Summations Only

According to wikipedia, there's been a mass shooting and a mass arson since the gun-control measures you refer to went into effect - the Childers Palace Fire and the Monash University shooting. Homicides increased in Australia after the gun ban went into effect, armed robberies increased by almost 4000 per year, and neither decreased until eight years later, when homicide rates began decreasing in every OECD country, including the ones (like the US) that made no particular efforts at gun control.Sorry, Dblevins, but it's just objectively inaccurate to say that Australia's gun control reduced homicides or robberies or prevented mass shootings.

That's not what "freak accident" means. A freak accident is one that can't be foreseen. When a child plays with a loaded gun carelessly left unsecured and shoots themselves, as happened recently, that's not a "freak accident" because while it was certainly nobody's intent that the child be shot it was the entirely foreseeable outcome of leaving a loaded pistol out for them to find.Similarly, death of the person you're beating is the foreseeable outcome when you beat someone as hard as you can with your fists. It's not a difficult concept. The evidence is that if someone starts punching you and doesn't stop, you'll die. No, what I'm saying is that every fist fight or bar brawl could very easily end in someone's death, and that's why it's not legal - why it's very illegal and very very dangerous - to start physical altercations with people. And if you're in one you don't want to be in, it's very important for you to end it as soon as absolutely possible, because you could die otherwise.And that's what a firearm does. It immediately brings the fight to an end. But they're not unarmed. They're armed with fists. Yes, I have been. But you guys haven't been. You're the one telling me that some weapons are "more lethal" than others. Therefore it stands to reason that if that's really true, and if it's really true that one is obligated to respond with no more lethal a weapon than one is attacked with, then it'll be the case that soldiers are taught that in a firefight they need to first ascertain the caliber of the weapons they're being attacked with so that if they're only attacked with pistols, they don't immorally respond with rifles. That's exactly right. Nobody uses the doctrine of proportionality when assessing immediate danger. In immediate danger, the doctrine is "use force as necessary to bring the danger to an end." That's the doctrine of self-defense, and it's because of that doctrine that the use of lethal force in self-defense is justified when someone makes a lethal attack against you with their fists. So if I'm in a situation where I have no other means but lethal force to protect myself, I'm not supposed to protect myself? How is that moral? The source, as I told you, is the Bureau of Justice Statistics. They keep homicide figures arranged by weapon (or non-weapon) for every year back to 1975 or so.

And I don't. But similarly you can't compare to a non-existent statistic, either. But you insist on doing it when you attempt to argue by statistical inference that a gun increases your risk of gun-related injury by more than it decreases your risk of criminal predation. I'm sure the "gun lobby" is perfectly awful. But two can argue by "inference to topologically-similar policy spheres"; since the War on Drugs has not been anything but a deeply immiserating failure (at the cost of hundreds or even thousands of lives, plus a vast and racist incarceration society), why should we believe that the War on Guns would be any different? Yes, that's rather the point. It's hardly a criticism of the law that it does what it was intended to do.

Crash, you're just cycling through the same list of accusations that you cast at everyone who disagrees with you. This is all a well established pattern with you. Everyone's seen it before and you're not fooling anyone. Give it a break. I said that you believe the US is inherently more homicidal than the rest of the world, and you responded (and I quote), "Your own data supports this." So that's what I rebutted.You continue to make things up through the rest of your post, it's all garbage and there's no point responding to any of it, none of it has anything to do with the topic. It is amazing how completely unaware you seem to be that only a strong paranoia could lead someone to believe that everyone's always misrepresenting him.--Percy

So now fists count as arms. Good. That means the 2nd ammendment doesn't mean shit about guns since fists count as arms. Well, i looked and could not find it. Since you still refuse to actually link it, even though I asked, I will say you are lying and making the figure up. You could prove us all wrong and link your source. Does lying about what people say please you or something? Where have I ever made this statement? Remember: fists are human appendages, not weapons. YOU call them weapons. No.

