Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,912 Year: 18,948/19,786 Month: 1,368/1,705 Week: 174/446 Day: 70/104 Hour: 5/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 588 of 834 (842717)
11-06-2018 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by Tangle
11-05-2018 1:31 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
I think I'm going to have to leave this forum, I'm having great difficulty coping with the degree of irrationality and sheer stupidity you guys spout whilst just knowing that you're right.

WELL SAID, WELL SAID!!!!!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Tangle, posted 11-05-2018 1:31 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 683 of 834 (848878)
02-17-2019 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Percy
02-16-2019 8:16 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
How ya doin. Percy? Your favorite punk here. Yes I feel lucky!

quote:
LET'S DO SOME MATH USING CDC NUMBERS:

There were 32,000 gun deaths last year.
60% are suicide.
3% are accidents.
4% are justified.
33% are homicides.
80% of homicides are gang related.

That leaves 1,712 people in a country with a population of 312 million.

You have a 0.00010256410256% chance of death by firearm.

If you are not part of a gang, don't commit crime or plan on committing suicide, you have a 0.000008564102564% chance of death by firearm.

GUNS ARE NOT A PROBLEM - THE MEDIA AND YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE LYING TO YOU AMERICA.


The question is, why are they lying? I have a theory about that. Would you like to hear it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Percy, posted 02-16-2019 8:16 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 684 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2019 6:32 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 685 by Percy, posted 02-18-2019 8:06 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 689 by ringo, posted 02-18-2019 11:26 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 692 of 834 (848939)
02-18-2019 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 684 by Theodoric
02-17-2019 6:32 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Kind of telling that you do not provide a source. CDC reports on guns make no mention of gangs. Hmm, care to actually support this claim.

What is a source worth? Others here sometimes show their source as the NY Times. The Times editors have never made much attempt to show themselves as anything but shills for the Democrat party. The current TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that has swept the country has made the Times bias more glaring than ever before.

A friend posted that on Facebook, and I followed it to another Facebook page that I'd never heard of. Despite liberal sources disagreeing with the exact percentages, it's point remains valid, that is, when there are breakdowns in how guns are used, it makes it more clear that gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem. That's why Percy gets so angry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2019 6:32 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by AZPaul3, posted 02-18-2019 8:31 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 697 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 1:01 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 693 of 834 (848940)
02-18-2019 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Percy
02-18-2019 8:06 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense? Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense?

I largely feel lucky because I saw a tow truck driver not long ago with a 9mm strapped on his side. I also noticed anther guy in a restaurant similarly armed. I'm not that brave, but I admire people who are. They should know that they're more likely to be shot themselves, by a crook or by a policeman, who could claim they felt threatened because he was armed. But it's safe to say they wouldn't carry like that unless they were quite capable of confronting any nutcase who was to start shooting anywhere near them (or me, since I was close by).

Do you feel lucky to be so lacking in judgment that you couldn't even formulate a response to my actual questions?

There were questions in that message? I didn't notice anything more than an emotional rant.

Let me do a little simple math for you. 1712 people divided by 0.00010256410256% is 1.6692 billion people. The population of the US isn't anywhere close to a billion, let along 1.6692 billion. Since doing the math yields an absurdly large population for the US, the percentage is clearly wrong, plus how it was calculated is not described.

If you don't understand how it was calculated, why are you attempting to use it in a math calculation?

Please tell us how they calculated the 0.000008564102564% figure. Garbage-in/garbage-out, Mike, and there's a lot of garbage in your figures.

As I told one of your fixers, that was just a general way to show that the likelihood of being shot in the U.S. is very low, if a person is not part of a gang, doesn't commit a crime or is suicidal.

What those figures generally show, no matter if they're the conservative figures or the liberal figures, (the actual truth is probably somewhere in the middle) is that there are really only two areas where gun crimes are increasing in the U.S. One is with gang violence, some of it because of ethnicity clashes (largely because of our porous southern border) and illegal drug turf wars (largely because of our porous southern border) and the other is from the mass shootings that have happened in only the past 10 years or so. The first one or two were originally dreamed up by nutcases, while all the following ones have been copycats, inspired and recruited by our sensationalizing mainstream news media. As the NRA spokesperson said a year or so ago, the media loves mass shootings. They are ratings gold, and they are masterful at splashing the shooters picture all over the television, shoving microphones in the faces of grieving relatives, anything to give orgasms to a few dozen sick people (future shooters) who are taking all this in. They're probably not exactly overjoyed at the grief of the remaining family members, but it's business. Tobacco companies probably get similar feelings when they hear the death rates from lung cancer. An unfortunate by-product, but it's business.

Before telling us your theory perhaps you could first post a message with no incorrect figures or glaring math errors.

Oh okay, I can do that. The following is from a policeman in Australia. Sorry, I got this one from Facebook too, so you won't believe it since the NY Times hasn't reported it. This is from 2015 as I recall, so try not to get too excited about the "12 months" claim.

quote:
Australian Gun Law Update
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....
lone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that
while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not
and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!

May I give you my theory now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Percy, posted 02-18-2019 8:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2019 9:44 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 2:31 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 701 of 834 (848972)
02-19-2019 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 695 by Theodoric
02-18-2019 9:44 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Neither of your links said much of anything about armed robberies being up 44%. However, your first link said this;

quote:
Assaults Are Up 8.6%-Fiction! & Misleading! The number of assaults in Australia has actually increased more than 8.6% since the 1990s. In 1996, there were 789 assaults, and by 2010 there were 972. Over that time, the number of assaults jumped about 19%, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Wow! That sure proved the "Ed Chenel" link wrong, didn't it?

Also from that link;

quote:
Gun Deaths have climbed 300% in Victoria-Unproven! We weren’t able to find recent statistics on the number of gun deaths in Victoria.

So because they couldn't find it, that makes the claim probably false. Looks like your two links started with a conclusion and then did their best to make it fit. Your two links are just as biased as the "Ed Chenel" link. I also didn't see any exceptions taken to the original claim that there has been a "dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home. I'd rather live in the U.S. thank you very much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2019 9:44 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2019 8:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 702 of 834 (848973)
02-19-2019 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by vimesey
02-19-2019 7:22 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
The problem with people like marc, who think that Facebook is the source of all truth, is that it's like a Gish Gallop on steroids.

And then there are those who think liberal atheist message boards are a source of truth, or have much of anything to do with mainstream thinking in the U.S.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by vimesey, posted 02-19-2019 7:22 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2019 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 708 by vimesey, posted 02-20-2019 2:05 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 704 of 834 (848976)
02-19-2019 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Percy
02-19-2019 1:01 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
It wouldn't have mattered if the source were Albert Einstein - the math was still wrong, the numbers were from nearly a decade ago, and there were errors of fact, such as that the numbers did not come from the CDC and 80% of homicides are not committed by gangs.

No comments about the Australian numbers? Does a "dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home, sound comforting to you? So the link I showed made the claim, while Theodoric's links didn't really address it, I guess that makes it up to common sense to decide if that was a problem, when criminals are assured that law abiding homeowners don't have guns to protect themselves. If you don't believe that dramatic increase happened, then we just have to leave it there.

Casting unsupported aspersions at others doesn't make what you posted any less wrong.

So it's "unsupported" that the NY Times is liberally biased? Uh oh, common sense difference number 2.

Passed on by your Russian handlers, no doubt.

Uh, I guess you haven't heard, but sources other than the NY Times have pretty well concluded that the Trump-Russia collusion hoax is pretty well dead. You might want to consider not calling attention to it.

Now you're just not paying attention. I have stated before that guns are a people problem.

To clarify, they're a people problem concerning about 1% of the population, not 100% of the population.

I'm more perplexed than angered at your ignorance and confusion. You're math-challenged, right?

In the next message, we'll take a look at your history-challenged problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 1:01 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2019 9:09 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 709 by Percy, posted 02-20-2019 10:33 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 707 of 834 (848979)
02-19-2019 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by Percy
02-19-2019 2:31 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
You didn't answer most of the questions. Why do you feel lucky?

I feel a lot luckier than an elderly person living in a rural Australian area. The U.S. is well over 200 years old, so is the second amendment. I'm glad to be here.

Yes, Marc, there were questions in that message. How do you know you won't be the next gun nut who goes off on a rampage? How do you know you'll never get angry or depressed or mentally ill or go postal or just get careless? If you have a gun in your pocket when you were wronged (perhaps you were fired, like Gary Martin at Henry Pratt Co. in Aurora, Illinois, who just last week murdered five fellow employees and injured five policemen), how do you know you won't pull that gun out?

These are rhetorical questions. No one can make such guarantees. The roughly 24,000 gun-related suicides last year tells us that gun owners cannot guarantee they'll never become depressed, suicidal or mentally ill. Most gun owners don't act on their feelings, most that do only kill or injure themselves, but some commit murder/suicides, and some just murder others.

SO SINCE I'M NOT TO TRUST MYSELF, I'M TO TURN GUNS AND ALL GUN DECISIONS OVER TO A MASSIVE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT? Trigger happy police, EPA agents, probably a dozen other government bureaucracies who keep their guns are more trustworthy to me than I myself am? Do you think that's a basis of U.S. foundings? You're trying to analyze my math comprehension, I'll need a little more information to find out if you're even at the kindergarten level concerning human history.

Everyone is for border security,

No everyone is not. Recent Democrat obstruction is proof of that. But Democrats are being unfairly attacked it is true, they're accused of only obstruction of Trump. While that's a big part of it, it's not all of it. The Democrat base has a large percentage of drug addicts, and they've been hammering Pelosi and Schumer to avoid any and all border security, because it causes the price of their illegal drugs to go up. They don't say that of course, they only say they hate Trump, that's good enough for Pelosi and Schumer.

I meant that you should post correct figures for your previous claim, not to make yet another claim full of incorrect figures. I see that Theodoric has already debunked it, so I won't respond to it.

I take it you glanced over his post, thought "yup, he debunked it" without reading the links, and noticing what they didn't contain. That can happen when you have several "fixers".

If your theory is based on the erroneous information you've provided so far, then no, please do not present your theory.

It's not based at all on that, so I'll go ahead now, and leave you and all your fixers to have your love-fest. I believe gun control has, now more than ever, become nothing more than a pre-cursor for another subject. And that subject is global warming/ climate change. The Democrats know they can't impose massive global warming commands to an armed citizenry. Every one of the 150 or so Democrats who are planning to run against Trump in 2020 are very passionate about global warming, even though it's based on nothing more than computer models, and has no possible method of accountability for it's political invasion. Yet none of them say much of anything concerning who they are going to destroy in it's name. There's little question that after a Democrat becomes president, their studies will show that older internal combustion engines are the culprit, and the lower middle class who depends on them are in big big trouble. Cars and trucks are easy even now, they can just refuse to re-register them. (we've seen that before in the sporadic "auto emissions testing" that's gone on in the past couple of decades.) But lawnmowers, chainsaws, tractors, construction equipment, etc etc, they can't invade private property and seize those things from an armed populace. They know that laws don't make guns disappear, all they need is for them to be illegal, for anyone showing or threatening with one in any way to be arrested.

Beto O'Rourke let the truth slip not long ago, that's a wonderful thing about the truth sometimes.

Is the Constitution still relevant

quote:
“I’m hesitant to answer it because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work?” O’Rourke replied. “Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships ... and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”

Yes Beto, does it still work when the citizens are armed? Does it still work when Republicans have to be held responsible for global warming? And the other 149 frantic Trump challengers are screaming NO NO Beto!!! It's too early for that! Little bites at a time is how we become communist!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 2:31 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Percy, posted 02-20-2019 12:29 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 711 by ringo, posted 02-20-2019 2:24 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 712 of 834 (849009)
02-20-2019 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 709 by Percy
02-20-2019 10:33 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
You are as confused as all get out. You didn't mention any "Australian numbers" in your Message 692 that my message was a reply to, so how could I comment on them?

Your message that replied to 692 was your message Message 697. My message referring to the Australian numbers was Message 693. 692 was to Theodoric, 693 was to YOU, so you had to have seen it.

But I won't accuse you of being confused, you're doing dances to bleed me out on time, I've been posting here for 10 years and you have to know by now that I work every day and don't have all day to play here like you and your helpers. Liberals haven't gotten any further than they have about gun control because they can't have a calm, rational discussion about it, without calling people confused, clueless, comprehension problems etc.

So in your two most recent messages here, you taunted me 5 times about message 683. I could put those breakdowns back up, leave the numbers spaces blank, and let you and all your helpers fill in the blanks with numbers from the most liberal sources. I could even add more categories, like deaths from drug overdoses, deaths at the hands of illegal aliens, deaths in the hands of past governments who stripped it's citizens of their guns. Show comparisons to all these types of death to previous generations, like 1960 or 1970, long before the Democrat party turned completely socialist, and vehemently anti second amendment. I could even eliminate or change to be much more neutral the last line, which read "Guns are not a problem - the media and elected officials are lying to you America".

But it wouldn't much matter - it would always show how weak and dangerous the gun control argument really is. If you don't agree, why don't you show some kind of a complete table of figures that supports gun control? You could show for example, how much less the suicide rate is in countries like the United Kingdom, where there is very tight gun control. (uh-oh, sorry, that wouldn't work well for you, suicide is a serious problem in the UK, they just hang and poison themselves.) But I'm sure you'll think of something. Or maybe not, maybe you'll impress your friends here by just finishing out that last word, by insulting me and calling me more names. Have at it, it's your forum. Maybe I'll be back in 6 months or so, like usual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Percy, posted 02-20-2019 10:33 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Percy, posted 02-21-2019 11:33 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 717 by caffeine, posted 02-21-2019 1:25 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 713 of 834 (849010)
02-20-2019 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by ringo
02-20-2019 2:24 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Speaking on behalf of all Canadians, we're glad you're there too.
Please stay here.

I might have some bad news for you, the U.S. southern border is being flooded with refugees from failed socialism of Central and South America. If America goes socialist (Bernie Sanders just raised a record 3+ million dollars in his first 24 hours since his announcement) and since the entire world blames the U.S. for global warming, it's quick fall could flood YOUR southern border with millions of American refugees like myself. So you'd better get started on your southern border wall NOW.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by ringo, posted 02-20-2019 2:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by ringo, posted 02-21-2019 10:58 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 718 of 834 (849164)
02-26-2019 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 716 by Percy
02-21-2019 11:33 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Has it been 6 months yet? Oh well. close enough.

You are a very confused person if you don't understand how normal it is for people to reply to the message they're replying to and not to other random messages.

I WAS confused, I just never gave any thought to how effortless it must be to post as part of a group against one person. I have 0 experience at that, I'm used to being opposed by anywhere from 5 to 15 people, so I have to do things much differently than you do. I have to look over ALL posts since the last time I posted, to carefully check out all the different angles of attack against me, yet sometimes 2 or more posts will say just about the same things, only with different insults. I try to arrange my responses to cover it all without being repetitive, yet trying not to miss anything so that I don't get mocked for that. Unlike you, I don't have several others falling all over themselves supplement what you say, digging up links that you don't need to take the time to do, doing everything they can to cover for you and make you look good. You don't have to worry about missing some things that I always have to watch carefully for. I didn't ask you about the Australian numbers as an aggressive or accusatory question, I was genuinely perplexed. But now I understand, yet it won't change how I do things, including when and how I ask questions.

We all lead busy lives.

In my 64 years of looking around myself in this life, I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing an ever increasing number of people who seem to have 2 goals in life, be idle as much as possible, and be entertained. I'm not necessarily accusing you of that, your life is none of my business, but among my casual acquaintances who make no secret of their liberalism and Democrat voting, I don't see ambition, I don't see useful hobbies. Useful hobbies, (which my life is loaded with) more often than not involve fossil fuels. It's not surprising that people who produce little aren't afraid of a government that is always a threat to confiscate more and more of their production, when they don't have much to give. They like the idea of receiving however, and jealously of the successful figures largely in their support of Democrats. Gun control is largely jealousy of people who enjoy shooting sports.

marc9000 writes:

I could even add more categories, like deaths from drug overdoses, deaths at the hands of illegal aliens,...

Why would you do that? This thread's about gun control, not drug problems or immigration. Stay on topic, you'll cause yourself less confusion.

I would consider more categories because a major societal change, like a severe restriction or elimination of the long traditional second amendment, would penetrate society to likely drastically change other numbers. I'm guessing you would believe that a new law banning private ownership of guns in the U.S. similar to how it's been in the U.K. for generations, that the U.S. would instantly become like the U.K. in gun violence, but it's not that simple. See Unintended consequences Anytime there is a major societal change there are trade-offs, whether it's due to free markets or government mandates. Changes to other issues, often for the worse, usually happen in ways that no one can predict. Fairly abrupt change can happen because of free markets. A couple of examples, the U.S. largely changed from horses and buggies to cars in a period of roughly 25 years. (1905 to 1930) 20 years ago, few people in the U.S had cell phones, 25 years ago, few people in the U.S. or the world had internet access. Most would agree that the trade-offs were worth it, but there really were trade-offs. Lack of good roads for wheeled vehicles, gasoline availability in those early auto days, gasoline explosions (many gasoline delivery drivers were killed in those days) because they were still learning how to safely do it. With cell phones, distracted driving, people (sometimes myself) who wish they didn't have a constant "leash" which a cell phone can be. But again, the good certainly outweighs the bad when it comes to free market changes.

Government mandated changes, not so much. Prohibition; it seemed like a swell idea, until after just over a decade, it became clear that the trade-offs weren't worth it. Moonshining wasn't born during that period, but if flourished during that period. And even after the wrong was righted, moonshining continued to flourish for 30 to 40 more years. The estimate is that before the 21st amendment that repealed the 18th, 10,000 people died from poisoned moonshine, and who knows how many more during the 30's, 40's and 50's. Moonshining was widespread even in the 50's. How many lives could have been saved if probation hadn't happened? It was an unforeseen, unintended consequence.

Then there's the government mandated 55 mph speed limit of the early 70's. No one could foresee Hollywood cashing in on that, with the countless movies, and even a few series (Dukes of Hazard?) that depicted policemen as idiots, and leaves disrespect for speed limits and disdain for police widespread even to this day. There doesn't seem to be much news either way on how Australia is doing with their gun ban. If everything was all rosy down there it seems to me the U.S. news media would be down there doing interviews. The U.S. has a much larger population than does Australia, has a southern border unlike Australia's, and other differences that would make a similar gun ban very unpredictable.

This is from a source that you'll undoubtedly attack and disregard, but chances are it will be worth noting no matter how much time gun control activists have tried to spend to prove it wrong. This gun toting woman links to what Snopes tried to do with it;

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.8836

quote:
The U.S. is 3rd in murders throughout the world. If you remove Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St. Louis and New Orleans the U.S. is then 189th of 193 countries in the entire world. (P.S. All 5 cities have strict gun control laws.)

The square mile area of those 5 cities, (we could even include L.A. and New York) is probably less than 1% of the entire U.S. So we're going to change the 227 year old second amendment for the entire U.S., and not expect some "unintended consequences"?

Do you know what Democrats mean by "socialism" or "democratic socialism" in the context of American politics?

I have a pretty good idea. Bernie Sanders is on video heaping praise on Fidel Castro. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is gaining a lot of support among some high level Democrats to create a government mandate to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years.

marc9000 writes:

..and vehemently anti second amendment.

It *is* a bit antiquated, don't you think?

Horses and buggies are antiquated, but the Amish like them, and are permitted to use them. When something becomes antiquated, it should become voluntarily dropped and unused by people who decide to replace it with something they feel is better, not become dropped and unused because of a government mandate. That's the way it's supposed to be in the U.S. - the way it always has been, and the way it should be with fossil fuels.

You invite the insults by going on extended and uninhibited sprees of falsity. Start saying things that are true and we'll pour accolades upon you.

I hope I came up with some new stuff for you. Has there yet been any "critical thinking" about unintended consequences of some new utopia-creating gun control measures? No time to read back through all the gun control threads tonight.

Also when you return, please try to draw your data from reliable sources. Wikipedia is very good. Fox News is a good news source, just make sure you're reading or watching their news and not their opinion shows. Sean Hannity and the rest of the opinion shows over there are not reliable sources of accurate and factual information, but the Shepard Smith Reporting news program at 3 PM is.

Is Wendy McElroy more biased than the NY Times?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Percy, posted 02-21-2019 11:33 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Percy, posted 02-27-2019 12:47 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 719 of 834 (849165)
02-26-2019 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by caffeine
02-21-2019 1:25 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
This is well understood and is why, for example, drugs you can overdose on are now sold in smaller quantities in the UK than they used to be. Sure, this is annoying to those who have to go and buy new boxes of pills more regularly than they used to, but it also dramatically reduced the number of suicides by overdose. Because when people were in that darkest moment they did not have enough to hand to do the job. And in the time it takes to get enough, that darkest moment has passed.

I do understand that, the point of your entire post is noted.

but it still amazes me how many people refuse to accept that having guns around will mean more suicides.

I think it is accepted, it's impossible to not admit that freedom has a price. But in the U.S. today, there's a lot of controversy about abortion, the late term and botched proposals that Democrats favor. If the babes could talk, it's probably safe to say they'd like a chance at living. While the Democrats seem very icy cold about that, their hearts bleed for people who have failed at living, and make the choice to end their lives. The one-sided compassion seems suspicious. Maybe they only care about suicides because they DON'T care about people who use guns for useful and enjoyable purposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by caffeine, posted 02-21-2019 1:25 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-27-2019 10:15 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 722 of 834 (849433)
03-09-2019 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by Thugpreacha
02-27-2019 10:15 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
I can see your argument. My only comment is that so much of the debates that I hear on a daily basis focus on Liberals vs Conservatives, Democrats vs Republicans...etc...as if one side actually thinks of themselves as the superior human prototype. It gets tiresome to see all arguments framed this way. I mean yes...one can argue that had we no liberals, things would be different...but I would fear a society made up of nothing but conservatives. Do you see my point?
(and the reverse is true as well)

Yes I do. I was told by a moderate at another forum a long time ago that "Both wings need to beat for the eagle to fly". I like that expression, and feel that it applied up until a few decades ago. It applied with Democrats like John F. Kennedy, Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, or (Democrat senator from my state) Wendell Ford. But it's too dangerous to apply it to today's Democrats like llhan Omar, Alexandria Cortez, or Bernie Sanders. U.S. continued existence simply isn't represented by calls for free health care, free college education, eliminating fossil fuels in 10 years etc. It's not possible for productive people in a society like that to have "liberty and pursuit of happiness".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-27-2019 10:15 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 723 of 834 (849435)
03-09-2019 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by Percy
02-27-2019 12:47 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
95% of your post wasn't about gun control, but I'll respond to all of it anyway.

About 50% of it was critical thinking about the possible unintended consequences that could happen with nationwide gun control.

marc9000 writes:

Has it been 6 months yet? Oh well. close enough.

Marc, what is wrong with you? It was you who said, "Maybe I'll be back in 6 months or so, like usual. " Why are you asking me if it's been 6 months when it was you who said that?

You can't recognize a light-hearted little comment? In glancing over your reply to that message, I couldn't help but notice this bombshell of yours;

quote:
You invite the insults by going on extended and uninhibited sprees of falsity. Start saying things that are true and we'll pour accolades upon you.

Did I say anything absolutely false in my message 718? Did I not introduce you to unintended consequences, and link you to a source that you told me you approved of? How could I not hasten back here as quickly as possible and admire my accolades? But alas, I got none, I was deeply shocked and hurt, took me a whole week and a half to collect myself.

Two comments. In your age group it is natural to for people to slow down as they age.

For a minority of them yes, but the majority of them that I see would have a hard time slowing down since they never got started their whole #%*& life.

Second, what is the proper goal of people as they ease into retirement?

Nothing is defined for everyone of course, everyone has different circumstances, but the goals of those in a free society should generally be a desire to not be a burden on society.

I question your assertion that increasing numbers of people want to be idle as much as possible, but even if true if it makes them happy then who are you to question it?

I believe I have a right to question it when my tax dollars goes to prop up their idle lifestyles.

Tennis is my sport.

I played a lot of tennis (informally) in the 1970's. Kept a close eye on the big four tournaments. Loved to watch Jimmy Connors style of play.

You have casual acquaintances who make clear their political leanings?

On facebook, yes. We annoy each other at times, without getting into big arguments.

So you have a positive view of your casual conservative acquaintances and a negative view of your casual liberal acquaintances. About your criteria, who mandated that people, especially in your age group, must have ambition, and must have hobbies, let alone useful hobbies. And aside from the validity of your criteria, have you considered the possibility that your judgments are colored by your political leanings?

I wasn't necessarily referring only to my age group, and as far as "who mandated", of course no one does, but the problem I see is that people who are largely inactive often like to see active people like myself restricted in my activities by government mandates. It's a human nature thing called jealousy. It's a large part of the gun control debate. It's almost impossible for a government tyrant to take control of the masses without a percentage of the masses helping them along. Later when they lose their own freedoms that they were taking for granted, they realize their mistake, but by then it's too late.

Nearly everything we do involves fossil fuels. If you're wearing clothes while you do something then it involves fossil fuels. We need to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases and increase our use of renewable non-greenhouse gas generating energy sources.

Free markets can successfully do it, government mandates, (incentives, mandates, and all the corruption that goes with it) cannot.

The rise of suburbia and the middle class created shopping malls, the Internet is killing them. Good, bad, or just change?

Good. Free markets.

The government decided decades ago that it would herd us all into small econo-box cars by regulating big, gas hog cars out of existence. So the public has now flocked to big SUV's and 4 door pickup trucks. Little doubt that overall fuel mileage has gone DOWN since the government meddled. Bad.

Government mandated change: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the end of slavery, the women's vote, rural electrification, affordable healthcare.

Social security; going broke, Medicare, Medicaid; part of our $22 trillion debt, end of slavery; Republicans, women's vote, oh do I dare touch that one (how many women vote for politicians because they're good lookin dudes?) Affordable healthcare? Can never happen, we've done far more research and development than our society can afford. Shifting around the methods of paying for it is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Marc, I can understand resenting the insults, but you gotta admit it's pretty stupid to post a link debunking your own argument.

Snopes doesn't really "debunk" anything, since they're as liberal as any liberal source. But I was at least hoping for some accolades.

But the question remains, do you know what "socialism" or "democratic socialism" means in the context of American politics? Rather than risk another broadly wrong or irrelevant answer from you I shall provide the answer. All socialism means in American politics is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a social safety net, affordable healthcare, jobs that pay a living wage, and restraints on unbridled capitalism.

So you see some kind of barrier, that prevents the U.S. from becoming TOO socialist? I don't think that barrier exists. A good argument can be made that "liberty and pursuit of happiness" are almost impossible to have now, with our ever increasing safety nets and illegal immigration.

You are, yet again, very confused. How do you begin with the 2nd Amendment and end with fossil fuels?

If the Democrats want the government to be involved in the future banning of fossil fuels, they're going to have to outlaw the private ownership of guns. They know they're going to have a hard time seizing older fossil fuel burning engines from an armed populace. I don't think prohibition, or the 55 mph speed limit would have ever been reversed from an unarmed populace.

No one's claiming utopia will follow the banning of guns. Guns won't be eliminated. Murders and suicides will still happen, though at a much lower rate.

Guns are simple pieces of hardware in today's technology. They can be manufactured in any basement or garage with a few basic machine tools. It would be much harder than outdoor, smoky moonshine stills were, for the government to find. Much more value, of the illegal product to be transported in car trunks. The unintended consequences of that, and many other trade-offs, could result in more deaths than we have now.

As to bias, if you're talking about news rather than opinion, the New York Times news reporting is generally straight up. For example, the current headline is Testifying to Congress, Cohen Calls Trump a ‘Racist,’ a ‘Con Man’ and a ‘Cheat’. I have no doubt that the headline is completely accurate. The link takes you to live coverage, which given that it is just a camera pointed at Cohen I assume that it, too, is completely accurate.

Sure, they can report news in a way that they can't be accused of outright lies. Everyone knows that Cohen said that, most all of the mainstream news had shouted it over and over and over and over again. Yet when Nancy Pelosi took off on her Hawaii vacation just days after the government shutdown, I watched ABC World News Tonight carefully for the next several nights, and they said not one word about that, while Trump stayed at the White House ready to negotiate. If the situation were reversed, (Democrat in White House, Republican house leader on vacation during shutdown) do ya think ABC and CNN would have had anything to say about that?

It's natural for the news media to lean left, it creates controversy and therefore ratings, but I've little doubt that they're completely bought and paid for by the Democrat party today. The omission of so much important news, (often only reported on Fox) and the trumpeting of the smallest details of Trump's life make it all too clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Percy, posted 02-27-2019 12:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by ringo, posted 03-10-2019 2:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 725 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-10-2019 3:31 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 726 by Percy, posted 03-10-2019 8:12 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1015
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 727 of 834 (849500)
03-11-2019 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Thugpreacha
03-10-2019 3:31 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Thumbing your nose at the idle liberals is also a human nature thing called Greed. It reminds me of a Bernie Sanders joke.

Political columnist Thomas Sowell puts it this way;

quote:
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2056.Thomas_Sowell

He's just being a little sarcastic there, he understands. He understands that liberals sometimes pervert words in the English language to give a false impression to uninformed people.

I bet it grinds your gears to have to share. Let them eat cake, right?

I don't think the word "share" applies to ever increasing taxation by a massive government.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-10-2019 3:31 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-11-2019 11:42 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019