Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2015, 07:44 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
I just want to point out that a well-known troll has voted yes. Also ironic, no? Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 07:50 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:05 PM)KUSA Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 06:58 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  So i guess i am hunting moose. How to do it without a gun?

Well you are the so physically fit and possess finely honed martial arts skills. Just Karate chop the fucker.

No then i will be chopped, fuck it just this onece give me the gun shot the fucer right in the eyes.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More anecdotes and opinions. I know you're opinion, I'm well aware of it.

As for pepper spray, you have to point at the victim and fire, same as a gun. You'd have to be a good aim to use it to effectively stop your assailant, same as a gun. Yet, you're still claiming it can't be as effective as a gun for defense?

Your ignorance and bias are profound. Pepper spray must strike the assailant in the face while a bullet is effective over the entire body. In fact, with a firearm one aims at the center of mass - a much larger target. And it takes several seconds to spray but only a split second to shoot.

Quote:Look, if you don't have any actual data or evidence or studies to corroborate your claims, and all you have are anecdotes, then fine. But don't pretend you've got some iron-clad argument and that only your opinion can be correct. It's far too reminiscent of fundies.

Look again at what I have and have not claimed.

Quote:This is why I like Jim Jeffries' point (one you reject because you don't like it, but he hits the nail pretty well). Guns are not the only form of self-defense, and nothing you've shown or said indicates they are the best. Nothing you've shown orsaid demonstrates they are necessary. It comes back to the one point, gun enthusiasts have one argument for guns "fuck off, I like guns." I believe you've even told me to fuck off.

Ironic, isn't it? Drinking Beverage

What is ironic is your irrationality.

I have not claimed guns are the only form of self-defense.

And you really need to fuck off until you stop straw-manning.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-04-2015, 07:57 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 07:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More anecdotes and opinions. I know you're opinion, I'm well aware of it.

As for pepper spray, you have to point at the victim and fire, same as a gun. You'd have to be a good aim to use it to effectively stop your assailant, same as a gun. Yet, you're still claiming it can't be as effective as a gun for defense?

Your ignorance and bias are profound. Pepper spray must strike the assailant in the face while a bullet is effective over the entire body. In fact, with a firearm one aims at the center of mass - a much larger target. And it takes several seconds to spray but only a split second to shoot.

Quote:Look, if you don't have any actual data or evidence or studies to corroborate your claims, and all you have are anecdotes, then fine. But don't pretend you've got some iron-clad argument and that only your opinion can be correct. It's far too reminiscent of fundies.

Look again at what I have and have not claimed.

Quote:This is why I like Jim Jeffries' point (one you reject because you don't like it, but he hits the nail pretty well). Guns are not the only form of self-defense, and nothing you've shown or said indicates they are the best. Nothing you've shown or said demonstrates they are necessary. It comes back to the one point, gun enthusiasts have one argument for guns "fuck off, I like guns." I believe you've even told me to fuck off.

Ironic, isn't it? Drinking Beverage

What is ironic is your irrationality.

I have not claimed guns are the only form of self-defense.

And you really need to fuck off until you become rational.

You're the one who keeps throwing around anecdotes like they are divined commandments from God.

Physics would seem to imply that when you shoot someone anywhere other than a point that immediately kills them, you won't stop them dead in their tracks. Especially depending on the caliber of the weapon.

And once again, if the "fuck off" argument is all you got, keep plugging away, AquinaChas

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 07:58 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
How am I straw manning your position by asking you to provide actual information and evidence or studies to support your claim you seem to be asserting is obvious and/or common knowledge?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 08:00 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
As for the irrationality, I've been on the other side of this fence, and I've seen the arguments from both sides.

Hell, one doesn't have to look very far back in this thread to see the depth of the "arguments" from the pro-gun side.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How am I straw manning your position by asking you to provide actual information and evidence or studies to support your claim you seem to be asserting is obvious and/or common knowledge?

You keep attributing to me claims I never made. You sound like the fundie here.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 08:03 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 08:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 07:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How am I straw manning your position by asking you to provide actual information and evidence or studies to support your claim you seem to be asserting is obvious and/or common knowledge?

You keep attributing to me claims I never made. You sound like the fundie here.

I'm asking you to assert with evidence or studies or falsifiable explanation, support for your claims.

And you keep giving me anecdotes while claiming that pepper spray (or mace) isn't as effective and that someone shot with a gun would be stopped. Despite the fact that this seems to be based more on movie physics instead of reality.

You know those scenes in movies where the bad guy takes a slug to the chest and goes flying backwards? You know that's not real, right?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 08:10 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2015 08:13 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
When your argument boils down to a hypothetical scenario where you've defined what you can and can't use and what will and will not be effective, how is that a falsifiable scenario? How does that demonstrate anything about reality?

It keeps going back to the fear-based approach. This notion that we live in a country where you're in constant threat for your life, when the odds of this are ridiculously low. (0.005% chance annually or less).

Unless you're packing 24/7, and you know the assailant is coming or can otherwise prevent them from sneaking up on you, your gun is useless. And this still negates the fact that there are other forms of defense and prevention that are effective. But you still claim the gun to be the most effective.

Your perfect storm scenario of a natural disaster leading to a breakdown in society warranting Marshall law, is a fear-mongering fantasy.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 08:12 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
When you have a rational response supported by evidence or objective studies or falsifiable information, then we have something to discuss.

But as long as you keep plugging your ears and shouting out your anecdotes like a street corner preacher, don't kid yourself and call me the irrational one.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: