Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2013, 05:27 PM
Re: RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(25-04-2013 08:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Something else to keep in mind is that military personnel, career military professionals, and law enforcement, all have opinions on this too. And wouldn't you know it, some of them even support better gun laws. Well...I'll be damned.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/23/2...ntrol.html

This post is such a utter failure to understand what it tries to infer.

"The military know their weapons" shows just how much the author and you know about training, the military and individual skill and safety.

Trying to claim people like Gen Mccrystal are credible in the gun control debate is utter bullshit. I assure you he has way more time with his pitching wedge then he dose a pistol.

Try again
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 12:08 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(25-04-2013 03:43 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Even the constitution can be amended. It has been many times. The statement that we could make it law because it's legal doesn't mean anything. I am all for certain gun restrictions. The thing is, the things that should be restricted, are already restricted. The things that shouldn't be restricted are sometimes restricted at state and local levels.

It means everything to the current constitution and debate, especially since a primary component to pro-gun arguments is that it is unconstitutional to impose stricter legislation. Do you know how incredibly hard it is to even change the constitution, let alone in such a polarized political landscape these days? The statement that the constitution can be amended is meaningless.

I don't disagree with the fact that it's difficult to amend the constitution. I also don't think that the constitution doesn't prohibit gun restrictions. I'm just of the opinion that the proper restrictions are already in place. There are places which violate the constitution. Illinois, for example, doesn't permit people to carry concealed weapons outside of their personal property. That pretty blatantly goes against the second amendment in my opinion.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 10:18 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(24-04-2013 10:06 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Exactly, and I really can't find anybody here vocal about banning guns altogether either. The previous gun debates, literally no one suggested the banning of all firearms. I supported stricter gun legislation, because that is the logical and legal thing to do. Pro-gun and anti-gun supporters are like the far right and far left on the political spectrum. People like Phaedrus, Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver, Chas, and TheBlackKnight all posses the identical tunnel vision on this matter. Their arguments seem to be directed towards people who want guns to be criminalized and I keep looking around trying to find to whom those arguments are directed.

Depends what you mean by "banning guns altogether".

I said on here before that I'm for banning guns, and as far as the Constitution, that's just a sign for people to hide behind. It's used completely for bullshit, propaganda, political gain and rhetoric.

Imagine if we had as many people worried about the rest of the amendments as they were about intentionally misconstruing the second amendment for their own personal benefit.

The problem with the entire gun debate is that this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the circumstances/history in the US, but the dilemma comes in hard when you realize that those circumstances are also what is so damaging and is really the source to a lot of negativity and lack of progress in our country.

For me, it's almost like the nations problems could be solved, if you could resolve the gun debate; but as it looks, you are not going to resolve the gun debate.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 10:20 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Also, it's funny thinking about polarization, disagreement, opposition, gridlock, etc. Something really made me think about that the other day (I think it was some video): But, it's like every time you think we have the shot at actually having a left-wing and/or two legitimate, firmly opposing, courageous and brave, bold, outstanding political parties and legitimate debate in the US, here comes those fucking assholes telling people to get along, compromise and get back to that old, one-party, right-wing, regressive, nonsensical, disgrace to America, joke of a political system.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
26-04-2013, 10:37 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(25-04-2013 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 04:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'd say better and more restrictive. Better in that a lot of our current laws are awful and either complex or convoluted or full of loopholes. Or all 3.

There is also the fact that many of the federal guns laws are not enforced.

Criminals who could be charged with violations of federal law simply are not.
Non-federal prosecutors don't bother. They don't want to make a federal case of it.
The accused are charged with the state crime and not the federal crime.

Especially 18 U.S.C. §922(g), §922(j), §922(i), §924(a), §924(b), §924(e) §924(g), §924(j)

These are laws against possession of firearms or ammunition by felons, possession of stolen firearms, transport or shipping or receipt of stolen firearms across state lines, carrying or using a firearm during the commission of violent or drug crime, and so on.


I disagree. Gun laws are pretty harshly prosecuted by the states, where even BB Guns are considered firearms.

Anyways...let's face it: More Guns = More Murder. Less Guns = Less Murder. Pretty simple, huh? I got to agree with the antis on this one.

BTW...I like guns - I don't believe we can be both safe and free, so I accept Freedom. I deal with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 10:53 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 12:08 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I don't disagree with the fact that it's difficult to amend the constitution. I also don't think that the constitution doesn't prohibit gun restrictions. I'm just of the opinion that the proper restrictions are already in place. There are places which violate the constitution. Illinois, for example, doesn't permit people to carry concealed weapons outside of their personal property. That pretty blatantly goes against the second amendment in my opinion.

Nowhere does the constitution give citizens the right to carry concealed firearms, so it does not contradict the second ammendment.

(26-04-2013 10:18 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Depends what you mean by "banning guns altogether".

I said on here before that I'm for banning guns, and as far as the Constitution, that's just a sign for people to hide behind. It's used completely for bullshit, propaganda, political gain and rhetoric.

Imagine if we had as many people worried about the rest of the amendments as they were about intentionally misconstruing the second amendment for their own personal benefit.

The problem with the entire gun debate is that this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the circumstances/history in the US, but the dilemma comes in hard when you realize that those circumstances are also what is so damaging and is really the source to a lot of negativity and lack of progress in our country.

For me, it's almost like the nations problems could be solved, if you could resolve the gun debate; but as it looks, you are not going to resolve the gun debate.

Not currently. Like any social issue in the United States, it will be accepted late in the game by a future generation.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 10:55 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
So you consider gun control a social issue?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 10:53 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 12:08 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I don't disagree with the fact that it's difficult to amend the constitution. I also don't think that the constitution doesn't prohibit gun restrictions. I'm just of the opinion that the proper restrictions are already in place. There are places which violate the constitution. Illinois, for example, doesn't permit people to carry concealed weapons outside of their personal property. That pretty blatantly goes against the second amendment in my opinion.

Nowhere does the constitution give citizens the right to carry concealed firearms, so it does not contradict the second ammendment[sic].

Okay, I should clarify. Illinois does not allow people to carry personal weapons in public, concealed or openly. The reason why I said 'concealed' is because that is what usually requires a permit in America. Some states require a "Concealed Carry Permit" to carry either openly or concealed. Either way, in the general public you have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 11:04 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 10:53 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Nowhere does the constitution give citizens the right to carry concealed firearms, so it does not contradict the second ammendment[sic].

Okay, I should clarify. Illinois does not allow people to carry personal weapons in public, concealed or openly. The reason why I said 'concealed' is because that is what usually requires a permit in America. Some states require a "Concealed Carry Permit" to carry either openly or concealed. Either way, in the general public you have a constitutional right to bear arms.

It does not even clarify to that degree either. The second amendment is incredibly vague. Nowhere does the second amendment say you can carry a firearm in public, and I find it totally reasonable to restrict gun use to designated areas, including on your own private property.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 11:04 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 10:53 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Nowhere does the constitution give citizens the right to carry concealed firearms, so it does not contradict the second ammendment[sic].

Okay, I should clarify. Illinois does not allow people to carry personal weapons in public, concealed or openly. The reason why I said 'concealed' is because that is what usually requires a permit in America. Some states require a "Concealed Carry Permit" to carry either openly or concealed. Either way, in the general public you have a constitutional right to bear arms.

The constitution talks about the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. The average person carrying their gun, is not a part of a militia and we have a well-regulated militia, it's called the Military.

Your opinion might be that it violates the constitution, but that hinges upon ignoring or redefining the rest of that section.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: