The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Duck and cover
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:46 am

fromthehills wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:BS, why would I trust you with a gun?



I don't give a {!#%@} if you do, and I told you why you don't get an answer. It's a BS question that assumes a an unspoken premise. Why should I trust you behind the wheel when you have anger issues? And seemingly think I don't remember {!#%@} you have said. So, perhaps you have dementia.

My point is, my assumptions of you are just as valid, or invalid as yours about me.

Okay, you've shown that I shouldn't trust you with a gun, because you can't conceive of people being concerned that you're packing your toy and are dangerous. Thank you.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby fromthehills » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:49 am

Another assumption.

You never asked if I understood concerns of others. I actually do. Why should I trust you with that 9mm under your desk if the pizza guy gets the wrong address? You should be able to answer your own question, right?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:51 am

fromthehills wrote:Another assumption.

You never asked if I understood concerns of others. I actually do. Why should I trust you with that 9mm under your desk if the pizza guy gets the wrong address? You should be able to answer your own question, right?

You sure don't sound like you do.

And you shouldn't trust ANYBODY with a gun. That's my point, weak-eyed one. :roll:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby fromthehills » Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:05 am

Lol. I should have posted above that the insults would start soon. Low hanging fruit, but still, a missed opportunity at displaying my prognostication skills.

"Anybody" is an absolute. That's just the atrophy talking, man. Same as saying " you can't really trust anyone behind the wheel" because mistakes happen. Drunk driving happens, people are irresponsible, etc. etc..

But you don't know my safety regiment, my nearly 40 years of owning and actively training. So sure, don't trust me. But I still don't care if you trust me or not. I do the right thing, best of my ability. And yeah. I see the concerns of people that don't understand guns, and the concerns that people that do understand, but don't think we should have them in society. That's a fine argument. To put some one lined riddle out there, a bumper sticker argument, isn't saying {!#%@}, though.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:43 am

I do not trust anyone with a gun. I am also very, very happy if you do not trust me with a gun, because I don't have one.

If you say you 'need' a gun because it is an enjoyable toy, I have no sympathy, because it is also a 'toy' that kills people.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not trust anyone with a gun.
I've never touched a gun and would get nervous around anyone with a gun......apart from specifically armed police. (Which matches your views)

The murder rate is now low here, that individual murders get national news time. In fact the police here are cracking down on people randomly hitting other people, when drunk. In a funny way, if that's the "big problem"....then things are pretty good at the moment.


'One-punch laws': Sweeping changes to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence in Sydney
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-21/o ... ce/5210740

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:00 am

Ditto here in NZ.
They call it a "king hit", when one person knocks another unconscious with a single punch and it is regarded by our police as a serious crime.

It is interesting that in the USA, when a husband hits his wife, that is not regarded as a violent crime, and does not enter violent crime statistics. That seems to me a desperate way to get violent crime statistics down to where you no longer feel horribly ashamed. In Oz, NZ, Britain and most of the west, a husband hitting his wife is a violent crime, and it enters annual violent crime stats. Idiots in the USA (I am not mentioning the venerable here) will claim Britain has a higher violent crime rate, and fail to recognise that 60% of Britain's violent crimes are not of a kind recognised as violent crimes in the USA.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:09 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Venerable

I told you that the figure of 4000 per year was FBI stats. As a matter of fact, they were published in Skeptic magazine, on a very good article on gun control.


Provide a citation.

I am very happy to live in a 'docile' country, where we do not face idiots carrying hand guns in their back pockets.


Well good for you. But the rest of the world is not New Zealand! So give yourself a pat on the back for having the good fortune to live in a country which naturally both attracts docile laid-back people and repels aggressive ambitious people.

It is you Americans I feel sorry for. With 100,000 people getting a bullet through some part of their anatomy each year, (excluding suicide) it is easy to calculate that one person in 50 will be shot (probably wounded) some time in their lives. 2% casualties of guns is way too high.


If it's easy to calculate then show us your working - with data sources. Ditto for your value judgment about 2% casualties being "way too high".
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:15 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Well done, Gawd. Those are good statistics. For those unwilling to open the reference, self defense as an excuse for making guns readily available is a crap reason, since for even one time a criminal is killed in a "justifiable" killing with a gun, there are 34 criminal homicides using guns.


Well look at that, Gawd came to fight your battle for you! How gallant of him. Unfortunately for both of you his statistics do not include justifiable gun injuries (i.e. which could have prevented homicides). They do not - and could not - include assaults which might have happened if the would-be perpetrator believed that the would-be victim was unarmed. And last but certainly not least, they do not and could not factor in the political importance of private gun ownership, which is the whole reason we even have the 2nd Amendment.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:42 am

I know I am not supposed to say this, but venerable is an idiot. He seems to think that having 1 person in 50 getting shot is preferable to 1 person in 50,000, which is roughly what we have in NZ.

Seriously. Is that idiotic or what?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:39 am

fromthehills wrote:Lol. I should have posted above that the insults would start soon. Low hanging fruit, but still, a missed opportunity at displaying my prognostication skills.

"Anybody" is an absolute. That's just the atrophy talking, man. Same as saying " you can't really trust anyone behind the wheel" because mistakes happen. Drunk driving happens, people are irresponsible, etc. etc..

But you don't know my safety regiment, my nearly 40 years of owning and actively training. So sure, don't trust me. But I still don't care if you trust me or not. I do the right thing, best of my ability. And yeah. I see the concerns of people that don't understand guns, and the concerns that people that do understand, but don't think we should have them in society. That's a fine argument. To put some one lined riddle out there, a bumper sticker argument, isn't saying {!#%@}, though.

You're right, I don't know you. And therefore there's no reason I should trust you.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

ahhell
Poster
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:43 pm

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby ahhell » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:50 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Well, they will reply, but they won't answer:

If you carry a gun because you don't trust people, why should we trust you with a gun?
The answer would be,

I don't distrust you unless you have a record of violence and crime and you shouldn't distrust me if I don't have a history of violence and crime."

As a side note there are three(4) main defenses of gun rights"
A. The constitution guarantees a right to "bear arms" we can argue over the comma of course.
B. Self defense. The numbers don't really support the argument but its really more of a moral question, "Do I have the right to defend myself."
C. Fighting the government when it inevitably turns to tyranny, I'd think the left would be getting behind this idea at this point.
D. As an adult with no criminal record, why can't I own dangerous toys? I get to build a pool in my back yard and get to own a motorcycle so why not a gun?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:58 pm

ahhell wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Well, they will reply, but they won't answer:

If you carry a gun because you don't trust people, why should we trust you with a gun?
The answer would be,

I don't distrust you unless you have a record of violence and crime and you shouldn't distrust me if I don't have a history of violence and crime."

As a side note there are three(4) main defenses of gun rights"
A. The constitution guarantees a right to "bear arms" we can argue over the comma of course.
B. Self defense. The numbers don't really support the argument but its really more of a moral question, "Do I have the right to defend myself."
C. Fighting the government when it inevitably turns to tyranny, I'd think the left would be getting behind this idea at this point.
D. As an adult with no criminal record, why can't I own dangerous toys? I get to build a pool in my back yard and get to own a motorcycle so why not a gun?

Nice bend-around. Strangers with guns, no reason to trust them.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:16 pm

Hello ahhell, and a belated welcome to the forum.

On your four arguments.

1. The second amendment. This was clearly set up in order to provide a militia for national defense. I am aware that the Supreme Court has extended that since, but I am also aware that the Supreme Court is a corrupt political body, and rules toward the Republicans when there is a Republican majority government. If we go by the original intent, the need for this amendment has long since passed.

2. Self defense. Everyone has that right, but that does not translate into carrying a gun. Otherwise you can rule that the right to self defense extends to the right to own a nuke. There are many ways to defend yourself without having to kill anyone. In my own adult life, I have been threatened several times. Twice I talked my way out. Once I talked till other people turned up, and the threat disappeared. You do not need a gun to defend yourself. If I felt more threatened, I could buy a shrieker, which generates 130 decibels (more than a nearby jet engine), and forces anyone nearby to put both hands over ears to dull the pain. Hard for an assailant to attack when both his hands are over his ears, and the shrieker will quickly attract any policeman nearby.

3. Fighting a tyranny. I started a whole thread on this some time back. Recent history shows that those who take up arms against a tyranny actually make things worse. The successful opposition, without causing enormous damage, comes from peaceful opposition. Witness Gandhi, Mandela, and the recent success in Burma. Syria is what happens when you oppose a tyranny with guns.

4. Dangerous toys are always controlled by legislation. For example, here in NZ, if you own a pool, you must by law put a child proof fence around it. If you want to ride a motorcycle, you must get a drivers licence. Here in NZ, your motorbike must pass safety checks on a regular basis. If Americans are not total idiots, those laws should also apply in the USA. Guns should also be controlled by robust legislation.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:33 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:You're right, I don't know you. And therefore there's no reason I should trust you.


I've never heard any gun owner claim to be anything other than a responsible gun owner who can be trusted.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:47 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:You're right, I don't know you. And therefore there's no reason I should trust you.


I've never heard any gun owner claim to be anything other than a responsible gun owner who can be trusted.

Yeah, because they're all trustworthy until they ain't.

In this thread you'll note the complete lack of empathy for non-gunners. Gunners speak of things that benefit themselves without concern for other peoples' concerns.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19633
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:02 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:...It is interesting that in the USA, when a husband hits his wife, that is not regarded as a violent crime, and does not enter violent crime statistics. That seems to me a desperate way to get violent crime statistics down to where you no longer feel horribly ashamed...

Nah, it's because they religiously insist one can do with one's property as one wishes. Unless it's a dog or other nonhuman animal...
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:42 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
No, what's idiotic is your apparent inability to grasp the factors which make NZ an exceptional case with respect to the issue at hand. This is despite the fact that I have spelt these factors out to you on two threads now!


NZ is not an 'exceptional case'. The same applies to Australia, Britain, and in fact, every western nation EXCEPT the USA. The exceptional case is the USA. It is the only western nation that permits easy access to hand guns, and the people pay the price, with 100,000 receiving a bullet wound every year, excluding suicides. Only in the USA does one person in 50 get a bullet through some part of their anatomy some time in their life.

ahhell
Poster
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:43 pm

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby ahhell » Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Hello ahhell, and a belated welcome to the forum.

On your four arguments.

1. The second amendment. This was clearly set up in order to provide a militia for national defense. I am aware that the Supreme Court has extended that since, but I am also aware that the Supreme Court is a corrupt political body, and rules toward the Republicans when there is a Republican majority government. If we go by the original intent, the need for this amendment has long since passed.

2. Self defense. Everyone has that right, but that does not translate into carrying a gun. Otherwise you can rule that the right to self defense extends to the right to own a nuke. There are many ways to defend yourself without having to kill anyone. In my own adult life, I have been threatened several times. Twice I talked my way out. Once I talked till other people turned up, and the threat disappeared. You do not need a gun to defend yourself. If I felt more threatened, I could buy a shrieker, which generates 130 decibels (more than a nearby jet engine), and forces anyone nearby to put both hands over ears to dull the pain. Hard for an assailant to attack when both his hands are over his ears, and the shrieker will quickly attract any policeman nearby.

3. Fighting a tyranny. I started a whole thread on this some time back. Recent history shows that those who take up arms against a tyranny actually make things worse. The successful opposition, without causing enormous damage, comes from peaceful opposition. Witness Gandhi, Mandela, and the recent success in Burma. Syria is what happens when you oppose a tyranny with guns.

4. Dangerous toys are always controlled by legislation. For example, here in NZ, if you own a pool, you must by law put a child proof fence around it. If you want to ride a motorcycle, you must get a drivers licence. Here in NZ, your motorbike must pass safety checks on a regular basis. If Americans are not total idiots, those laws should also apply in the USA. Guns should also be controlled by robust legislation.


1. That's what I meant about arguing about the comma. Its not clear. As a side note, in US law the militia is every male between 18 and either 35 or 45 and women in uniformed service. With exemptions for police and what not.
2. The argument doesn't really have to convince me or you, it just as to convince the gun owner for them to answer the question.
3. Depends on how bad the tyranny is, chaos is better than certain death as an extreme example.
4. I don't disagree, but I probably disagree on what constitutes reasonable regulation.

A couple of side notes
Someone noted that banning handguns would take care of the bulk of gun crime. That's true but it's politically unfeasible in the US.
Violent crime in the US is near historical lows, you wouldn't know it because news coverage of violent crime is at historical highs.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:48 pm

Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:45 pm

To ahhell

Yes, in the USA, violent crime is down relative to the period of 1970 to 1990. But the reason is worth noting. It is because most violent crime is done by young men, and the percentage of young men in the population has dropped dramatically, now that the baby boomer generation is growing old. Nevertheless, the per capita murder rate in the USA is five times that of my country, and two thirds of those murders are done with guns.

According to Professor Steven Pinker (Harvard), the high murder rate is due both to gun availability and to the vigilante culture. When people tend to think they have a 'right' to take justice into their own hands, it results in murder and tragedy. Hollywood has much to answer for, since it makes numerous programs glorifying the vigilante.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:49 pm

Violent crime is down, number of guns is up. Don't make any {!#%@} sense.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:54 pm

Makes a lot of sense.

Gun nutters do not own one gun each. They own numerous guns. There are totally insane Americans who own more than 100 guns, and claim they need them for 'self defense'. Duh!

But when it comes to numbers of gun crimes, the important thing is not number of guns, but number of gun OWNERS. Every time a democratic leader shows signs of interest in gun control, the NRA and the gun makers pump out propaganda telling all the gun nutters that they need more guns. So they buy more.

In fact, over the past 20 years or so, the number of gun OWNERS appears to have dropped (only by a small margin), while the total number of guns increased.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:15 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Makes a lot of sense.

Gun nutters do not own one gun each. They own numerous guns. There are totally insane Americans who own more than 100 guns, and claim they need them for 'self defense'. Duh!

A select group of my relatives belong to a club called "The Big 50", being the fifty cousins with the most long guns. Between them they have 1,500 guns. Below that bunch the average is about 20 long guns. Hand guns are just too many to count.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby fromthehills » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:25 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:You're right, I don't know you. And therefore there's no reason I should trust you.


I've never heard any gun owner claim to be anything other than a responsible gun owner who can be trusted.

Yeah, because they're all trustworthy until they ain't.

In this thread you'll note the complete lack of empathy for non-gunners. Gunners speak of things that benefit themselves without concern for other peoples' concerns.



Good point.

The concerns I here from anti gun folks is that people shoot people, or themselves. This, however, is in all honesty confirmation bias. The majority do not actually shoot anyone. The vast majority. And as you rightly say, don't trust us. But we are here, and just as in any other human endeavor, we shouldn't be convicted before found guilty.

Disclose your armory, Gawd. Don't act holier than thou.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby fromthehills » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:25 am

Hear^

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:02 am

fromthehills wrote:And as you rightly say, don't trust us.


I don't trust other drivers either. Not really.

Of all the gun owners I know personally, not one has shot him/herself nor any other person. FWIW.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
No, what's idiotic is your apparent inability to grasp the factors which make NZ an exceptional case with respect to the issue at hand. This is despite the fact that I have spelt these factors out to you on two threads now!


NZ is not an 'exceptional case'.


Yes it is. You're a small sparsely populated country with approximately zero geopolitical/strategic value located at the end of the world .

The exceptional case is the USA. It is the only western nation that permits easy access to hand guns, and the people pay the price, with 100,000 receiving a bullet wound every year, excluding suicides.


Where is this 100,000 figure coming from? And even if it's true, it does not support your argument until you can demonstrate that it is a high incidence per capita compared to other countries after adjusting for gun ownership rates.

Only in the USA does one person in 50 get a bullet through some part of their anatomy some time in their life.


Again, how have you calculated this figure?
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:59 am

fromthehills wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:You're right, I don't know you. And therefore there's no reason I should trust you.


I've never heard any gun owner claim to be anything other than a responsible gun owner who can be trusted.

Yeah, because they're all trustworthy until they ain't.

In this thread you'll note the complete lack of empathy for non-gunners. Gunners speak of things that benefit themselves without concern for other peoples' concerns.



Good point.

The concerns I here from anti gun folks is that people shoot people, or themselves. This, however, is in all honesty confirmation bias. The majority do not actually shoot anyone. The vast majority. And as you rightly say, don't trust us. But we are here, and just as in any other human endeavor, we shouldn't be convicted before found guilty.

Disclose your armory, Gawd. Don't act holier than thou.

I have a M2 Browning .50 cal., fully functional. I have a license that allows me to keep and fire it, issued by a federal agency. I had forty three other guns, but I donated them to some museum in Washington with a codicil that they could trade them with other museums. They were all of interest to historians. Now I have the .50 and a 9mm. The 9 is stored at a local range. The .50 is on loan to the State of Missouri.

I have been a shooter and an owner since 1965. And I've never shot anyone accidentally. I shot a lot of people when the Navy was paying me to do that. No clue how many. When a gun can kill at four miles you don't really bother with a head count.

And no, if you don't know me you shouldn't trust me with a gun.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:22 pm

‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Accidentally Shoots Woman He Was ‘Saving’ Five Times (VIDEO)
By John Prager on November 18, 2016 2:07 am ·

You know how the NRA constantly tells us that their army of ‘good guys with guns’ are ready to swoop in at the first sign of danger to save those in distress? Well, as an incident from Hollis, Maine, shows us, sometimes it may be better if they just…don’t.

30-year-old Joshua Weldon had good intentions when he saw a woman’s boyfriend assaulting her and made the decision to step in and stop it. According to police, 32-year-old Andria Richardson was being attacked by her boyfriend, 30-year-old Ryan Gilliken, on Wednesday when Weldon drew a firearm in an attempt to defend the woman. Unfortunately, his bravado did not work out well for anyone but the assailant.

Weldon fired his weapon multiple times, hitting Richardson in the stomach twice and the leg three times. Richardson is recovering from her wounds, but family members say she is lucky. Notably, neither the attacker nor the ‘savior’ were injured by the gunfire.

Last year, another “good guy with a gun” made headlines when he tried to help a carjacking victim by shooting the people stealing her car. He missed the criminals, but shot the victim in the head.

It’s nice to think of people with a firearm as heroes who will be there to save us when things go bad — but the thing is that the average gun owner is not trained or conditioned to handle, say, close-range combat against an unarmed attacker (with a victim nearby), without causing some form of “collateral damage.” In this case, our hero almost killed the person he was trying to save.

Gilliken has been charged with domestic violence assault, a Class C felony. Weldon has not been charged with a single crime


Video on link above.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:03 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Accidentally Shoots Woman He Was ‘Saving’ Five Times (VIDEO)
By John Prager on November 18, 2016 2:07 am ·

You know how the NRA constantly tells us that their army of ‘good guys with guns’ are ready to swoop in at the first sign of danger to save those in distress? Well, as an incident from Hollis, Maine, shows us, sometimes it may be better if they just…don’t.

30-year-old Joshua Weldon had good intentions when he saw a woman’s boyfriend assaulting her and made the decision to step in and stop it. According to police, 32-year-old Andria Richardson was being attacked by her boyfriend, 30-year-old Ryan Gilliken, on Wednesday when Weldon drew a firearm in an attempt to defend the woman. Unfortunately, his bravado did not work out well for anyone but the assailant.

Weldon fired his weapon multiple times, hitting Richardson in the stomach twice and the leg three times. Richardson is recovering from her wounds, but family members say she is lucky. Notably, neither the attacker nor the ‘savior’ were injured by the gunfire.

Last year, another “good guy with a gun” made headlines when he tried to help a carjacking victim by shooting the people stealing her car. He missed the criminals, but shot the victim in the head.

It’s nice to think of people with a firearm as heroes who will be there to save us when things go bad — but the thing is that the average gun owner is not trained or conditioned to handle, say, close-range combat against an unarmed attacker (with a victim nearby), without causing some form of “collateral damage.” In this case, our hero almost killed the person he was trying to save.

Gilliken has been charged with domestic violence assault, a Class C felony. Weldon has not been charged with a single crime


Video on link above.


Yabbut, that was a bad guy without a gun, so it doesn't count. :mrgreen:
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:16 pm

It’s nice to think of people with a firearm as heroes who will be there to save us when things go bad — but the thing is that the average gun owner is not trained or conditioned to handle, say, close-range combat against an unarmed attacker (with a victim nearby), without causing some form of “collateral damage.” In this case, our hero almost killed the person he was trying to save.


This is the core of the problem of having a bunch of drugstore gunslingers running around.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:16 pm

It does not matter that most gun owners do not shoot people. You just need a few. In the USA, and excluding suicides, 100,000 people EVERY year receive a bullet wound. For 12,000 people, it is fatal. No other western country has this kind of gun shot rate. There are 100 million gun owners, so each year, 'only' 1 in 1000 gun owners shoots anyone. Big deal. 1 in 1000 is way too high. Divide that by the average lifetime, and it becomes more than 1 in 15 gun owners will, at some time in their lives, shoot someone. Way, way too high!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:It does not matter that most gun owners do not shoot people. You just need a few. In the USA, and excluding suicides, 100,000 people EVERY year receive a bullet wound. For 12,000 people, it is fatal. No other western country has this kind of gun shot rate. There are 100 million gun owners, so each year, 'only' 1 in 1000 gun owners shoots anyone. Big deal. 1 in 1000 is way too high. Divide that by the average lifetime, and it becomes more than 1 in 15 gun owners will, at some time in their lives, shoot someone. Way, way too high!

And this is caused by a completely fallacious claim of training and safe handling/storage. They lie to keep their toys.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Angel » Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:33 pm

You shouldn't trust or distrust a person based
on what they have or do not have.
For most people who carry guns ~ it's for
the option. Can't use it if you don't have it.
And now a days you never know when some
deranged video addict will start seeing
you as a zombie then attack~ they may only
be sleep walking lol
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10249
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Pyrrho » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:06 pm

Because of the personal attacks, I am giving this topic a "time out" for a few days. I may also issue a few official warnings for all the good those do. I may also give a couple of people a few days off. Haven't decided yet.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10249
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Pyrrho » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:59 pm

I've split off the off-topic personal attack posts and I am unlocking this topic.

Any further personal attacks in this topic will result in 3-day suspension of the offending user accounts.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19633
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:07 pm

That will earn you 3 am Tweets and a lawsuit. :-P
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19447
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:20 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:That will earn you 3 am Tweets and a lawsuit. :-P

Hence forth known and the Trump of Dumb.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10249
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: The question "ardent gunners" won't answer.

Postby Pyrrho » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:35 pm

Image
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest