Victim disarmament zones

[r00t]

DC and Chicago both have strict gun free zones, and have both seen tragedy strike this week. But in fact DC was a military base, in essence a gun free zone inside of a gun free zone. HOW COULD A GUN GET IN A GUN FREE ZONE INSIDE A GUN FREE ZONE?!?!

Oh but if we ban all guns then no1 can get a gun?? Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, and is in the middle of a civil war where the drug cartels have more firepower than the government. OF course, Obama and Holder sold them the weapons in F&F, but I digress... what I'm getting at is it's not reasonable to assume criminals will happily disarm, not to mention the 20 year civil war that would occur (i.e. more bloodshed than you bleeding hearts are already crying about).

I can't help but wince at the gov'ts response to the DC shooter, their directions were basically "cower and wait your turn to die". People are gonna have guns, when a gaggle of maggets kicks in your door to steal your VCR, will you be ready? I reccomend Smith & Wesson or a Rotty & Shotty home security system.

Well, my friends, as an American and I will stand my ground. God bless the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution

http://i.imgur.com/slXrMdk.jpg

[Vaildez]

Disarm America! So Liberals can rob you easier with illegal guns.

[aowen]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_r=0

Article on self-defense with the use of firearms

[Bardalicious]

root is a dumb kid who lives in his parents house still and doesn't have a job. nuff said

Pretty sure root is working on a masters in Computer Science. Sounds like a p dumb kid to me too.... ;)

[aowen]

aowen is dumb. constitution says right to bear arms. therefore, we should be able to have tanks, rocket launchers, and grenades too.

http://i.imgur.com/UhGxPbz.jpg

[Lune]

when a gaggle of maggets kicks in your door to steal your VCR, will you be ready?

Hmm, this is a conundrum.

You either:

1. Keep your gun locked away or dismantled, and the "maggets" beat the shit out of you before you can get your gun.

or

2. Keep a loaded gun around the house, or keep it accessible, and your kid, your neighbors' kids, or your relatives' kids find it and blow their own heads off.

Luckily, I think many conservativestend to go with option #2. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/08/yellowstone-shooting-death_n_3891379.html)

[Raavak]

YOU GUN NUTZ JUST DON'T GET IT DO YOU!!!! PEOPLE AREN'T EVIL, BUSH IS! BUT EVEN HE ISN'T THAT EVIL, ITS THE GUNS AND THE BIBLES. THE GUNS MADE THEM DO IT BECAUSE THEY EXIST, SOMEWHERE. DESTROY ALL GUNS AND BIBLES ITS THE ONLY WAY!!!

[Raavak]

2. Keep a loaded gun around the house, or keep it accessible, and your kid, your neighbors' kids, or your relatives' kids find it and blow their own heads off.


I love my gun safe. Loaded, nearby, and my kid can't get it.

http://www.gdriveurl.com/?idl=013796949153&out=1

[Lune]

Nice! Bet you can't wait to turn that burglary into a homicide. Hope you win the shootout

[aowen]

The fact that people live with such an incredible amount of fear is hilarious to me. Like Sauron is amassing power in the shadows to eventually break into your house, rape your wife, and steal your TV. The unforeseen threat that is out there. The bomb that could go off at any second. The gang bangers that are going to empty your house. The Charlie Manson cult breaking in. You gun nuts are fuckin pussy paranoid psychos man. I laugh at all the people who think that the solution to crime is to GI Joe lockdown.

It gets so ridiculous sometimes, I have a friend's parents who have door jams so you can't kick in the door, a pistol that fires shot gun shells called a Judge among several other pistols, some of which have lazer grips, and enough ammo and food supplies to make it through the apocalypse that is right around the corner.

[aowen]

I forgot to mention the assault rifles and power generator too!

[Vaildez]

The fact that people live with such an incredible amount of fear is hilarious to me. Like Sauron is amassing power in the shadows to eventually break into your house, rape your wife, and steal your TV. The unforeseen threat that is out there. The bomb that could go off at any second. The gang bangers that are going to empty your house. The Charlie Manson cult breaking in. You gun nuts are fuckin pussy paranoid psychos man. I laugh at all the people who think that the solution to crime is to GI Joe lockdown.

It gets so ridiculous sometimes, I have a friend's parents who have door jams so you can't kick in the door, a pistol that fires shot gun shells called a Judge among several other pistols, some of which have lazer grips, and enough ammo and food supplies to make it through the apocalypse that is right around the corner.

Yeah cause that shit never happens right? I don't own a gun or plan to but it always cracks me up when you Liberals live in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens. Have you ever been in a bad neighborhood in your life? Have you even been within a few blocks of a shooting?

[Stinkum]

I don't understand the point of having a gun for self-defense if you have to retrieve it from a safe, and I seriously question the practicality (and mental stability) of carrying it around at all times in your own house. Anyone want to fill me in here? Or is it just a little security blanket for paranoid people?

[aowen]

Indeed I have, and I am aware bad shit happens. That doesn't mean I am going to sit around wasting my time thinking about how I could die at any moment. When you get into a car do you sit there and fret about a drunk driver slamming you? Am I going to blast someone for taking my TV? If someone wants to put a bullet in me aim for the head please. Live your damn life without shit in your pants.

[Vaildez]

Indeed I have, and I am aware bad shit happens. That doesn't mean I am going to sit around wasting my time thinking about how I could die at any moment. When you get into a car do you sit there and fret about a drunk driver slamming you? Am I going to blast someone for taking my TV? If someone wants to put a bullet in me aim for the head please. Live your damn life without shit in your pants.

So owning a gun for self-defense means you sit around thinking about dying all day?

[aowen]

Plus most homicides are done by people you know fairly well, not some random ass off the street. And to be honest I don't much care to kill someone over my possessions, disappointed as I'd be about losing certain things that are irreplaceable.

[aowen]

Owning a gun for self-defense to me indicates you have at least thought enough about someone breaking and doing bad things to you to justify spending a few hundred minimum, which would require a level of fear greater than is really needed, for a scenario that usually does not play out the way people envision.

[Vaildez]

Plus most homicides are done by people you know fairly well, not some random ass off the street. And to be honest I don't much care to kill someone over my possessions, disappointed as I'd be about losing certain things that are irreplaceable.

So you would only defend yourself if it was someone you didn't know trying to kill you?

[Champion_Standing]

Contrary to what many Americans believe, police don't exist to keep us safe. They exist to enforce laws by bringing the people that break them to justice and to serve as a general deterrent. It is up to us as individuals to keep ourselves safe and make the decisions about how we are going to do that.

You live in a nation that since its inception has held that the ability to own guns is a critically important right. If you don't believe in owning guns, don't own one. That is your only option.

[Vaildez]

Owning a gun for self-defense to me indicates you have at least thought enough about someone breaking and doing bad things to you to justify spending a few hundred minimum, which would require a level of fear greater than is really needed, for a scenario that usually does not play out the way people envision.

If you don't think about real life scenarios that just makes you ignorant. Why do you put your seat belt on when you get into a car you paranoid fuck?!

[aowen]

No, the implication of the statement is that someone you know is going be able to kill you without you being on lockdown in your house with your gun at your side. As I posted an article to, only a couple hundred deaths a year from guns are in self-defense, whereas thousands of homicides from aggressors are reported. I dont think lack of guns on the defense side is the reason for this.

[Vaildez]

No, the implication of the statement is that someone you know is going be able to kill you without you being on lockdown in your house with your gun at your side. As I posted an article to, only a couple hundred deaths a year from guns are in self-defense, whereas thousands of homicides from aggressors are reported. I dont think lack of guns on the defense side is the reason for this.

Yea we need to put a stop to the NRA gun nuts causing all that violence in Chicago!

[Cecily]

I don't understand the point of having a gun for self-defense if you have to retrieve it from a safe, and I seriously question the practicality (and mental stability) of carrying it around at all times in your own house. Anyone want to fill me in here? Or is it just a little security blanket for paranoid people?

I think some people just want to play Fallout IRL.

[aowen]

Well luckily seat belts cost me nothing, are required by law, and prevent you from killing others in car crashes. A gun is meant for killing, whether it be in defense or not, whereas a seat belt is for preserving life. I hazard to guess that guns rarely prevent the taking of more life than life they take. So comparing seat belts to guns is a stupid angle to argue

[aowen]

All these people are super scurred someone is gonna come kill them, esp the chicago south side.

[r00t]

We are the #1 country for freedom when it comes to guns (why you hate freedom?), yet are the 12th for firearm related death, and 14th for homicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

When you punish ME for the actions of OTHER people, you're def a dirty commie. When you try to subvert our glorious Bill of Rights with acts of congress and state laws instead of ratifying a new amendment (which would never happen), you're a lazy hippy. When you're scared of the astronomical odds of getting shot (0.00023% repeating ofc in a lifetime), you're a pussy. When you then vote to disarm yourself and become even more defenseless should you ever be backed into a corner, you're just a moran

[hatelore]

The fact that people live with such an incredible amount of fear is hilarious to me. Like Sauron is amassing power in the shadows to eventually break into your house, rape your wife, and steal your TV. The unforeseen threat that is out there. The bomb that could go off at any second. The gang bangers that are going to empty your house. The Charlie Manson cult breaking in. You gun nuts are fuckin pussy paranoid psychos man. I laugh at all the people who think that the solution to crime is to GI Joe lockdown.

It gets so ridiculous sometimes, I have a friend's parents who have door jams so you can't kick in the door, a pistol that fires shot gun shells called a Judge among several other pistols, some of which have lazer grips, and enough ammo and food supplies to make it through the apocalypse that is right around the corner.

fuck you, G.I. Joe's rule!

[Vaildez]

Well luckily seat belts cost me nothing, are required by law, and prevent you from killing others in car crashes. A gun is meant for killing, whether it be in defense or not, whereas a seat belt is for preserving life. I hazard to guess that guns rarely prevent the taking of more life than life they take. So comparing seat belts to guns is a stupid angle to argue

So we need to ban Knives, Blunt Weapons, and Fists too? Those are used to kill people as much as guns are.

[Vaildez]

Chicago has some of the strictest gun controls laws in the country and the most amount of gun related crimes.

[hatelore]

And a Taurus Judge is a Damn fine firearm. For a Taurus...

[aowen]

So we need to ban Knives, Blunt Weapons, and Fists too? Those are used to kill people as much as guns are.

I would like to see you kill 22 people in a movie theater with your fists.

[Nikon]

The fact that people live with such an incredible amount of fear is hilarious to me. Like Sauron is amassing power in the shadows to eventually break into your house, rape your wife, and steal your TV. The unforeseen threat that is out there. The bomb that could go off at any second. The gang bangers that are going to empty your house. The Charlie Manson cult breaking in. You gun nuts are fuckin pussy paranoid psychos man. I laugh at all the people who think that the solution to crime is to GI Joe lockdown.

It gets so ridiculous sometimes, I have a friend's parents who have door jams so you can't kick in the door, a pistol that fires shot gun shells called a Judge among several other pistols, some of which have lazer grips, and enough ammo and food supplies to make it through the apocalypse that is right around the corner.

Most of these comments come from middle or upper class folks that have no grip on reality outside of their suburban world. And most people that own guns aren't 'gun nuts' but uninformed and clueless kids (that become uninformed and clueless adults) classify them that way. Most of these people probably don't have families or anything worth protecting or have ever been in a position where their life has been at risk. Look at any natural disaster, even one that just happened here in my own state of Colorado, which has little in the way of natural disasters. The first thing that happens is looting and robbery. While I'm not worried about my possessions as they are replaceable, if a natural disaster were to happen or someone broke into my house, and my family was put in jeopardy, I would without a doubt put a bullet into someone and risk going to prison then let someone else take/hurt my family. I think any father would be willing to sacrifice that for their family.

And many people I know are like me in that I own guns, and yes, I enjoying going to the range, but I hope to never have to use them against somebody. And as far as lasers and other accessories, I'm not into that, but it's just like anything else. I'm a computer nut, so I like to have the latest and greatest hardware/software/cooling equipment. Other people get into guns just the same. You'll always have people on the extreme, but assuming that anyone that doesn't hate guns is a gun nut or a 'prepper', is purely naive.

[FoxxHound]

I want more guns than just my SW 500. Shooting other gun owners along with rednecks could be a good pastime~
I need something with a clip. MOAR ROUNDS!

[Vaildez]

I would like to see you kill 22 people in a movie theater with your fists.

Nope... But if other people were armed they could have stopped the one person.

[Nuggie]

If you try to disarm the rural area's of the country there will be mass bloodshed. I promise.

[Vaildez]

You could take away every gun in this country and the only thing it would do is create gun trafficking from the borders and then only our Criminals would be armed.

[Stinkum]

Go USA! #1 in DEATH from GUNS! Yeah! So psyched

[aowen]

I think a part of this debate that is missing too is that not all guns are equal. Most people, including myself, don't have a problem if people want to keep a shotgun around for defense. Shotguns can't be concealed and are effective at home defense. They are also more difficult to use to kill massive amounts of people when someone decides to lose their shit. Pistols and assault weapons are the real point of contention, pistols because they are exclusively used to kill people and can be concealed, assault weapons for obvious reasons.

[Nikon]

Nope... But if other people were armed they could have stopped the one person.

In this instance, I don't agree. I have my concealed carry, but if I was in that movie theater (also next to my home town here in Colorado), I would not have pulled. Trying to shoot someone dressed in black in a dark room filled with 100+ frantic people trying to flee would most likely do more harm than good. He chose that situation wisely and knew exactly what he was doing. Premeditated and preplanned to make it difficult for anyone to fight back in any way.

[Vaildez]

Go USA! #1 in DEATH from GUNS! Yeah! So psyched

WRONG

[aowen]

Nope... But if other people were armed they could have stopped the one person.

There are almost no instances of a public shooter being stopped by another citizen with a gun, minus the police, because it is super rare to have a gun at your side or in your jacket in public places unless you have malicious intentions.

[r00t]

Go USA! #1 in DEATH from GUNS! Yeah! So psyched

We are the #1 country for freedom when it comes to guns (why you hate freedom?), yet are the 12th for firearm related death, and 14th for homicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

When you punish ME for the actions of OTHER people, you're def a dirty commie. When you try to subvert our glorious Bill of Rights with acts of congress and state laws instead of ratifying a new amendment (which would never happen), you're a lazy hippy. When you're scared of the astronomical odds of getting shot (0.00023% repeating ofc in a lifetime), you're a pussy. When you then vote to disarm yourself and become even more defenseless should you ever be backed into a corner, you're just a moran

[Nuggie]

Aowen. If you don't want to carry a gun then don't.

Why force your views upon others that believe differently? That isn't very American.

[Nikon]

There are almost no instances of a public shooter being stopped by another citizen with a gun, minus the police, because it is super rare to have a gun at your side or in your jacket in public places unless you have malicious intentions.

You also have to look at the fact that many of these public shootings happen in 'gun free' zones. So, you're average law-abiding gun carrier, does not have their gun. And like I said, in the mall shooting that happened in the past year, there was a guy that came out in the news as having his gun, but said what I said in my post earlier. They do these things in crowded public places to minimize the risk that someone can fight back without creating additional casualties in the process.

[r00t]

There are almost no instances of a public shooter being stopped by another citizen with a gun, minus the police, because it is super rare to have a gun at your side or in your jacket in public places unless you have malicious intentions.

lolno. Guns are used in defense MORE often than illegally


Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

Also this

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit

[Nuggie]

Nikon, not only that. but what happens when a guy who is trying to fight back gets mistaken for a bad guy by another good guy? Green on green I think its called?

[Nikon]

Nikon, not only that. but what happens when a guy who is trying to fight back gets mistaken for a bad guy by another good guy? Green on green I think its called?

I was just typing that as well. Thanks for covering that.

[aowen]

You also have to look at the fact that many of these public shootings happen in 'gun free' zones. So, you're average law-abiding gun carrier, does not have their gun. And like I said, in the mall shooting that happened in the past year, there was a guy that came out in the news as having his gun, but said what I said in my post earlier. They do these things in crowded public places to minimize the risk that someone can fight back without creating additional casualties in the process.

I think it would be strange to plan carrying a weapon into a batman premier. That to me would be consistent with the fear I was mentioning earlier, and would make me super uncomfortable if everyone was carrying guns around my child at school or sipping a soda next to me while watching Bruce Wayne whoop ass.

[Stinkum]

WOOO! #1 in DEATH from GUNS! so PROUD!

U! S! A!

U! S! A!

* stands up and salutes the flag, as a lone tear rolls down my cheek *

[Nuggie]

Live your damn life without shit in your pants. this to your recent post.

[r00t]

It's a dangerous world, it's more insane not to be armed at all times

[aowen]

Actually, that was a study conducted by the NRA using telephone interviews. Read the Justice Department study that actually has all of the records of shootings. That numbers drops to about 1/35 that number.

lolno. Guns are used in defense MORE often than illegally


Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

Also this

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit

[Champion_Standing]

There are almost no instances of a public shooter being stopped by another citizen with a gun, minus the police, because it is super rare to have a gun at your side or in your jacket in public places unless you have malicious intentions.

Wrong, there are plenty of them, the media just doesn't eat them up because it won't support the gun control agenda. There was a relatively recent shooting at a mall in Oregon that was stopped by a young guy with a pistol. There have been several other recent instances as well. There are far MORE shootings that are stopped short because of private citizens with guns than there are "successful" rampages.

The sad reality is that someone stopping a would be mass murderer just doesn't make for exciting news.

[Nuggie]

WOOO! #1 in DEATH from GUNS! so PROUD!

U! S! A!

U! S! A!

* stands up and salutes the flag, as a lone tear rolls down my cheek *

Is that total deaths? or a gun death percentage?

Would make sense for us having more gun deaths than al the European countries since we have a much larger population.

[Kagatob]

Indeed I have, and I am aware bad shit happens. That doesn't mean I am going to sit around wasting my time thinking about how I could die at any moment. When you get into a car do you sit there and fret about a drunk driver slamming you? Am I going to blast someone for taking my TV? If someone wants to put a bullet in me aim for the head please. Live your damn life without shit in your pants.
The things white boys in their upper-middle-class neighborhoods say can be so cute sometimes.
As someone who's had their apartment broken into 3 times I take personal offense to this ridiculous statement. Poster needs a reality check.
Plus most homicides are done by people you know fairly well, not some random ass off the street. And to be honest I don't much care to kill someone over my possessions, disappointed as I'd be about losing certain things that are irreplaceable.
Someone already beat me to Chicago
Owning a gun for self-defense to me indicates you have at least thought enough about someone breaking and doing bad things to you to justify spending a few hundred minimum, which would require a level of fear greater than is really needed, for a scenario that usually does not play out the way people envision.
Must be nice to have an easy life where you've never needed to know fear.

I envy you, no troll.
No, the implication of the statement is that someone you know is going be able to kill you without you being on lockdown in your house with your gun at your side. As I posted an article to, only a couple hundred deaths a year from guns are in self-defense, whereas thousands of homicides from aggressors are reported. I dont think lack of guns on the defense side is the reason for this.
I know why you think what you are thinking, but you are wrong, dangerously wrong in fact. I don't blame you personally, just your upper-middle-class upbringing.
Well luckily seat belts cost me nothing, are required by law, and prevent you from killing others in car crashes. A gun is meant for killing, whether it be in defense or not, whereas a seat belt is for preserving life. I hazard to guess that guns rarely prevent the taking of more life than life they take. So comparing seat belts to guns is a stupid angle to argue
Explain this please. I really want to know your line of "reasoning" here.
I think a part of this debate that is missing too is that not all guns are equal. Most people, including myself, don't have a problem if people want to keep a shotgun around for defense. Shotguns can't be concealed and are effective at home defense. They are also more difficult to use to kill massive amounts of people when someone decides to lose their shit. Pistols and assault weapons are the real point of contention, pistols because they are exclusively used to kill people and can be concealed, assault weapons for obvious reasons.
So you're a hypocrite then. ;)

[Nuggie]

Wrong, there are plenty of them, the media just doesn't eat them up because it won't support the gun control agenda. There was a relatively recent shooting at a mall in Oregon that was stopped by a young guy with a pistol. There have been several other recent instances as well. There are far MORE shootings that are stopped short because of private citizens with guns than there are "successful" rampages.

The sad reality is that someone stopping a would be mass murderer just doesn't make for exciting news.

Word, Liberal media supports liberal agenda.

And the Liberals get crazy because Fox goes equally in the opposite direction. Hypocrites.

[r00t]

Actually, that was a study conducted by the NRA using telephone interviews. Read the Justice Department study that actually has all of the records of shootings. That numbers drops to about 1/35 that number.

Nope. The 2.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of other independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. For example, even anti-gun researchers who were commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department found there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. [Source: Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997).]

[Nuggie]

Aowen losing at forumquest

[aowen]

Lol kagatob acts like he knows me. I grew up in a neighborhood in a certain city in Texas. The neighborhood has a high crime rate. I would hear gunshots quite often. I once had to lay down on a field after a drive by went down. Almost everyone had guns. My upbringing was very middle class, not upper. None of this has anything to do with the gun debate though, which is why almost your entire post means nothing.

I don't live in fear and live my life, you wanna be penned up in your basement petting your shotgun and pulling your pud, you do that. And my reasoning for why shotguns are permitted are blatantly obvious, and already stated. Unless you don't understand slugs, shot, spread, distance, rate of fire, and size of the gun vs pistols and assault weapons.

[aowen]

Nope. The 2.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of other independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. For example, even anti-gun researchers who were commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department found there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. [Source: Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997).]

Again http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

NRA study is first thing on the menu

[Nikon]

I think it would be strange to plan carrying a weapon into a batman premier. That to me would be consistent with the fear I was mentioning earlier, and would make me super uncomfortable if everyone was carrying guns around my child at school or sipping a soda next to me while watching Bruce Wayne whoop ass.

I understand your point for sure, but I can almost guarantee you've sat down next to someone somewhere carrying a concealed weapon, and never knew it or felt unsafe. You could have been in a restaurant, a movie theater, or walking through Home Depot. You have the same or worse chances that the random guy in the room with a concealed gun is going to shoot you or your child as you do that the guy on the other side of you with a pocket knife is going to follow you out of the theater to rob you at knife point or stab you to steal your car.

I don't agree that teachers should be carrying guns, as that would make me uneasy with my child as well. And I firmly believe that they should make the requirements for carrying a gun much much more strict as far as training and certification.

The safety issue can definitely be argued both ways, but there are people that don't feel comfortable not having their gun with them be it from a previous life experience to themselves or someone else. How do you not infringe on their right to feel safe in order to make you feel safe? No matter how you look at it, or how 'crazy' you might think they are for feeling that way, you can't not infringe (fucking double negatives). So how can one person's feeling of safety trump another who doesn't necessarily share the same life experiences.

[r00t]

banning classes of guns is just ridiculous. hypothetically, you can do more damage to a movie theatre with 7 rounds of bird shot than a fully auto AR that goes oom in 2 seconds

[aowen]

And as for our rate of deaths related to guns. Not the highest in the world, but last for post-industrialized countries. Wow, we beat Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, etc at having less gun murders. Yay us. *Sweden, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Norway, Fucking Costa Rica, All Laughing*

[r00t]

Again http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

NRA study is first thing on the menu

Even by your own statistics there presented, your original point I called you on is incorrect.

[aowen]

banning classes of guns is just ridiculous. hypothetically, you can do more damage to a movie theatre with 7 rounds of bird shot than a fully auto AR that goes oom in 2 seconds

You might injure as many, less will die. Also, clips in ARs are super quick and easy to reload. I figured owning a gun you'd know that

[Dirkus]

clips

Lost me here.

[Rhuma7]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

How many fucking times have you heard this and you're still all yapping away with this bullshit anti-gun rhetoric like you have a say in what our mother fucking constitution says.

'Murica!

[Nuggie]

I don't live in fear and live my life, you wanna be penned up in your basement petting your shotgun and pulling your pud, you do that. And my reasoning for why shotguns are permitted are blatantly obvious, and already stated. Unless you don't understand slugs, shot, spread, distance, rate of fire, and size of the gun vs pistols and assault weapons.

I walk away for a second to shave... ccw's are for being penned up. they are for protecting your party in public places

I do agree with you that shotguns are more effective when used properly. But who are we to push that belief on others who don't believe it?

[aowen]

I think probably the biggest indicator is that the countries that are actually as developed as we are all have lower instances of gun deaths. I would attribute this to their gun laws, in addition to several other things like poverty and education rates. If you were actually overly concerned about your safety, you'd take away the incentives for crime and violence.

Any time there is a complex situation, the best answer is to shoot it, bomb it, or cut it off. Seems to be the mantra of a lot of idiots in this country.

[katrik]

I got a pump action shot under the bed, and a glock in my car.. =}

[aowen]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

How many fucking times have you heard this and you're still all yapping away with this bullshit anti-gun rhetoric like you have a say in what our mother fucking constitution says.

'Murica!

So I guess your computer wrote that comment too?

[Vaildez]

So I guess your computer wrote that comment too?

Huh? I think you just failed at comprehension.

[Dirkus]

Yea, Aowen actually reinforced the point.

[aowen]

Huh? I think you just failed at comprehension.

Yeah i botched that job

[Nuggie]

I think probably the biggest indicator is that the countries that are actually as developed as we are all have lower instances of gun deaths. I would attribute this to their gun laws, in addition to several other things like poverty and education rates. If you were actually overly concerned about your safety, you'd take away the incentives for crime and violence.

Any time there is a complex situation, the best answer is to shoot it, bomb it, or cut it off. Seems to be the mantra of a lot of idiots in this country.

Britain may have lower gun encounters. but way higher knife encounters. no? They just exchanged one form of violence for another.

Also, anytime there is multi-generational poverty there will be violence. Hard to break the cycle when you don't have anyone to show you the way.

[aowen]

Britain may have lower gun encounters. but way higher knife encounters. no? They just exchanged one form of violence for another.

Also, anytime there is multi-generational poverty there will be violence. Hard to break the cycle when you don't have anyone to show you the way.

Lmao, yes more knife attacks. Look at the murder rate of the UK, waaaaaaaaay lower.

I do agree with your comment regarding the multi-generational poverty.

[r00t]

You might injure as many, less will die. Also, clips in ARs are super quick and easy to reload. I figured owning a gun you'd know that

I agree clips [sic] are easy to reload, even with communist bullet buttons. Many shotguns are magazine fed too, I figured you'd know that

[aowen]

I agree clips [sic] are easy to reload, even with communist bullet buttons. Many shotguns are magazine fed too, I figured you'd know that

I would also ban magazine fed shot guns, as unless you're a suspected terrorist, you probably wont be needed to take out a force of invaders.

[Orruar]

Aowen: When you were born into this country, you accepted a social contract that said everyone has the right to own guns. If you don't like it, you can move to one of those other countries with stricter gun laws, like Mexico (and no violent crime happens in Mexico from what I hear).

[Orruar]

I don't understand the point of having a gun for self-defense if you have to retrieve it from a safe, and I seriously question the practicality (and mental stability) of carrying it around at all times in your own house. Anyone want to fill me in here? Or is it just a little security blanket for paranoid people?

Your imagination is poor. Not every situation will be the same. Sometimes you may have time to go retrieve the gun from your safe, sometimes not. Perhaps people who have guns for self defense believe that they will generally have enough time.

[aowen]

http://chronicle.com/article/All-Guns-Are-Not-Created-Equal/136805/

History article of the 2nd amendment

[Stinkum]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FGwxneLBhQAONWV99nCZA_Linus-peanuts-239722_366_360.gif

[aowen]

Aowen: When you were born into this country, you accepted a social contract that said everyone has the right to own guns. If you don't like it, you can move to one of those other countries with stricter gun laws, like Mexico (and no violent crime happens in Mexico from what I hear).

I would refer you to that article about the 2nd amendment, and what it was actually meant for. Because god forbid muslims ever start forming well organized militias, then we couldn't take their guns. Oh wait

[r00t]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Smith%26WessonSW1911.JPG/792px-Smith%26WessonSW1911.JPG

[r00t]

I would refer you to that article about the 2nd amendment, and what it was actually meant for. Because god forbid muslims ever start forming well organized militias, then we couldn't take their guns. Oh wait

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

[Rellapse34]

Your imagination is poor. Not every situation will be the same. Sometimes you may have time to go retrieve the gun from your safe, sometimes not. Perhaps people who have guns for self defense believe that they will generally have enough time.

I only keep my rifles that I have sighted in the scopes in my safe, don't want them to get touched and off sight. I keep my pistols and shotguns all around the house. Got a 45 by the toliet in case some ***** sneaks up on me while im trying to drop a deuce.

[aowen]

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Read the context of the debate to which he was commenting, as is presented in the article. Let's not forget all the problems that the constitution didn't address at that time period, like it was a document given from God or something

[Orruar]

I would refer you to that article about the 2nd amendment, and what it was actually meant for. Because god forbid muslims ever start forming well organized militias, then we couldn't take their guns. Oh wait

Social contract, bitch. You signed it, so live with it. No more debate for you.

[r00t]

The reason the 2nd amendment wasn't addressed earlier is because it was de facto/common knowledge that everyone should have a gun

[aowen]

Guess you didnt read that article, typical.

[r00t]

Except the slaves. Throughout history, only slaves have been disarmed.

[Kagatob]

Lol kagatob acts like he knows me. I grew up in a neighborhood in a certain city in Texas. The neighborhood has a high crime rate. I would hear gunshots quite often. I once had to lay down on a field after a drive by went down. Almost everyone had guns. My upbringing was very middle class, not upper. None of this has anything to do with the gun debate though, which is why almost your entire post means nothing.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. Try living half a decade without knowing if there's going to be a roof over your head when you wake up, or the next half decade struggling to eat 2 or more meals a day.

Falling back on "middle class" pfft. You're a joke.
I don't live in fear and live my life, you wanna be penned up in your basement petting your shotgun and pulling your pud, you do that. And my reasoning for why shotguns are permitted are blatantly obvious, and already stated. Unless you don't understand slugs, shot, spread, distance, rate of fire, and size of the gun vs pistols and assault weapons.
I don't own a gun, not my bag. However unlike you, I don't suddenly forget the rights of other citizens of this country because it's not part of what I personally decide for myself.

[aowen]

Social contract, bitch. You signed it, so live with it. No more debate for you.

Still talking about that? If you recall I said to try and make changes within the system rather than deciding to get rid of it entirely.

[Hasbinbad]

Contrary to what many Americans believe, police don't exist to keep us safe. They exist to keep property safe through violence, the degree of which is directly proportional to the value of the property being protected.

[aowen]

Reinterpreting, amending, etc the constitution is an example of working within the limits of the system. Also you were all hell bent on correlation vs causation, whereas my thinking is constitution, not the document, but the regular meaning of the word for which the document is named. Figure I might as well get that out of the way while you're pulling shit from other threads and arguments that everyone else has moved on from

[r00t]

The only way to get rid of it is a constitutional amendment, which will never happen. All these acts of congress and state laws are a perversion of justice to Jesus' handwritten constitution

[Hasbinbad]

^any independent analysis will confirm

[r00t]

Oh and dont get me started on Obamas signing statements and executive orders when it comes to guns and perversion of Jesus' beautiful handwriting

[aowen]

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Try living half a decade without knowing if there's going to be a roof over your head when you wake up, or the next half decade struggling to eat 2 or more meals a day.

Falling back on "middle class" pfft. You're a joke.

I don't own a gun, not my bag. However unlike you, I don't suddenly forget the rights of other citizens of this country because it's not part of what I personally decide for myself.

I don't know what you think middle class is, but my water and power have been cut off as a kid as my family struggled to pay bills. Also the relevance of personal attacks to the crux of the argument is a joke, and by implication, you're not only a joke, but a fucking idiot. As was reinforced by that pathetic dating profile, of which you admitted that you spend all of your time with an anime boner. If you actually knew anything about the gun debate, or anything else ever posted in these threads, others might take you seriously.

[JayN]

Only pussies need guns; BE A MAN PUSSIES

[Rellapse34]

Well, my friends, as an American and I will stand my ground. God bless the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution



Hell yea!!!! come and try and disarm a million rednecks LULZ

[r00t]

Only pussies and commies are afraid of guns

[aowen]

Lol commies are afraid of guns, I dont know who you consider to be a commie, but I am assuming it's probably Russia, China, and some of the old iron curtain countries, all of which are plentiful with guns.

[Vaildez]

Why does Obama go around with armed Secret Service Guards? What a paranoid fuck!

[aowen]

Why does Obama go around with armed Secret Service Guards? What a paranoid fuck!

Now we're comparing our safety to that of the president of the US? You must be pretty god damn important

[r00t]

Lol commies are afraid of guns, I dont know who you consider to be a commie, but I am assuming it's probably Russia, China, and some of the old iron curtain countries, all of which are plentiful with guns.

Communism is about infiltrating the high levels of society and taking control by means of subversion. Disarming the population is the first rule of the Marxist playbook, and we've seen it play out again and again over the past century.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Gun-control-experts1-600x350.jpeg

Have you read the Manifesto or are you speaking from ignorance again?

[aowen]

Actually there has yet to be a marxist country, and he supported armed revolution

[r00t]

Lol yea you don't know what you're talking about, Marx's entire thesis is that communism would occur naturally

[aowen]

That idiotic statement just proves that you don't even know what you're talking about, because it is clear you have never read Marx. Marx believe the powerful elite would not relinquish control without being killed, and yes, with guns

[r00t]

Quote the line in the Manifesto that calls for killing the elite lol

[r00t]

Engels “was definitely opposed to the use of insurrectionary methods by the working class under modern conditions. Armed revolt and barricade battles were regarded by him as obsolete and foredoomed to disastrous failure. He condemned them as sheer lunacy”;

[Raavak]

Plus most homicides are done by people you know fairly well, not some random ass off the street. And to be honest I don't much care to kill someone over my possessions, disappointed as I'd be about losing certain things that are irreplaceable.
So you would only defend yourself if it was someone you didn't know trying to kill you?He's a mental midget. We really shouldn't encourage him.

[aowen]

Marx's thesis is not that communism would occur within nations naturally. Again, you're an idiot, and if you want to argue about marx, I suggest you first read Das Kapital. There are free versions of Das Kapital on the internet that are paginated and availabe in PDF form. So shut the fuck up until you read it.

The bulk of his thesis is that current society is a class conflict in which capital originates in exploitation and taking value created by labor, and once it exists it creates more capital and becomes more and more concentrated into the hands of the few. Those few then maintain exploitation and create the idea that investment>labor. It has nothing to do remotely with what you're talking about

[aowen]

It's not from the manifesto you idiot, it's from an Essay Entitled "The State and Revolution"

[r00t]

haha you're outted as a total commie, and you're afraid of guns.. my original point proven!!

[Raavak]

Now we're comparing our safety to that of the president of the US? You must be pretty god damn importantAnd he is special? Special like short-bus special maybe...

[r00t]

It's not from the manifesto you idiot, it's from an Essay Entitled "The State and Revolution"

The State and Revolution (1917), by Vladimir Lenin


totally marx bro

[Lojik]

value created by labor

lol @ marx.

[aowen]

It's not from the manifesto you idiot, it's from an Essay Entitled "The State and Revolution"

Which further will in shorter terms help you not sift through 500 pages.

Also last page of Manifest: The communists disdain to conceal their views and aim. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The Communists have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

[Kagatob]

Ad-hominem crap post simultaneously complaining about a "personal attack"
"you're a joke" is an attack now. K.

Confirmed hypocrite.

[aowen]

Every interpretation of that sentence, from Lenin to contemporary scholars believe it to be violent. So much so that Schaff said it's become trivial linking it to violence because it's a given

[aowen]

Anyways total tangent, but fact is, the father of communist theory believed communism was born from guns

[r00t]

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun -Mao

[aowen]

"you're a joke" is an attack now. K.

Confirmed hypocrite.

Confirmed idiot, the joke part is not what was offensive. It's the assumption that I'm rich, or that my viewpoints were cultivated in sheltered and privileged environment, then mocking me for being middle class, you twat

[r00t]

hence why he disarmed all his slaves, 1st play of the marxist playbook

[r00t]

and then he killed 50 million of them lol

[Orruar]

Lol commies are afraid of guns, I dont know who you consider to be a commie, but I am assuming it's probably Russia, China, and some of the old iron curtain countries, all of which are plentiful with guns.

A 10 second Google > Wikipedia run came up with:

"Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns."

and

"In December 1918 during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks made it a crime for citizens other than members of their own party to own guns. Bolsheviks were allowed to own one rifle and one revolver."

[aowen]

hence why he disarmed all his slaves, 1st play of the marxist playbook

Lenin wasn't a marxist, he just thought he was. Lenin was a psychopath. The bolshevik revolution by definition wasn't marxist because it wasn't industrialized, it was still agrarian. That is only one of the million things that didn't align with marxist theory in the soviet union. It was just a clusterfuck

[Clark]

http://i.imgur.com/UhGxPbz.jpg

[Orruar]

Reinterpreting, amending, etc the constitution is an example of working within the limits of the system. Also you were all hell bent on correlation vs causation, whereas my thinking is constitution, not the document, but the regular meaning of the word for which the document is named. Figure I might as well get that out of the way while you're pulling shit from other threads and arguments that everyone else has moved on from

You signed a social contract, get over it. It means everyone can have guns, and so you get no option to the contrary.

[aowen]

A 10 second Google > Wikipedia run came up with:

"Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns."

and

"In December 1918 during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks made it a crime for citizens other than members of their own party to own guns. Bolsheviks were allowed to own one rifle and one revolver."

First of all, as said before, wasn't true communism, as then everyone would have the same standards applied, and no one would own anything.

Same goes for china. That's called party favoritism and has nothing to do with communism.

However, I did say those countries were wrought with guns. And they are, legal or not

[aowen]

You signed a social contract, get over it. It means everyone can have guns, and so you get no option to the contrary.

Actually I said it's a tacit agreement, you're just an idiot. Second I also said while there is social contract, that doesn't mean you live in a static environment where no change can happen within the system. So you're argument is retarded. When I referred to a social contract, which is what democracy is founded upon, I was saying you have to working within the confines of the system to institute change, rather than trying to do away with the government/system entirely

[Orruar]

Ok, so this guy's argument has come down to "Soviet russia and China were not communist enough for my tastes."

Yeah, for real.

[aowen]

Ok, so this guy's argument has come down to "Soviet russia and China were not communist enough for my tastes."

Yeah, for real.

They weren't communist at all. They were authoritarian/totalitarian regimes with strong hegemonic structures in place. Super not communist

[Orruar]

Actually I said it's a tacit agreement, you're just an idiot. Second I also said while there is social contract, that doesn't mean you live in a static environment where no change can happen within the system. So you're argument is retarded. When I referred to a social contract, which is what democracy is founded upon, I was saying you have to working within the confines of the system to institute change, rather than trying to do away with the government/system entirely

My argument is retarded because it's your exact same argument turned around to this situation. Perhaps now you have a chance to learn from your previous mistake. Or perhaps you'll continue to fight tooth and nail to not learn anything.

Keep in mind that in the other thread, nobody said anything about doing away with the government/system entirely.

[Hasbinbad]

china and russia are communist in the same way that america is democratic

[r00t]

You can do away with it entirely, go move to some socialist SHITHOLE in Europe where you'll be treated like a CHILD

[Vaildez]

china and russia are communist in the same way that america is democratic

We are a Constitutional Republic.

[Vaildez]

You can do away with it entirely, go move to some socialist SHITHOLE in Europe where you'll be treated like a CHILD

But it's just soo much easier to let someone else think for you!

[aowen]

My argument is retarded because it's your exact same argument turned around to this situation. Perhaps now you have a chance to learn from your previous mistake. Or perhaps you'll continue to fight tooth and nail to not learn anything.

Keep in mind that in the other thread, nobody said anything about doing away with the government/system entirely.

No, it's not. It's misappropriating and completely misunderstanding my argument. Cutting all of welfare which is what some people were supporting, even though they werent sure what all programs are under the umbrella of welfare or which parts of it they would probably actually support cutting, but that amounts to 1 trillion dollars, is not working with the system. Either way, old stuff that doesn't need to be rehashed

[r00t]

http://i322.photobucket.com/albums/nn407/milkohol/simpsons/thats_the_joke.jpg

[JayN]

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/100_0456.jpg

here is a pic of root and his frightened daughter who he beats and rapes daily.

[Thulack]

Yeah cause that shit never happens right? I don't own a gun or plan to but it always cracks me up when you Liberals live in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens. Have you ever been in a bad neighborhood in your life? Have you even been within a few blocks of a shooting?

Yes and Yes and my job has me carrying bags of money around shady places and i have been robbed at gunpoint and i still don't own a gun. Know why? Cause no matter where that gun is when someone has a gun cocked and pointed at the back of your head your not making a move.

[r00t]

its not your money so no wonder you dont give a fuck

[Orruar]

No, it's not. It's misappropriating and completely misunderstanding my argument. Cutting all of welfare which is what some people were supporting, even though they werent sure what all programs are under the umbrella of welfare or which parts of it they would probably actually support cutting, but that amounts to 1 trillion dollars, is not working with the system. Either way, old stuff that doesn't need to be rehashed

You seem to be constantly conflating terms, which leads me to believe you have very sloppy mental processes. Doing away with the system is the not the same thing as doing away with certain government programs. The system of government we have is not dependent at all upon things like welfare, farm subsidies, banking regulations, or any other individual programs. If you get rid of farm subsidies, we'll still choose our representatives and there will still be 3 branches of government. With that said, the idea of a social contract is no more relevant when discussing a 20% reduction in a program than when discussing a 100% reduction. If one works within the system to get rid of most forms of welfare, does that suddenly break your "social contract" while an 80% reduction does not? You don't get to decide some arbitrary tipping point where the debate is suddenly invalid due to some artificial social contract you created. About the only legitimate argument about a "social contract" would come into play when people are discussing revolution or overthrow of the current system.

[aowen]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

How many fucking times have you heard this and you're still all yapping away with this bullshit anti-gun rhetoric like you have a say in what our mother fucking constitution says.

'Murica!
http://i.imgur.com/s0S5R3t.jpg

[Orruar]

No, it's not. It's misappropriating and completely misunderstanding my argument. Cutting all of welfare which is what some people were supporting, even though they werent sure what all programs are under the umbrella of welfare or which parts of it they would probably actually support cutting, but that amounts to 1 trillion dollars, is not working with the system. Either way, old stuff that doesn't need to be rehashed

Also, in what way is attempting to get the government to end certain programs "not working with the system." Unless you consider welfare to be some critical part of our system of government, which would show just how narrow and limited your understanding of government really is.

[aowen]

You seem to be constantly conflating terms, which leads me to believe you have very sloppy mental processes. Doing away with the system is the not the same thing as doing away with certain government programs. The system of government we have is not dependent at all upon things like welfare, farm subsidies, banking regulations, or any other individual programs. If you get rid of farm subsidies, we'll still choose our representatives and there will still be 3 branches of government. With that said, the idea of a social contract is no more relevant when discussing a 20% reduction in a program than when discussing a 100% reduction. If one works within the system to get rid of most forms of welfare, does that suddenly break your "social contract" while an 80% reduction does not? You don't get to decide some arbitrary tipping point where the debate is suddenly invalid due to some artificial social contract you created. About the only legitimate argument about a "social contract" would come into play when people are discussing revolution or overthrow of the current system.

What terms have I conflated?

A social contract is an idea that goes way back, and is perhaps made most famous by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes said that in order for people to organize and come together, they had to enter into a tacit agreement in which they would all sacrifice some of their rights in exchange for enhanced security and a list of other provisions. Now, what these provisions include is the source of contention. Social democracies have now become the norm for developed countries. Part of social democracies is that within their social contract, there is a provision for social safety nets and welfare, therefore cutting that provision out would be to break contract. Now, if the majority of people within one of these social democracies, such as the US, decided that the contract no longer included welfare, thereby removing a provision, it would be far more severe and different than changing welfare itself.

Now you might say similar about taking guns away, but that's only if you believe that owning a gun is part of running a well regulated militia. However, that is because you seem to have little idea as to the context of the 2nd amendment, and why it was drafted at the time.

[r00t]

supreme court ruled 2nd amendment gives me personal right to own beautiful steel

[aowen]

supreme court ruled 2nd amendment gives me personal right to own beautiful steel

Indeed

[Orruar]

What terms have I conflated?

A social contract is an idea that goes way back, and is perhaps made most famous by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes said that in order for people to organize and come together, they had to enter into a tacit agreement in which they would all sacrifice some of their rights in exchange for enhanced security and a list of other provisions. Now, what these provisions include is the source of contention. Social democracies have now become the norm for developed countries. Part of social democracies is that within their social contract, there is a provision for social safety nets and welfare, therefore cutting that provision out would be to break contract. Now, if the majority of people within one of these social democracies, such as the US, decided that the contract no longer included welfare, thereby removing a provision, it would be far more severe and different than changing welfare itself.

Now you might say similar about taking guns away, but that's only if you believe that owning a gun is part of running a well regulated militia. However, that is because you seem to have little idea as to the context of the 2nd amendment, and why it was drafted at the time.

My argument is retarded because it's your exact same argument turned around to this situation. Perhaps now you have a chance to learn from your previous mistake. Or perhaps you'll continue to fight tooth and nail to not learn anything.

It's like I'm some kind of god damned superhero with the ability to see the future. Or maybe your stupidity is just predictable.

[aowen]

It's like I'm some kind of god damned superhero with the ability to see the future. Or maybe your stupidity is just predictable.

Your argument wasn't that at all. Your argument was mainly composed of inane insults and a failure to understand what a social contract is, which is why you didn't know how to use it within an argument. Now you think you have still turned it around on me because me disagreeing with the 2nd amendment and taking guns is the same as you wanting to cut welfare within the context of what you assume to be my ideology or my argument pertaining to a social contract. It's not, so you can move along now and pick another angle of your little gun show. I can see this probably descending into an argument about the 2nd amendment itself, but maybe not.

[Orruar]

Your argument wasn't that at all. Your argument was mainly composed of inane insults and a failure to understand what a social contract is, which is why you didn't know how to use it within an argument. Now you think you have still turned it around on me because me disagreeing with the 2nd amendment and taking guns is the same as you wanting to cut welfare within the context of what you assume to be my ideology or my argument pertaining to a social contract. It's not, so you can move along now and pick another angle of your little gun show. I can see this probably descending into an argument about the 2nd amendment itself, but maybe not.

If you tried this hard to actually learn things instead of expending the effort to bury your head in the sand, there's no telling what you might learn.

[aowen]

You can do away with it entirely, go move to some socialist SHITHOLE in Europe where you'll be treated like a CHILD

Most of those so-called shitholes have higher standards of living than we do. If they'd let me move there, which they won't, I would gladly. Probably to Denmark, Germany, or France only because it's too fucking cold way up in Sweden and Norway.

[aowen]

If you tried this hard to actually learn things instead of expending the effort to bury your head in the sand, there's no telling what you might learn.

Yet another insult. Astonishing how every time i talk to you, I wind up linking articles full of information, citing NPR broadcasts, or referring books, all of which I have read. You instead make insult after insult, seem to have no cohesion between points you try to bring up, and seldom if ever use a fact as part of your arguments. It's all just conjecture and beliefs that you don't really have any evidence to substantiate.

[JayN]

If you tried this hard to actually learn things instead of expending the effort to bury your head in the sand, there's no telling what you might learn.

http://cdn.meme.li/i/300x300/ooqcr.jpg

[aowen]

I guess I shouldn't expect much from a person who thinks personal anecdotes are more important evidence with no credibility or way to be validated than statistics methodically collected by professionals working for organizations with reputations to uphold.

[JayN]

I guess I shouldn't expect much from a person who thinks personal anecdotes are more important evidence with no credibility or way to be validated than statistics methodically collected by professionals working for organizations with reputations to uphold.
if onlyz u waz smat and new dat ******s r ******s wth man

[aowen]

Meh, the only person who shares any information or has clearly read into an issue is the one who is told to go do more learning.

Most of the people on here sound like their idea of data collection is listening to Limbaugh and O'Reilly scream for an hour

[Orruar]

I guess I shouldn't expect much from a person who thinks personal anecdotes are more important evidence with no credibility or way to be validated than statistics methodically collected by professionals working for organizations with reputations to uphold.

Mind quoting the post where I said personal anecdotes are more important than data? You are being intellectually lazy again, conflating my position with other people you were arguing with in that other thread.

[aowen]

Oh yes, that was mr. Vaildez. Either way, you still neglected to provide any data to support your claims in that argument, and you've done the same in this one. You're angle seems primarily in developing an ideology, which should only be done after a substantial amount of facts have been done.

[JayN]

Oh yes, that was mr. Vaildez. Either way, you still neglected to provide any data to support your claims in that argument, and you've done the same in this one. You're angle seems primarily in developing an ideology, which should only be done after a substantial amount of facts have been done.

You obviously hate freedom, america and babies. You are aiding terrorists, you will be brought to justice!

[aowen]

I fuckin eat babies, especially american ones. And when I was watching the Spurs vs Heat last year, I thought to myself 'The only thing that could make this entertaining is Al Qaeda" #NSA

[Orruar]

Oh yes, that was mr. Vaildez. Either way, you still neglected to provide any data to support your claims in that argument, and you've done the same in this one. You're angle seems primarily in developing an ideology, which should only be done after a substantial amount of facts have been done.

It's ok, I accept your apology.

What data should I be showing? The points I have made don't necessarily have data to show. Such as the fact that the soviets and chinese had/have strict gun laws. Should I come up with a bar graph that shows the number of gun laws in each case? The fact that you cannot fathom an argument based upon logic and reason is very telling. It's clear you bow down at the altar of muddled statistics. Statistics can ever only show correlation, which can help guide us in our search for truth, but cannot directly show us truth.

[JayN]

niga ball is boring as hell to watch i agree with your statements

[aowen]

It's ok, I accept your apology.

What data should I be showing? The points I have made don't necessarily have data to show. Such as the fact that the soviets and chinese had/have strict gun laws. Should I come up with a bar graph that shows the number of gun laws in each case? The fact that you cannot fathom an argument based upon logic and reason is very telling. It's clear you bow down at the altar of muddled statistics. Statistics can ever only show correlation, which can help guide us in our search for truth, but cannot directly show us truth.

See, again you can't say anything without throwing in an insult.

A fact may include things outside of stats, such as gun laws in the soviet union. However, it is not logical to conclude that the soviets were against guns while allowing their own party members to have them. I have not read much about gun laws within the soviet union however. I have read Marx, and I do know he advocated violent revolution. Therefore, a communist along marxist lines would use violence and guns. I also made the point that neither Russia or China are actually communists, as is indicated by vast inequality and inconsistent policy relating to their political structuring and social statistics.

Yes, I remember you discussing correlation vs causation. However, most of the stats I was citing had more to do with constitution (not the document). Causal links are hard to verify, and can get caught up in chicken and egg problems such as retrocausality, but correlation while not definitive proof, is about as good as you're going to get when discussing social problems, because usually 1 factor does not cause 1 thing. That is why i focus on the constitution of a problem.

[Orruar]

Tell ya what, here's some data that sums up the other thread:

http://s21.postimg.org/3ws4qyfp3/Aowen.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

This server needs a new deal.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/road_rage-related_shootout_lea.html

America. Fuck yeah.

[aowen]

Tell ya what, here's some data that sums up the other thread:

http://s21.postimg.org/3ws4qyfp3/Aowen.jpg

As I said before, the point is that social welfare programs started at the time you put me on there. Kind of like there were anti-drug laws before the war on drugs began. I don't feel like finding your statements, but you said poverty declined before the start of welfare programs during the time following WWII and Johnson, which is inaccurate.

[aowen]

Whether those programs were labeled the war on poverty is completely irrelevant.

"The New Deal was a series of domestic economic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936....The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

[Ryba]

aowen is the only one in this thread that doesn't come off as a troll, a shameless redneck, a pedantic asshole or thoroughly discredited kagoturd. Forget about which side of the topic he is on, he is the only one bothering to substantiate claims. If I was new to this argument, I would immediately sympathize with the side that smelled less like self-righteousness, Skoal and unwashed asscrack.

lol at the whole "YOU SIGNED A SOCIAL CONTRACT!" argument. Like democracy isn't defined by being constantly in revision.

[Orruar]

See, again you can't say anything without throwing in an insult.

A fact may include things outside of stats, such as gun laws in the soviet union. However, it is not logical to conclude that the soviets were against guns while allowing their own party members to have them. I have not read much about gun laws within the soviet union however. I have read Marx, and I do know he advocated violent revolution. Therefore, a communist along marxist lines would use violence and guns. I also made the point that neither Russia or China are actually communists, as is indicated by vast inequality and inconsistent policy relating to their political structuring and social statistics.

Yes, I remember you discussing correlation vs causation. However, most of the stats I was citing had more to do with constitution (not the document). Causal links are hard to verify, and can get caught up in chicken and egg problems such as retrocausality, but correlation while not definitive proof, is about as good as you're going to get when discussing social problems, because usually 1 factor does not cause 1 thing. That is why i focus on the constitution of a problem.

First, retrocausality is bunk pseudoscience. Don't get distracted by it. If we see what is apparently effects preceding causes, it's really just that we don't understand the causes in the first place.

Correlation is only as good as you'll get when you confine yourself to statistical arguments. Logic and reason can give us a much deeper understanding. Correlation can be a good guidepost, but it becomes worse and worse the more complex the system. Once you are looking at statistics for societies as a whole, they become almost worthless. You repeatedly state statistics related to things like welfare spending vs quality of life, and yet societies are composed of millions of other factors. The notion that these two loosely correlated ideas are causally related is bordering on a kind of faith that even the most devout Muslim couldn't muster. And if you're going to show these two things are related in support of an argument to bolster welfare, then you are most certainly assuming causation. If there is no causation, then there would be no reason to believe action A will have effect B. Causation is most certainly at the heart of every utilitarian argument about how we structure our laws.

[Orruar]

lol at the whole "YOU SIGNED A SOCIAL CONTRACT!" argument. Like democracy isn't defined by being constantly in revision.

Ah, you missed the point then. My social contract trolling was in direct response to his "social contract" garbage in another thread. Essentially what you saw here was just his argument being applied back to him, in an attempt to show him how ridiculous it is. He managed to completely miss the obvious point that you have so quickly understood.

[Stinkum]

This thread is a lot better if you assume that Orruar is actually a parody forum account for that annoying Paultard on every college campus who thinks he's intelligent because he can paraphrase Milton Friedman.

[aowen]

I said you should look up facts first. I didnt say they are all stats, but stats are a compendium of data that is used to HELP analyze complex situations. Statistics should always be scrutinized to identify weaknesses, which is why one by itself is usually not enough. Other types of facts do exist, and should also be used.

In addition to facts, logical argument is important, it is what connects facts and makes sense of them and their connection to any situation/issue. However, absent of facts/evidence, a theory has no verification. The evidence and stats are the best attempt at applying scientific method to test theories. Concurrently, facts are useless without being arranged by logic and reason to form a cognitive theory.

I use both of these things in conjunction, you disdain one of them.

Also causal theory should not be dismissed, but it is only one element of analysis necessary to understanding a situation. You must know the constitution of a situation to understand the dynamics, and possibly be able to positively verify causes.

[aowen]

Ah, you missed the point then. My social contract trolling was in direct response to his "social contract" garbage in another thread. Essentially what you saw here was just his argument being applied back to him, in an attempt to show him how ridiculous it is. He managed to completely miss the obvious point that you have so quickly understood.

Yeah, I think he can see how retarded you are by himself. I like how you also still think from the other thread that you're right about when poverty alleviation began.

[r00t]

I got a raging boner

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/taurus_raging_judge-tfb.jpg

[Rellapse34]

I got a raging boner

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/taurus_raging_judge-tfb.jpg

fuck that

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Smith_and_Wesson_500_Magnum_7.5-inch_Performance_center_Revolver.jpg

[Rellapse34]

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/163504_large.jpg

[r00t]

http://i.imgur.com/v7eWuLfl.jpg

[Rellapse34]

http://i.imgur.com/v7eWuLfl.jpg

win

[r00t]

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110406/640/unusual_looking_firearms_640_13.jpg

[Rellapse34]

http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/072a87526c79bab3fb460b833e698311.jpg

[r00t]

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/3threewhd/251798_10151076417800208_194998689_.jpg?t=13423013 03

[Rellapse34]

http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/62f160fb82b000228734192bc3a56429.jpg

http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/ecc680e7a1e52e947100616a0259136e.jpg

http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/696bdc59a4d95766174e934194865adc.jpg

http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/7becef6f88942f8d1a89fb68b2f98566.jpg

[r00t]

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/3threewhd/1b17015a.jpg?t=1336578956

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/604048_436165806433100_534244236_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/22395_10151152996254024_90948528_n.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID2581/images/shsamerights.jpg

[JayN]

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/3threewhd/251798_10151076417800208_194998689_.jpg?t=13423013 03

your family is helpless without you, they'd be dead! im surprised they survived thus far while you are away.

Hopefully the ninjas and terrorist that actively pursue you and your family will be held at bay by your awesomeness weekend warrior estrogen riddled tiny penis.

over compensate much, clinging to your guns and little women you can scare, manipulate and control

[Recycled Children]

aowen gathers his political information from NPR. Please, don't take him seriously. He's also a confirmed fascist so of course he hates any opposition, in this case guns, to mother government.

[r00t]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/554223_451995134851553_2147226130_n.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/37/9d/before1934_7305.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll81/W2RAC/Steyr/no-guns-allowed.png

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll81/W2RAC/Steyr/GunControl-1.jpg

[JayN]

cant win the argument shout louder!
gunsrsokewl

[r00t]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/409587_123698157775064_264292468_n.jpg

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/ifguns.jpg

[aowen]

aowen gathers his political information from NPR. Please, don't take him seriously. He's also a confirmed fascist so of course he hates any opposition, in this case guns, to mother government.

Don't get mad at me because you spend more time under a desk than behind one to get your job done.

[Recycled Children]

cant win the argument shout louder!
gunsrsokewl

Can't win the argument? Cry racism like you did here: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1121857&postcount=294

[Recycled Children]

Don't get mad at me because you spend more time under a desk than behind one to get your job done.

lolwut?

Get mad? At you? Child, please. You're naive enough to believe what your government tells you. Go back to listening to Amy Goodman tell you how we need more government in our lives because the masses are just too st-st-stupid do to anything on their own.

[r00t]

amy goodman is a federal disinformation agent

[vinx]

your family is helpless without you, they'd be dead! im surprised they survived thus far while you are away.

Hopefully the ninjas and terrorist that actively pursue you and your family will be held at bay by your awesomeness weekend warrior estrogen riddled tiny penis.

over compensate much, clinging to your guns and little women you can scare, manipulate and control
lol no shit.. everyone in my area owns a rifle, shotgun (without magazines) or pistols
then ofc the gangs with their shit

but these posters are insane lol thinking everyone is out to get em

[Orruar]

Yeah, I think he can see how retarded you are by himself. I like how you also still think from the other thread that you're right about when poverty alleviation began.

Except that I specifically used the term "war on poverty" because I was speaking specifically about the great expansion started by LBJ. I know you're not used to people using precise terms, and it's clear you can only think in broad generalizations (as your mistake earlier reinforces), but do try and keep up.

Now on the point of causation.. Are you not trying to make the case that gun laws and gun murder rates are causally related? I mean, why would you show statistics outlining the correlation otherwise? If your point is that these things are correlated, but there is no causal relationship, then there would be no reason to debate changing the law. The majority of people, myself included, are mostly utilitarian when it comes to laws. We want laws that have good effects. Causal relationships are crucial when making a utilitarian decision. If we don't think adding a new gun law will decrease gun deaths, there's no reason to even consider the other aspects (freedom vs safety). I simply can't believe that you weren't trying to imply that there is a causal relationship between these two things. Everything I just said could be said for your argument in the poverty thread as well. Don't be dishonest and act like you aren't trying to infer causation from correlation.

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/k9aHQgD.jpg

[aowen]

Except that I specifically used the term "war on poverty" because I was speaking specifically about the great expansion started by LBJ. I know you're not used to people using precise terms, and it's clear you can only think in broad generalizations (as your mistake earlier reinforces), but do try and keep up.

Now on the point of causation.. Are you not trying to make the case that gun laws and gun murder rates are causally related? I mean, why would you show statistics outlining the correlation otherwise? If your point is that these things are correlated, but there is no causal relationship, then there would be no reason to debate changing the law. The majority of people, myself included, are mostly utilitarian when it comes to laws. We want laws that have good effects. Causal relationships are crucial when making a utilitarian decision. If we don't think adding a new gun law will decrease gun deaths, there's no reason to even consider the other aspects (freedom vs safety). I simply can't believe that you weren't trying to imply that there is a causal relationship between these two things. Everything I just said could be said for your argument in the poverty thread as well. Don't be dishonest and act like you aren't trying to infer causation from correlation.

It does seem odd that poverty rates were steadily declining until we decided to focus our federal government on the problem of poverty, then the rates stopped the decline and even rose a bit. I can only imagine that if the exact opposite had happened (rates flat and then declined once we started throwing money at the problem), we'd never hear the end about how we need to expand the programs. And yet we're now hearing we need to expand the programs.


You didn't start using war on poverty, which i took as an expression to begin with until you started talking solely about that. However, what is contained in this quote is what I was arguing about, and is all I give a fuck about because whether or not a new program against poverty was beginning with LBJ doesn't matter, when there were ones before it. Your goal was to say poverty was steadily declining without government focus and money, which is false.

As for your causal stuff, yes I do think that gun laws and gun murder rates are causally related, though the murder rate with guns is also caused by several other things, as I have previously stated.

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/Ylwcxzf.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/bRjzLyu.jpg

[JayN]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/720ba99d8e1d510e3415b0903b0407ea/tumblr_mkkab1l6zg1qjanzpo1_500.gif

[aowen]

Beginning:
It does seem odd that poverty rates were steadily declining until we decided to focus our federal government on the problem of poverty, then the rates stopped the decline and even rose a bit. I can only imagine that if the exact opposite had happened (rates flat and then declined once we started throwing money at the problem), we'd never hear the end about how we need to expand the programs. And yet we're now hearing we need to expand the programs.

My Response:
Decline from when to when? Seeing as there was this thing called the great depression right before welfare programs became a status quo, I have a hard time believing your time frame is representative of anything meaningful.

Your decision to skip all the programs in the given time frame and go straight to war on poverty:
End of the great depression: 1941-1945, depending on who you ask.

Start of the war on poverty: 1964

Apparently 19-23 years is "right before" in your universe. I suppose if we're looking at the world in geologic terms, you're right. On these time scales, the fall of Rome was "right before" the war on poverty began as well. I wonder if they are linked!

Sticking to the original point, you tried to make it sound like the war on poverty was the first implementation of government programs focused on poverty alleviation, which coincided with increasing poverty rates. FALSE so shut up

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/q3FKyrt.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/XgVnSvq.jpg

[Stinkum]

Hmm.. Perhaps if I spam images of guns on an Elf simulator forum I will win the argument and change government policy.

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/rN7vaQk.jpg

[JayN]

http://media.tumblr.com/ad4b6184cd13b9030d26ebec6f9134a9/tumblr_inline_mrfm5o0GPH1qz4rgp.gif

[Hasbinbad]

stfu stinkum gun porn is hawt and i'm close.

[Aviann]

I've got two rifles, set for different range lengths on the scope because with these fucking antiques its a pain in the ass to adjust the scope... Regardless of the fact I need to invest money in that, I use them for deer. Not people.

I have two shotguns, a 12 gauge and a 20 gauge. One for duck and pouldo(some french name sorry for spelling), and my 20 for smaller game birds, shit, I rarely use it because I tend to use my 22 for quail and dove. Let's say the 20 gauge is for rabbit.

I have a loaded gun in my house, a handgun, for if anyone breaks in and I see a weapon in their hands, otherwise I keep knives everywhere, especially in my pocket if they do something stupid like pull out a weapon I didn't see when I found them.

Is it illegal to live off the land and protect yourself? No. Is it stupid for people to shoot guns at people to kill them? Yes.

[Langrisserx]

Pretty sure root is working on a masters in Computer Science. Sounds like a p dumb kid to me too.... ;)

lol anyone who thinks computer science majors know anything more then programming java are pretty misguided... applied mathematics, i suspect this guy doesnt do.


CS majors dont even know what they are majoring in.

[Orruar]

You didn't start using war on poverty, which i took as an expression to begin with until you started talking solely about that. However, what is contained in this quote is what I was arguing about, and is all I give a fuck about because whether or not a new program against poverty was beginning with LBJ doesn't matter, when there were ones before it. Your goal was to say poverty was steadily declining without government focus and money, which is false.

As for your causal stuff, yes I do think that gun laws and gun murder rates are causally related, though the murder rate with guns is also caused by several other things, as I have previously stated.

Yes, and I later used the more specific term, which you then mistook for the minor programs FDR implemented in this area. Seriously, anyone who knows anything about American history knows that the FDR programs were minor in comparison when it comes to direct welfare. FDR at least tried to sell SS as a savings account and not a transfer system, whereas LBJ was much less strict in this manner.

I'm glad you can admit that you think there is a causal relationship. You have taken the first step towards rehabilitation. Correlation can give us guideposts towards causation, but cannot prove it directly. Your posts are full of statistics without the necessary logical arguments to help make that step towards causation. Look, I'm not some gun loving freak. Everyone accepts that there are limits to what weapons citizens may own. For instance, there are very few that believe that we should all be able to own nuclear weapons or bunker busting bombs. I think we're probably a little too loose with our laws, but as long as people like you are making multiple logical fallacies in your arguments, we're not likely to take a realistic and practical approach to the gun laws. I mean, you're not convincing anyone when you show data that Europe has lower murder rates. Whether they know it or not, they realize that far more factors come into play than just gun laws, and you're not being honest in your assessment.

[aowen]

Yes, and I later used the more specific term, which you then mistook for the minor programs FDR implemented in this area. Seriously, anyone who knows anything about American history knows that the FDR programs were minor in comparison when it comes to direct welfare. FDR at least tried to sell SS as a savings account and not a transfer system, whereas LBJ was much less strict in this manner.

I'm glad you can admit that you think there is a causal relationship. You have taken the first step towards rehabilitation. Correlation can give us guideposts towards causation, but cannot prove it directly. Your posts are full of statistics without the necessary logical arguments to help make that step towards causation. Look, I'm not some gun loving freak. Everyone accepts that there are limits to what weapons citizens may own. For instance, there are very few that believe that we should all be able to own nuclear weapons or bunker busting bombs. I think we're probably a little too loose with our laws, but as long as people like you are making multiple logical fallacies in your arguments, we're not likely to take a realistic and practical approach to the gun laws. I mean, you're not convincing anyone when you show data that Europe has lower murder rates. Whether they know it or not, they realize that far more factors come into play than just gun laws, and you're not being honest in your assessment.

You're not being honest in your assessment when you negate the fact that there is no where to go but up from you're coming from a depression and that the new deals 1 & 2 were multifaceted approaches that included huge amounts of spending. Attributing an increase in poverty to a war on poverty is contradictory on the surface, and is not correlative or causal when analyzed.

This aside, my assessment, which must be the third time I have said this, is that crime rates are affected by much more than just gun laws, such as education levels, poverty levels, and other social standards. However, I said that gun laws are an element of the cause. Also, you seem to have some grand problem with correlation. Correlation pretty much asserts a probability. If there was a correlation that gun laws made no impact whatsoever on homicides by firearm and burglaries with firearms, I would take that seriously, but evidence suggests the opposite. And I have connected the dots between these statistics to a degree, but there's not much of a point in continuing the argument until people are willing to read them.

Notice I also posted a historical article outlining the gun debate and drafting of the 2nd amendment, an essay co-authored by 2 professors. It went completely ignored. So if I have to deal with reactionary arguments rather than people who will launch an investigation into the issue and see what conclusions can be drawn from facts about laws, statistics about murder rates and gun ownership, and reconcile them with logic, then the whole point of arguing is moot.

[Chronoburn]

Pretty sure root is working on a masters in Computer Science. Sounds like a p dumb kid to me too.... ;)

In most cases a Masters in CS is dumb.

[Chronoburn]

lol anyone who thinks computer science majors know anything more then programming java are pretty misguided... applied mathematics, i suspect this guy doesnt do.


CS majors dont even know what they are majoring in.

A degree in CS teaches you computing theory and fundamentals. Typically, a person with a CS degree understands a larger scope of computing processes ... self taught individuals typically only know high level languages like Java. Also, if you got your CS degree from random paper mill, i would agree you probably only know java.

[r00t]

I was the only person in my software engineering class who has ever made a .dll (even just a fake ass .net one) and I hate fucking Java. Also, I hope to get honorary doctors from several ivy leagues.

[r00t]

Also I am p much entirely self taught, I could have taught every class I've taken besides math ones.... and I still hate fucking Java so dunno what you mean

[r00t]

I hate Java because its a shitty wrapper around C. It's the same reason I hate C#. C++ and Python are my go to languages

[r00t]

now some1 gonna say Python a shitty wrapper around C too, but at least it ain't fucking Java feel me

[Sidelle]

I have one of these:

http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/handgun-revolver-smith-and-wesson-m642-163810-38-1-78-ss.jpg

And I keep it locked up safely in my awesome pink-faux-alligator-print case:

http://www.bmdcase.com/image/pink-tool-case.jpg

I am not a gun nut at all. I bought it mainly for security because my husband works the overnight shift and I have a child to protect. What else would I use if someone broke into my house? A steak knife? Hmm, yes I could call the cops but what if they take too long? They'd probably get there in time to see the bad guy in a pool of blood clutching his balls, crying.

Thx Constitution for enabling me to protect myself and my family in case shit happens. <3

P.S. If you're a person who doesn't like guns, then don't own one - simple as that.

[Sidelle]

Bleh, you guys now talking about computer nerd stuff. Wtf

[aowen]

I have one of these:

http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/handgun-revolver-smith-and-wesson-m642-163810-38-1-78-ss.jpg

And I keep it locked up safely in my awesome pink-faux-alligator-print case:

http://www.bmdcase.com/image/pink-tool-case.jpg

I am not a gun nut at all. I bought it mainly for security because my husband works the overnight shift and I have a child to protect. What else would I use if someone broke into my house? A steak knife? Hmm, yes I could call the cops but what if they take too long? They'd probably get there in time to see the bad guy in a pool of blood clutching his balls, crying.

Thx Constitution for enabling me to protect myself and my family in case shit happens. <3

P.S. If you're a person who doesn't like guns, then don't own one - simple as that.

I like drugs, but other people don't so I'm not allowed to do them. Why? Because they are deemed dangerous when I use them, as I might hurt myself or other people, and they are involved in nefarious activity in regards to their sale and distribution. More complex because a lot of people also mean to do good with guns, however one might add seldom do people use drugs explicitly to kill other people, but the root of the controversy is same principle essentially.

[Chronoburn]

now some1 gonna say Python a shitty wrapper around C too, but at least it ain't fucking Java feel me

Beat me to it ....

I started in a Java shop, well the java shop, but that was my choice. Java is simple and applies everywhere. I now do mostly DB work now but SQl and pl/SQL are good languages..

Most successful CS alumni are usually 'self taught'. If you don't apply yourself outside of the given curriculum, you have a pretty good chance at failing getting into the work place.

My only problem with Masters/Doctorates in CS is that you either become "over qualified' for a lot of employers or you're heading down the research path. Research wasn't my gig.

P.S. I could write a *.dll that says 'Hello World' and my C is pretty rusty. I'm assuming yours was a little more complex ...

[Sidelle]

I like drugs, but other people don't so I'm not allowed to do them. Why? Because they are deemed dangerous when I use them, as I might hurt myself or other people, and they are involved in nefarious activity in regards to their sale and distribution. More complex because a lot of people also mean to do good with guns, however one might add seldom do people use drugs explicitly to kill other people, but the root of the controversy is same principle essentially.

Drugs are illegal and don't really have a place in this argument. How can you possibly be comparing drugs and being a legal owner of firearms? Pls explain.

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/k9aHQgD.jpg

http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/handgun-revolver-smith-and-wesson-m642-163810-38-1-78-ss.jpg

u have good taste in revolvers.

[Ryba]

There are very few people who can claim a room actually gets safer because they brought a loaded gun into it. I know you think you're a sheepdog watching out for the flock, but your paranoia is potentially lethal. The bowling alley was doing fine before you went in with your handgun.

If I was a shortdicked bumpkin with an angry alcoholic father, maybe I would feel like I had something to prove to the world, too. Maybe I would ignore the glaringly obvious differences between the reality that gave rise to the 2nd Amendment and the reality of 2013. Maybe I'd treat a gun like a shortcut to the inner strength and power I was always too sloppy to work hard for.

For the record, I own guns and would never take yours away...unless they were guns designed to efficiently kill humans. I know this is a SUPER FUCKING SUBTLE point and it SERIOUSLY DEGRADES your god-given freedom to wield the power to end the experiences of 100 souls in a minute, but I guess we all make sacrifices to live in a civil world.

Anyway, I'm sure the nigras are coming right now to rape your fat wife specifically, so I'll stop wasting your time. Thanks for trying really hard to don the other viewpoint.

[aowen]

I would like to see some guns banned, and others left to the people. I would like to see some drugs legalized, and others remain banned. I own alcohol, a legal drug.

It's a comparison, and I already made it showing the similarities, and the imposition on my freedom to consume substances responsibly in my own home. Obviously there are differences between the two, but very similar problems, if not linked, problems.

[Sidelle]

u have good taste in revolvers.

So do you. =)

[aowen]

lolwut?

Get mad? At you? Child, please. You're naive enough to believe what your government tells you. Go back to listening to Amy Goodman tell you how we need more government in our lives because the masses are just too st-st-stupid do to anything on their own.

If I want some comeback from you I'd wipe it off your chin you stupid ass

[Sidelle]

... and they are involved in nefarious activity in regards to their sale and distribution.

What do you think would happen if guns were suddenly illegal? The criminals would still have them anyway so obviously the normal, law-abiding citizens would be screwed. They would either be forced to buy guns illegally or just sit around waiting for other people to handle any problems. Sorry, but depending too much on the cops or the government to take care of me just sounds ridiculous. I was raised to depend on myself and no one else.

That doesn't mean I go around in public with my weapon. I can't speak for those folks who do, that's up to them. I keep mine at home, locked up.

[Ryba]

What do you think would happen if guns were suddenly illegal? The criminals would still have them anyway so obviously the normal, law-abiding citizens would be screwed.

That would be a great argument to use against someone who was suggesting making all guns illegal, i.e. a totally different conversation.

[Sidelle]

That would be a great argument to use against someone who was suggesting making all guns illegal, i.e. a totally different conversation.

Ok, Aowen did say that he didn't really have anything against shotguns. But the rest of it, including my cute little .38, he would be against. That means he would love it if it was illegal to own anything but a shotgun. So, I think I still have a good argument. Pls correct me if I am wrong, Aowen.

By the way, are you aware of the damage a shotgun would do if a person were shot at a pretty close range with one? I think I would rather take a shot from a .38 because the chance I would still have a face left is definitely better.

[FoxxHound]

http://badasshistory.com/badass-sandw500.jpg

[runlvlzero]

Gun belongs on the fire place mantle. Ya'll too dumb to teach your kids about gun safety and your neighbors to ignorant to deal with it.

Ya'll deserver to be disarmed and raped and pillaged.

[runlvlzero]

And goddamnit, is a damn right that we shoot them assholes that show up threatening our lives and livelyhood. Its called natural selection. Its called the power being in our hands rather than 30 minutes away, and in the hands of some donut munching moron who probably doesn't want to even put their life on the line for yours.

America deserves what it is gonna get.

[runlvlzero]

I like drugs, but other people don't so I'm not allowed to do them. Why? Because they are deemed dangerous when I use them, as I might hurt myself or other people, and they are involved in nefarious activity in regards to their sale and distribution. More complex because a lot of people also mean to do good with guns, however one might add seldom do people use drugs explicitly to kill other people, but the root of the controversy is same principle essentially.

Nah, just that most drugs are illegal causing the problems with shady dealers and distribution channels. Most drugs are not endangering to society as a whole. And those that are, are only in certain circumstances (Driving Drunk).

The same can be applied to guns to. They are perfectly fine when people are trained to operate and use them in the appropriate situations and when they are distributed equally.

Death happens. Guns don't increase your chances of dieing. Anyone can kill you with anything they want to. Taking them away doesn't make it any harder for some psycho to kill you. With their illegally obtained gun, knife, bat, brick, or with their bare hands, poison, arson, bombs, etc...

Live in fear of personal power and freedom all you want. Everyone should have a level playing field with each other and their government. Yet you cannot trust one group to hold power over another. It has bad results every single time.

[Sidelle]

Owning a gun for self-defense to me indicates you have at least thought enough about someone breaking and doing bad things to you to justify spending a few hundred minimum, which would require a level of fear greater than is really needed, for a scenario that usually does not play out the way people envision.

All these people are super scurred someone is gonna come kill them, esp the chicago south side.

I think a part of this debate that is missing too is that not all guns are equal. Most people, including myself, don't have a problem if people want to keep a shotgun around for defense. Shotguns can't be concealed and are effective at home defense. They are also more difficult to use to kill massive amounts of people when someone decides to lose their shit. Pistols and assault weapons are the real point of contention, pistols because they are exclusively used to kill people and can be concealed, assault weapons for obvious reasons.

You seem drunk, no offense. What ya drinking?

And goddamnit, is a damn right that we shoot them assholes that show up threatening our lives and livelyhood. Its called natural selection. Its called the power being in our hands rather than 30 minutes away, and in the hands of some donut munching moron who probably doesn't want to even put their life on the line for yours.

America deserves what it is gonna get.

[runlvlzero]

Lastly prohibition did not work and was probably the most damaging thing to this country in the last 50 years outside of shady corporate lobbyists and government granted monopolies.

A prohibition on guns is going to result in 100x the amount of organized crime and corruption at all levels of society.

You don't need science to cite that shit. Its obvious to the plain dumb stupid as rocks proles who aren't brainwashed.

[Hasbinbad]

I say more guns to women, less guns to men.

[Recycled Children]

If I want some comeback from you I'd wipe it off your chin you stupid ass

You tell terrible jokes.

[Orruar]

This aside, my assessment, which must be the third time I have said this, is that crime rates are affected by much more than just gun laws, such as education levels, poverty levels, and other social standards. However, I said that gun laws are an element of the cause. Also, you seem to have some grand problem with correlation. Correlation pretty much asserts a probability. If there was a correlation that gun laws made no impact whatsoever on homicides by firearm and burglaries with firearms, I would take that seriously, but evidence suggests the opposite. And I have connected the dots between these statistics to a degree, but there's not much of a point in continuing the argument until people are willing to read them.

No, correlation does not assert a probability of causation. At first I thought you were just being deceitful in trying to use statistics to confuse and overwhelm people. It's a pretty common way to manipulate the ignorant masses. As you continue to write, it becomes clear you are actually part of the ignorant masses. My first clue was when you started dropping pseudoscience terms like retrocausality in an attempt to sound smart. Now you don't seem to understand the problems with inferring causation from correlation at all. You see, if A and B happen, A might cause B, B might cause A, C might cause A and B, or there may be no link whatsoever. A stronger correlation does not help us in determining which of these is the case. And clearly in any complex system, a single effect may be influenced by multiple causes. None of this permits you to infer causation from correlation.

To put it in terms of this debate, let's assume for a minute that there is a strong correlation between increased gun laws and reduced murder rate. It could be the case that adding a new gun law will directly reduce the murder rate. Or it could be the case that as murder rates drop due to other reasons, people feel less that they need guns and thus enact more laws. Or it could be the case that as a nation of people start to feel more close-knit as a society, they both kill each other less and accept tighter gun restrictions. The strength of the correlation tells us nothing about which are causes and which are effects.

Determining causation is far more difficult, particularly in the social sciences, where scientific experiment is for all practical purposes impossible. I don't think I have the answer on the best way to do this, though it's clear that statistical correlation is not even close to the right way. I'm sure you'll just keep on using it though. It's pretty easy to fool people into believing you when you can cite scientific-sounding sources. Most people simply aren't tuned in enough to the nature of knowledge to have any chance at defending against such an assault on logic.

[bubba]

In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, killing 32,885 and injuring 2,239,000.
The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion.1 If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America

Motor vehicles are designed to be SAFE and yet they kill 32k and injure 2.2mil per year.
Medical procedures are meant to SAVE and HEAL us and yet kill almost 100k people per year.
Maybe once you guy who are so into saving everyone lives get the motor vehicle and medical death problem under control you can go after the less dangerous things guns.

If you dont like guns...dont own one, no one is forcing you

[NachtMystium]

I say more guns to women, less guns to men.

bad....bad idea, ever watch snapped?

[Rellapse34]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Holding-up-JDJ.jpg

[hatelore]

u have good taste in revolvers.

Those aren't bad guns. I purchased the 642 on the bottom in 38 for my ex wife and I purchased the top one for my brother some years back. Both are good guns. But to be honest, I shot the hell out of both of them and unless your billy badass, you won't hit shit over about 20 feet with them heh. And if you are using 38 +p then your shit up the creek for accuracy, its like a little firecracker in your hand. Especially in 357. But nice little back up guns for sure. I have a Colt Detective in 38 that is pretty sweet. The way I see it though, if you are going to buy a snub nose, get a 357. That way you can shoot 357 or 38 out of it.

[hatelore]

http://i.imgur.com/Ylwcxzf.jpg

This is a fine gun, 662. but I prefer the older Model 60 S&W. Both are good hand cannons.

[Rellapse34]

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/163504_large.jpg

^

[Hasbinbad]

This is a fine gun, 662. but I prefer the older Model 60 S&W. Both are good hand cannons.
I just picked the photos of the s&w's off their website, so they are current models.

I'd bet just as strongly on any older model, provided I had an hour or two to check it out first.

[Hasbinbad]

my friend has a 360pd tho, it's pretty much the neatest thing ever.