IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Gun Control Claims More Victims
Skinny†
post Apr 27 2009, 01:11 PM
Post #41



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2009, 03:57 AM) [snapback]1498742[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 25 2009, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1498570[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 25 2009, 02:29 AM) [snapback]1498388[/snapback]
no one should have them

Of course they should. Just presenting guns stop thousands of crime every year. Why should people not have them?

Because people are morons.

Let me rephrase, given that for every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use, what grounds are there for making them illegal.

A few facts from the above link if anyone is interested:

In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed

59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are ďhot burglariesĒ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a ďhot burglaryĒ rate of only 13%

57% of felons polled agreed, 'criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminalís) is shed.

Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leon Kennedy
post Apr 27 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #42


Nobody Special


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 20-April 09
From: The Deathmatch Arena
Member No.: 51,267



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Let me rephrase, given that for every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use, what grounds are there for making them illegal.

A few facts from the above link if anyone is interested:

In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

All this proves is that 83.5% of the people who were attacked and successfully defended themselves with a gun claim that the attacker used force first. It only proves that these people know how to claim self-defense.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Again, this is the word of the people defending themselves. I bet the actual number is truly much lower.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed

I'm curious to know if this takes into account only those citizens with guns that actually got a shot off, or if this includes those people who tried to get their weapon out and were screwed before they could.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed

I don't think so. Sounds like bullshit to me. Convicted felons will say anything to get themselves heard, and they will usually say only what someone wants to hear.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are ďhot burglariesĒ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a ďhot burglaryĒ rate of only 13%

No comment on this statistic. I can't because I'm not familiar with Britain's crime rate.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
57% of felons polled agreed, 'criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

I doubt it. Armed felons are more afraid of going to jail than anything else. Why would they be more afraid of an armed civilian, who in most cases has little to no training with the weapon, than they would be of a fully armed SWAT team?

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.

First, this is reported violent crimes, and not all violent crimes. Secondly, not using the weapon you brought with you is horseshit. The mere suggestion that you have a gun ("shut up or I'm gonna shoot you") qualifies as threatening to use a weapon.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminalís) is shed.
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired

83.2% of all statistics are made up and completely fictional. There is absolutely no way to prove how many violent crimes are prevented by someone showing a gun.


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Oct 26 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Finally, I can do this:


In memory of Nanee. 9/1/1993 - 5/16/2009. Rest in Peace, little girl.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marney1
post Apr 27 2009, 04:19 PM
Post #43


Godfather
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 3,416
Joined: 18-February 09
Member No.: 48,547



What is your point Marilyn?

Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?

This post has been edited by marney1: Apr 27 2009, 04:28 PM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 27 2009, 04:54 PM
Post #44


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 02:11 PM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2009, 03:57 AM) [snapback]1498742[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 25 2009, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1498570[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 25 2009, 02:29 AM) [snapback]1498388[/snapback]
no one should have them

Of course they should. Just presenting guns stop thousands of crime every year. Why should people not have them?

Because people are morons.

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed


Well done, you just discredited all of your statistics as either there wasn't enough options or they are just lying as it is quite obvious some would just be like fuck off and just shoot them anyway. Yet according to that 100% of people wouldn't commit crime if guns existed, oh wait they do and in the US anyone might be armed so that 40% were lying in the first place.


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leon Kennedy
post Apr 27 2009, 05:04 PM
Post #45


Nobody Special


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 20-April 09
From: The Deathmatch Arena
Member No.: 51,267



QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
What is your point Marilyn?

My point was to point out the ridiculousness of the statistics that Skinny quoted.

QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?

Personally, I don't care for guns. I have no need for them, and I know my life is just fine without them. However, the law in this country states that law-abiding citizens have the right to own (and bear) arms, so I have to uphold and abide by the law.

Now, the real question is whether or not I agree with the law. Which I do. I don't like guns, but guns don't kill people on their own. And if the law states that everyone has the right, then everyone needs to police themselves on the use of the gun(s) that they own. This won't stop hardcore criminals from obtaining and using them illegally. Then again, nothing we do can stop criminals from breaking the law, now can we?

And before you go off on me, try to realize that I don't just blindly follow and obey the law. I don't agree with all laws in this country, and I have been known to break a few of them. But, according to the vast majority, the law is the law. And we in this country have no choice currently but to obey the law. It is high time this country had a revolution, but that's a different topic altogether...


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Oct 26 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Finally, I can do this:


In memory of Nanee. 9/1/1993 - 5/16/2009. Rest in Peace, little girl.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marney1
post Apr 27 2009, 05:09 PM
Post #46


Godfather
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 3,416
Joined: 18-February 09
Member No.: 48,547



QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 27 2009, 06:04 PM) [snapback]1498964[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
What is your point Marilyn?

My point was to point out the ridiculousness of the statistics that Skinny quoted.

QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?

Personally, I don't care for guns. I have no need for them, and I know my life is just fine without them. However, the law in this country states that law-abiding citizens have the right to own (and bear) arms, so I have to uphold and abide by the law.

Now, the real question is whether or not I agree with the law. Which I do. I don't like guns, but guns don't kill people on their own. And if the law states that everyone has the right, then everyone needs to police themselves on the use of the gun(s) that they own. This won't stop hardcore criminals from obtaining and using them illegally. Then again, nothing we do can stop criminals from breaking the law, now can we?

And before you go off on me, try to realize that I don't just blindly follow and obey the law. I don't agree with all laws in this country, and I have been known to break a few of them. But, according to the vast majority, the law is the law. And we in this country have no choice currently but to obey the law. It is high time this country had a revolution, but that's a different topic altogether...



With all due respect you sound like a politition dodging a question; Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?

This post has been edited by marney1: Apr 27 2009, 05:10 PM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leon Kennedy
post Apr 27 2009, 06:59 PM
Post #47


Nobody Special


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 20-April 09
From: The Deathmatch Arena
Member No.: 51,267



@Marney1: I believe I answered your question. You may not think so, but I did. You asked if I was in favour of law-abiding citizens being able to have guns, and I stated that I don't like guns, but the law is the law. On the flip side of this, let's say that I liked guns and wanted to own them, but the law stated that we could not have them at all. I'd still support the law. You'll find out that I may or may not like certain things, but I will always try to uphold the law as it stands where I live.

Now, if you really need it spelled out for you: No, I do not think that the average joe on the street should be allowed to carry a firearm. I also don't think that the cops, the military, the fbi, the cia, special forces, kids, criminals, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to carry firearms. But we shouldn't have to have laws that further control and confine what we can or cannot do. People should be more than responsible enough to police themselves when it comes to whether or not they should own a firearm, and what to do with it, and how to store it, and so on. It also isn't my place to force my ideas on someone by running off to congress and saying "I don't like guns, and I'm offended - treat me special and pass laws to eliminate guns or I'll cry and sue you in open court". And yes, that is a prime example of how laws in this country get passed. Someone gets offended at something, and they run off to their congressional representative, and they bitch until a law is passed.

Does this answer your question?


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Oct 26 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Finally, I can do this:


In memory of Nanee. 9/1/1993 - 5/16/2009. Rest in Peace, little girl.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marney1
post Apr 27 2009, 07:05 PM
Post #48


Godfather
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 3,416
Joined: 18-February 09
Member No.: 48,547



QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 27 2009, 07:59 PM) [snapback]1498977[/snapback]
@Marney1: I believe I answered your question. You may not think so, but I did. You asked if I was in favour of law-abiding citizens being able to have guns, and I stated that I don't like guns, but the law is the law. On the flip side of this, let's say that I liked guns and wanted to own them, but the law stated that we could not have them at all. I'd still support the law. You'll find out that I may or may not like certain things, but I will always try to uphold the law as it stands where I live.

Now, if you really need it spelled out for you: No, I do not think that the average joe on the street should be allowed to carry a firearm. I also don't think that the cops, the military, the fbi, the cia, special forces, kids, criminals, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to carry firearms. But we shouldn't have to have laws that further control and confine what we can or cannot do. People should be more than responsible enough to police themselves when it comes to whether or not they should own a firearm, and what to do with it, and how to store it, and so on. It also isn't my place to force my ideas on someone by running off to congress and saying "I don't like guns, and I'm offended - treat me special and pass laws to eliminate guns or I'll cry and sue you in open court". And yes, that is a prime example of how laws in this country get passed. Someone gets offended at something, and they run off to their congressional representative, and they bitch until a law is passed.

Does this answer your question?


Yes or No would suffice but I'm gathering that you're saying NO - 'you don't think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own firearms.'

This post has been edited by marney1: Apr 27 2009, 07:07 PM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Apr 30 2009, 07:09 AM
Post #49



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 28 2009, 02:09 AM) [snapback]1498944[/snapback]
All this proves is that 83.5% of the people who were attacked and successfully defended themselves with a gun claim that the attacker used force first. It only proves that these people know how to claim self-defense.

Not at all. The people were charged for using force, that's how they know it happened. If you don't think this is true, than feel free to prove that over 83.5% of juries on assault cases rule incorrectly. I also doubt that 83.5% of people who defend themselves with guns would lie to a survey for no reason.

QUOTE
I bet the actual number is truly much lower.
Exactly, you bet. Your opinion proves nothing.

QUOTE
I'm curious to know if this takes into account only those citizens with guns that actually got a shot off, or if this includes those people who tried to get their weapon out and were screwed before they could.

Is it relevant? Yes, it's possible to be attcked before getting your weapon out, but it's still much better to have a weapon than to be unarmed.

QUOTE
I don't think so. Sounds like bullshit to me. Convicted felons will say anything to get themselves heard
Your opinion proves nothing. How do you know they will "say anyting to get themselves heard" and for what purpose?

QUOTE
and they will usually say only what someone wants to hear.

How do you know this? It think it's just your opinion, which proves nothing.

Use empirical evidence, from criminology or psychology to show that they will lie to surveys, even when they have no reason to.

QUOTE
Armed felons are more afraid of going to jail than anything else.
Actually, I think they would be more afraid of dying; at least they get out of jail someday, and if they are only injured by the citizen, then they will likely be taken to jail anyway, but will be unable to run (far).

QUOTE
Why would they be more afraid of an armed civilian, who in most cases has little to no training with the weapon, than they would be of a fully armed SWAT team?

Because they aren't running up to the SWAT team or breaking into the SWAT team's house.... the SWAT team will be comming after them, meaning they can escape.

QUOTE
First, this is reported violent crimes, and not all violent crimes.
There are a lot less unreported crimes, than there are reported crimes. What makes you think the statistc will be any differet? Even if it is, reported crimes are still the majority, meaning the majority of facts on the matter support gun rights.

QUOTE
Secondly, not using the weapon you brought with you is horseshit.

If you think this is true, then simply find the study they took that stat from and prove it false.

QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 28 2009, 02:54 AM) [snapback]1498960[/snapback]
you just discredited all of your statistics

Try reading the actual source? It's a fact sheet, not one study. They refernce a different study for nearly every statistic.

QUOTE
they are just lying as it is quite obvious some would just be like fuck off and just shoot them anyway.
What the fuck did you just say? Assuming you mean criminals will just shoot people even if they are amred: criminals try to avoid firing shots (as proved by my other statistics) as they will likely attract attention, while citizens have no such concern, as their shooting is within the law.

QUOTE
in the US anyone might be armed so that 40% were lying in the first place.

All it proves is that these people either avoid sticking people up (it's 40% of criminals surveyed, not 40% of people convicted of stick ups) or that they stick to gun free zones.

Anyway, as much ass as I kick at pwning liberals, Penn & Teller have me beat:

[youtube]SCXtfR0_roE&feature=related[/youtube]


I loved where the victim asked why there are no mass murders at gun clubs or NRA conventions. Anyone want to take a crack at that?


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marney1
post Apr 30 2009, 06:05 PM
Post #50


Godfather
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 3,416
Joined: 18-February 09
Member No.: 48,547



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 30 2009, 08:09 AM) [snapback]1499594[/snapback]
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 28 2009, 02:09 AM) [snapback]1498944[/snapback]
All this proves is that 83.5% of the people who were attacked and successfully defended themselves with a gun claim that the attacker used force first. It only proves that these people know how to claim self-defense.

Not at all. The people were charged for using force, that's how they know it happened. If you don't think this is true, than feel free to prove that over 83.5% of juries on assault cases rule incorrectly. I also doubt that 83.5% of people who defend themselves with guns would lie to a survey for no reason.

QUOTE
I bet the actual number is truly much lower.
Exactly, you bet. Your opinion proves nothing.

QUOTE
I'm curious to know if this takes into account only those citizens with guns that actually got a shot off, or if this includes those people who tried to get their weapon out and were screwed before they could.

Is it relevant? Yes, it's possible to be attcked before getting your weapon out, but it's still much better to have a weapon than to be unarmed.

QUOTE
I don't think so. Sounds like bullshit to me. Convicted felons will say anything to get themselves heard
Your opinion proves nothing. How do you know they will "say anyting to get themselves heard" and for what purpose?

QUOTE
and they will usually say only what someone wants to hear.

How do you know this? It think it's just your opinion, which proves nothing.

Use empirical evidence, from criminology or psychology to show that they will lie to surveys, even when they have no reason to.

QUOTE
Armed felons are more afraid of going to jail than anything else.
Actually, I think they would be more afraid of dying; at least they get out of jail someday, and if they are only injured by the citizen, then they will likely be taken to jail anyway, but will be unable to run (far).

QUOTE
Why would they be more afraid of an armed civilian, who in most cases has little to no training with the weapon, than they would be of a fully armed SWAT team?

Because they aren't running up to the SWAT team or breaking into the SWAT team's house.... the SWAT team will be comming after them, meaning they can escape.

QUOTE
First, this is reported violent crimes, and not all violent crimes.
There are a lot less unreported crimes, than there are reported crimes. What makes you think the statistc will be any differet? Even if it is, reported crimes are still the majority, meaning the majority of facts on the matter support gun rights.

QUOTE
Secondly, not using the weapon you brought with you is horseshit.

If you think this is true, then simply find the study they took that stat from and prove it false.

QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 28 2009, 02:54 AM) [snapback]1498960[/snapback]
you just discredited all of your statistics

Try reading the actual source? It's a fact sheet, not one study. They refernce a different study for nearly every statistic.

QUOTE
they are just lying as it is quite obvious some would just be like fuck off and just shoot them anyway.
What the fuck did you just say? Assuming you mean criminals will just shoot people even if they are amred: criminals try to avoid firing shots (as proved by my other statistics) as they will likely attract attention, while citizens have no such concern, as their shooting is within the law.

QUOTE
in the US anyone might be armed so that 40% were lying in the first place.

All it proves is that these people either avoid sticking people up (it's 40% of criminals surveyed, not 40% of people convicted of stick ups) or that they stick to gun free zones.

Anyway, as much ass as I kick at pwning liberals, Penn & Teller have me beat:

[youtube]SCXtfR0_roE&feature=related[/youtube]


I loved where the victim asked why there are no mass murders at gun clubs or NRA conventions. Anyone want to take a crack at that?


I think its the discipline which comes with being a lawful gun owner.
Plus if you tried a carrying out a mass shooting on armed people.......well we know what would happen.

This post has been edited by marney1: Apr 30 2009, 06:08 PM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post May 1 2009, 05:55 PM
Post #51



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE
Plus if you tried a carrying out a mass shooting on armed people.......well we know what would happen.

My point exactly. If guns were the problem behind mass murders, we would see mass murders at gun shows, and not gun free zones like schools.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post May 3 2009, 03:00 AM
Post #52


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



I honestly don't believe in gun control. But you people make the dumbest, most elementary undergraduate arguments against it, it's ridiculous. I'm playing devil's advocate, but all the fun of that is removed when all you do is try and shout louder and ridicule someone who is essentially on your side.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 23 2009, 07:39 AM) [snapback]1498069[/snapback]
QUOTE
When was the last time you saw a kid kill 10 people with his bare hands?

When he says "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."it's obviously hyperbole. The point to be made, is that in the hands of law abiding citizens, guns do no damage (well, there are accidental shootings, but the scale of the problem is so minor that they aren't even mentioned in the US government's health reports), and it's impossible to stop them from falling in to the hands of criminals.
Did you just ignore the context surrounding that quote, down to the very next sentence which clarified my intent? I think you did.


QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 23 2009, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1498083[/snapback]
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Apr 22 2009, 08:52 PM) [snapback]1497989[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 21 2009, 12:02 PM) [snapback]1497552[/snapback]
QUOTE(Ind• @ Apr 17 2009, 05:17 AM) [snapback]1496310[/snapback]
These sites aren't biased at all.

Good idea, attack the source, then you won't have to come up with a proper argument!
True the source is never relevant.


QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 21 2009, 01:26 PM) [snapback]1497559[/snapback]
k, I'm new here, so let everyone flame the shit out of my response...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. How many times have you seen a gun just jump off the table, load itself, point and shoot at someone? I'd guess never.

Gun control laws don't work. Fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal in the US for as long as I can remember, and people still get a hold of them and use them to kill each other.
When was the last time you saw a kid kill 10 people with his bare hands?

Not that that's a conclusive argument on my end, but it's equally disingenuous.

What I meant is that guns don't kill people on their own. People wielding guns kill people.

As far as your reference to the 10 year old killing someone with his or her bare hands, I have no response other than I can't believe you asked that. You obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say. dry.gif
How intricately condescending.

If one ten year old, wielding a gun, kills someone, with a gun within his reach because his dad owns it legally, then your entire point is invalidated and my bullshit argument is completely equatable to yours.

Just because I don't play directly into the clichťs, as they are commonly accepted in meaning by your (our) side, doesn't mean I'm dense. But feel free to make it the first avenue of reply, in some cases you'll irritate so much by your arrogance that the respondant will be too flustered to come back with due eloquence. A hollow victory, but whatever makes you feel smart.

QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Apr 26 2009, 08:52 PM) [snapback]1498762[/snapback]
Weeell, I gotta say Hitler did gun control, and look how that turned out.
Hitler was also an art student.

QUOTE(Skinny)
as much ass as I kick at pwning liberals
Like I said earlier, whatever makes you feel smart.

This post has been edited by Amarillo Suave: May 3 2009, 03:06 AM


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post May 3 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #53



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ May 3 2009, 01:00 PM) [snapback]1500062[/snapback]
you people make the dumbest, most elementary undergraduate arguments against it, it's ridiculous.

no u

QUOTE
Did you just ignore the context surrounding that quote, down to the very next sentence which clarified my intent?
Lol. You're the one who took him out of context, by respoding to hyperbole as though it was intended to be taken literally.

QUOTE
Like I said earlier, whatever makes you feel smart.

Can't argue within the intended context, so you have to take everything out of context? It's okay. It was clearly a joke.

And you said that to someone else...


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post May 3 2009, 04:06 PM
Post #54


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



QUOTE
QUOTE
Did you just ignore the context surrounding that quote, down to the very next sentence which clarified my intent?
Lol. You're the one who took him out of context, by respoding to hyperbole as though it was intended to be taken literally.
It's thrown around by gun nuts as if it means something. That is all the context that's needed, unless it's used sarcastically.

QUOTE
And you said that to someone else...
This is not relevant.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post May 3 2009, 05:01 PM
Post #55



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ May 4 2009, 02:06 AM) [snapback]1500096[/snapback]
It's thrown around by gun nuts as if it means something.

Gun nuts? I thought everybody grew up and stopped saying that sleep.gif

QUOTE
That is all the context that's needed, unless it's used sarcastically.

Do you even know what the purpose of hyperbole is? "Guns don't kill people; people do" looks better on a t shirt or a bumper sticker than "guns are simply a tool used to maximize efficiency in violence. Banning them will not actively stop killings, they will only minimize the efficiency of self defense amonst law abiding citizens while leaving the killers abilities relatively unhindred." Would you honestly stop and read the latter if it were on my T shirt, sign, bumper sticker etc.? I think not.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post May 4 2009, 01:10 AM
Post #56


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



QUOTE(Skinny. @ May 3 2009, 06:01 PM) [snapback]1500100[/snapback]
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ May 4 2009, 02:06 AM) [snapback]1500096[/snapback]
It's thrown around by gun nuts as if it means something.

Gun nuts? I thought everybody grew up and stopped saying that -_-

QUOTE
That is all the context that's needed, unless it's used sarcastically.
Do you even know what the purpose of hyperbole is? "Guns don't kill people; people do" looks better on a t shirt or a bumper sticker than "guns are simply a tool used to maximize efficiency in violence. Banning them will not actively stop killings, they will only minimize the efficiency of self defense amonst law abiding citizens while leaving the killers abilities relatively unhindred." Would you honestly stop and read the latter if it were on my T shirt, sign, bumper sticker etc.? I think not.
I didn't realise this forum was a bumper sticker. Or are we all just assumed to be so stupid?


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TwoFacedTanner
post May 4 2009, 01:34 AM
Post #57


Clepto
*

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Joined: 21-August 04
From: Muscle Shoals, Alabama
Member No.: 908
XBL Gamertag: IanCredible988



QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ May 2 2009, 10:00 PM) [snapback]1500062[/snapback]
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Apr 26 2009, 08:52 PM) [snapback]1498762[/snapback]
Weeell, I gotta say Hitler did gun control, and look how that turned out.
Hitler was also an art student.


What?
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TwoFacedTanner
post May 4 2009, 02:08 AM
Post #58


Clepto
*

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Joined: 21-August 04
From: Muscle Shoals, Alabama
Member No.: 908
XBL Gamertag: IanCredible988



Okay, to the both of you, what does that have to do with him trying gun control?
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leon Kennedy
post May 4 2009, 12:07 PM
Post #59


Nobody Special


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 20-April 09
From: The Deathmatch Arena
Member No.: 51,267



QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ May 2 2009, 10:00 PM) [snapback]1500062[/snapback]
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 21 2009, 01:26 PM) [snapback]1497559[/snapback]
What I meant is that guns don't kill people on their own. People wielding guns kill people.

As far as your reference to the 10 year old killing someone with his or her bare hands, I have no response other than I can't believe you asked that. You obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say. dry.gif
How intricately condescending.

If one ten year old, wielding a gun, kills someone, with a gun within his reach because his dad owns it legally, then your entire point is invalidated and my bullshit argument is completely equatable to yours.

Just because I don't play directly into the clichťs, as they are commonly accepted in meaning by your (our) side, doesn't mean I'm dense. But feel free to make it the first avenue of reply, in some cases you'll irritate so much by your arrogance that the respondant will be too flustered to come back with due eloquence. A hollow victory, but whatever makes you feel smart.

1. Really interesting how you originally stated a 10 year old using his bare hands, and then the best argument you can come back with is to put a gun in those hands. Two entirely different means of killing another person. My response to you was based off of your indication of a small child using their bare hands to kill another person, not them using a gun.

2. I never called you dense. I merely stated that I could not believe you would even ask about a 10 year old child using his/her bare hands to kill someone.


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Oct 26 2009, 01:47 PM) *
Finally, I can do this:


In memory of Nanee. 9/1/1993 - 5/16/2009. Rest in Peace, little girl.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post May 5 2009, 01:35 AM
Post #60


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ May 4 2009, 03:08 AM) [snapback]1500146[/snapback]
Okay, to the both of you, what does that have to do with him trying gun control?
It has nothing to do with anything, which was exactly my point.

Marilyn.Manson:

Are you pretending not to understand what I'm saying?

My point, now that I'm absolutely forced to labour it is that there is a massive difference between an unarmed ten year old and a ten year old with a gun.

One could not possibly kill within reason the other is very capable of killing, accidentally or on purpose.

To compare them in terms of people killing people is absurd.

Is that simple enough?

PS: I thought "indicated" was cute. There's no need to force medical language into non-medical conversation, though.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th November 2014 - 10:01 AM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4