07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 6364656667 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    You should sharpen your inadequate arithmetic skills.

    http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_...s_630_0228.png
    Over 10,000 gun deaths. You want to save 20-40 people. For the record, my math is amazing, it's how I make my living. I'm questioning your values, not your numbers. 20-40 less is less than .5%.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    03-04-2013 08:22 AM
  2. metz65's Avatar
    Demonstrate that they have been employed with similar frequency as military-style semi-automatic weapons and I'll give your post the credence you think it deserves. Until then, not so much.
    You give it no credence because you know the answer isn't guns.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    03-04-2013 08:22 AM
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Over 10,000 gun deaths. You want to save 20-40 people. For the record, my math is amazing, it's how I make my living. I'm questioning your values, not your numbers. 20-40 less is less than .5%.
    Your refusal to address the distinct issue of mass killings is duly noted.
    03-04-2013 08:24 AM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    You should sharpen your inadequate arithmetic skills.

    http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_...s_630_0228.png
    This shows 94 handguns, 48 banned rifles.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    03-04-2013 08:24 AM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    Your refusal to address the distinct issue of mass killings is duly noted.
    I'm saying in the larger picture, focusing on this .5% should be seen as evil by the families of the 99.5% you don't think about.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    03-04-2013 08:26 AM
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    This shows 94 handguns, 48 banned rifles.
    Obfuscation to add 6-shooters to semi-auto handguns. And you know it.
    03-04-2013 08:27 AM
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    I'm saying in the larger picture, focusing on this .5% should be seen as evil by the families of the 99.5% you don't think about.
    You're not paying attention, either to this discussion nor to where legislation is aimed.
    03-04-2013 08:29 AM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    Obfuscation to add 6-shooters to semi-auto handguns. And you know it.
    Revolvers come in 2 to 12 shot capacity variations, they are mostly also automatic to chamber the next round and they're hand held. They're just not magazine fed.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    03-04-2013 08:30 AM
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Revolvers come in 2 to 12 shot capacity variations, they are mostly also automatic to chamber the next round and they're hand held. They're just not magazine fed.
    A distinction without a difference where this record is concerned.
    03-04-2013 08:31 AM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    OK you win, no more attempts at civil discussion of logic or reason. Clearly you can't see the forest or move past fear based talking points any more than the right wing lunatics can in their blogs.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    Markster1 and Live2ride883 like this.
    03-04-2013 08:33 AM
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    OK you win, no more attempts at civil discussion of logic or reason. Clearly you can't see the forest or move past fear based talking points any more than the right wing lunatics can in their blogs.
    Replace "reason or logic" with "patriotism" and you can see how supremely similar to the smug rightwing talking points your vantage point is. You haven't cornered the market on logic nor reason, friend.

    Want to "solve" murder? Go for it. That is not the issue here. Start a thread about your plan to do exactly that and I'll engage. Just keep in mind that an effective plan produces measurable results within one's lifetime. Do you really demand a plan?
    03-04-2013 08:36 AM
  12. Live2ride883's Avatar
    In the mass shootings of the recent past, how many of those killers had prior convictions which precluded them from legally owning a firearm? Answer the question.
    Why does that matter when any of them could simply lie on the background check form and not have to worry about prosecution since the VP himself has stated they don't have time to prosecute these individuals.

    Also Adam Lanza did try to buy a long barrel rifle on his own but was denied because he did not want to wait the 14 day waiting period which is required by CT law for this type of gun.

    Suspect in massacre tried to buy rifle days before, sources say - Los Angeles Times

    He committed 41 crimes that day, can you honestly say one more law would have stopped him.
    03-04-2013 09:39 AM
  13. Markster1's Avatar
    Demonstrate that they have been employed with similar frequency as military-style semi-automatic weapons and I'll give your post the credence you think it deserves. Until then, not so much.
    You're lazy, you won't even back up your own statements.
    03-04-2013 09:48 AM
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Why does that matter when any of them could simply lie on the background check form and not have to worry about prosecution since the VP himself has stated they don't have time to prosecute these individuals.

    Also Adam Lanza did try to buy a long barrel rifle on his own but was denied because he did not want to wait the 14 day waiting period which is required by CT law for this type of gun.

    Suspect in massacre tried to buy rifle days before, sources say - Los Angeles Times

    He committed 41 crimes that day, can you honestly say one more law would have stopped him.
    Honestly, you embarrass yourself by reposting-and reposting the same thing ad nauseum.Answer my question, please. How many of those who have committed mass killings were criminals prior to their rampage? How many were convicted of crimes which would have thusly precluded them from legally purchasing the weapons they ultimately used in their mass killings?
    03-04-2013 09:49 AM
  15. Markster1's Avatar
    Regulars had no different weaponry than local militia? You're saying that with a straight face?
    You're showing your ignorance again. Back when the constitution was formed there was no difference between firearms of what a private citizen could get and the standing army or militia had.
    03-04-2013 09:52 AM
  16. Markster1's Avatar
    Your refusal to address the distinct issue of mass killings is duly noted.
    Your refusal to address any issue other than mass killings is duly noted, furthermore, you're refusal to address other gun issues is disappointing and your ignorance of guns themselves shows lack of interest to fair representation.
    03-04-2013 09:58 AM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    Replace "reason or logic" with "patriotism" and you can see how supremely similar to the smug rightwing talking points your vantage point is. You haven't cornered the market on logic nor reason, friend.
    LOL, replace "help the sick and poor" with "kill Jews" and Jesus sounds a lot like Hitler. Not sure where you're going with that one.

    The point of Gun Control regulation, from what I can tell, is to reduce gun violence. Mass killings get the most news, but they're less than 1% of the victim counts. "Assault weapons" get the most news, but they're less than 1% of the weapons used in crimes. How can you not see the point of either of those concepts? We already have a law that covers 100% of gun violence and it's ineffectual.

    Yes, the key to reducing gun violence is reducing murder. They have the same cause: violent people. I am very much in favor of making it more difficult for criminals to acquire weapons, and I'm a huge supporter of background checks, especially if we start to enforce laws against providing false information on them. I'm not in favor of any strategy that not only doesn't accomplish any of it's stated goals, but doesn't even address 99.5% of the problem.

    This isn't about partisanship, I'm not in either party, as I have stated and explained multiple times. This is about common sense. We have a society where competition against imaginary enemies is contrived and promoted by the liar media to distract the public from the actual issues that our nation face. "Assault weapons" are a clear example of this, in that it is entirely a distraction from the real issue of a culture of fear and violence. I do understand the idea of mitigating the ability of crazy people to do crazy things, and damage control, I just don't think we've heard any effective ideas at accomplishing that goal. I don't want criminals to have guns and I don't want teachers to have guns. In a perfect world, no one would need guns at all.

    I just don't think a .5% reduction is a "compromise" worth reaching, especially if it's just because people are too afraid to address the actual issues with society.
    rexxman likes this.
    03-04-2013 09:58 AM
  18. Markster1's Avatar
    Honestly, you embarrass yourself by reposting-and reposting the same thing ad nauseum.Answer my question, please. How many of those who have committed mass killings were criminals prior to their rampage? How many were convicted of crimes which would have thusly precluded them from legally purchasing the weapons they ultimately used in their mass killings?
    So you want to remove my law abiding right to own firearms because of a few killers who could still buy a gun legally?

    Duly noted.

    You should move to the UK, no guns there. Bet you'll feel much safer.
    03-04-2013 10:03 AM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    Incredibly funny cartoon:


    It is incredibly one sided, but I think it's apt at showing any conversation between two people who have made up their minds on an issue without enough information. The exact same types of logic holes can be found in many conservative arguments and I think I've made a point of making those in other threads. This link is not to show bias, more for entertainment and example.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    03-04-2013 10:19 AM
  20. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Incredibly funny cartoon:


    It is incredibly one sided, but I think it's apt at showing any conversation between two people who have made up their minds on an issue without enough information. The exact same types of logic holes can be found in many conservative arguments and I think I've made a point of making those in other threads. This link is not to show bias, more for entertainment and example.
    +1 for best video link ever...
    03-04-2013 10:47 AM
  21. backbeat's Avatar
    I just don't think a .5% reduction is a "compromise" worth reaching, especially if it's just because people are too afraid to address the actual issues with society.
    The family, friends, and neighbors of those killed in the name of your academic argument would differ.
    03-04-2013 10:56 AM
  22. backbeat's Avatar
    So you want to remove my law abiding right to own firearms because of a few killers who could still buy a gun legally?
    You can't/won't answer the question either. Why? Because it proves inconvenient to your cause. Noted.
    03-04-2013 10:57 AM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    The family, friends, and neighbors of those killed in the name of your academic argument would differ.
    I think the families, friends and neighbors of the 10,000 you ignore would appreciate someone fighting for their lives and loved ones, rather than a focus on .5% of those the media chooses to champion. What specifically makes those killed in "mass killings", all .5% of them, worth more than the 99.5% of everyone else killed by firearms? What specifically makes the ban on 48 of the 143 weapons used effective, when a ban on handguns would accomplish nearly twice as much, banning 94? What makes the ban of the weapon used in .5% of gun deaths effective, when we refuse to address the 99.5% of other firearms and are doing nothing about the 300+million guns that we know of that already exist?

    Stopping and/or reducing gun violence will not happen in any meaningful way if we only address .5% of the problem for .5% of the reason we need to do so.
    03-04-2013 11:04 AM
  24. backbeat's Avatar
    So you want to remove my law abiding right to own firearms because of a few killers who could still buy a gun legally?
    "A few killers"? The truth is foreign to you.



    And no one, anywhere, is proposing to "remove your right to own firearms". As has been stated on page after page after page. What about that don't you understand (without repeating more factually-neutered claims)?
    03-04-2013 11:07 AM
  25. backbeat's Avatar
    I think the families, friends and neighbors of the 10,000 you ignore would appreciate someone fighting for their lives and loved ones, rather than a focus on .5% of those the media chooses to champion. What specifically makes those killed in "mass killings", all .5% of them, worth more than the 99.5% of everyone else killed by firearms? What specifically makes the ban on 48 of the 143 weapons used effective, when a ban on handguns would accomplish nearly twice as much, banning 94? What makes the ban of the weapon used in .5% of gun deaths effective, when we refuse to address the 99.5% of other firearms and are doing nothing about the 300+million guns that we know of that already exist?

    Stopping and/or reducing gun violence will not happen in any meaningful way if we only address .5% of the problem for .5% of the reason we need to do so.
    As previously stated, start a thread on solving the concept of "murder" and I'll engage. Your academic argument, within the context of on-going mass killings, is patently insulting.
    03-04-2013 11:09 AM
4,617 ... 6364656667 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD