Guns - page 17. | Bitcointalksearch.org

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: vampire on July 23, 2012, 02:01:28 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on July 23, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: vampire on July 23, 2012, 02:01:28 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on July 23, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

Logically, he's wrong as well. Consider:

Sensible person: "Speeding kills. Thus a ban on speeding."

Wacko: "Food kills. Why don't we ban food?"

Sensible person: "You really don't know why we don't ban food?"

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: RodeoX on July 23, 2012, 02:04:27 PM

I'm guessing this thread is active because of the nut in Colorado. What a sad event. The only thing that could have made a difference is if the audience had guns. That particular theater did not allow people to protect themselves and obviously had no way to protect their customers.
I am checking local theaters where I live so that I never make the mistake of patronizing such a place. If they allowed CC weapons, that guy would have never been able to kill so many. Why do you think these whackos choose schools and such? Because they are safe zones for mass murder. Undecided

That's silly. Smoke bombs, panic, cross fire - many more would die.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

I'm guessing this thread is active because of the nut in Colorado. What a sad event. The only thing that could have made a difference is if the audience had guns. That particular theater did not allow people to protect themselves and obviously had no way to protect their customers.
I am checking local theaters where I live so that I never make the mistake of patronizing such a place. If they allowed CC weapons, that guy would have never been able to kill so many. Why do you think these whackos choose schools and such? Because they are safe zones for mass murder. Undecided

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: RodeoX on July 23, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: RodeoX on July 23, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

For crying out loud.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Explodicle on July 23, 2012, 01:33:00 PM

But drop this silly "it's a meme!" nonsense, it's irrelevant.

No. Because it's not irrelevant. You can't build and defend a political ideology on memes which upon evaluation are misleading. But people try - witness the meme we just discussed and many others prevalent within this forum.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: westkybitcoins on July 23, 2012, 01:40:57 PM

Clearly, no amount or quality of evidence will suffice for some.

Really though, it's absurd how the debate on this thread is still stuck at the "guns cause crime, they're evil!" stage. It reminds me of how drug war defenders keep trying to push the whole drug issue into the "drugs are bad, they have to be stopped!" corner, as if that would have any real bearing on the legitimacy of the drug war anyway.

Whatever lets one feel they can solve a complex social issue with such simple "solutions," I suppose; must be easier than acknowledging there's no magic wand to fix this, and taking the more difficult actions required to really address it.

Or people are stioll stuck at the guns cause less crime. I've proven that so many times that there is no statistics to support either way. Each city is different, what may work in NYC won't work in Detroit.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Clearly, no amount or quality of evidence will suffice for some.

Really though, it's absurd how the debate on this thread is still stuck at the "guns cause crime, they're evil!" stage. It reminds me of how drug war defenders keep trying to push the whole drug issue into the "drugs are bad, they have to be stopped!" corner, as if that would have any real bearing on the legitimacy of the drug war anyway.

Whatever lets one feel they can solve a complex social issue with such simple "solutions," I suppose; must be easier than acknowledging there's no magic wand to fix this, and taking the more difficult actions required to really address it.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 23, 2012, 12:35:39 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on July 23, 2012, 12:03:05 PM

I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!

Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.

Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.

If I get your meaning, then it fails. Political memes aren't always truisms, but slogans designed for misdirection. I thought you were a little more intelligent than that.

Then I guess I'm unintelligent, because I've been evaluating statements based on if they make logical sense, not based on my assumptions about the intent of the speaker.

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 23, 2012, 12:35:39 PM

Let's look at a classic gun rights meme. It goes something like this: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Some people get stumped by that. It's typically the unintelligent and those who spread the meme. Let's follow through:

Gun rights person: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Intelligent person: "Cars provide daily utility, and are designed to provide that daily activity, which, decidedly, is not killing. Tanks, on the other hand, do analogize well to guns. Spread that meme."

I know that you know that's a strawman argument. If you think that "usefulness for things other than killing humans" should be a factor, that's fine - I'm not objecting to that. But drop this silly "it's a meme!" nonsense, it's irrelevant.

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

More useless statistics.

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

From least permissive to most permissive.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: vampire on July 23, 2012, 12:44:08 PM

Source FBI and from http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Here are my charts which prove, well nothing:

Murder with guns:

Note to myrkul: that's how you make a chart. It's visually clear.

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Source FBI and from http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Here are my charts which prove, well nothing:

Murder with guns:

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Explodicle on July 23, 2012, 12:03:05 PM

I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!

Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.

Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.

If I get your meaning, then it fails. Political memes aren't always truisms, but slogans designed for misdirection. I thought you were a little more intelligent than that.

Let's look at a classic gun rights meme. It goes something like this: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Some people get stumped by that. It's typically the unintelligent and those who spread the meme. Let's follow through:

Gun rights person: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Intelligent person: "Cars provide daily utility, and are designed to provide that daily activity, which, decidedly, is not killing. Tanks, on the other hand, do analogize well to guns. Spread that meme."

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Quote from: myrkul on July 23, 2012, 08:25:12 AM

Quote from: vampire on July 23, 2012, 08:13:37 AM

Military always wins.

Yup, every time. See? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Oh. Err....

Roll Eyes

Again, "American Revolution" or "why we even have the second amendment"

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!

Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.

Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on July 23, 2012, 04:00:47 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 23, 2012, 03:37:45 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 23, 2012, 03:21:43 AM

But tell you what, you find me some data that gives just firearm accidents, by state, per 100k population, I'll run up a graph on it. While you're at it, look up lawnmower or chainsaw accidents by state per 100k population, so we have a control.

Spreading those NRA memes again, are we? Let me explain why you're too stupid to recognize the differrence:

Guns are designed to kill. Lawnmowers are designed to cut grass. If you want to use an analogy that works (I know you do want an analogy that works, but aren't quite unbiased enough in your thinking to discover it), I'll suggest one for you. Instead of lawnmowers, use any type of weapon that is not a gun.

A chainsaw is most definitely designed to kill. Trees, yes, but wood is much tougher than flesh. So if you want to compare a weapon other than a gun, I suggest a chainsaw. So, go, get me that data. I'll do a side-by side comparison.

Sad. Truly sad. A chainsaw, just like a lawnmower and an automobile are designed to fulfill a purpose which is not to kill. That's why the NRA meme you and your buddies like to use has faults and is not effective. Find a better meme, and don't fall victim to such memes so easily.

Better yet, stop it with the memes altogether. People might respect you for it, as it would be indicative of true thought.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: vampire on July 23, 2012, 09:53:45 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 23, 2012, 08:42:43 AM

So, which "superpower" was fighting with the punji sticks and pit traps?

Soviets and Chinese were involved - providing equipment, also it wasnt just civilians vs americans. It was South Vietnam vs North Vietnam. Military causalities are in millions.

Also modern weapons are much much better, its practically almost impossible to take out a modern tank.

As I said earlier, which you conveniently ignored, 1) the battle isn't about "winning," it's about making continuing prohibitively costly (which is exactly what happened in Vietnam), and 2) It's not worth fighting that battle unless something drastic changes - the example I used was a military coup. Unless something like that happens, where everyone and their brother knows that the US government is not even remotely your friend anymore, the necessary numbers to produce that prohibitive cost simply aren't going to be there. And nothing like that is going to happen. They've gotten far too good at boiling the frog to fuck it up like that. So while you're wrong in the specifics, you're right in the generalities, that it's stupid to think that your home gun ownership is going to prevent some government crack-down.

However, it does seem to do a pretty damn good job of stopping a home invasion, as long as that home invasion isn't done by a SWAT team, and at least it is stopping the troops marching in the street that would generate those numbers. It's forcing them to boil the frog slowly, rather than just tossing it in the pot and holding the lid down.

Topic: Guns - page 17. (Read 22182 times)