accusations↑―

now - because the few don't properly care for their car and take responsibility, will you also advocate for the removal of all cars?​

―you're pretty much reminding that the problem with guns is the people who carry them. Pick up your gun, you've got a bully pulpit. After all, you've got a gun, and thus have no use for honesty or even basic decency.

No, really: How much of the content of your twenty-five posts in this thread actually attends the actual topic?

 

[iceaura]

One can hardly wait until this discussion - pretty much as it appears here, both sides - occupies two weeks of media bandwidth in the last month of a Presidential contest between Clinton and Trump.

Or hell, Trump's a smart and inventive guy - maybe the last two months. He could interleave it with the Supreme Court issue.