Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sean

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership

Recommended Posts

Are you truly trying to win psycho-bitch-of-year award?.....

 

I just realized I have never finished reading a complete Joko-off post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you truly trying to win psycho-bitch-of-year award?.....

I just realized I have never finished reading a complete Joko-off post.

Who would?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Why is the "Fixed" CCTV camera moving like someone is holding it? Looks like a staged video..

 

I have no idea if it's staged or not, but look at the video again, and keep an eye on the edges of the frame. The field of view only moves a little bit and that somewhat randomly, as if the camera mount was a little unsteady, moved by gusts of air in the room and from the door opening and closing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Huh? Why is the "Fixed" CCTV camera moving like someone is holding it? Looks like a staged video..

 

I have no idea if it's staged or not, but look at the video again, and keep an eye on the edges of the frame. The field of view only moves a little bit and that somewhat randomly, as if the camera mount was a little unsteady, moved by gusts of air in the room and from the door opening and closing.

 

Only there is a time stamp and camera number superimposed on the image and it does not move in relation to the store image. Maybe someone used a phone to record the playback and the phone is moving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ Jeff.

Your question is why I have objected to AW's more than handguns.

What's it to you, unless you're trying to impose your will on me? It's not for you to dictate which bully I might feel like punching first.

 

It's like asking Boothy why he loathes mother figure #2, as opposed to the three others. :huh:

 

 

 

Any handgun-issue discussion on SA will bring a lowbrow furor I am not looking for and do not need.

 

Yes the crux of the damage is handguns, a high-risk consumer object used in 75% of gun homicides. For me only a good-faith discussion would make listening to all your mindless approaches worth that discussion. It will become a painful decision on the national level; the facts are not supportive of handguns.

 

 

What's it to me???? Really? Because YOU are trying to impose your will on ME, that's why! As for me dictating which bully you punch first - you're damn skippy its up to me to have a say. Because if you are trying to abridge any of my rights, I have a right to not only understand why, but I have a right to demand that you show a good reason for doing it as well as the right to know if you've thought it through well enough to think that you will actually achieve the intended results.

 

The sad fact is I don't think you even understand yourself what it is that you're actually trying to achieve. Is it lower death by gun numbers? If so, then handguns better be your first bully you try to punch at - because otherwise you will achieve squadoosh. Yet you know that handguns are the poison pill politically - so you go after other stuff you think you can win at by appealing to emotion.

 

See.... to me that is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in from the gun grabber side. And you, Joe, are the epitome of the emotional gun grabber. Its interesting that you actually admit handguns are the real problem - not many gun grabbers are that open about it. Yet you still are a coward and continue to push the false notion that banning AWs are the answer to all of society's ills.

 

Let's have that good-faith discussion about handguns. It would be interesting to see if you can do it though without resorting to photoshops and endless cunt-n-pastes. I'm not holding my breath....

 

oh and BTW - feel free to report me for using your name. Not only did you tell me in a PM years ago to feel free to use your name on the forums, but you've posted your full name yourself. Read the rules again about posting names. Once you put it out there, you can't then take it back and get pissy when people use your real name. Sorry, them's the rules..... http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4354424

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JBSF, on 22 Jul 2014 - 13:09, said:

The CDC and the DOJ categorically stated that something like 75%+ of gang related murders

happen as part of the commission of a crime.

Ouch, here’s his source: The public often has viewed gangs, drug trade/use,

crime, and homicides as interconnected factors; however, studies have shown little connection between gang homicides and drug trade/use and crime.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm>

JBSF, on Sept 22 2014 - 01:21, said:

Uncle

 

 

Actually, you still make my point FOR me, as usual..... We have two different studies that seem contradictory - so what, I think it gets into nuances of how you read the data. But regardless - the majority of homicides in the US are NOT done by mentally ill white guys who snap and shoot up movie theaters and elementary schools with AWs. Nor are the majority of homicides committed by law abiding, card carrying NRA gun owners, recreational shooters, and CCW license-holders.

 

So your continued characterization that WE are the problem with the "gunplay" in America is categorically false. And its insulting. You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. You are projecting your own insecurities and fears onto the wrong crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Huh? Why is the "Fixed" CCTV camera moving like someone is holding it? Looks like a staged video..

 

I have no idea if it's staged or not, but look at the video again, and keep an eye on the edges of the frame. The field of view only moves a little bit and that somewhat randomly, as if the camera mount was a little unsteady, moved by gusts of air in the room and from the door opening and closing.

 

Only there is a time stamp and camera number superimposed on the image and it does not move in relation to the store image. Maybe someone used a phone to record the playback and the phone is moving?

 

I didn't notice the time stamp until you mentioned it.

 

But lessee, the time stamp is put on at the recorder right? If it's put on at the recorder it would be rock, and it does seem to be very stable compared to the rest of the image. So yeah, you're probably right that someone recorded it from the screen with a cell phone camera. I can't see someone being able to hold a camera as still as that from up near a ceiling for that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as everyone follows rule 1, worst case scenario's a fright.

 

 

 

And if a day comes when everyone follows rule 3, the worst case won't even be that bad. Those fright situations involve a finger on a trigger nearly every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JBSF, on 22 Jul 2014 - 13:09, said:

The CDC and the DOJ categorically stated that something like 75%+ of gang related murders

happen as part of the commission of a crime.

Ouch, here’s his source: The public often has viewed gangs, drug trade/use,

crime, and homicides as interconnected factors; however, studies have shown little connection between gang homicides and drug trade/use and crime.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm>

JBSF, on Sept 22 2014 - 01:21, said:

Uncle

 

 

Actually, you still make my point FOR me, as usual..... We have two different studies that seem contradictory - so what, I think it gets into nuances of how you read the data. But regardless - the majority of homicides in the US are NOT done by mentally ill white guys who snap and shoot up movie theaters and elementary schools with AWs. Nor are the majority of homicides committed by law abiding, card carrying NRA gun owners, recreational shooters, and CCW license-holders.

 

So your continued characterization that WE are the problem with the "gunplay" in America is categorically false. And its insulting. You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. You are projecting your own insecurities and fears onto the wrong crowd.

 

You are mis-telling the tale, then changing the subject from intellectual dishonesty. For starters, it wasn't exactly he said she said, you had a wild source you couldn't back up with others, but I went and did my homework.

 

Jeff , four sources against "vast majority" of homicides being gang related II

Source 1

In any given year from 2002 to 2009, from 1,000 to 1,300 gang-related homicides are documented and reported in the largest cities in the NYGS.

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm

Pasted from <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gang_related_deaths_occur_within_the_US_each_year>

Source 2

This source says from 2007 to 2011, we had an average of 1900 gang death per year.

1900 divided into 11,000 gun deaths per year = 19% US gun homicides are gang related.

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

Jeff, this 19% figure demonstrates that gangbanger deaths are not a vast majority of U.S. homicides.

Source 3

This link's FBI numbers summarize the gang homicide figure at 12%. I had previously entered this from <http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems>

Source 4

The number of gang-related homicides reported from 2007 to 2011 is displayed by area type and population size.

  • From 2007 through 2011, a sizeable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions.
  • These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

 

Jeff, this 12% to 18% range of figures demonstrates that gangbanger deaths were not a vast majority of U.S. homicides.

But you ran around saying other than that. In four examples I found, and posted elsewhere.

So regarding intellectual dishonesty, you're better off not going there.

This discussion, the ganbanger myth de-bunking, went to what ARE the vast majority of gun homicides ?

The answer was, in six linked sources posted for you, that 70% to 85% of the deaths are dustups between peoples who knew each other, um then many arguments turned fatal because of self defense mythology and the proximity of a weapon.

New flash. This fact is a self defense myth debunker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GANBANGER SCAPEGOATING 101

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY DOCUMENTION 101

 

 

Jeffie fibs numbers one thru four

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number One:

Posted by JBSF on 11 June 2014 - 09:27 PM in Political Anarchy

Furthermore, the 12x rate is not all because of mentally disturbed kids. The vast majority of our homicide rate is inner city drug related crime and gang activity. [...]

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number two:

who commits more gun crime, liberals or conservatives?

Posted by JBSF on 18 September 2013 - 01:14 AM in Political Anarchy

Well, given that the majority of the murders in the US (VAST MAJORITY) are commited in the inner city urban areas - I think they are likely firmly blue voters.

Thanks Obama!

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number three:

How would you folks remodel the NRA?....

Posted by JBSF on 03 May 2013 - 10:49 PM in Political Anarchy

But you continually rail on about the supposed "gun culture" as if people like me, and CF, and AGITC, and LenP and Sarosa and Tom Ray, etc have ANYTHING in common with the urban thugs in Chicago and similar who are committing the vast majority of the "gun crime".

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number four:

#4384391The real roadblock to stopping gun violence? The NRA or Jocal?

Posted by JBSF on 13 November 2013 - 03:02 AM in Political Anarchy

The VAST majority of the gun murders out there are committed by run of the mill criminals and gangbangers, most likely as a directly result of the drug trade. If we ended the "war on drugs" - I'm betting the violent crime rate would plummet overnight.

DId Jeff know better than these posts? Why is example 1, on 11 June of 2014, a reversal of what he said Mar 20 of 2014, below?

See the date on this next post. Could it show intellectual dishonesty?

 

Armed homed defense and home invasion thread

JBSF, on 25 Mar 2014 - 21:08, said:

The vast majority of murders are committed by completely sane individuals

who are murdering for other reasons like drugs, domestic violence, robbery, etc.

By March 2014 Jeff had assimilated the facts (acquaintences offings account for about 80%of the numbers)

possibly because I quoted them here as Boothy scoffed at them. Hmmm, yet he continued to blame blacks.

The importance of facing murder-by-acquaintance reality is that it weakens the focus of self-protection and gun-driven circulation.

It supports the OP study conclusion, too, how about that.

The facts do not not support armed fear of armed criminals, or CCP philosophy, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

@ Jeff.

Your question is why I have objected to AW's more than handguns.

What's it to you, unless you're trying to impose your will on me? It's not for you to dictate which bully I might feel like punching first.

 

It's like asking Boothy why he loathes mother figure #2, as opposed to the three others. :huh:

 

 

 

Any handgun-issue discussion on SA will bring a lowbrow furor I am not looking for and do not need.

 

Yes the crux of the damage is handguns, a high-risk consumer object used in 75% of gun homicides. For me only a good-faith discussion would make listening to all your mindless approaches worth that discussion. It will become a painful decision on the national level; the facts are not supportive of handguns.

 

 

What's it to me???? Really? Because YOU are trying to impose your will on ME, that's why! As for me dictating which bully you punch first - you're damn skippy its up to me to have a say. Jack and you bark out distractions, and I must chase alhohol ills and handguns? EMF, it doesn't work like that. You can't say your extremist guns and views are not crowding society on many levels. Think pushback. Because if you are trying to abridge any of my rights, Not so fast. Heller Heller Heller. Heller said not all guns in all places, for whatever purpose. I have a right to not only understand why, but I have a right to demand that you show a good reason for doing it as well as the right to know if you've thought it through well enough to think that you will actually achieve the intended results.

 

The sad fact is I don't think you even understand yourself what it is that you're actually trying to achieve. Less gun damage, to be sure. Responsible gun leadership. Low gun injury stats. Simply put, a future where I figure guns will work out. Instead I see gun trouble coming because of stupid stuff put forward by the rabid gun guys, like you. Is it lower death by gun numbers? I'll take that too. If so, then handguns better be your first bully you try to punch at - because otherwise you will achieve squadoosh. Yet you know that handguns are the poison pill politically - so you go after other stuff you think you can win at by appealing to emotion. Empty claim, that. Elsewhere you blame scary looks as a single factor. Emotion is one of many valid driving forces which you have chosen to not recognize, so have not faced.

 

See.... to me that is where the intellectual dishonesty wooh wooh comes in from the gun grabber side. And you, Joe, are the epitome of the emotional gun grabber. Its interesting that you actually admit handguns are the real problem - not many gun grabbers are that open about it. Cite that shit. Any lack of mentioning the need for handgun control may relate to it being the 800 lb elephant one dare not discuss, due to well crybaby hysteria, meltdowns, I hate Billy Backstay's buddy now. etc. Yet you still are a coward

oh really? I fight the bunch of you at will, playing fairly, and can mug you with facts. and continue to push the false notion that banning AWs are the answer to all of society's ills. Cite that too. Lame.

 

Let's have that good-faith discussion about handguns. It would be interesting to see if you can do it though without resorting to photoshops and endless cunt-n-pastes. That probably depends on how stupid you get, whether you sustain lies without further documentation, and whether you cease openly calling for learned contributions to go unopened and/or unread. I'm not holding my breath....

 

oh and BTW - feel free to report me for using your name. Not only did you tell me in a PM years ago to feel free to use your name on the forums, but you've posted your full name yourself. Read the rules again about posting names. Once you put it out there, you can't then take it back and get pissy when people use your real name. Sorry, them's the rules..... http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4354424

 

I thought the recent sticky laid it out name use differently. Gent to gent, however, you have been asked twice now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put down the 'shroom, JokeAwf, you're fuking embarrassing yourself......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently it occurred to me that I had never read all the way through a Joke Off post. So to give him the benefit of the doubt I try to work through a couple of his latest.

 

Can anyone else understand what he writes? I have to admit I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently it occurred to me that I had never read all the way through a Joke Off post. So to give him the benefit of the doubt I try to work through a couple of his latest.

 

Can anyone else understand what he writes? I have to admit I can't.

Perhaps a few sear stones and a hat might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack get back to us whether you understand this one

 

 

 

Speaking of possibly poor self defense mores of the gun culture and the SA Gun Club

and knowing how we like documentation of alleged perspective problems shall we say

and being a little mischievous are a bad combination.

 

We've been talking about hard-core self defense attitudes, and Jeff has denied them among us, with his silver tongue and all his earnest sincerity.

But PBO has suggested that Americans seem to overdo self defense concepts, and further that it is so ingrained that we may be accepting the over-reaching as normal and okay.

 

Note: I only use these examples because we enjoy this guy and because he is community-centric. I'm looking for a conversation, a bit of tribal introspection, not a personal vilification of any anarchist here.

The entire posts are included.

 

R Booth Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:35 AM

Tell ya what----you figure out how to stop the river of single moms and kids with no dads, how to stop crime and get our fuking bleeding heart judges to start dropping the hammer on violent criminals and giving them REAL LONG prison sentences (instead of little mini vacations), then, and only then, can you come back here and try your hand at 'disarming' law abiding citizens. In the meantime, those of us here will continue to arm ourselves, to fight fire with fire, and to protect our own lives and the lives of our loved ones---the way we see fit...and within the legal confines of our existing gun laws.

You, on the other hand, Mr. Gun Owning Hipocrite, can do wetf you want. Just do NOT attempt to impede us responsible gun owners with your pablumatic cut & pastes, or your Berkleyesque views on how you think we should conduct ourselves.

Because we are not the problem....just the solution.......

 

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=23#entry4354288

 

R Booze, on 04 Feb 2015 - 14:52, said:

Getting rid of America's bad guys, in any manner, is a GOOD thing JokeAwf. You should relish & savor the very moment every-fuking-time that one of them meets an early demise. ....

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&page=2#entry4837580>

 

FFL%20speak%20Boothy_zpseywlmlmk.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, you really should seek some professional help. I mean that in all sincerity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, you really should seek some professional help. I mean that in all sincerity.

It's not like he's bull gator, he just disagrees with you and has the time to make editorial photo-composites. Is disagreement now your new metric of mental illness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Joe, you really should seek some professional help. I mean that in all sincerity.

It's not like he's bull gator, he just disagrees with you and has the time to make editorial photo-composites. Is disagreement now your new metric of mental illness?

 

 

Psychosis

 

Manifest as a type of catatonia is more of an outward presentation of the profoundly agitated state described above. It involves excessive and purposeless motor behavior, as well as extreme mental preoccupation that prevents an intact experience of reality. An example is someone walking very fast in circles to the exclusion of anything else with a level of mental preoccupation (meaning not focused on anything relevant to the situation) that was not typical of the person prior to the symptom onset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously Mike, one could concede to everything Joke Off has claimed about guns and gun owners and it would change nothing.

 

As a free society we accept all manner of risks. The obvious example is we let people own cars even though they cause many injuries and deaths. As a society we accept the trade off. Mobility vs safety.

 

Scholastic sports maim and kill a real number of people every year. Diving, gymnastics and football cause spinal and brain injuries for example..

 

Then there are the special cases, human activities whose only purpose is recreation and personal enjoyment. Examples are various hobbies, alcohol, extreme sports, making jackass youtube videos etc.

 

Society tries to find a balance between prohibition and anything goes by regulating these activities. To be honest societies track record in this regard is uneven, sometimes capricious and hypocritical. Some would say the war on drugs juxtaposed with the down side to alcohol is the perfect example of this fickle nature of what society will and won't accept.

 

You have not and I believe, can not, explain why the associated risk and rewards of gun ownership are morally different than the risk and rewards of say motorcycles or alcohol.

 

We all tolerate the deaths they cause in exchange for the freedom to engage in those activities. Guns are not special just political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Joe, you really should seek some professional help. I mean that in all sincerity.

It's not like he's bull gator, he just disagrees with you and has the time to make editorial photo-composites. Is disagreement now your new metric of mental illness?

 

Psychosis

 

Manifest as a type of catatonia is more of an outward presentation of the profoundly agitated state described above. It involves excessive and purposeless motor behavior, as well as extreme mental preoccupation that prevents an intact experience of reality. An example is someone walking very fast in circles to the exclusion of anything else with a level of mental preoccupation (meaning not focused on anything relevant to the situation) that was not typical of the person prior to the symptom onset.

 

I've heard that accusing others of mental illness without professional diagnosis is actually a common symptom of borderline personality disorder, but that's just something I heard, I'm not a trained psychologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Seriously Mike, one could concede to everything Joke Off has claimed about guns and gun owners and it would change nothing.

 

As a free society we accept all manner of risks. The obvious example is we let people own cars even though they cause many injuries and deaths. As a society we accept the trade off. Mobility vs safety.

 

Scholastic sports maim and kill a real number of people every year. Diving, gymnastics and football cause spinal and brain injuries for example..

 

Then there are the special cases, human activities whose only purpose is recreation and personal enjoyment. Examples are various hobbies, alcohol, extreme sports, making jackass youtube videos etc.

 

Society tries to find a balance between prohibition and anything goes by regulating these activities. To be honest societies track record in this regard is uneven, sometimes capricious and hypocritical. Some would say the war on drugs juxtaposed with the down side to alcohol is the perfect example of this fickle nature of what society will and won't accept.

 

You have not and I believe, can not, explain why the associated risk and rewards of gun ownership are morally different than the risk and rewards of say motorcycles or alcohol.

 

We all tolerate the deaths they cause in exchange for the freedom to engage in those activities. Guns are not special just political.

I agree, if someone wants guns, it's their right to have them.

 

So why play games with bad statistics? ( That question is mostly for others, it isn't a crime of which you're usually guilty.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Joe, you really should seek some professional help. I mean that in all sincerity.

It's not like he's bull gator, he just disagrees with you and has the time to make editorial photo-composites. Is disagreement now your new metric of mental illness?

 

Psychosis

 

Manifest as a type of catatonia is more of an outward presentation of the profoundly agitated state described above. It involves excessive and purposeless motor behavior, as well as extreme mental preoccupation that prevents an intact experience of reality. An example is someone walking very fast in circles to the exclusion of anything else with a level of mental preoccupation (meaning not focused on anything relevant to the situation) that was not typical of the person prior to the symptom onset.

 

I've heard that accusing others of mental illness without professional diagnosis is actually a common symptom of borderline personality disorder, but that's just something I heard, I'm not a trained psychologist.

 

You replied to the sarcasm now reply to my serious comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like the commanding tone of that request, I prefer to do things when requested rather than ordered. I don't usually even let the people whom I love and support give me orders, let alone an otherwise friendly fellow on SA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like the commanding tone of that request, I prefer to do things when requested rather than ordered. I don't usually even let the people whom I love and support give me orders, let alone an otherwise friendly fellow on SA.

 

Now go do the dishes and mail me a VISA cash card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently it occurred to me that I had never read all the way through a Joke Off post. So to give him the benefit of the doubt I try to work through a couple of his latest.

 

Can anyone else understand what he writes? I have to admit I can't.

 

I can generally tease out what he's saying, when I've a mind to, but it's a lot of work.

 

 

Shorter sentences, and more punctuation, would help.

 

Most of the time, once I've worked out his meaning, I realize: the confusing turn of phrase, was a (failed) attempt to sound clever. I don't think he's nuts. Just too self-indulgent to care whether anyone understands what he's on about.

 

Ranting feels good; trying to communicate clearly, is work, and a buzz-kill.

 

 

 

I've never understood how folks get into long arguments with him. But then again, it usually scans more like an emotional slap-fight than a thinking debate, so there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Recently it occurred to me that I had never read all the way through a Joke Off post. So to give him the benefit of the doubt I try to work through a couple of his latest.

 

Can anyone else understand what he writes? I have to admit I can't.

 

I can generally tease out what he's saying, when I've a mind to, but it's a lot of work.

 

 

Shorter sentences, and more punctuation, would help.

 

Most of the time, once I've worked out his meaning, I realize: the confusing turn of phrase, was a (failed) attempt to sound clever. I don't think he's nuts. Just too self-indulgent to care whether anyone understands what he's on about.

 

Ranting feels good; trying to communicate clearly, is work, and a buzz-kill.

 

 

 

I've never understood how folks get into long arguments with him. But then again, it usually scans more like an emotional slap-fight than a thinking debate, so there you go.

 

I truly thank god for the scroll wheel on my mouse when it comes to jocal. The most effort I ever put into his rantings are a quick scan of the first sentence of a paragraph or two of his own writings to see what silly thing he's on about. The rest of the cutnpastes he puts up I completely ignore.

 

At least with mike clavern, while he can be long-winded and nonsensical at times - at least he makes the effort to put in some original thought. jocal, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently it occurred to me that I had never read all the way through a Joke Off post. So to give him the benefit of the doubt I try to work through a couple of his latest.

 

Can anyone else understand what he writes? I have to admit I can't.

 

Have the Jack you appear to have a comprehension issue generally. If you didn't you would not need to c & p so much shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Its interesting that you actually admit handguns are the real problem - not many gun grabbers are that open about it. Cite that shit. Any lack of mentioning the need for handgun control may relate to it being the 800 lb elephant one dare not discuss, due to well crybaby hysteria, meltdowns,

Cite what? That you admit that handguns account for 75% of all gun deaths? Read post #555. Yet you are too scared to take on the 800lb gorilla? So instead of actually doing the right thing by tackling the problem and speaking about the object that is really killing everyone - you instead are calling to ban guns because they have a flash hider, a bayonet lug or a pistol grip. And you wonder why the NRA and people like push back against your elk? If you can't even be honest enough and have to balls to take on the real fight - then I question your honesty in ALL things related to regulating guns.
I would have more respect for you if you just finally admitted that you find EBR's "icky" and just don't think the public should have them. Trying to tie them to reducing death and injury is total BS!

Instead I see gun trouble coming because of stupid stuff put forward by the rabid gun guys, like you.

 

Stupid Stuff put forward like what? I've asked you this MANY MANY times - but what am I, Tom, Len, AGITC, etc doing to contribute to your so-called "gun-play" and perpetuation of violence. We've already put to bed the notion that simply having a gun for self-defense does not cause criminals to commit crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's obviously not a defensive use of a weapon because he never actually fired it, according to woofers anyway. It doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Its interesting that you actually admit handguns are the real problem - not many gun grabbers are that open about it. Cite that shit. Any lack of mentioning the need for handgun control may relate to it being the 800 lb elephant one dare not discuss, due to well crybaby hysteria, meltdowns,

Cite what? That you admit that handguns account for 75% of all gun deaths? Read post #555. Yet you are too scared to take on the 800lb gorilla? So instead of actually doing the right thing by tackling the problem and speaking about the object that is really killing everyone - you instead are calling to ban guns because they have a flash hider, a bayonet lug or a pistol grip. And you wonder why the NRA and people like push back against your elk? If you can't even be honest enough and have to balls to take on the real fight - then I question your honesty in ALL things related to regulating guns.
I would have more respect for you if you just finally admitted that you find EBR's "icky" and just don't think the public should have them. Trying to tie them to reducing death and injury is total BS!

>>>>>>Instead I see gun trouble coming because of stupid stuff put forward by the rabid gun guys, like you.

 

Stupid Stuff put forward like what? I've asked you this MANY MANY times - but what am I, Tom, Len, AGITC, etc doing to contribute to your so-called "gun-play" and perpetuation of violence. We've already put to bed the notion that simply having a gun for self-defense does not cause criminals to commit crime.

 

 

You've asked many times, yes. And I have answered many times..I have addressed many 800 lb gorrillas....with a type of courage not backed up by guns..

I pick my own gorillas, at will, in a target rich environment.

 

 

 

The overview of the SA Gun Club is that it has accepted dishonesty and has ignored and molested science

for an end which has questionable social value: the Myth Behind Self Defense. The thread topic.

 

You're intoxicated by Heller and out of control; gun proliferation in public spaces has resulted.

Mean while the BATFE is molested, and trafficers party down. No worries.

 

To quote Jeffie's positions: AW's in Walmart, check, so what if .50 cals are sold there; no registration; dumbasses are indiscriminately provided AW's

thru his acceptance of private sales loopholes FFS, which is of course a bazaar for criminals; shoot unarmed tire chuckers rather than retire, then claim last resort scruples.

 

 

Jeff, if you can't see your position in this gun community as an influence and driving force of the exotic gunpower and outrageous gun laws and Tom Rays of the world then you are not introspective whatsoever. You may lack self-honesty skills or something. One example: contrast your rosy, innocent report of the swellness of the SA Gun Club with the nefarious quotes of our buddy Boothy.

 

I suggest that his behavior, and the consistent violent self defense rhetoric he speaks, is accepted here and is a normal of sorts. Of the four quotes, one objection surfaced, gently suggesting that Boothy is using sarcasm. Ahem. Come on, Jeff, this demonstrates my point about the club contributing to a violent pattern, while heavily armed, and while accepting idiotic behavior without screening or correction. Guys, this stuff is why people would like guns to just disappear.

 

Are you part of the problem? Think chicken and egg. Your need support for your running falsehoods. Your myth has created Tom Ray, Dave Workman, and Robert Farago.

 

You guys seem to get out of the bed in the morning and just bullshit the day away, and The Badgeless Dodger is better at it than most...

at spreading bullshit for guns.

 

 

 

Tom%20day%20after%20Sandy%20Hook_zps5pu1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen? I truly believe that what we are witnessing now is the complete mental meltdown of JoCal, right before our eyes. This tool makes DT seem normal. And I hope that no one gets harmed by him. Especially his wife.

 

Be afraid, be very fuking afraid.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I truly thank god for the scroll wheel on my mouse when it comes to jocal. The most effort I ever put into his rantings are a quick scan of the first sentence of a paragraph or two of his own writings to see what silly thing he's on about. The rest of the cutnpastes he puts up I completely ignore.

 

At least with mike clavern, while he can be long-winded and nonsensical at times - at least he makes the effort to put in some original thought. jocal, not so much.

It's mildly amusing that you even feel yourself sufficiently aware to critique either of us. About the only thing you seem qualified to actually do is scrape pigeon shit off of lawn gnomes, and then only under the guidance of an occupational therapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's obviously not a defensive use of a weapon because he never actually fired it, according to woofers anyway. It doesn't count.

Still having problems with that whole "reading comprehension" thing huh JBSF?

 

Just keep at it ... you taught yourself to hold a spoon, you'll figure out how to read someday too! Attaboy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We all tolerate the deaths they cause in exchange for the freedom to engage in those activities. Guns are not special just political.

I agree, if someone wants guns, it's their right to have them.

 

So why play games with bad statistics? ( That question is mostly for others, it isn't a crime of which you're usually guilty.)

 

Because no honest info is available to support these positions.

Again, EVEN THE SAF'S GOTTLIEB MUST QUOTE LOTT AND KLECK.

 

And boys, I am tired of the lies. I repeat, I am fucking tired of the lies. So I've exposed some here, starting p. 5.

 

Let's review:

 

1.On this thread, across pp 5 & 6,Tom's interstate gun comps were demonstrated by random to be comps to non-gun crimes. They had been used widely.

2.In the finger-in-the-dike poster, Tom has intentionally flipped Dr. Wintemute's statement 180 deg, by clipping the Dr.'s real conclusion out.

3.The hoodie poster is an attempted sham on Pinnoccio, on the fucking day after Sandy Hook mind you. Tom slips in non-relevant violence stats once again.

4. Tom's claim that there is no research blockage problem is an additional lie. Tom is an egregious influence on our situation: he is quite respected on these forums, but his product, by demand, is largely dishonest propaganda, IMO.

 

If you didn't have Tom, your need for dishonest info would have created him. Tom is an effect here, not so much a cause.

 

Let's go to Jeff. I have demonstrated with his words that he was blaming blacks for most of our gun violence, yet in another statement he can describe the reality. WTF?

I showed how Jeff picked a dead-wrong CDC and NIJ stat out of thin air.

The evasive, dishonest exchanges with him lasted months, across five threads.

Ergo he held firmly to his wrong-ass shit while unable to support it. This is the "dumb" kind of stuff I refer to.

 

Let's go to Boothy. I can find more such quotes, of course. He talks like a bozo with guns.

NO comments, boys? If not, why not?

May we not discuss the psychology and values in play with his quotes?

For example, do you personally find his approach acceptable?

Can you accept the idea that mainstream USA would object to him being heavily armed?

Would you like to influence him more positively so as not to threaten "confiscation"?

Why have you not done so so far?

 

 

I don't want to hear innocent choirboy assumptions of the SA Gun Club if fibs abound, and iif it makes violent, anti-social noises.

 

My suggestion: we could just re- group, re-assess the REAL part the SA Gun Club belief system plays in to the Myth Behind Defensive Gun Use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I truly thank god for the scroll wheel on my mouse when it comes to jocal. The most effort I ever put into his rantings are a quick scan of the first sentence of a paragraph or two of his own writings to see what silly thing he's on about. The rest of the cutnpastes he puts up I completely ignore.

 

At least with mike clavern, while he can be long-winded and nonsensical at times - at least he makes the effort to put in some original thought. jocal, not so much.

It's mildly amusing that you even feel yourself sufficiently aware to critique either of us. About the only thing you seem qualified to actually do is scrape pigeon shit off of lawn gnomes, and then only under the guidance of an occupational therapist.

 

Jeff, based on your description of your reading habits, you would have missed my original thoughts. That wouldn't surprise me.

Yet you ask many pertinent questions of my perspective. Must be the pictures. Ignore this one:

 

Boothy%20exit%20wound%20Tommy%20Lee%20Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

 

Guy, thank you for your respectfully phrased, thoughtful insights.

On the first part, willfully ignorant vitriol, I read my opposition's sites until I feel like puking. 20 min/day. min. It's where I get understanding of your perspectives, and where I find some pretty aggressive legal shenanigans, exaggerated self-defense beliefs, focus on tactical hipne$$, etc.

Then consider that Sailing Anarchy is both an "in your face" culture, and one where de-bunking is respected...outside of the gun forums.

My solution ideas and policy suggestions have been plugged in here and there, even summarized.

And I never said I was a policy wonk or the magic bullet, I'm just an anarchist confronting gun culture dishonesty and dis-information

.I fear that the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is as you describe, but only as far as you describe it.

The path of both efficacy and "advance progress" runs past research into policy.

It is not rabid to want to hear your club (filled with "solution" guys, I hear), get behind gun violence research.

Has that happened? Nope.

Instead, choirboys have lapped up a rationalizer/data-spinner named Tom Ray

Yeah, you don't even weigh in on the research blockage confusion.

I called Tom out on this lie all over the place....crickets.

So your premise is good, but unrequited by yourselves. Neither efficacy nor advance progress will occur while obstruction of data continues.

Simply put, your claim you want pre-demonstration of effective laws is exposed if the SA Gun Club is mute around Tom Ray's research blockage lies.

So...bro your lips are moving and you have the earnest sincerity thing going too...but you guys haven't followed through with your "SA Gun Club Belief System", as presented.

Let's hear about the next exciting chapter. I mean it.

Guy, our gun forum cottage industry may be thriving by passing lies back and forth.

CAUTION: RED IS FICTION BELOW.

 

 

Tom, five "No such ban" quotes

Example 1

Tom Ray, on 24 August 2013 - 2:51 AM, said:

“ The CDC flagrantly violated the NRA ban on research.” (they are able to get away with this

because that (research) "ban" does not exist outside the left wing noise machine)

Example 2. Tom Ray, on 06 Sept 2014 - 13:04, said:

You can knock off the nonsense about how Congress cut research funding. They didn't.

Example 3.

Tom Ray, Post 244, 9-year old kills Uzi instructor thread

(the CDC's mandate to avoid study is being discussed)

It's (meaning the mandate for research prevention) is just backlash from using tax money to fund political propaganda. "Researchers" who object to that are most likely advocates.

Example 4

1-22-'15

Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

There is no such ban, which is why the CDC did the study Obama requested. The one the author claims that gun nutz don't understand.

Example 5,

Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

 

Presidential orders can't reverse funding bans imposed by Congress. There was no need to, since no research funding ban was imposed by Congress. The only thing banned was using taxpayer money for political advocacy.

Tomadvocacyandabignose_zps1252a248.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen? I truly believe that what we are witnessing now is the complete mental meltdown of JoCal, right before our eyes. This tool makes DT seem normal. And I hope that no one gets harmed by him. Especially his wife.

 

Be afraid, be very fuking afraid.....

 

thiswaytothebunker_zpsc37b438d.png

 

 

 

Casa_Boothy_zps7bd5bdbc.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom is bright. He has been followed by the facts contained in these links.

 

Q. Why would he repeat the disinformation that public gun research for 18 years was not and is not blocked?

 

A. Tom may be bright but less than forthright (as demonstrated again by the juked stats he presented twice).

 

 

Is Tom's red ink a lie? Please decide for yourself in an informed manner.

For purposes of debate or enlightenment, from post 193, p2 of this thread, here are quality links which factually challenge Tom's red disinformation.

 

Mr. Booth, I seem to navigate okay for a nut case.

 

 

 

Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

There is no such ban, which is why the CDC did the study Obama requested. The one the author claims that gun nutz don't understand.

(snip)

Presidential orders can't reverse funding bans imposed by Congress. There was no need to, since no research funding ban was imposed by Congress. The only thing banned was using taxpayer money for political advocacy.

jocal, on 23 Jan 2015-2:54AM, said:

 

"Will lie for guns." This is absolute bullshit, Tom.

Source 1.One hundred educators begged Biden to end the ban right after Sandy Hook.

Source 2. The ban was extended over the huge HHS in 2011:

Quote

Dec. 23 2011 Sec. 218 19 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2012, Public Law 112-74, 112th Cong., 125 Stat. 786, Sec. 218, p. 1085 re: Health and Human Services.19

"None of the funds being made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control."

Source 3.Dr. Mark Rosenburg wrote extensively about how the NRA set up the ban. (The CDC was unfazed in direct communication, so the NRA had Jay Dickey force the ban directly in to the Appropriations Commitee.)

Source 4.Sen. Jay Dickey, who acted for the NRA, publicly admitted his regret for the ban in July 2012.

The loss of an entire generation of research was the result.

Source 5. Tom, either you didn't read the NIS/2013 report, or you are ignoring the volume of research it proposed. The three-to-five year window they wanted is half over. DOA.

Source 6 . ...funding for that work is being blocked by Republican senators.

Source 7. The 2014 budget was zero.

Tom, your general use of the work "advocacy" is misplaced. In fairness to these sciences, they must let the chips fall where then may. A scientist can easily conclude guns are a liability while remaining within his professional bounds: the conclusion is what it is. In most cases, these studies ascertain fact-based conclusions, which after review, are used to guide policy. The regular standards of peer review are in play, it doesn't get any better than that.

Calling the conclusions of all gun research "advocacy" is not a magic shield from evidence based conclusions.

Cheeky Tom asks " If banned, how'd they get the money for IOM/CDC 2013?"

The answer: This single report, you breezy asshole, was paid for by political capital paid in dead first graders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Jocal is honest enough to concede these facts.

 

over the last quarter century

  1. The number of guns in America has increased substantially
  2. The homicide rate has fallen substantially
  3. That many human activities include a body count that society tolerates
  4. That suicides patterns complicate country to country comparisons
  5. That a demographic breakdown of violence is needed to compare countries that have historically had racist immigration policies.
  6. That guns are political and that politics appeals to our emotions not our reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheeky Tom asks " If banned, how'd they get the money for IOM/CDC 2013?"

The answer: This single report, you breezy asshole, was paid for by political capital paid in dead first graders.

 

More school buses more dead first graders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Recently it occurred to me that I had never read all the way through a Joke Off post. So to give him the benefit of the doubt I try to work through a couple of his latest.

 

Can anyone else understand what he writes? I have to admit I can't.

 

I can generally tease out what he's saying, when I've a mind to, but it's a lot of work.

 

 

Shorter sentences, and more punctuation, would help.

 

Most of the time, once I've worked out his meaning, I realize: the confusing turn of phrase, was a (failed) attempt to sound clever. I don't think he's nuts. Just too self-indulgent to care whether anyone understands what he's on about.

 

Ranting feels good; trying to communicate clearly, is work, and a buzz-kill.

 

 

 

I've never understood how folks get into long arguments with him. But then again, it usually scans more like an emotional slap-fight than a thinking debate, so there you go.

 

If Jocal's post were tramp stamps you wouldn't read all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

 

Your honor, I present Exhibit A as evidence for the benefits of increased gun control ... the entire country of Australia. A fraction of the guns per person and a fraction of the deaths by firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminals still have guns in Australia, for some reason they do not register them.

 


Drug squad detectives allege they found 50 kg of drugs.

It is also alleged they found 8 firearms including an Uzi machine gun an assault rifle and silencer,4 handguns,two shortened shotguns and assorted ammunition.

www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-14/drugs-and-guns-seized-by-police-at-edensor-park/6015884

 

We had a gun death yesterday, a woman with a knife was shot dead by police,that will be recorded in the statistics as a gun death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

 

Your honor, I present Exhibit A as evidence for the benefits of increased gun control ... the entire country of Australia. A fraction of the guns per person and a fraction of the deaths by firearms.

 

Far too complex an issue to make that leap of logic. AUS =/= USA. However, it is indeed a statistical fact that more randumb = more dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too complex an issue to make that leap of logic. AUS =/= USA. However, it is indeed a statistical fact that more randumb = more dumb.

 

These facts are in evidence

 

Australia severely restricts gun ownership

Randumb is Australian

 

obvious conclusion there is a positive correlation between guns and IQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gun is designed to kill...that is its purpose. So goes your false analogy

 

How about these guns..... were they "designed only to kill"?

 

871533-14694142-640-360.jpg

 

8.jpg

 

pistol.jpg

 

So goes your false analogy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

 

Your honor, I present Exhibit A as evidence for the benefits of increased gun control ... the entire country of Australia. A fraction of the guns per person and a fraction of the deaths by firearms.

And a fraction of the population of the USA...... guess you missed that part....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jocal's post were tramp stamps you wouldn't read all that.

But I might spend quite a long time pretending to be reading...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Jocal's post were tramp stamps you wouldn't read all that.

But I might spend quite a long time pretending to be reading...

 

you sure about that?

 

tramp-stamp-tattoo-best-demotivational-p

 

p4Eop7b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

 

Your honor, I present Exhibit A as evidence for the benefits of increased gun control ... the entire country of Australia. A fraction of the guns per person and a fraction of the deaths by firearms.

And a fraction of the population of the USA...... guess you missed that part....

What you missed is I was referring to rate / 100,000. Get with the program, check it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

 

Your honor, I present Exhibit A as evidence for the benefits of increased gun control ... the entire country of Australia. A fraction of the guns per person and a fraction of the deaths by firearms.

 

Far too complex an issue to make that leap of logic. AUS =/= USA. However, it is indeed a statistical fact that more randumb = more dumb.

You know I'm beginning to think that the rate /100,000 difference for firearm related deaths is not the whole story. From reading posts here I think there are more fuckwits in the US ... just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

4. Tom's claim that there is no research blockage problem is an additional lie. Tom is an egregious influence on our situation: he is quite respected on these forums, but his product, by demand, is largely dishonest propaganda, IMO.

 

If you didn't have Tom, your need for dishonest info would have created him. Tom is an effect here, not so much a cause.

...

 

Hah! I'm like an entity or something! And quite possibly the worst messenger ever to boot.

 

 

 

Cheeky Tom asks " If banned, how'd they get the money for IOM/CDC 2013?"

The answer: This single report, you breezy asshole, was paid for by political capital paid in dead first graders.

 

 

 

No, it was paid for by tax dollars. The fact that it happened is one reason I think it can happen and wasn't banned. It's a reality thing. Try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carry a gun, you are more likely to be killed by a gun than not carrying a gun. Simple math.

Shoot an attacker before he kills you, you will more likely survive.

Simple math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

Your honor, I present Exhibit A as evidence for the benefits of increased gun control ... the entire country of Australia. A fraction of the guns per person and a fraction of the deaths by firearms.

Exhibit B - the entire country of Switzerland is armed, and yes, they keep the weapons in their homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

JoCal - You don't have to leave, or stop posting, but, realize that your willfully ignorant vitriol isn't helping you win anyone over to your position. The fact is that you haven't been able to demonstrate the efficacy of any action that you've espoused. Do that, and you'll have an attentive audience. When all you post is rabid, spittle flying blather, it's just silly for you to expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

The core of the "SA Gun Club Belief System" is simply this: Before you try to implement a change, you need to demonstrate how that change will advance progress towards the goal that the change is intended to address. That approach applies no matter WHAT change is being proposed, or by whom.

 

Your honor, I present Exhibit A as evidence for the benefits of increased gun control ... the entire country of Australia. A fraction of the guns per person and a fraction of the deaths by firearms.

 

Far too complex an issue to make that leap of logic. AUS =/= USA. However, it is indeed a statistical fact that more randumb = more dumb.

You know I'm beginning to think that the rate /100,000 difference for firearm related deaths is not the whole story. From reading posts here I think there are more fuckwits in the US ... just saying.

 

Randumb* - I feel bad having to explain it to you like you are a small child asking about where does the sun go when it gets dark.... but you bring this on yourself.

 

Comparing a rate to a rate for hugely different countries doesn't even come close to telling the entire story. The demographics, economics, immigration policy, crime, drugs, poverty, laws, culture, history, etc are all unique between the two countries.

 

Simply declaring that 1/100K rate = 1/100K rate is equivalent is beyond simplistic.

 

Does mommy need to wipe your ass for you too???

 

 

 

 

 

*More randumb = more dumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right for once JB, there are just more fuckwits in merica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Aussies that I know are remotely grateful. We stopped the Japanese in PnG. I think you have fallen victim of some american propaganda. You should be grateful that we saved more american lives being lost to keep our natural resources away from the Japs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Aussies that I know are remotely grateful. We stopped the Japanese in PnG. I think you have fallen victim of some american propaganda. You should be grateful that we saved more american lives being lost to keep our natural resources away from the Japs.

 

"Japs"??? And you give me shit for using the word goatfucker??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funni. So Goatfucker is an affectionate contraction of what? Still trying to rewrite your history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funni. So Goatfucker is an affectionate contraction of what? Still trying to rewrite your history?

 

Keep digging......

 

Jap is an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is generally regarded as an ethnic slur among Japanese minority populations in other countries, although English-speaking countries differ in the degree to which they consider the term offensive. In the United States, Japanese Americans have come to find the term controversial or offensive, even when used as an abbreviation.[1] In the past, Jap was not considered primarily offensive; however, during and after the events of World War II, the term became derogatory.[2]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.png

Funni. So Goatfucker is an affectionate contraction of what? Still trying to rewrite your history?

Japanese is Aus (affectionate contraction) think it's affectionate. We didn't nuke em!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right for once JB, there are just more fuckwits in merica

 

I see.... so you have nothing rational to contradict my flawless and unassailable logic - so the answer must be that there are more fuckwits in the US. Gotcha.

 

BTW - what about my right for once? Which right of mine are you referring to? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your right for once JB, there are just more fuckwits in merica

 

I see.... so you have nothing rational to contradict my flawless and unassailable logic - so the answer must be that there are more fuckwits in the US. Gotcha.

 

BTW - what about my right for once? Which right of mine are you referring to? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

You said

"The demographics, economics, immigration policy, crime, drugs, poverty, laws, culture, history, etc are all unique between the two countries.

 

Simply declaring that 1/100K rate = 1/100K rate is equivalent is beyond simplistic. "

 

I am beginning to agree, the difference is the percentage of fuckwits. Still to prove it but that's the hypothesis of the moment based on your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Aussies that I know are remotely grateful. We stopped the Japanese in PnG. I think you have fallen victim of some american propaganda. You should be grateful that we saved more american lives being lost to keep our natural resources away from the Japs.

So I guess we should have stayed out of the Pacific and let you take on the Japs with your spare hand. You seem to be confident that since you "stopped the Japanese in PnG" that you should have been left all alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

4. Tom's claim that there is no research blockage problem is an additional lie. Tom is an egregious influence on our situation: he is quite respected on these forums, but his product, by demand, is largely dishonest propaganda, IMO.

 

If you didn't have Tom, your need for dishonest info would have created him. Tom is an effect here, not so much a cause.

...

 

Hah! I'm like an entity or something!

You didn't understand that? DIshonest Gun Propaganda, Inc.

I named the names of your crowd, here. A very predictable group.

 

And quite possibly the worst messenger ever to boot.

I didn't say that. Because you may be better than Dave Workman, seriously.

 

 

 

Cheeky Tom asks " If banned, how'd they get the money for IOM/CDC 2013?"

The answer: This single report, you breezy asshole, was paid for by political capital paid in dead first graders.

 

 

 

No, it was paid for by tax dollars. The fact that it happened is one reason I think it can happen and wasn't banned. It's a reality thing. Try it.

:

"It can happen" once in 18 years, according to the definition of ban which you apply to guns, means a ban. An effective one.

 

But don't dodge the point. That study was a mere wish list of causal studies, to be done by different design. It was paid for by those children's lives, God rest 'em.

We don't want to pay for the next study, or the suggested studies, with the bodies of first-graders.

 

And we don't want to jump out of bed the day after an AW slaughter of 20 children, and begin typing in lies and misleading violence stats, do we?

Based on such dedication, I guess you are not the worst of the dishonest gun propagandists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after all these years of watching JokeAwf psycho-babble away here like a drooling octogenarian in a mental ward, all I've managed to discern from him is that he doesn't agree with the S/Defense stats, and ergo believes that none of us should have a gun in our homes to protect ourselves and/or our loved ones.

 

Do I have that right, JokeAwf?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after all these years of watching JokeAwf psycho-babble away here like a drooling octogenarian in a mental ward, all I've managed to discern from him is that he doesn't agree with the S/Defense stats, and ergo believes that none of us should have a gun in our homes to protect ourselves and/or our loved ones.

 

Do I have that right, JokeAwf?.....

 

I think that is close. He believes it should be illegal for most people, except him and maybe a few others, but that in those rare exceptions where people are allowed to own them, they should under no circumstances feel good about it or talk about it openly unless they are displaying the appropriate amount of solemnity and shame. Basically, if you are going to own a gun, you should be ashamed of it, not use it, and feel dirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeps, I think you nailed it. Just leave your doors unlocked and put out some cookies & milk for the criminal scum element. Then let them take your shit and rape your wife while you run out the back door and hide in your neighbor's tree.

 

Gottit.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So after all these years of watching JokeAwf psycho-babble away here like a drooling octogenarian in a mental ward, all I've managed to discern from him is that he doesn't agree with the S/Defense stats, and ergo believes that none of us should have a gun in our homes to protect ourselves and/or our loved ones.

 

Do I have that right, JokeAwf?.....

 

I think that is close. He believes it should be illegal for most people, except him and maybe a few others, but that in those rare exceptions where people are allowed to own them, they should under no circumstances feel good about it or talk about it openly unless they are displaying the appropriate amount of solemnity and shame. Basically, if you are going to own a gun, you should be ashamed of it, not use it, and feel dirty.

 

JFC! Where the hell were you several years ago when joe came upon the scene and tried to join the SA gun club??? You could have saved me literally years of banging my head against my laptop screen trying to understand WTF he was going on about! It all makes so much more sense now. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So after all these years of watching JokeAwf psycho-babble away here like a drooling octogenarian in a mental ward, all I've managed to discern from him is that he doesn't agree with the S/Defense stats, and ergo believes that none of us should have a gun in our homes to protect ourselves and/or our loved ones.

 

Do I have that right, JokeAwf?.....

 

I think that is close. He believes it should be illegal for most people, except him and maybe a few others, but that in those rare exceptions where people are allowed to own them, they should under no circumstances feel good about it or talk about it openly unless they are displaying the appropriate amount of solemnity and shame. Basically, if you are going to own a gun, you should be ashamed of it, not use it, and feel dirty.

 

JFC! Where the hell were you several years ago when joe came upon the scene and tried to join the SA gun club??? You could have saved me literally years of banging my head against my laptop screen trying to understand WTF he was going on about! It all makes so much more sense now. Thanks.

 

 

Three years of his bullshit, succinctly summarized in less than one hundred words.

 

Why did this take so fuking long?......:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after all these years of watching JokeAwf psycho-babble away here like a drooling octogenarian in a mental ward, all I've managed to discern from him is that he doesn't agree with the S/Defense stats, and ergo believes that none of us should have a gun in our homes to protect ourselves and/or our loved ones.

 

Do I have that right, JokeAwf?.....

 

No. Your suggestion is a convenient blame mechanism. I think I've answered this before.

 

The guns aren't bad, but first off the crime scapegoat angle doesn't pan out well.

Secondly, there is a need for discretion in circulating guns, and that discretion is culturally absent with gun extremists.

SInce extremists are calling the shots, well, tread carefully.

 

So one squared-away individual (and that may not include you, Amigo) in one home with one modest gun for a few periods of specific danger, yes, that's pretty cool.

 

But many poorly-screened armed people all the time in public places, open carry, some chanting quasi-treason, plus loud insistence on "spray and pray" designs? That's a different matter.

 

Boothy, I answered fair-and-square. How about a thoughtful response to the very salient point I have made?

 

 

 

Announcement: on this same topic, Tom and I got about 20% into a clean discussion of "confiscation" on Billy Backstay's Stoopid Law thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1). You wanna ban & confiscate 'Assault weapons', even though they've only been used less than 1% in 'mass murders' in this country.

 

2). I wanna own firearms to protect myself and my loved ones because a house in this country is broken into every 6 seconds.

 

3). Whose 'stats' above make more sense to make an intelligent decision wrt to The 2nd, and our rights & reasons to own firearms?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So after all these years of watching JokeAwf psycho-babble away here like a drooling octogenarian in a mental ward, all I've managed to discern from him is that he doesn't agree with the S/Defense stats, and ergo believes that none of us should have a gun in our homes to protect ourselves and/or our loved ones.

 

Do I have that right, JokeAwf?.....

 

No. Your suggestion is a convenient blame mechanism. I think I've answered this before.

 

The guns aren't bad, but first off the crime scapegoat angle doesn't pan out well.

Secondly, there is a need for discretion in circulating guns, and that discretion is culturally absent with gun extremists.

SInce extremists are calling the shots, well, tread carefully.

 

Hey fucktard - maybe if you spent less time making stupid photoshops and endlessly cutting and pasting BS studies and a little MORE time actually reading what most of us write here, you might understand a few things differently about the SA gun club. for instance:

 

  1. I am a huge proponent of background checks. I think they should be expanded to include more mental health issues and better cross state-line database sharing.
  2. I advocate harsh penalties for both dealers and owners who violate and abuse gun laws. Enforce the existing laws better and see how that works before making more laws that are unenforcable.
  3. I advocate holding parents and other gun owners legally responsible for their negligence if their gun is used in a crime or accidental shooting. If you leave a gun unsecured where a criminal or child or whatever can get it and use it for bad - then you are responsible for that bad act.
  4. I am open to having the discussion about running all private sales through the same background checks as is in place for dealers. There are issues to resolve - but I think its workable without overly infringing on liberty.

Your fucking problem, jocal, is that you blabber too much and listen too little. I would bet that most of the guys here are open to sensible gun regulations IF and ONLY IF they can be shown to actually have a chance of achieving the desired effect without overly infringing on our rights. As long as you and your elk continue to paint us with the broad brush that WE are the problem and not the criminal fucks that use guns for evil - then you will get strong and unrelenting push back. We've compromised over and over. Its about time you fucking took one for the team and conceded that the SA gun club is NOT the problem.

 

As long as you continue to paint us as the problem - those things above that I and others like me are "open" to discussing are not even close to being on the table. Get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poor guy here in Hell-A the other day was merely misunderstood and should not have been shot, huh JokeAwf?

 

(Lucky for this shit head that he didn't try and pull this stunt off in Arizona----'cuz he probably would not have fared so well)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of self-defense, I have a conversation to continue with Jeff. This is the correct thread, based on topic.

 

From the Gun Nutter Sttrikes thread.

 

Mean-spirited??? I think I've been exceedingly polite to you hoping you might actually FOR ONCE bother to 1) actually read and comprehend a post of mine in its entirety and 2) actually respond to a direct question I've posed to you. You haven't upheld your end of your own deal

Now stop being such a fucking cry-baby, go change your tampon, and respond to my post above.

 

The background to this post: I made a deal for Jeff to first explain the mores of shooting an unarmed, shirtless tire chucker in the following situation: a d'ranger story here. The offender had been discovered dumping tires in a debris box, had been challenged by an employee's gun, and had clenched his fists and simply advanced on the armed employee.

 

Jeff played the self-defense card, not the "last resort" card. One poster (I thought LenP, Jeff said AGIC) concurred, suggesting that fists can be deadly weapons.

 

Green light to fire, supported by the choir?

 

 

 

I came across Jeff's response:

Joco,

Feel free to show me where I "coached" or "cheered" any such incident and we'll talk. I did no such thing. I do stand by my long standing principle that a firearm is a legitimate self-defense tool against even unarmed people. I wouldn't expect a smaller person to take a potentially lethal beating just because the assailant wasn't armed. A bigger person armed only fists and skittles can maim and kill, as GITC correctly said. So stating that fact is not "coaching", as much as you'd like it to be so.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=23#entry4354288>

 

First, let me say that with my back to a wall, so to speak, hell yes I would shoot my gun at a nasty human.

The problem being I would have to get the gun (200 ft. away) walk a considerable distance to ammo, load the gun, and carry it to danger before that would be viable. (I like it that way...not unlike Wofsey's setup.) That's what I call last resort.

 

Let's say I'm standing on a loading dock, gun in hand, with a unarmed hothead coming at me, I've still got two options before shooting:

1. Get back thru the office door before the man is near. Lock the fool out, he'll simmer down.

2. Or split with my precious, while I can still choose a good direction.

 

Jeff, you can present yourself two different ways at different times.

d'ranger was sensible in retiring; he had options. You would have had them too.


Coaching others to shoot in that situation is not coaching last resort. Just sayin'.

To drag in "self defense" before contact is using a legal term, license, as a parameter.

I suggest coaching necessity, or discretion, or values as a guide, not some hopefully legal excuse to fire.

See the difference?

 

Shooting that tire chucker is not last resort, when scutinized. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites