Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 01:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 01:13 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You haven't even defined the problem.


And is my other thread too much of a "cock of a response"?

Problem = unnecessary gun deaths

Explicit enough? And what thread? I've seen no solution in any thread from you. Just" leave my guns alone. "

You know less about my position than a creationist knows about evolutionary biology. You assume that because I disagree with you that my position must consist solely of "leave my guns alone". This is because you are an idiot.


The thread, for the record, is here.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ammunition

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
28-04-2013, 03:40 PM
Re: RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 03:31 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 01:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Problem = unnecessary gun deaths

Explicit enough? And what thread? I've seen no solution in any thread from you. Just" leave my guns alone. "

You know less about my position than a creationist knows about evolutionary biology. You assume that because I disagree with you that my position must consist solely of "leave my guns alone". This is because you are an idiot.


The thread, for the record, is here.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ammunition

You don't like my simplification of your position?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 03:41 PM
Re: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
And if you want to continue the conversation, ditch the ad hominems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
I'll say what I like. To suggest otherwise is censorship. Or something like that. Drinking Beverage

And I could, of course, as easily simplify your position to "BAN ALL GUNS LOL". It's called a straw man. I do believe you are familiar with the term. I suggest you try to avoid being disingenuous in the future.

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
28-04-2013, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2013 04:15 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
Re: RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 03:46 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I'll say what I like. To suggest otherwise is censorship. Or something like that. Drinking Beverage

And I could, of course, as easily simplify your position to "BAN ALL GUNS LOL". It's called a straw man. I do believe you are familiar with the term. I suggest you try to avoid being disingenuous in the future.

You are perfectly fine to say as you please. Just don't expect me to waste my time talking with you.

As there are posts on this very thread where I state I am not for an out and out ban on guns, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

“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
28-04-2013, 04:43 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 02:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 02:00 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  There is not such thing as a accidental gun death. If you "accidentally" shoot someone while "cleaning", that's no accident, you somehow had a loaded firearm pointed at someone you didn't intend on destroying. That's called criminal negligence.

Let's agree, or at least cooperate, on some reasonable language.

That is negligent behavior, but it certainly falls into the "unnecessary gun deaths" category regardless of whether one considers it 'accidental' or 'negligent'.

A beta would argue all gun deaths are unnecessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 05:26 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 07:08 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 04:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  The 'regulated militia' part, specifically, is good for context, along with the rest of the amendment as a whole, being good for providing the reason and purpose for the amendment.

You don't have the Free Speech Clause needing an explanation, or any of the rest of the First Amendment clauses, divided up into specific amendments, all with unique purposes.

It's an amendment for security and war type of purposes, for militias to be able to be formed for those purposes, in general. Probably needed for general support from the public, and as Julius pointed out, it likely did tie in to the security need of the South, also, more specifically, needing/wanting slave militias.

You can't have a pacifist group of representatives randomly deciding they are going to undermined war capabilities, on a federal level harming states abilities, and you definitely need to be armed to be at all considered a proper 'well regulated militia'.

The Supreme Court cases, I'm sure, were 5-4 decisions. I really can't see how an individual having the right to own a firearm can be interpreted from the Second Amendment, any more than I could see the Boston Marathon Bombers having protection under the Free Exercise Clause.

Dude, it's right in front of you. Read the 2nd Amendment, re-read the US code I cited. It may not be what you agree with, but that's not the point.

The National Guard is no longer a militia, they are a reserve branch of the army, and they use state supplied evil baby killing assault rifles in Foreign WARS on temporary ACTIVE DUTY.

There isn't an argument that you have an individual right to own a gun.

What you posted has absolutely no connection to what I said. Completely irrelevant and pointless.

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
28-04-2013, 05:34 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 04:43 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 02:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  Let's agree, or at least cooperate, on some reasonable language.

That is negligent behavior, but it certainly falls into the "unnecessary gun deaths" category regardless of whether one considers it 'accidental' or 'negligent'.

A beta would argue all gun deaths are unnecessary.

Sorry, what's a 'beta'?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 09:25 PM)Julius Wrote:  I know that there are a lot of anti-gun people on this forum. I used to be anti-gun: anti-handgun, specifically. I have always supported ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles and even big, badd-arse semi-auto rifles. Neverthelesss, many of my fellow citizens don't, and I can understand to a degree why they don't. So...let's here it. Please tell me why ya' don't like certain types of guns - or guns altogether, and I'll try to explain why there is really nothing to fear.

Seriously, I'd like to hear what you have to say - and I won't answer you using Jargon or NRA-speak.

Thanks.

Julius

I might have labeled myself "anti-gun" before, but really any time I hear a term that is anti or pro (any thing), it gets more and more annoying.

Anti/pro-gun is possibly worse than pro-life, pro-choice, regarding the names at least.

Any person who would call themselves pro-gun is a complete idiot, and any person who would call themselves anti-gun is being fanatical regarding the topic.

The gun debate is one that is pretty dumb, and it actually being a contention in a society is just substantiation, regarding just how destitute and regressive the society having the debate is in reality.

It's an absolutely hilarious debate, however. If it was even possible to be more hilarious, it would be to the sadistic. They get to watch it coupled with the coverage of a select massacre. Lucky them.

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
28-04-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 06:08 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 09:25 PM)Julius Wrote:  I know that there are a lot of anti-gun people on this forum. I used to be anti-gun: anti-handgun, specifically. I have always supported ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles and even big, badd-arse semi-auto rifles. Neverthelesss, many of my fellow citizens don't, and I can understand to a degree why they don't. So...let's here it. Please tell me why ya' don't like certain types of guns - or guns altogether, and I'll try to explain why there is really nothing to fear.

Seriously, I'd like to hear what you have to say - and I won't answer you using Jargon or NRA-speak.

Thanks.

Julius

I might have labeled myself "anti-gun" before, but really any time I hear a term that is anti or pro (any thing), it gets more and more annoying.

Anti/pro-gun is possibly worse than pro-life, pro-choice, regarding the names at least.

Any person who would call themselves pro-gun is a complete idiot, and any person who would call themselves anti-gun is being fanatical regarding the topic.

The gun debate is one that is pretty dumb, and it actually being a contention in a society is just substantiation, regarding just how destitute and regressive the society having the debate is in reality.

It's an absolutely hilarious debate, however. If it was even possible to be more hilarious, it would be to the sadistic. They get to watch it coupled with the coverage of a select massacre. Lucky them.

Bro, I am not here to put a label on you. I am not here to call you names. Peace.

Now, if you think the gun debate has become hysterical, then I agree.

Can we agree on this point and move on?

Julius
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: