Originally Posted by dohdough Yeah, I totally meant that it happens every day now. The only determining factor as to why people commit crimes with guns is because their victims don't have guns, you say? And then you wonder why that source isn't taken seriously?

So you are disputing the information in that article or how it is presented?

I would like you to point out any information in that article that is not accurate.

Go ahead.

And when you can't find anything to pick apart you can just fall back on "Duh study iz racist"; by now it is expected

Originally Posted by GBAstar So you are disputing the information in that article or how it is presented? I would like you to point out any information in that article that is not accurate. Go ahead. And when you can't find anything to pick apart you can just fall back on "Duh study iz racist"; by now it is expected

Strawman much? My post was three whole sentences and hard to misinterpret. But since you're the one that brought up race first, aren't you the one actually guilty of "race-baiting" here?

Originally Posted by dohdough Strawman much? My post was three whole sentences and hard to misinterpret. But since you're the one that brought up race first, aren't you the one actually guilty of "race-baiting" here?

Yes so to elaborate on your three sentences the data is not factual because it is used to strengthen the arguments of members of the NRA (to which I don't belong) and gun owners (to which I'm not) who happen to believe that the solution to gun violence is arming more citizens (which I don't agree with).

But because that is how the data "may" be used then it is not no longer factual?

reeeallly?

So if data supports your agenda then it is factual?

Edit: Nice to have you back by the way. I'll try to keep the race baiting to a minimum.

Originally Posted by GBAstar Yes so to elaborate on your three sentences the data is not factual because it is used to strengthen the arguments of members of the NRA (to which I don't belong) and gun owners (to which I'm not) who happen to believe that the solution to gun violence is arming more citizens (which I don't agree with). But because that is how the data "may" be used then it is not no longer factual? reeeallly? So if data supports your agenda then it is factual? Edit: Nice to have you back by the way. I'll try to keep the race baiting to a minimum.

Maybe you should've included the first paragraph instead of shotgunning facts? Cause instead of doing so, you're implying the exact opposite of what you just said especially in the context of quoting knoell.

Either way, focusing on guns aspect of crimes take attention away from focusing on what causes crime to begin with...and it has nothing to do with how armed the populace is or isn't, muchless incarceration being a deterrent.

And yes, how one uses facts is important. I've actually read a lot of what the site has to say and some of it is highly questionable and even if I accept your little snippet, which I do, facts by themselves are meaningless. There's obviously so much more to it that it's disingenuous and inaccurate to solely use what that site is selling as definitive. That's the point.

Sigh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuiDBr0WnZU"]

I hate this state sometimes...

Nice short segment with Adam Sessler (personal favorite video game journalist/host REV3, G4TV, TechTV) on foxnews live discussing video games and violence.

So instead of victimizing responsible gun owners, we must go after responsible game players...

Originally Posted by dohdough Yeah, I totally meant that it happens every day now. The only determining factor as to why people commit crimes with guns is because their victims don't have guns, you say? And then you wonder why that source isn't taken seriously?

What? You just stated something that would cause many misinformed people to be up in arms. I am asking you to prove what you stated. Of course you won't though.

No he isn't saying the only determing factor as to why people commit crimes with guns is because their victims don't have guns. He is saying that you guys do not pay attention to the fact that having a gun has saved many lives but is a unnoticed statistic.

Funny how the story of Mr. Sailor shooting someone because he was overly aggressive on his property, causes you to be up in arms and make claims that "this is happening in increased frequency", yet you discard statistics that show having a gun for personal protection has protected many, many people from harm.

Originally Posted by detectiveconan16 So instead of victimizing responsible gun owners, we must go after responsible game players...

I think your side agrees with the part about video games causing these things buddy. I certainly don't believe either about guns or games.

NRA is saying don't blame responsible gun owners and them for the gun violence that goes on everyday. I shouldn't blame them for ing with the regulatory agencies responsible with making sure guns don't get into the wrong hands. The ATF is a joke, but we have to remember why they are.

Bit of a philosophical question here. If a gun owner takes no steps to keep their guns from being used in crimes, are they a responsible gun owner? Was Nancy Lanza?

Originally Posted by Clak Bit of a philosophical question here. If a gun owner takes no steps to keep their guns from being used in crimes, are they a responsible gun owner? Was Nancy Lanza?

None of the gun nuts in this thread have the dignity to answer that question. They'd rather repeat the tropes from the NRA See N' Say.

WEN GONZ R OWTLAW'D...

This guy brought up a great point about the Koreans who defended their stores with firearms during the Los Angeles Riots.

He is an immigrant and it is interesting to see him comment as both a citizen who is now in the country and as someone who was once outside of the nation looking in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU

I just want "responsible gun owner" defined. A lot of gun owners bitch about keeping their guns locked up, but then you get idiots who leave them within easy reach of their kids too, so which is it? Is it your right to leave them out however you want with no regard to who might get them, or do you have a responsibility to keep them safe from others getting them?

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by mykevermin None of the gun nuts in this thread have the dignity to answer that question. They'd rather repeat the tropes from the NRA See N' Say. WEN GONZ R OWTLAW'D...

Why am I a gun nut again? I'd be glad to answer that when I get home

Originally Posted by Knoell Why am I a gun nut again?

Why do I hate/fear gun owners again?

Originally Posted by Spokker This guy brought up a great point about the Koreans who defended their stores with firearms during the Los Angeles Riots. He is an immigrant and it is interesting to see him comment as both a citizen who is now in the country and as someone who was once outside of the nation looking in.

His first 2-3 minutes were well done. After that I started to tune him out really. The thing I disagree with his notion that "societal decay" as the reason for so many more mass shootings. What does that even mean? That seem like conservative double speak you get from Glen Beck and his ilk who think life was so much grander in the 40s and 50s. If anything, we as a nation have MORE freedom now then 50-60 years ago. We are actually taxed less, women and minorities are treated more equally, and gay rights are at the forefront of the civil rights push. But to some all those things are considered moral decay. The worst school massacre occurred in 1927. There are also countless cases of other mass shooting in US history. It also does not explain why the 90s had more than the 2000s. If we are decaying would not that number continue to rise? This is the reality. Some people are messed up. You give that person a gun and it is easier for them to kill people. That should not mean everyone else should not be allowed to own guns but lets be honest that 300 million guns IS a problem. When you make them so ubiquitous you run the risk of the wrong people obtaining them.

Originally Posted by Clak Bit of a philosophical question here. If a gun owner takes no steps to keep their guns from being used in crimes, are they a responsible gun owner? Was Nancy Lanza?

It should be expected for a gun own to keep his firearms secure (in a safe) and report them as soon as they are missing. That means checking on them at least weekly. I don't think that is unreasonable.

Originally Posted by cancerman1120 That should not mean everyone else should not be allowed to own guns but lets be honest that 300 million guns IS a problem. When you make them so ubiquitous you run the risk of the wrong people obtaining them.

Let's be honest, if we only have 1,000 guns in the United States we'd still run the risk of the wrong people obtaining them.

Outside of a few states/cities the penalty for illegally owning or obtaining a gun is not harsh enough and not enforced thoroughly enough.