|
Post by epaul on Jan 12, 2016 13:07:52 GMT -5
... Make it about Kris. He counts. So do you. So does Jeff, Peter, Doug and anybody else who’s weighed in on this thread in favor of guns. I’m making it easy for you. Of the whole lot, who has shown evidence of grieving over accidental gun deaths in the last ten pages? Show me. I forgot to grieve earlier in this thread, but I do have a certificate of "Genuine Gun Grief" issued by the Newfolden Rod and Gun Club. Does that count?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 12, 2016 13:11:25 GMT -5
My sarcasm in no way diminishes my affection for you (which is genuine), but that comment about not showing grief in this thread was extremely odd.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 13:16:48 GMT -5
No, you misunderstood. Make it about Kris. He counts. So do you. So does Jeff, Peter, Doug and anybody else who’s weighed in on this thread in favor of guns. I’m making it easy for you. Of the whole lot, who has shown evidence of grieving over accidental gun deaths in the last ten pages? Show me. The entire premise behind your audacious, scorching criticism that amounts to us having a callus disregard for human life is that we don't agree with your solution for gun violence. Until we agree with your suggestion that gun control will solve the problem as you frame it, we are utterly cold-blooded assholes, laughing manically as a man accidentally shoots his own son in the neck. Sorry, but I don't buy it.Well of course you don’t. That’s because you made the whole thing up, only so you could say you don’t believe it. So what am I supposed to do, give you a gold star for not believing your own bullshit? You keep trying to paint me in a way that you can easily disprove. Why don’t we just stick to the facts, instead? You accused me of saying that you guys don’t care about accidental deaths, but that’s not what I said. I said the stories are ignored. I went on to explain the difference since you seemed to have trouble with the distinction. And while I agreed with you that I think pro-gunners care about accidents, I asked you to provide any evidence of grief in these last ten pages. A lot has been said. A lot of people have commented. If grief over accidental deaths was a concern, there ought to be some record of it in this lengthy thread. And maybe it’s there. I’m not going to reread the whole thread in search of it because the only sentiment along those lines that I remember is from me and other gun-controllers. And the only responses I remember from you guys are comments like “stats can be made to say anything you want to say,” and something about scientific governance. I could be wrong. Maybe there’s something in there from you guys. My memory is not a 100% effective data storage device, so maybe it’s in there. If so, that’s evidence of caring, which was your point, not mine. I think you guys do care. And then I think you quickly ignore it. If you want to continue, don’t tell me I think "we are utterly cold-blooded assholes, laughing manically as a man accidentally shoots his own son in the neck.” Stick to the facts.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 12, 2016 13:28:16 GMT -5
The entire premise behind your audacious, scorching criticism that amounts to us having a callus disregard for human life is that we don't agree with your solution for gun violence. Until we agree with your suggestion that gun control will solve the problem as you frame it, we are utterly cold-blooded assholes, laughing manically as a man accidentally shoots his own son in the neck. Sorry, but I don't buy it.Well of course you don’t. That’s because you made the whole thing up, only so you could say you don’t believe it. So what am I supposed to do, give you a gold star for not believing your own bullshit? You keep trying to paint me in a way that you can easily disprove. Why don’t we just stick to the facts, instead? You accused me of saying that you guys don’t care about accidental deaths, but that’s not what I said. I said the stories are ignored. I went on to explain the difference since you seemed to have trouble with the distinction. And while I agreed with you that I think pro-gunners care about accidents, I asked you to provide any evidence of grief in these last ten pages. A lot has been said. A lot of people have commented. If grief over accidental deaths was a concern, there ought to be some record of it in this lengthy thread. And maybe it’s there. I’m not going to reread the whole thread in search of it because the only sentiment along those lines that I remember is from me and other gun-controllers. And the only responses I remember from you guys are comments like “stats can be made to say anything you want to say,” and something about scientific governance. I could be wrong. Maybe there’s something in there from you guys. My memory is not a 100% effective data storage device, so maybe it’s in there. If so, that’s evidence of caring, which was your point, not mine. I think you guys do care. And then I think you quickly ignore it. If you want to continue, don’t tell me I think "we are utterly cold-blooded assholes, laughing manically as a man accidentally shoots his own son in the neck.” Stick to the facts. That would have had a whole lot more impact if epaul hadn't read it exactly the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 13:29:08 GMT -5
My sarcasm in no way diminishes my affection for you (which is genuine), but that comment about not showing grief in this thread was extremely odd. Paul, I was going to respond to your earlier post and then I saw this one. Does not posting but feeling it anyway count? No, and yes. If it wasn’t posted, it doesn’t count, but your feeling it is what I would have expected. That goes for every one of you guys. I don’t know what’s odd about asking for evidence of grief. John’s sarcasm, thicker than yours, asked me if it never occurred to me that the pro-gunners grieved over these deaths while telling me I live in a black and white world where nothing other than gun control counts as far as I’m concerned. (I may have fused two posts together there.) He asked if it wasn’t just possible. I said that it was but that I hadn’t seen any evidence of anything along those lines. We’ve touched on a lot of aspects of gun ownership and gun violence in this thread. Pretty much anything that’s popped into anybody’s head has made it to the thread. There are still areas that could be explored, but I would think that we’ve already heard most people’s top priorities. And accidental gun deaths apparently are not a top priority in the minds of the pro-gunners here.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 13:32:16 GMT -5
I keep meaning to memorize the list of logical fallacies. I’m always impressed when someone throws out a Latin term and I have to go look it up. Again.
So what’s the Latin term for compound opinions?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 13:36:51 GMT -5
It has to be. You can't suddenly generalize your claim right in the face of the very people who disprove it. No, you misunderstood. Make it about Kris. He counts. So do you. So does Jeff, Peter, Doug and anybody else who’s weighed in on this thread in favor of guns. I’m making it easy for you. Of the whole lot, who has shown evidence of grieving over accidental gun deaths in the last ten pages? Show me. Jim, how many elderly women are you prepared to see raped and beaten in pursuit of your gun control fantasies?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 13:38:49 GMT -5
Which is to say, we can lament the tragedies that Bill listed. They are horrific. But if our answer is to say "no guns", then we are also leaving a lot of innocent people unable to defend themselves.
Unless you are prepared to tell us how many innocent elderly women you are ok seeing raped and beaten in pursuit of your agenda, you only have half an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 12, 2016 13:41:19 GMT -5
I keep meaning to memorize the list of logical fallacies. Have at it, man.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 13:46:26 GMT -5
Which is to say, we can lament the tragedies that Bill listed. They are horrific. But if our answer is to say "no guns", then we are also leaving a lot of innocent people unable to defend themselves. Unless you are prepared to tell us how many innocent elderly women you are ok seeing raped and beaten in pursuit of your agenda, you only have half an opinion. By the way, I did not post those two stories to fan flames here. I should have made my intentions known. I posted them because, in alignment with the initial post and concerns about people buying guns they can't handle or know too little about, I seem to be seeing more and more stories like this. We have had several home gun fatalities in MN in the past year or so, and I am not talking about the deliberate shootings. This would be a great time for the NRA to step up and heavily promote gun-safety classes, offer tips on safe storage of weapons, etc.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 13:50:40 GMT -5
This would be a great time for the NRA to step up and heavily promote gun-safety classes, offer tips on safe storage of weapons, etc. They've done more in those areas over a period of decades than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 13:55:38 GMT -5
Which is to say, we can lament the tragedies that Bill listed. They are horrific. But if our answer is to say "no guns", then we are also leaving a lot of innocent people unable to defend themselves. Unless you are prepared to tell us how many innocent elderly women you are ok seeing raped and beaten in pursuit of your agenda, you only have half an opinion. I don’t know why you keep picking on elderly women. Young women don’t count? To answer your question, I’m going back to the Wikipedia page I linked earlier. Before I quote from the page, let me point out that your premise that guns make you safer is flawed. Giving a gun to an elderly woman for self defense is probably not going to make her any safer. Changing nothing at all other than whether to arm a specific elderly woman, she then runs the risks already discussed such as suicide, accidents, and the possibility of her committing a homicide. Also, the presence of a gun during a crime, whether the gun is carried by the perp or the victim, increases the risks to the victim. All that is with nothing changing other than whether or not you buy a gun for your granny. If we take it a step further, if we enact some meaningful gun controls, reducing the number of total guns and reducing the number of guns in the hands of criminals, her odds of being shot during an assault are further reduced. Oh wait, that wasn’t your question, was it? You didn’t want to know if granny should carry a gun. You wanted to know how granny should protect herself from rape. That’s easy. Pepper spray. And on second thought, rather than a list of quotes, here’s the link to the page again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 12, 2016 13:59:48 GMT -5
Eddie Eagle in answer to Bill's last question. Which the NRA has spent millions promoting.
In response to the kids getting killed. I've said before I count them just like anyone else who has died for our liberty from 1776 forward. Freedom isn't free, there are prices to be paid.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 14:00:21 GMT -5
I keep meaning to memorize the list of logical fallacies. Have at it, man. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 14:01:50 GMT -5
Which is to say, we can lament the tragedies that Bill listed. They are horrific. But if our answer is to say "no guns", then we are also leaving a lot of innocent people unable to defend themselves. Unless you are prepared to tell us how many innocent elderly women you are ok seeing raped and beaten in pursuit of your agenda, you only have half an opinion. I don’t know why you keep picking on elderly women. Young women don’t count? To answer your question, I’m going back to the Wikipedia page I linked earlier. Before I quote from the page, let me point out that your premise that guns make you safer is flawed. Giving a gun to an elderly woman for self defense is probably not going to make her any safer. Changing nothing at all other than whether to arm a specific elderly woman, she then runs the risks already discussed such as suicide, accidents, and the possibility of her committing a homicide. Also, the presence of a gun during a crime, whether the gun is carried by the perp or the victim, increases the risks to the victim. All that is with nothing changing other than whether or not you buy a gun for your granny. If we take it a step further, if we enact some meaningful gun controls, reducing the number of total guns and reducing the number of guns in the hands of criminals, her odds of being shot during an assault are further reduced. Oh wait, that wasn’t your question, was it? You didn’t want to know if granny should carry a gun. You wanted to know how granny should protect herself from rape. That’s easy. Pepper spray. And on second thought, rather than a list of quotes, here’s the link to the page again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesWould you agree with the statement "There are some elderly women who saved themselves from being raped by shooting their would-be rapist"?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 14:05:15 GMT -5
This would be a great time for the NRA to step up and heavily promote gun-safety classes, offer tips on safe storage of weapons, etc. They've done more in those areas over a period of decades than anyone else. I'm sure they have done a lot of programs -- what I am saying is they should be doing a lot of publicity. I have never seen an NRA public service announcement about gun safety on TV, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 14:07:26 GMT -5
I don’t know why you keep picking on elderly women. Young women don’t count? To answer your question, I’m going back to the Wikipedia page I linked earlier. Before I quote from the page, let me point out that your premise that guns make you safer is flawed. Giving a gun to an elderly woman for self defense is probably not going to make her any safer. Changing nothing at all other than whether to arm a specific elderly woman, she then runs the risks already discussed such as suicide, accidents, and the possibility of her committing a homicide. Also, the presence of a gun during a crime, whether the gun is carried by the perp or the victim, increases the risks to the victim. All that is with nothing changing other than whether or not you buy a gun for your granny. If we take it a step further, if we enact some meaningful gun controls, reducing the number of total guns and reducing the number of guns in the hands of criminals, her odds of being shot during an assault are further reduced. Oh wait, that wasn’t your question, was it? You didn’t want to know if granny should carry a gun. You wanted to know how granny should protect herself from rape. That’s easy. Pepper spray. And on second thought, rather than a list of quotes, here’s the link to the page again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesWould you agree with the statement "There are some elderly women who saved themselves from being raped by shooting their would-be rapist"? I would think there would have to be cases like that. And I would think there would have to be cases of women shooting themselves, shooting an innocent bystander, having their gun taken away by the rapist and getting shot with their own gun, and other outcomes. I don’t have any elderly women rape stats, though, but all those scenarios sound likely. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 14:07:52 GMT -5
They've done more in those areas over a period of decades than anyone else. I'm sure they have done a lot of programs -- what I am saying is they should be doing a lot of publicity. I have never seen an NRA public service announcement about gun safety on TV, for instance. They probably don't sponsor any programs on PBS.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 14:08:32 GMT -5
In response to the kids getting killed. I've said before I count them just like anyone else who has died for our liberty from 1776 forward. Freedom isn't free, there are prices to be paid. Ah, I see, noble sacrifices for the cause, not stupid parents.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 14:09:15 GMT -5
Would you agree with the statement "There are some elderly women who saved themselves from being raped by shooting their would-be rapist"? I would think there would have to be cases like that. And I would think there would have to be cases of women shooting themselves, shooting an innocent bystander, having their gun taken away by the rapist and getting shot with their own gun, and other outcomes. I don’t have any elderly women rape stats, though, but all those scenarios sound likely. Why do you ask? Because you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any social value to firearms. Until you do, and until you recognize that there are costs that go along with your proposed policies, you only have half an opinion.
|
|