07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 6465666768 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    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.
    I'm not talking about murder, I'm talking about deaths resulted from guns. There's nothing academic about it. The thread and the concept of gun control are both not about mass killings. Anyone who believes the purpose of gun control is solely to stop mass murders is not only misguided, misinformed and lacking perspective, but morally bankrupt. This same line of thinking would result in us banning literally everything that exists, because it's possible that if less than 1% of the people who use it misuse it, and less than 1% of those people die from the misuse of less than 1% of whatever product is being misused, then obviously the product is evil.

    What is insulting is to have you completely ineffectually address points by people that question you, by asking sarcastic and rude questions, while suggesting that you have superior intelligence to everyone who disagrees. The point of a debate is to merge ideas and attempt to identify the truth. You parroting stupid ideas should be called out with exactly the same intensity and frequency as when the right wingers do it.

    Here are the insulting things you directed my way, just today:
    You suggested I was right wing and a member of the republican party. Both are wildly untrue, slanderous and insulting.
    You suggested my arithmetic was poor. I'm an analyst, I use math to solve business problems literally every day. I study physics, programming, actuarial decision sciences and mathematical modeling.
    You suggested I was being dishonest by misquoting your chart, when in fact if you read what I'm saying, it's a factually based argument. Why do you want to ban "assault weapons", yet have no problem with hand guns? I suggest it's because the media is focused on one and not the other.
    You suggested I was pro-gun; I am not. I'm pro-logic. You know I went after Live2Ride's sources when he was quoting nonsense from the internet; I have no problem calling people on their gibberish.

    I just can't abide stupid arguments based on misguided soundbites. If you let fear and ignorance rule your mind, how can you expect the world to respond with anything but the same?

    If you want to get away from this pettiness and personal snarkiness, feel free. Until then, it will be immensely difficult for anyone to take you seriously. Here's the thing: We want to hear your ideas, all we're actually hearing is your aggressive defensiveness against competing ideological stances, without any of your actual positions being added to the discussion. No one cares what the progressive or liberal or conservative or libertarian or democratic or republican talking points are. We can find that out from any of their respective mouth pieces at any time.
    Markster1 likes this.
    03-04-2013 11:28 AM
  2. Markster1's Avatar
    "A few killers"? The truth is foreign to you.

    http://assets.motherjones.com/intera...l_illegal2.png

    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)?
    You're wanting to take my right to own an AR15. What part of that is not a right of mine?
    03-04-2013 11:50 AM
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    I'm not talking about murder, I'm talking about deaths resulted from guns.
    Thanks for your admission that you are not genuinely engaged in the subject at hand. That of murder of another human via firearms. The body-count of which is now 2,453 since Dec 14, 2012 (Sandy Hook).

    There's nothing academic about it. The thread and the concept of gun control are both not about mass killings.
    The reason this is being discussed is due to the sobering response of government to the escalating issue of mass murder via firearm.

    Anyone who believes the purpose of gun control is solely to stop mass murders is not only misguided, misinformed and lacking perspective, but morally bankrupt.
    It is not morally bankrupt, misguided, misinformed or lacking perspective to value the lives which would have ended if not for taking responsible action. This very statement of yours is about as low as it gets. How many have you lost due to mass murder?

    This same line of thinking would result in us banning literally everything that exists, because it's possible that if less than 1% of the people who use it misuse it, and less than 1% of those people die from the misuse of less than 1% of whatever product is being misused, then obviously the product is evil.
    Unoriginal pablum for the gullible repeated on every single page by the less-than-wise.

    What is insulting is to have you completely ineffectually address points by people that question you, by asking sarcastic and rude questions, while suggesting that you have superior intelligence to everyone who disagrees. The point of a debate is to merge ideas and attempt to identify the truth. You parroting stupid ideas should be called out with exactly the same intensity and frequency as when the right wingers do it.
    For every single point I've made, it has been dismissed out of hand without foundation, historical context, or sound reason. Those responses receive exactly what they deserve. To be acknowledged as the mumblings of stooges. Just as you do, I can eloquently say GFY without saying so.

    Here are the insulting things you directed my way, just today:
    You suggested I was right wing and a member of the republican party. Both are wildly untrue, slanderous and insulting.
    Neither are true. A person who simply pays attention can see your sympathies. That is exactly what I said. Get it straight.

    You suggested my arithmetic was poor. I'm an analyst, I use math to solve business problems literally every day. I study physics, programming, actuarial decision sciences and mathematical modeling.
    You've demonstrated, within the past couple pages, that your arithmetic skills are less than sharp. You're a student. You'll learn what it's like to practice outside of modeling. Clearly, that day is not today.

    You suggested I was being dishonest by misquoting your chart, when in fact if you read what I'm saying, it's a factually based argument. Why do you want to ban "assault weapons", yet have no problem with hand guns? I suggest it's because the media is focused on one and not the other.
    Asked and answered - multiple times. Media has zero influence on me.

    You suggested I was pro-gun; I am not. I'm pro-logic.
    You own no corner on the market where logic is concerned. Welcome to the world outside academia. You'll bloody your knuckles one day and learn from it. Clearly, again, that day is not today.

    I just can't abide stupid arguments based on misguided soundbites.
    Again, no influence by media on me. Please stop embarrassing yourself by casting claims you cannot, and will not, substantiate.

    If you want to get away from this pettiness and personal snarkiness, feel free. Until then, it will be immensely difficult for anyone to take you seriously. Here's the thing: We want to hear your ideas, all we're actually hearing is your aggressive defensiveness against competing ideological stances, without any of your actual positions being added to the discussion. No one cares what the progressive or liberal or conservative or libertarian or democratic or republican talking points are. We can find that out from any of their respective mouth pieces at any time.
    Casting unfounded allegations - again? Shame on you. You've shown - just like your sympathizers have shown - nothing but either extremist views ['From My Cold Dead Hands!'] or acting as nuisance ants at the picnic - or silent support.

    You and yours are suggesting no proposals which mitigate and value loss of life in mass murder via firearm. And you want to hear from me? Turn your snark equally against your own kind and we might get somewhere.
    03-04-2013 11:56 AM
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    You're wanting to take my right to own an AR15. What part of that is not a right of mine?
    The right to defend yourself in a civil society is what you have the right to. You have no right to any specific product. Research SCOTUS on this and you'll have your eyes opened.
    03-04-2013 12:00 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    All of my statements in the political threads have been consistently arguing for logic and calm debate, not adherence to partisan ideology.
    The following statements are not one of someone who believes the ideological of "the right wing" or republicans:

    I think that the mythological belief that any particular corporation or political party represents the rights and interests of the common man better than any other is exactly the same fallacy as using philosophical statements attributed by humans to Thor, Zeus or Svarasvati as a basis for political argument. It's a fallacy that seriously jeopardizes the capacity critical analysis, because the false assumptions being used as the frame of reference invalidate the legitimacy of independent control over one's own mind. This is why we must move past talking points and partisan spin, because both sides manipulate the truth for the exact same reasons, because they do not worship Liberty, Freedom or Knowledge. They worship money. If your motivation is not to deify the Almighty Dollar, then your agenda is not aligned with theirs, and therefore their arguments should not be yours, because they hate you.
    I't s fair to ask them, "Do you really believe the trash your side is piling on or just wish it were true?" Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans... stop the "group think" and use your own brain. It's amazing how different your thoughts are when they're yours, not what was spoon fed to you by people who depend upon your ignorance for their own gain. They want to hurt you, yet you worship them.

    We are individuals and we're all smarter than this. Nothing is true just because someone says it is, especially when they have an observable gain in power each time their statement is believed.
    I believe mythology should be excluded from politics and that we should make decisions rooted in logic, not directly oppose science. I hate democrats and republicans because they're both so false in purpose and openly delusional that it is clear they've never represented 'we the people' a day in their lives.
    03-04-2013 12:11 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    The right to defend yourself in a civil society is what you have the right to. You have no right to any specific product.
    Agree 100% to this. Precisely the basis for prohibiting the vast majority of citizens from purchasing automatic weapons, many grades of explosives and biological weapons.
    03-04-2013 12:13 PM
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    All of my statements in the political threads have been consistently arguing for logic and calm debate, not adherence to partisan ideology.
    The following statements are not one of someone who believes the ideological of "the right wing" or republicans:
    More clever than honest - or do you really believe no one pays attention to your body of work within all of these pro-gun threads?
    03-04-2013 12:14 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    "Neither are true. A person who simply pays attention can see your sympathies. That is exactly what I said. Get it straight."

    Not going to let being painted as a republican go. That's one of the most hurtful and hateful things you can say about a person.
    03-04-2013 12:15 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    More clever than honest - or do you really believe no one pays attention to your body of work within all of these pro-gun threads?
    I argue against blind obsession with guns just as much as the assault weapon ban. If you read my posts on the first thread of this kind that was killed, I was making the argument that the 2nd amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with civilian gun ownership. (Or at least had nothing to do with it until the last 40 or so years, which was cemented by Scalia, who I think is a pile of garbage.)
    03-04-2013 12:18 PM
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Agree 100% to this. Precisely the basis for prohibiting the vast majority of citizens from purchasing automatic weapons, many grades of explosives and biological weapons.
    SCOTUS disagrees with your ruling of where lines are drawn. Talk to Scalia, that flaming hippie.
    03-04-2013 12:19 PM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    SCOTUS disagrees with your ruling of where lines are drawn. Talk to Scalia, that flaming hippie.
    Scalia is a nutcase and I seriously hope they gain someone in the SCOTUS with some contextual knowledge of the Constitution and the framer's intent when they replace him.
    03-04-2013 12:20 PM
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Not going to let being painted as a republican go. That's one of the most hurtful and hateful things you can say about a person.
    Which is worse? Republicans? Or their neo-'independent' sympathizers?
    03-04-2013 12:21 PM
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Scalia is a nutcase and I seriously hope they gain someone in the SCOTUS with some contextual knowledge of the Constitution and the framer's intent when they replace him.
    In an imperfect nation of laws, it's the best we've got. Unless, like Live2Ride, et al, you subscribe to 2nd-amendment remedies.
    03-04-2013 12:24 PM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    Which is worse? Republicans? Or their neo-'independent' sympathizers?
    Same thing. I am neither. That's what Sean Hannity is. Again, incredibly hateful thing to say. I don't label you and never have. The only label I've thrown around in these forums has been 'right wing lunatics'. My wife is a democrat and I have voted for both republican's and democrats alike. Mainstream republicans are monsters. So are neocons, tea partists, etc. etc. Please stop attacking me by associating me with those people who are unable to think for themselves and make their decisions base in fear, mythology and ignorance. This isn't about me or you as people, it's about ideas.
    03-04-2013 12:27 PM
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    Same thing. I am neither. That's what Sean Hannity is. Again, incredibly hateful thing to say. I don't label you and never have.
    You should really pay closer attention to what is produced via your keyboard than is your current standard.

    This isn't about me or you as people, it's about ideas.
    Agreed. I'm still waiting to hear practical proposals on how to mitigate the escalating rate of mass murder via firearm. It is supposed to be about ideas, isn't it? I'd welcome a discussion on original intent of the 2nd amendment and how to solve "murder", but they have no practical application within this discussion.
    03-04-2013 12:32 PM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    Here is a chart I made awhile ago:

    (assuming attachment works)
    Attached Thumbnails Firearms and self-defense-politics.jpg  
    03-04-2013 12:34 PM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    Agreed. I'm still waiting to hear practical proposals on how to mitigate the escalating rate of mass murder via firearm.
    It's very difficult to make any recommendations without anyone doing an analysis of what is causing that. That's one benefit of the executive order granting the CDC permission to investigate. It's frankly quite stupid that we ever prohibited analysis of violence.

    The two most obvious suggestions would be 1. Increase background check utilization and enforce falsification of those records; 2. Ban all sales that do not require a background check.
    With those two points, it's exactly the same argument as both sides tend to push for on various other issues: Enforce existing laws and close loopholes.

    The next thing I would argue is that we get incredibly specific about the modern interpretation of all of our rights to shut down arguments like, "citizens ought to be able to own tanks". Either they can, or cannot, and in either case, an official position of "why" would be greatly beneficial.

    Following that, relative to gun violence as a whole, I would argue that IF we were going to ban anything, we ban handguns instead of civilian rifles. That's just by the numbers a much more effective way of reducing the proliferation of bullets we're plagued with. I'm not convinced a ban is effective, especially if we do nothing about the hundreds of millions of guns already out there, but banning the problem weapons seems more effective to me than banning the least used ones. Such a solution is obviously controversial in the context of Constitutional interpretation, so step 3 is required to go before step 4.

    The last thing I would recommend is severely increasing the penalties imposed upon criminals who use weapons. This unfortunately does not help much with mass shooters, as they typically kill themselves or are killed by police. But in the rest of gun violence, it may help if criminals know what the stakes are.

    This isn't an easy thing to solve, especially if we try to tackle them as separate issues.
    msndrstood likes this.
    03-04-2013 12:43 PM
  18. backbeat's Avatar
    It's very difficult to make any recommendations without anyone doing an analysis of what is causing that. That's one benefit of the executive order granting the CDC permission to investigate. It's frankly quite stupid that we ever prohibited analysis of violence.
    What you are referring to is a narrow interpretation as NIH, US military, and CDC have a long-standing history of research and reporting.

    The two most obvious suggestions would be 1. Increase background check utilization and enforce falsification of those records; 2. Ban all sales that do not require a background check.
    The NRA stands squarely, and hypocritically, in the way of both. I agree both are necessary as a bedrock foundation, but those who believe they have a right to an AR-15 (or name any other tinkertoy) are in lock-step with the NRA. It is impossible to regulate without these as a reasonable foundation. If the NRA (and its sympathizers) want war, war they shall have. The NRA hasn't a constitutional leg to stand on. And they know it.

    With those two points, it's exactly the same argument as both sides tend to push for on various other issues: Enforce existing laws and close loopholes.
    No evidence exists that have shown that "not enforcing existing laws" has contributed one iota to mass killings. There are certainly individual incidents where gun dealers give the law the finger for the sake of the almighty dollar, but not in the case of mass murders. Of course, nothing precludes one ***** firearm owner from selling his weapon to his ***** buddy (who is not yet a criminal) who subsequently decides he's had enough of life and is going to take LOTS of people out with himself. Legislation must also prevent this stupidity from happening with severe penalties and jail-time for the illegal transfer of firearms.

    I would counter that those firearm products which are purely intended for "sport" (such as a sliding stock, semi-auto firearms) which augment a firearm's firing capabilities be permanently banned from the public market. Those products have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. They exist for grins and giggles. Until they fall into the wrong hands. If they are to continue being produced, every one of them must be traceable from original purchase to final ownership, with plenty of zeros as a penalty for those who thumb their nose at being responsible to society.

    The next thing I would argue is that we get incredibly specific about the modern interpretation of all of our rights to shut down arguments like, "citizens ought to be able to own tanks". Either they can, or cannot, and in either case, an official position of "why" would be greatly beneficial.
    It's because US history is replete with inconsistencies and corrections that have swung back and forth that hoping for Utopia is worse than a pipedream.

    Following that, relative to gun violence as a whole, I would argue that IF we were going to ban anything, we ban handguns instead of civilian rifles.
    Some high-capacity handguns may be banned. Just as some high-capacity-rifles may be banned. If the handgun were to be invented today, it would never be allowed to come to market for public safety reasons. I get your point. However, that boat has sailed.

    The last thing I would recommend is severely increasing the penalties imposed upon criminals who use weapons. This unfortunately does not help much with mass shooters, as they typically kill themselves or are killed by police. But in the rest of gun violence, it may help if criminals know what the stakes are.
    Death penalty does not work as a deterrent. It's cheaper and a genuine eye-for-an-eye, Old Testament ultimate penalty, but it has virtually no effect on society at large. Ruining one's life, when a series of illegal events warrants such a judicial action, is much more penalizing. The resident geniuses who want to cast prison as Club Med have never spent a day behind bars as a prisoner.

    This isn't an easy thing to solve, especially if we try to tackle them as separate issues.
    Problems which humans create from scratch usually aren't easy to solve. But, it is our responsibility to do just that.

    Thanks for finally approaching the issue straight up.
    msndrstood likes this.
    03-04-2013 02:18 PM
  19. Markster1's Avatar
    "Neither are true. A person who simply pays attention can see your sympathies. That is exactly what I said. Get it straight."

    Not going to let being painted as a republican go. That's one of the most hurtful and hateful things you can say about a person.
    The worst is being called a Democrat
    03-04-2013 03:16 PM
  20. Markster1's Avatar
    It's very difficult to make any recommendations without anyone doing an analysis of what is causing that. That's one benefit of the executive order granting the CDC permission to investigate. It's frankly quite stupid that we ever prohibited analysis of violence.

    The two most obvious suggestions would be 1. Increase background check utilization and enforce falsification of those records; 2. Ban all sales that do not require a background check.
    With those two points, it's exactly the same argument as both sides tend to push for on various other issues: Enforce existing laws and close loopholes.

    The next thing I would argue is that we get incredibly specific about the modern interpretation of all of our rights to shut down arguments like, "citizens ought to be able to own tanks". Either they can, or cannot, and in either case, an official position of "why" would be greatly beneficial.

    Following that, relative to gun violence as a whole, I would argue that IF we were going to ban anything, we ban handguns instead of civilian rifles. That's just by the numbers a much more effective way of reducing the proliferation of bullets we're plagued with. I'm not convinced a ban is effective, especially if we do nothing about the hundreds of millions of guns already out there, but banning the problem weapons seems more effective to me than banning the least used ones. Such a solution is obviously controversial in the context of Constitutional interpretation, so step 3 is required to go before step 4.

    The last thing I would recommend is severely increasing the penalties imposed upon criminals who use weapons. This unfortunately does not help much with mass shooters, as they typically kill themselves or are killed by police. But in the rest of gun violence, it may help if criminals know what the stakes are.

    This isn't an easy thing to solve, especially if we try to tackle them as separate issues.
    I would support all but step 4.
    03-04-2013 03:22 PM
  21. Markster1's Avatar
    03-04-2013 03:28 PM
  22. msndrstood's Avatar
    The worst is being called a Democrat
    That attitude is exactly what is wrong with the country and will prevent any progress from being made anytime soon. A country divided...

    Nothing will change until attitudes change. Learn from the past or there really is no hope for the human race. These political threads truly depress me when they aren't p*ssing me off.

    How about working on a solution? How about looking at two sides of the debate instead of only one narrow point of view? Instead of what's best for ME? How about what is best for ALL?

    Now that's a novel idea.

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    03-04-2013 05:15 PM
  23. Markster1's Avatar
    That attitude is exactly what is wrong with the country and will prevent any progress from being made anytime soon. A country divided...

    Nothing will change until attitudes change. Learn from the past or there really is no hope for the human race. These political threads truly depress me when they aren't p*ssing me off.

    How about working on a solution? How about looking at two sides of the debate instead of only one narrow point of view? Instead of what's best for ME? How about what is best for ALL?

    Now that's a novel idea.

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    I never said I was a Republican although I like that side a bit better......oh...... And I looked at the other side and don't like it.
    03-04-2013 05:31 PM
  24. msndrstood's Avatar
    I never said I was a Republican although I like that side a bit better......oh...... And I looked at the other side and don't like it.
    I didn't say you were either.

    Never mind. This debate is useless in this atmosphere. It's no wonder we're in the mess we're in today. And with that attitude, things are going to get a lot worse before they are going to get better. Once again... self inflicted.

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    03-04-2013 05:44 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    I apologize to everyone for saying, "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 is accurate, but I could have used a better analogy. I was trying to say, "replace what a person said with the views of the exact opposite, and they suddenly sound like their opponent!"
    03-04-2013 06:01 PM
4,617 ... 6465666768 ...

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