On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote:
So I come back home and notice that Mayson is still trolling here.
Perceptual distortion and selective attention.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote:
Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
I did destroy your logic.
There's only one study published that supports your view on gun control that hasn't been retracted, and the main point of the article is inherently confounded by extenuating variables not accounted for.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote:
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
If you support the ban of the effective means by which one may defend themselves, then you effectively support the lack of resistance when one's life is threatened.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote:
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
We're not condescending; we use logic and applicable statistics to support our point of view. You use opinion and emotion.
One is quantifiable, and has tangible results. The other does not.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote:
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I'm not trolling. Present evidence that I'm trolling other than that: (1) I've defended my point of view using logic, (2) rational thought, and (3) unbiased statistics.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 07:56 aRod wrote:
I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts.
I've deliberately ignored any posts made by any poster not demonstrating the same level of commitment to supporting a given point of view, or rebutting an opposing point of view.
You have done neither.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 11:45 Skye_MyO wrote:On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote:
Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
On December 09 2007 07:56 aRod wrote:
I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts.
When you're inundated with "Fuck you's" from a variety of angry people, you may miss a couple of legitimate posts. Perhaps you can restate your question or post, and I'm sure he'll respond again. Or perhaps I could respond, since I take the anti-gun control position.
Quoted purely because it's the truth.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:On December 09 2007 11:45 Skye_MyO wrote:On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote:
Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
One of the first, if not the first, to be insulting was Mayson, which I think you'll find if you go back and reread. And while you are there, you can also find where he was refuted but failed to respond, and just kept rewording his original position over and over and over, except a little bit more tastelessly each time.
My insults have been in my own defense; I have never cast the first stone.
I have been repeatedly insulted, berated, and belittled by numerous posters in this thread, yet you call me out on the few times I've done so in my own defense.
I don't find it at all ironic that you support gun control, yet accuse me of derogatory behavior performed in my own defense.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:
qgart brought up multiple times that Mayson's claim that legal gun ownership is actually a deterrent in crime rate, using Mayson's own source.
Except that criminology studies have shown that criminals are deterred by the private and legal ownership of firearms by potential victims. That's not a refutable fact.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:
I and others brought up the flaw in his logic in saying that gun controls only noticeable effect was to remove the self-protection that regular citizens have against armed criminals.
Gun control would pass laws aimed at people who are defined as not following the laws. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws. Passing more laws to make them follow the laws doesn't make sense because
criminals don't follow the laws. That's what makes them criminals.Keep passing laws, though. Eventually you'll find the right one.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:
The first problem is the one I just mentioned. The other is that it is demonstrably false: I already showed a source that said how most guns are obtained through the same sources intended for legal use.
So is the problem that guns are available, or that guns are available to criminals?
There is a serious problem with your logic, being that cutting off the flow of all guns completely leaves law-abiding civilians disarmed and defenseless against armed aggression.
Instead of attacking the sources of firearms for criminals, you would instead prefer to attack the source of firearms itself.
You really seem to have an ulterior motive: disarming the civilian population.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:
Whether stealing the guns from legal owners (10-15%), or easily circumventing gun laws, almost 100% of criminal sources of guns stem from legal sources.
An FFL selling guns out the back door is not a legal source.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:
Almost all of the ways guns are currently obtained by criminals would be removed, yet he says, over and over, that there would be no noticeable effect on criminals.
There is a difference between banning the legal sale of firearms completely and having the ATF aggressively enforce firearms trafficking laws, revoking the FFLs of those feeding the illegal markets with firearms intended for the legal markets.
One hurts law-abiding civilians. One doesn't. You pick the former; I pick the latter.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:
He just rewords what he already said, intentionally ignoring the rebuttal while playing a victim, becoming insulting, and praising himself for his "logic". This is in order to annoy people or get attention, or something similarly pathetic. This is why we insult/ignore him, at this point. I won't be reading any of his posts.
It is not in order to annoy others or draw attention; it's simply a side-effect of the frustration when dealing with people who appear to lack coherent, individual, independent thought.
The facts do not support your point of view; it's quite simple. Your point of view is based more on emotion, and how you feel about things.
I'm not saying that banning the legal sale of firearms wouldn't have an impact on the flow of firearms from FFLs to criminals, but that same lack of flow of firearms would also mean law-abiding civilians could no longer defend themselves.
It's the "double-edged sword" logic I can not agree with. That would make me a traitor to my country and the human race as a whole.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote:
I'm happy to debate with you, but don't waste your time defending a lowly false persona.
Is there where I point out that you insulted me, and by your own logic, you must be trying to "annoy" me and draw "attention"? Servo, I do reckon you's a troll!
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
And yeah mayson , just wondering something?
Yes, my Swedish friend?
That's a terrible idea.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
, so that only The military can have it and no else ,
That's a terrible idea, for reasons stated in the Constiution of the United States of America.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
not even the weapons used for hunting.
That's a bad idea, also.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
Then you close all the gun stores, you let the country's people know that they have 2 months to turn in the weapons to ,
The spike in unemployment would be fun, and guns would not be "turned in," they would be bought back.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
lets say their local policestation. you also let everyone know that anybody who is caught with a gun/rifle will get sentenced to jail for a minimum of 20 years.
I bet the criminals will suddenly start following the laws, then!
That almost works, except that, by definition, criminals don't follow the laws. You can't make laws aimed at people who don't follow the laws. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
Dont you think that after a few years almost none will own a weapon?
No, I think that immediately law-abiding citizens will comply, and then be defenseless to oppression, tyranny, and fear, whether the source be from the government, foreign or domestic, or criminals.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
Ofcourse the rifle is only the means that is used to carry out an criminal act, but you cant get from the fact that guns make it whole lot of fucking easier, and you can pick of many people.
Wrong. Handguns are the weapon of choice amongst criminals.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
if you dont belive that we can might aswell allow tanks, attack helikopters, f35's , fucking nukes for the society to buy.
That's a cop-out, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote:
This way only mainly the really , really large criminals will be able to obtain weapons, and they hardly get them to go picking of people at a school...
A forcibly disarmed population is a population open to oppression, tryanny, and fear. Look at Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge.
(I'm not a troll for pointing out the obvious. Just because you guys don't like it doesn't mean I'm wrong.)
About time.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
I don't advocate any immediate major changes in gun ownership policy in the United States.
Neither do I.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
I advocate gun control such as clip limitation, and cool down times.
Neither of which have any bearing on a criminal's ability to commit crimes, or takes lives.
You know how you get around clip limitations? You buy "pre-ban" magazines. Or you could just reload.
You know how you get around cool-down periods? Criminals don't typically legally purchase firearms to go kill people. Law-abiding citizens aren't necessarily punished by cool-down periods, as crimes against them aren't scheduled, but then again, I've never found any evidence that cool-down periods actually work.
I could argue that it presents a barrier that forces them into other means of committing the murder the cool-down period was designed to prevent.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
These laws serve as a means of education.
No, they don't. They serve as restrictions.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
People are taught clip limitation inhibits people, like the maniac who slaughtered the 9 starting this thread, from killing that extra 8th or 9th person before running out of bullets.
If he was using ban-legal magazines, it just means he'd need to reload one more time.
Magazine capacity limits don't keep people alive; aggressively eliminating the threat does.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
This teaches kids who learn about guns that killing others is wrong, and keeping people alive is good.
Yes, magazine capacity limits on the federal lawbooks teaches children about morals.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
Cool down time legislation teaches people to think about using a gun.
"Fuck, I can't get a gun to kill this person because of that cool-down period. I'm not a criminal, so I don't know how to buy a gun illegally out of the back of some guy's van, so I guess I'll have to do it some other way."
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
You are forced to wait to give you time to think. This teaches the Importance of thinking before acting which is something we need a lot more of.
Do you really think I'm going to believe that gun laws are supposed to educate the entire civilian population of morals?
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
Now, I stress these minor gun control laws should be acknowledged for their educational potential.
You know what I call education? Mandatory safety classes taught by certified NRA instructors.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
These laws do not detract in any major way from protection, nor do they strongly influence gun ownership.
No they don't.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
Personally, I advocate the United States moving away from gun ownership. I've posted various things concerning the lingering presence of guns in the U.S. We have a lot of land for hunting, the presence of "the right to bear arms" in our constitution (which is a peculiarity among constitutions) etc... Whatever the reason the United States, as a culture, has stayed with personal fire arms in unimportant. I want to talk about another culture's view on guns, specifically Europe. European countries have moved away from guns and have reduced crime rates and murder rates to show for it. Culturally, Europeans denounce gun ownership and use as unnecessary. The result of these grounded norms is an environment where gun ownership is so taboo; people don't have a purpose for guns. Even criminals follow suit. The penalties for owning a gun are so harsh; it's not worth even risking. Murder rates are reduced in Europe as a result.
This is your own personal agenda, which is the ulterior motive many anti-gun people share.
This has nothing to do with gun control; this is just simply you trying to force your own views on others.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
This is the type of attitude I would like to see develop in, not just the United States, but worldwide. The potential effects of an anti-gun culture are clear. Thus I advocate gun control as a means of education and eventual cultural drift. The United States is not an ethnically homogeneous culture, but we accept certain norms nationally. We have accepted the women’s right to vote, the premise slavery is wrong etc... The rise of gun control in the United States is a sign of cultural drift. I advocate this drift and the means to support it.
It's a utopian ideal to long for a society devoid of violence.
Wake up.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote:
Eventually, one day, the United States might be ready to pass hard line gun control laws. That day is not today. Guns are too prevalent in our culture to make any outright bans effective or logical. But I implore everyone in the gun control debate to think about clip limitations and cool down times in terms of education, not just the "right to protect oneself," or other common mannerisms.
Maybe.
--
You anti-gun people really need to understand a few things:
The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is
not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens.
You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges.
Anti-gun people seem to think it's more important to rid the world of guns entirely, rather than uphold the laws.
There's a difference between attacking the sources of firearms for criminals, and attacking the sources of firearms--period.
Depriving law-abiding citizens of the means with which to defend themselves when criminals won't follow new laws is asinine.
The availability of firearms on the illegal markets can be reduced without impacting citizens' rights. What's wrong with that? Oh, that's right: nothing at all.
EPT
sorry.
