This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

G

Guest

Guest
Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?
I don't care for dancing in the weeds. Let's just get a room.
Ah no. You can act out your homosexual fantasies with someone else if you really want.

And why is that in the weeds? They are absolutely fundamental questions germaine to the debate. And you can answer as a YES/NO. Easy-peasy pumpkin pie. Your continued refusal to answer them proves that not only are you a coward, but that you have zero integrity or intention to discuss this matter honestly. Don't worry.... this comes as no surprise.

 
G

Guest

Guest
random said:
Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?
Not scared of anything, except big sharks maybe.

I just haven't answered to wind you up. Seems to have worked.
Not wound up at all. I frankly could care less if you answer or not. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to the conversation of what goes on inside of 'merica. I am just amused at your childishness. Carry on....

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?
I don't care for dancing in the weeds. Let's just get a room.
Ah no. You can act out your homosexual fantasies with someone else if you really want.

And why is that in the weeds? They are absolutely fundamental questions germaine to the debate. And you can answer as a YES/NO. Easy-peasy pumpkin pie. Your continued refusal to answer them proves that not only are you a coward, but that you have zero integrity or intention to discuss this matter honestly. Don't worry.... this comes as no surprise.
Whew. Not wound up at all.

Cuntfinder, you are known in these parts for your Mad Analytical Skilz, right? So yeah, some leading, myopic, YES/NO questions can have their limitations.

Dude, you need to check out my signature line.

You are building gun policy around being pro-suicide, I take it.

You are blessing the earth with our increased gun suicides? WTF?

Abnormally high gun suicides somehow demonstrate the benefit of guns in the USA?

That bit seems sort of patholocical.

Is WaYne LaPierre a Psychopath? CHARACTERISTICS OF PSYCHOPATHS:

What is very disturbing about psychopaths, besides their sense of special entitlement, is their complete lack of empathy for normal people, psychopaths seem to lack a conscience, feeling little or no empathy for the people whose lives they touch…they effortlessly resists all regulation, unable to see beyond his self-interest or to adopt standards of right versus wrong.

[SIZE=10.5pt]When caught in a lie and challenged, they make up new lies, and don’t care if they’re found out. Often, the psychopath will turn on the victim and claim that the victim suffers from “delusions” and is not mentally stable.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]“The main lesson I have learnt is that when dealing with a sociopath, the normal rules of etiquette do not [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]apply[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]. You are dealing with someone who has no empathy, no conscience, no remorse, and no guilt…It is a completely different mindset. Words like ‘predator’ and ‘evil’ are often used.” If you try to deal with psychopaths in an ethical manner, you will be in for a shock. Dr. William Higgins claims that you “can’t negotiate or bargain with psychopaths.” [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]http://www.oocities.org/lycium7/psychopathy.html[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]“Psychopaths will not only deny the past and trivialize it, but will avoid answering your questions directly, even if they seem to answer them. Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects their actions have on others. Often they are completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the pain and destruction they have caused, and that there is no reason for them to be concerned.” [Hare, 41]“.[/SIZE]

http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/2013/03/is-wayne-lapierre-a-psychopath/>


EMHubrisMachine_zps8598ec6e.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
(Joe: You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.)
I never attempted to demonstrate a positive correlation between anything. I simply asked you to answer the questions. So..... yes or no?
You have been claiming the increase in guns has caused crime to drop. You need to relate the two bars on your own graph. You can't.
You must be responding to someone else, because I made no such claim. Please post where I've ever claimed that. I'll wait patiently while you search the archives.....
Your claim (i.e. that the increase in guns has caused crime to drop) was recent--last month. It had that spurious graph you presented.

I couldn't believe such an uninformed rant.

JBSF, on 12 Mar 2015 - 04:39 AM, said:

[SIZE=9pt]Joe, why do you continue to[/SIZE] lie?[SIZE=9pt] Baldfaced [/SIZE]lie?[SIZE=9pt] Knowingly[/SIZE] lie? You are wrong and no one is buying your shit any more.[SIZE=9pt] For the 10th gazillion time - as the [/SIZE]

number of guns in circulation has gone up, violent crime has gone down. Way down.

(Omitted: Jeff's graph, by which he infers guns are lowering the crime rate.)

Guns are not "out of control in the USA". We have dispelled the notion 1000x here that more guns =/= more death. For fucks sake, STFU up for once!!!
You may need to address veracity itself, since I can back up my claim, but you can't. You are kind of a joke.

jocal505, on 12 Mar 2015 - 05:45 AM, said:

If quoting study conclusions from a broad variety of sources is lying, then I guess I'm a liar.

Guns are so out of control that the U.S. gun killings are 19.5x greater then other civilized countries. So bad that nine major medical organizations declared a public safety emergency, this month, about gun safety. They asked that AW's be resricted, as well.

We've been here before, O Cuntfinder. You did the bit that i was allowed to opinions, not my own facts, and segued into liar liar pants on fire. It took me five months to sort it, while doing a lot of reading on the subject.

That was then, and I refuted you with twenty sources. FFS, I thought the "more guns less crime" matter had been intelligently put to rest in our community. It lacks evidence-based research.

Tom may have taken this refute of Lott (below) as Tom's "guns neither increase nor decrease crime" position.

Quote

Abstract: For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 17 of the 18 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=2118893>

That opinion is twenty years old, however. Now Donahue has extended Lott's study thesis (more guns, less crime) into 2006. The hypothesis failed again, thoroughly, which (ouch) makes it junk science.

Quote

'Totality of the evidence'

Now, Donohue and his colleagues have shown that extending the data yet another decade (to 2006) provides the most convincing evidence to date that right-to-carry laws are associated with an increase in violent crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2118893>
Jeff, Lott and Kleck's crap is, again demonstrably disproven to be hogwash. Sorry you fell for it, mate.

Man, I just wish you could get off the "liar" bit. Your dishonesty was displayed the last time you went there. You are a tedious disappointment, Jeff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
I'm not pro suicide. I'm pro-choice. And that choice includes the tool to get the job done. Gun, rope, pills, razor blade - the end result is the same.

 

plchacker

Super Anarchist
5,202
16
Mobile, AL
What question is that? I recall your title of this thread as being thoroughly debunked. A gun would not have saved him. Death is a common fate for all peace-makers, Gandhi, Rabin, Sadat, Lincoln, King, Malcolm X....

Please get a fucking grip on this gun shit. The lot of ya. Stupid people running around talking like you, acting as if any specious, if not outright ridiculous argument you can imagine is pure brilliance is frightening. Get some spokesmen that aren't open racists and get rid of the ones that are. Your idea of countering that by suggesting only racists are against guns in the light of the current reality of the gun rights movement is fucking silly and you know it. Nutcases are a risk to the the right for sane people to have them.
I'm not sure how "This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed" is "debunked" by a list of non-violent activists who have been killed.

Maybe you've confused the meaning of "debunked" with "confirmed" or something? They don't look as similar as prospective and perspective, but that's the only explanation I can think up.

I'm not black and don't know firsthand, so I lean on established black corporations like the NAACP to learn what is important to black people. They seem mighty concerned about "stop and frisk" and its racist application.

Yet I've seen no calls from you for the anti-gun movement to get rid of the spokesman who personifies "stop and frisk" more than anyone else: Bloomberg, who recently said this:

Hah! The Aspen Institute and Gra$$root$ TV might not broadcast Bloomberg's comments, but bloggers in pajamas will find the audio and post it.

“We did a calculation on how many people who would have been dead if we hadn’t brought down the murder rate and gotten guns off the streets,” Bloomberg said. “And the way to get guns out of kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them.”
Plenty of cities have brought down crime rates without strict gun control laws and without searching random pedestrians.
Clearly continuing to advocate the racist policy he had while in office. I don't think the bolded bit is how you treat citizens or even humans. It's how you treat animals if you don't know how to deal with them properly.

No problems with his subhuman rhetoric? Shouldn't he be removed before we can take gungrabbers seriously?
How would a concealed handgun deter a sniper with a rifle?
Two feet to the rear of the sniper. Arms extended with the muzzle about a half inch from the snipers head. Not likely, but you asked..

How many deaths are there due to snipers in any given year?

 

plchacker

Super Anarchist
5,202
16
Mobile, AL
Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.
You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

Common fallacies: post hoc, ergo propter hoc:

Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.


Why did crime rates go down? The sociologists do not even mention gun popularity (which decreased per capita during the crime drop, BTW).Here are some of the combined factors in play:

The baby boom males aged, and mellowed.

The crack cocaine epidemic came, and went.

The 911 emergency response system was implemented.

Triage centers improved in emergency rooms, and medical advances addressed high velocity bullet cavitations in human flesh.

Security camera use, and the presence of cellphone cameras, both influenced criminal activity.

An impressive (but incomplete) body of evidence suggests that because the presence of lead poisoning (from both gasoline and paint) was curbed, violent behavior diminished.

BIrth control meant that unwanted children would not extend their poor upbringing into criminal fields.

Stiffer criminal penalties also had a documented effect.

To simply attribute the drop in crime to personal gunplay is unworthy...and also unsupported. Jeff, you and NGS are shamefully making the tired "more guns less crime" argument. That theory was firmly discredited twenty years ago...we covered it on PA as well.

A LOTT OF LIES: SHOOTING DOWN THE GUN LOBBY’S FAVORITE “ACADEMIC”

When Gary Kleck can't defend, he attacks. (2015 Politico articles, pro and con)

You are a lightweight, with a mind filled with cliche's.
I'm going to have to visit Seattle again. That must be some seriously good shit circulating up there. When do the three weeks of Summer begin?

 
G

Guest

Guest
random said:
random said:
Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?
Not scared of anything, except big sharks maybe.

I just haven't answered to wind you up. Seems to have worked.
Not wound up at all. I frankly could care less if you answer or not. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to the conversation of what goes on inside of 'merica. I am just amused at your childishness. Carry on....
:lol: and you are under the impression that your opinion influences "what goes on inside of 'merica."?

JFC,
Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
random said:
random said:
Check out the thread title Booze. Stay with it, pay attention.
The thread title is about non-violence.

It's well-established that suicides are gun violence. We have a whole thread about it, complete with appropriate title. Take your suicide crap there.
Awesome. Did you hear that Boozy?
I think he knows sarcasm when he sees it. There are only a few around here who believe gun control is the answer to "self-murder" and he's not in that clown car.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.
Jeff's bolded parts are not honest statements. I can debate them intelligently. Jeff. you need to support your statements with cites.

Boothy's italicized post, same thing. These are hollow claims, merely lowbrow opinions which need sources.

Nearly three quarters (74 percent) of NRA members supported requiring a background check system for all gun sales, according to a poll released Monday by Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The survey found 89 percent of all Americans support the proposal.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/nra-leadership-members-divide-on-universal-background-checks/>
Why hunters should stand against the nation’s largest firearm association

Most of the country, and most of the NRA itself, doesn't support the current NRA extremism.The NRA is not for hunters any more than AAA is for bicyclists. In 2011, nearly 14 million Americans hunted, while NRA members number about four million, fewer than half of whom actually hunt. First and foremost the NRA serves gun fetishists and the firearms industry. (...) Like me, many hunters consider the NRA a bunch of paranoid loonies, with an increasing volume of innocent blood on their hands.(...)When I say "Fuck the NRA," as I do quite often lately, it's for a host of reasons both personal and political, but has nothing to do with my feelings for guns or the 2nd amendment.The NRA needs hunters a lot more than hunters need the NRA. And the nation needs the opinions of hunters more than it needs the opinion of the NRA. Hunters are intermediaries between government armed forces and private citizens. We are armed citizens, who know what guns can do, and if sensible gun-control policy is ever to be pursued, hunters need to be part of the conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.
Jeff's bolded parts are not honest statements. I can debate them intelligently. Jeff. you need to support your statements with cites.

Boothy's italicized post, same thing. These are hollow claims, merely lowbrow opinions which need sources.
Ummm, you want cites that there is no majority public support for more gun control much less a groundswell??? Here, take your pick, dick: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/pages/2/

Who's being dishonest now, joe?

 
Last edited:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
R Booze said:
There's only one way for someone to get those numbers----by calling them up at home during work hours, asking how many they have.....then writing down that number. Without ZERO clue if the callee answered truthfully. Ergo I don't trust any of those numbers you just posted----especially with the current gun-grabber craze that seems to have been going on for the past six or eight years.

So you gots anything verifiable? .....
Okay, Rick, if that's how you see telephone surveys.

But you just canned the high DGU figures which you guys quote. They came from Gary Kleck.

He hasn't been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal since the mid-nineties. And Kleck's numbers, according to him, were laden with criminal mis-uses.

Tom Ray quotes them, but won';comment on this bit:

One example of bias in the Politico article: "Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal—meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense."

Will Caxton

Pasted from <http://www.onthemedia.org/story/myth-behind-defensive-gun-ownership/>
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 2.5 million DGUs, even in 1993, is 7000 per day. The fact that our newspapers, TV reports, and personal experience is completely at odds with those numbers mean something. It means that either there is a huge effort to suppress or hide all of these DGUs, or they just aren't happening in that number.

Pasted from <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1183422/-A-closer-look-at-DGU-numbers/>
 

Latest posts




Top