Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Shooting in Conn. School


  • Please log in to reply
1178 replies to this topic

#721 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:05 PM

Show me a statistic on guns handled instead of just picking a number of "guns purchased". I know someone that bought a gun last year and hasn't used it yet, and I have also shot a few of my brothers guns at a range last year, that he hadn't purchased last year. You are just making numbers up now.


I already put a disclaimer in my original post about the unfair comparison. And I showed why your stats don't work. I'm making up no numbers. Learn to read.

I don't understand you uber gun enthusiasts.

#722 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:59 PM

I already put a disclaimer in my original post about the unfair comparison. And I showed why your stats don't work. I'm making up no numbers. Learn to read.

I don't understand you uber gun enthusiasts.


Why am I an "uber gun enthusiast"?

#723 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:13 PM

It's like I've said before, poeple will complain about the state of roads in their area, and immediately switch to complaining aobut how high taxes are. Then when you mention that the roads are paid for using money from taxes, it's like you just dropped a logic bomb and they can't compute.


Perhaps what doesn't compute is the idea that we have to raise taxes to pay for the road repairs instead of trimming the budget elsewhere to pay for them.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#724 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:03 AM

The police as they are now? Yes.


Sweet hedge. What do you mean "as they are now"? Should we go pre-LEAA? Pre-OJP? Should we eliminate uniformed officers altogether, and get all posse comitatus?

Get specific. Stand for something.

So you're cool with people being murdered, as long as it's the state doing the killing?


straw man *and* putting words in my mouth, layered with sheets of false dichotomy. that is one *suh-weeeet* cake you baked, my friend.

Seems like you're willing to argue anything as long as the end game = more power to the state.


This discussion started with my argument that a hyper-reactionary zealousness to jump to the very end of the slippery slope is why we can't have any reasonable political discourse. Your rebuttal is to jump to the very, very, very end of the slippery slope. Cooooooooooooooooool.
Posted Image

#725 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:55 AM

Sweet hedge. What do you mean "as they are now"? Should we go pre-LEAA? Pre-OJP? Should we eliminate uniformed officers altogether, and get all posse comitatus?

Get specific. Stand for something.


Seems a bit off topic, no? Go start a thread about police and I'll be glad to oblige you.

straw man *and* putting words in my mouth, layered with sheets of false dichotomy. that is one *suh-weeeet* cake you baked, my friend.


How else could I interpret that? Your comment seemed to reflect your disinterest in those killed by drones because it wasn't perpetrated by civilians on civilians. How much time to you spend in here dictating what everyone else should be allowed to own based on the actions of .00000000001% of the population vs how much time you spend deriding this administration for its use of murdering civilians with drones? Something tells me those numbers will be a wee bit lopsided.


This discussion started with my argument that a hyper-reactionary zealousness to jump to the very end of the slippery slope is why we can't have any reasonable political discourse. Your rebuttal is to jump to the very, very, very end of the slippery slope. Cooooooooooooooooool.


Yes yes, I get it, slippery slope, false dichotomy, straw men, blah blah blah, oh goodie, you don't actually have to address anything. You win!



#726 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:01 AM

you don't actually have to address anything.


This comment comes in the same post as these gems:

Your comment seemed to reflect your disinterest in those killed by drones because it wasn't perpetrated by civilians on civilians.


*looks at thread topic*

and, then, the coup de grace, said without a shred of irony:

Seems a bit off topic, no?


pathetic.
Posted Image

#727 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:03 AM

Our police state is hardly related. The killing of civilians isn't related to a topic on the killing of civilians?

Er...right.



#728 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:13 AM

Unlike you (STATIST TOTALITARIANZ OMG DEY TUK UR GUNZ!!!!), I have an open mind. Sell me on how overseas drone strikes are even remotely germane to the topic at hand. Give it a go. I'll wait over here.
Posted Image

#729 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:27 AM

Unlike you (STATIST TOTALITARIANZ OMG DEY TUK UR GUNZ!!!!), I have an open mind. Sell me on how overseas drone strikes are even remotely germane to the topic at hand. Give it a go. I'll wait over here.


The killing of civilians = the killing of civilians. It matters not who is behind the trigger. Again, how much time do you spend here promoting the safety of one set of civilians and how much do you spend on the other? It clearly shows that you don't really care about safety, only pushing an agenda.

So are you denying being a statist? Alright then, who will enforce any new gun restrictions and who should people depend on for protection if not themselves?



#730 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:11 AM

The killing of civilians = the killing of civilians.


It's self-evident to you, clearly. I get that. It's not self-evident to me, so help me understand. This is not an explanation.

A life's a life, yes? I have to at least thank you for that, as now I have the Disrupt song of the same name stuck in my head, and it's a classic. But, by this logic (the taking of a life is detestable in any circumstance, therefore I should be fighting overseas drone strikes instead of supporting gun control), you (as someone against drone strikes) should be in support of gun control, against fly swatters, against vivisection, vegan, avoid walking on grass in order to avoid taking the lives of innocent insects, etc.

See what reducto ad absurdum does to conversations? You're reinforcing my point, dear friend.

It matters not


You trying to be Yoda or Thoreau? Either way, try again. You took two sentences as an "explanation," and then decided to shift and attack. I'm very willing to hear your side; you seem reluctant to speak your side.
Posted Image

#731 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:16 AM

...remind me again who drags threads off topic?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#732 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:45 PM

It's self-evident to you, clearly. I get that. It's not self-evident to me, so help me understand. This is not an explanation.

A life's a life, yes? I have to at least thank you for that, as now I have the Disrupt song of the same name stuck in my head, and it's a classic. But, by this logic (the taking of a life is detestable in any circumstance, therefore I should be fighting overseas drone strikes instead of supporting gun control), you (as someone against drone strikes) should be in support of gun control, against fly swatters, against vivisection, vegan, avoid walking on grass in order to avoid taking the lives of innocent insects, etc.

See what reducto ad absurdum does to conversations? You're reinforcing my point, dear friend.



You trying to be Yoda or Thoreau? Either way, try again. You took two sentences as an "explanation," and then decided to shift and attack. I'm very willing to hear your side; you seem reluctant to speak your side.


I don't know if I have the energy to make it any clearer for you. If you don't see the killing of kids with drones in the same vein as the killing of kids with guns then I guess there's no helping you. Either that, or you're being purposely obtuse, which I suspect is the case. Flyswatters? Grass? Ha, you accuse me of so much while engaging in hyperbole. Ridiculous. Just be upfront about your agenda.



#733 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:52 PM

I don't know if I have the energy to make it any clearer for you.


You didn't have the energy the last two opportunities you had, so why would the future be any different? You've offered up precisely *two* sentences attempting to explain, so any talk of "energy" is a deflection from the actual matter: you have no point to articulate.

If you don't see the killing of kids with drones in the same vein as the killing of kids with guns then I guess there's no helping you.


kids? I thought we were speaking of "civilians." What prompted your sudden shift in focus here?

This thread is about discussing whether or not gun control measures should be considered as policy in order to reduce the remarkable difference in murder rates in the United States when compared to other nations. I'm asking you to explain how casualties that result from US military strategy abroad are related. You dodge. Clumsily, I might add.

Just be upfront about your agenda.


I WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AND MONEY AND GIVE THEM TO POOR GAY SECULARISTS.

(komrade.)
Posted Image

#734 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

Back on topic, since we all know temp won't actually stand for his own argument and bother to explain it...

Are any of you familiar with the PROMISE Act? Any thoughts on what it proposes?
Posted Image

#735 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:09 PM

This thread is about discussing whether or not gun control measures should be considered as policy in order to reduce the remarkable difference in murder rates in the United States when compared to other nations.


No, it isn't. There have been plenty of topics that have spun out of the original topic - and gun control measures are one of them - but this thread is about a shooting at a school that ended with a bunch of folks dead.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#736 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:12 PM

Bob I don't think he even sees your posts, why bother?

PaulManda.png


#737 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:30 PM

A) Myke has shown too many times that he has no self control.
B) The reply was for anyone who read Myke's incorrect statement - or anyone who thinks they get to be the sole individual to determine the course of a topic.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#738 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:11 PM

Perhaps what doesn't compute is the idea that we have to raise taxes to pay for the road repairs instead of trimming the budget elsewhere to pay for them.


Or the idea that somehow the roads were repaired with less money 15 years ago, but we simply don't have enough money today without raising taxes? They are right, it doesn't compute.

#739 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:38 PM

Or the idea that somehow the roads were repaired with less money 15 years ago, but we simply don't have enough money today without raising taxes? They are right, it doesn't compute.


Why can't I buy a gallon of gas in 2013 for the same price I paid in 1998?
Posted Image

#740 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:46 PM

Or the idea that somehow the roads were repaired with less money 15 years ago, but we simply don't have enough money today without raising taxes? They are right, it doesn't compute.


There could be technologies that control the lights that also add to the cost. And the cost of materials also go up (tied to gas, as mentioned above), more trucks from shipping internet orders damage roads faster... There really are legitimate reasons.

So yes, it really does cost more to repair roads now than 15 years ago. Unless you want gravel and stop signs everywhere, and a ban on non-local goods.

Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?

#741 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:59 PM

There could be technologies that control the lights that also add to the cost. And the cost of materials also go up (tied to gas, as mentioned above), more trucks from shipping internet orders damage roads faster... There really are legitimate reasons.

So yes, it really does cost more to repair roads now than 15 years ago. Unless you want gravel and stop signs everywhere, and a ban on non-local goods.

Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?


If technology adds something to the cost then it would be very minor. Major reasons would be due to inefficiency of the government, devaluation of the dollar, lazy workers on a government's payroll.

#742 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:04 PM

Why can't I buy a gallon of gas in 2013 for the same price I paid in 1998?


That would be a valid argument if you had the same amount of money to pay. However why can't you buy a gallon of gas in 2013 with four times the money you had in 1998?

#743 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

There could be technologies that control the lights that also add to the cost. And the cost of materials also go up (tied to gas, as mentioned above), more trucks from shipping internet orders damage roads faster... There really are legitimate reasons.

So yes, it really does cost more to repair roads now than 15 years ago. Unless you want gravel and stop signs everywhere, and a ban on non-local goods.

Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?


As I stated in the other post, prices have increased for things, but so has tax revenue despite what MSM and these guys will tell you.

Look it up.

#744 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:39 PM

You didn't have the energy the last two opportunities you had, so why would the future be any different? You've offered up precisely *two* sentences attempting to explain, so any talk of "energy" is a deflection from the actual matter: you have no point to articulate.


I can only spend so much of my life pointing out to you that loss of human life = loss of human life and if you can't grasp that concept then no amount of explanation will ever suffice. I could go into great detail about it, but why should I have to when it's CLEAR that killing people is killing people is killing people and your expressed concern of one over the other shows your inconsistency and exposes an agenda in which you up-play any tragedy that furthers your agenda and downplay tragedies that make your guy in office look bad.

kids? I thought we were speaking of "civilians." What prompted your sudden shift in focus here?


:lol: Are kids not considered civilians? Kids, civilians, people, humans, call them whatever you like. Stop grasping at straws.


This thread is about discussing whether or not gun control measures should be considered as policy in order to reduce the remarkable difference in murder rates in the United States when compared to other nations. I'm asking you to explain how casualties that result from US military strategy abroad are related. You dodge. Clumsily, I might add.


That's pretty specific. Do I need to point out every single one of your posts that diverge from that very narrow path? Who determined that this thread was on that very topic? It certainly doesn't say that in the title. My comments are purely a commentary on what you and others have said thus far. Our police state has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and, as I said, start a thread about it and I'll be more than happy to give you my explanation.



I WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AND MONEY AND GIVE THEM TO POOR GAY SECULARISTS.

(komrade.)


There you go doing that whole caricature thing to avoid having to actually own up to the stupid shit you spew. Your insinuation that I hold a belief that you want to give my guns and money to poor, gay secularists is 100% just wasting my and everyone else's time.

Back on topic, since we all know temp won't actually stand for his own argument and bother to explain it...


I've explained it more than should be required. Keep repeating that lie and I'm sure, sooner or later, the chirp chirps will come to accept it as truth.



#745 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:20 PM

killing is killing. pants are pants. bicycles are bicycles. happiness is happiness.

tautologies are not "explanations." neither are redundancies.

but you sure type a lot, so I guess that's "energy."
Posted Image

#746 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 January 2013 - 01:33 AM

What can I say? You inspire me.



#747 skiizim

skiizim

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:49 PM



#748 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:26 AM



#749 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:06 AM

^ I think we have established people doing stupid things are funny. Next topic.

#750 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

Edit: By some estimations, 18 wheelers do 99% of the road damage. We can pay less taxes, and pay more for everything we buy (including food). Would that somehow make you happy?


Which has always been a hilarious thing because railroads had to pay for their maintenance of way themselves while truckers and trucking companies use publicly maintained roads and pay the same low gas tax as some dude in his Civic. In Los Angeles they are planning to improve the 710, which is utterly destroyed by trucks every minute of every day. And what funding source is being used to pay for it? County sales tax. Big rigs are good and necessary in society, but at some point you wonder why they do not pay a higher gas tax than those in small cars.

But even those in small cars should pay a higher gas tax. There is one tax I am in favor of raising *today* and that is the federal gas tax. It should have been raised a long time ago and again in increments over the years. In the long run I'd like to see us move to a vehicle mileage tax if we can come to a consensus on the privacy concerns.