No, I'm not. I'm rebutting the same list of misrepresentations cast at me by people, like you, who can't stand it when I'm right and you're wrong. Except that it's not. Sure, a bunch of you say it's a pattern. But there are never any examples except misleading misrepresentations. When we chase them down, really get to the bottom, we see - always - that it's my opponents and detractors who were wrong and I who was right. Moderators usually give up before they get to that point.I mean, we know how you moderate, Percy - the "sticky darts on the car" style. If you see a car on the highway with a bunch of sticky darts on it, it's probably some asshole who needs to get pulled over.Well, sure. That works if people have no reason to collude and misrepresent some poor fucker as being the asshole. But suppose some small number of people say "you know, every time I see license plate ROAD-FR0G, I'm gonna shoot that guy's car with a sticky dart." On their own they don't get to stick too many darts, except a small number of people who really make it their mission to stick darts on that guy. Some number of other people get accidentally cut off during a lane change, or maybe tailgated a little bit, and when they see a couple of sticky darts on the car, they're less inclined to see those actions as unintentional irritations and more inclined to see them as the deliberate actions of an asshole. Sticky dart. ROAD-FR0G's friendly wave as he passes suddenly seems like a sarcastic provocation, instead. Sticky dart. His "have a nice day" bumper sticker seems less like an optimistic slogan and more like a middle finger. Sticky dart.Sticky darts, Percy. There's no "established pattern" with me except a pattern of me being immediately subject to incredible personal vendettas starting with AZPaul3 on my return back in 2010 and subsequently by others, ever since. Sure, sure. You think I'm being "paranoid", except that I'm objectively not being paranoid. There's no other explanation for AZPaul3's immediately belligerent - and unprovoked - reply except that I somehow cause people to have personal vendettas against me. There's no other explanation for hackers following me to EvC to hack the place except that I somehow cause people to have personal vendettas against me.At least on the internet. Nothing like this happens in my real life, I can tell you that.So no, Percy, you're describing a "pattern" that is completely the invention of my detractors. But they're lying, and always have been. I've proven it, and you'd know that if you had ever bothered to look when I tried to show you. But you've never once taken me seriously about it because you don't see how your "sticky dart" mode of moderation can be so easily played. It's a point of pride with you, I suspect. You said that I believe the US is inherently more homicidal than the rest of the world and what I replied with was that I don't believe this. So to assert that I do is a misrepresentation of my position. Surely you see that ascribing to me a position I don't hold - have never held - is a misrepresentation? And now that you're doing it after being corrected, isn't that willful?Didn't you once deny that people were willfully misrepresenting me? Remember when I showed you that people were and you just ignored it? Now that you're doing it, how can you still maintain that nobody is? Empty assertions. Anyone can see you're making absurd charges during a retreat, Percy. Respond to the arguments or don't. I don't care either way. Just stop making accusations you know to be false. It's not paranoia, Percy. I'm just better acquainted with the facts than you are. I don't expect you to have an encyclopedic knowledge of what must be tens of thousands of posts addressed to me since 6-27-2010. I don't even expect you to have read most of them. Even more than perhaps a small fraction of them.But answer me honesty - isn't it reasonable for me to suggest that I have read almost all of them, since they were people trying to talk to me? And therefore isn't it actually quite reasonable for me to suggest that the reason I know I'm being misrepresented all the time, and the reason you mistakenly think it's all in my head, is that I'm a lot more familiar with what people are saying to me, and about me, than you are? Of course it is. That's why I know I'm right about the misrepresentations.

He isn't aware that his avatar is not actually a frog, so I expect that self-awareness is still a long way off.

I don't think you looked. My only obligation is to provide a source for my citations; I'm not required to hand-hold you if you can't figure out how to access it. Yes, Hooah.

I'm very well aware that my avatar is a toad, because it's Mr. Toad in his car from The Wind in the Willows. I knew it when I picked it. What gave you the impression I didn't know that?

You're as mad as a box of frogs.

You're proving me right. What could possibly be the motivation behind this personal attack except personal animus, Percy?Just to be clear, Percy, I'm aware that it was Panda who made this comment; that's my point. I'm asking you, Percy, because you don't seem to believe it's possible that people spread falsehoods about me out of personal animus, but here's Panda doing exactly that. If I'm not subject to a unique degree of personal animus, Percy, then why on Earth do people so frequently get so fucking personal in response to me just asking questions about their positions? What had I said that caused AZPaul3 to respond as though he did? What did I say that made hackers attack EvC and bring it down for a week? Give me some kind of reasonable alternative explanation for things like that and I'll revisit my conclusion. But calling me "paranoid" is just another of the personal attacks I'm used to getting from people, like you, who are losing arguments against me.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Because you referred to it as a frog avatar.

He should have chosen Jesus, since he likes to play the martyr so much.

But you didn't do that. Saying Bureau of Prisons is not a citation.

It's been a frog avatar, sometimes. I've had different avatars. ROAD-FR0G was a reference to one I had for quite a few years, before you joined. It was the original Frogger cabinet art. Can't find the link, now, but Percy will get it.