Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
26 online now:
Captcass (1 member, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,705 Year: 16,741/19,786 Month: 866/2,598 Week: 112/251 Day: 65/24 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
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

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 982
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 708 of 834 (848983)
02-20-2019 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by marc9000
02-19-2019 8:18 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
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.

Nah, we think that official statistics (such as the ones posted by Theodoric in message 705 above) are orders of magnitude more likely to be a source of truth than a random, unsubstantiated post on Facebook.

To believe otherwise is the irrational approach of a desperate self-deluding intransigent, who so desperately wants to believe they are right, that they won’t do any fact checking with official sources. The world you believe is real ain’t real - take the red pill...

Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:18 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 709 of 834 (848990)
02-20-2019 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by marc9000
02-19-2019 8:34 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

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?

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?

Allow me to make the point again. There was almost nothing true in your source. The math was wrong, the data was old, and there were errors of fact. You have to straighten all that out before anything you say based upon it can be true.

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.

This subthread is addressing the problems with the numbers you cited in your Message 683. Your "Australian numbers" are the topic of a different subthread, and I'll address them there as necessary. Here in this subthread let's stick to the errors in your Message 683, shall we?

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.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if you're just clueless or actually maliciously dishonest. No one would ever say that it is unsupported that the New York Times has a liberal slant, or contrastingly, that Fox News has a conservative slant. Obviously (to anyone but you) what you said that was an unsupported aspersion was exactly what I quoted, where you called the Time "shills for the Democratic party" and biased due to Trump Derangement Syndrome. You're just trying to distract attention from the erroneous numbers in your Message 683. You're trying to talk about everything else but.

A friend posted that on Facebook, and I followed it to another Facebook page that I'd never heard of.

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.

Having a little reading comprehension problem? Your comment that I responded to was about Facebook, not the NYT. My response was a reference to the large number of Russian accounts found to be embedded in Facebook. Your made-up information originated in Russia for all you know. Way to go, citizen.

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.

About 30% of people in the US own guns, and many more live with or near people who own guns, so that's a problem with well over 30% of the population. People are too flawed and imperfect to be trusted with instruments as dangerous as guns.

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.

How are you going to do that when you can't even keep straight what you said in your own messages? Find some actual facts, Marc, then build your arguments on them. You'll make a lot more sense that way.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:34 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2019 9:09 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 710 of 834 (848992)
02-20-2019 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by marc9000
02-19-2019 9:23 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

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.

You chopped your quote of my message, and thereby the context, which had nothing to do with Austraiia, the age of the US, or the second amendment. Why do you feel lucky to be so uninformed about the gun debate? Why do you feel lucky to be so ignorant of simple math that you couldn't pick out the glaring errors in your Message 683 before posting it?

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,...

Do you think you're somehow special in the way of ICANT whose claimed superhuman abilities make it impossible that he could ever make a mistake, become depressed or mentally ill, become angry, or just become too old and incompetent? Are you not vulnerable to all the frailties to which the human flesh is heir? On what basis should you trust yourself, or anyone, to purchase a gun and then keep it safe and secure in perpetuity throughout their lives.

...I'M TO TURN GUNS AND ALL GUN DECISIONS OVER TO A MASSIVE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT?

If you want you and those around you to be safe then you will dispense with your firearms. Choose whatever method of disposal you like.

Trigger happy police, EPA agents, probably a dozen other government bureaucracies who keep their guns are more trustworthy to me than I myself am?

Given your history here demonstrating a tenuous connection to reality and a seriously flawed judgment I think pretty much anyone would be more trustworthy with a gun than you, but my main point in this thread has been that no human being should be trusted with firearms. People are too flawed and imperfect to be trusted with so dangerous an instrument. The news confirms this everyday, for example, Husband kills wife, self, in murder suicide. Everyday it happens, on and on and on.

Do you think that's a basis of U.S. foundings?

Do you proofread what you write, or does it just flow out of your head and onto the Internet with no editing, because that question doesn't follow from your previous sentence and you're not making any sense. I'll just comment that under our Constitution we're all equal under the law, and just as it's illegal for anyone to own a bazooka, it should be just as illegal for anyone to own a firearm, things like the military, special police forces, and legitimate hunting rifles excepted.

You're trying to analyze my math comprehension,...

You have demonstrated no math comprehension. You should avoid cut-n-pasting anything with digits in it in the future.

I'll need a little more information to find out if you're even at the kindergarten level concerning human history.

You've already demonstrated your math ignorance, and you're more than welcome to continue demonstrating your ignorance on other topics.

Everyone is for border security,

No everyone is not. Recent Democrat obstruction is proof of that.

Aw, come on Marc, quit the barefaced lying. Anyone with a shred of honesty who can read Fox News (a much better source than Baselessbook, by the way) knows that Democrats are against Trump's wall, not border security.

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.

You're off on your own riff now. I never said anything about Democrats being unfairly attacked, only inaccurately characterized as being against border security.

The Democrat base has a large percentage of drug addicts,...

And where in BaselessBook did you find this particular faketoid?

...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.

You're seriously arguing that a drug-addicted Democratic base is lobbying its representatives to oppose border security so they can have cheap drugs? You are one crazy dude. Let us know when you return to Earth.

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".

So I take it this means you're not going to defend the numbers you cited in your Message 683 and that you will let the final word be the posts showing them in error.

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,...

If this theory you're going to tell us about isn't based on your erroneous information, then why mention the erroneous information in the first place?

...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,...

False, for example rising average global temperatures, rising sea levels, land already lost to the sea (Sea level rise has New Jersey residents relocating out of flood zones), melting glaciers, Antarctic ice shelf collapse, increased storm intensity. But let not facts interrupt the flow of your prose. You continue:

...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 its 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.

You are one crazy misinformed dude. Given that I have to leave in five minutes, there's too much wrong in there to break down. Some other time. Skipping to the end:

Does it still work when Republicans have to be held responsible for global warming?

We're all responsible for global warming. The only thing Republicans are being blamed for is ignoring it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 9:23 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17283
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 711 of 834 (848997)
02-20-2019 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by marc9000
02-19-2019 9:23 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.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 9:23 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2019 9:15 PM ringo has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
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: 1014
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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17283
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 714 of 834 (849025)
02-21-2019 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 713 by marc9000
02-20-2019 9:15 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

... it's quick fall could flood YOUR southern border with millions of American refugees like myself.


You'd have to leave your beloved guns behind.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2019 9:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2019 11:12 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 715 of 834 (849027)
02-21-2019 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by ringo
02-21-2019 10:58 AM


Southern Border
You'd have to leave your beloved guns behind.

Our problem is they won't. The US represents a significant long term risk to us. I think there is squat we can do about it and when things get bad any neighbor would be dangerous.

Since we are not going to take the action (see Green New Deal) required over the next decades I'll have to take my own action to avoid the consequences. I'm 73 plan B is to be dead. But I have kids and assholes like the republicans (and our conservatives) are going to risk their lives.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by ringo, posted 02-21-2019 10:58 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 716 of 834 (849029)
02-21-2019 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by marc9000
02-20-2019 9:09 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

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.

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. While responding to your Message 692 I of course did not respond to your Message 693. I hadn't even read it yet. Sometimes I do respond to multiple messages in a single message (usually when Faith posts multiple responses to a single message), and in such cases right at the top I say something like, "I'm responding to multiple messages," and then I identify each message as I respond to it with headings like, "Responding to Message 692" and "Responding to Message 693".

In other words I make perfectly clear what I'm doing, yet you can't even understand why someone would reply only to the message they clicked the "reply" button for. You are indeed a weird and confused dude. Look at the top left of any message, Marc, like my Message 697. Right there it says:

Reply to: Message 692 by marc9000

Why is it so hard for you to understand that when replying to Message 692 that I wouldn't be commenting on your Message 693. When I did reply to your Message 693 a little later that same afternoon I responded to what you said in Message 693, not what you said in other messages, which is what normal people do.

But I won't accuse you of being confused,...

Because that would just be a mindless and untrue, "Oh yeah? Well so are you."

...you're doing dances to bleed me out on time,...

I'm calling attention to your many errors, and how your math disability prevents you from understanding your errors, and how your lack of critical thinking renders you unable to connect facts to conclusions.

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.

We all lead busy lives. Take as much time as you need to respond. There's no hurry.

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.

It is not the fault of advocates for measures that would reduce gun deaths that gun nuts can't defend their love of guns without saying things that are confused, clueless and incomprehensible, not to mention that ignore plain facts.

So in your two most recent messages here, you taunted me 5 times about message 683.

You posted bad numbers and lies and now refuse to take responsibility for them. Good show.

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.

We would use numbers from reliable and trustworthy sources, and we wouldn't post blatant lies like "These numbers are from the CDC" or "80% of homicides are gang related."

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.

...deaths in the hands of past governments who stripped its citizens of their guns.

Assuming you're striving for apples-to-apples comparisons and will use examples from western style democracies, go right ahead and tell us about these figures. Can we assume you'll be getting these figures from BaselessBook?

Show comparisons to all these types of death to previous generations, like 1960 or 1970, long before the Democrat party turned completely socialist,...

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

...and vehemently anti second amendment.

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

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".

You could say that, but there's no evidence that it's true. Meanwhile back in reality there were nearly 40,000 gun deaths last year, up nearly 25% in a decade.

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?

The gun control threads are full of facts and figures and tables and charts showing how dangerous guns are. Here's a couple excellent scatter plots showing how higher gun ownership rates correlate with higher gun death rates, both by countries and by states. These were last posted in Message 675, you must have somehow missed them despite your meticulous and thorough approach:


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.)

BaselessBook leads you astray again, Marc. The consistency with which you're continually wrong is amazing. You have an almost complete inability to accept any fact or figure that is actually true, always grabbing tight of that which is false.

We've already discussed suicide rates in the UK. UK rates are lower than the US. Per 100,000 people, the US rate 13.7 and the UK 7.6.

But I'm sure you'll think of something.

If by "think of something" you mean make something up, so far you've identified nothing we've said that isn't true. Those suicide figures come from List of countries by suicide rate over at Wikipedia - the source of their data is the World Health Organization.

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.

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.

Have at it, it's your forum.

I say the same things at any forum.

Maybe I'll be back in 6 months or so, like usual.

When you return please do try to read back a ways in threads so you don't make the same unfounded and false comments you just made here about no support having been presented for the dangers of widespread gun ownership.

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.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2019 9:09 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2019 11:08 PM Percy has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1699
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.9


(4)
Message 717 of 834 (849030)
02-21-2019 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by marc9000
02-20-2019 9:09 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
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.)

Percy's already pointed out that the suicide rate in the US is much higher than in the UK. Interestingly, the difference between the two is about the rate of suicides by firearms in the US. So if none of the people who shoot themselves in the US died, the US and UK would have about the same suicide rate.

Now, I think this is mostly coincidence, since obviously the causes are more complex than that, but it still amazes me how many people refuse to accept that having guns around will mean more suicides.

It's often claimed that someone determined to kill themselves will kill themselves anyway. And that is, of course, true. But that also fails to understand the mindset of a lot of people who commit suicide. The fact that someone committed suicide does not mean that they spent their entire waking lives walking around plotting to end their esistence and overcoming any obstacle to doing so. Most people who have suicidal thoughts do not kill themselves. And suicidal thoughts are not a constant - people can have dark moments, and then feel fine the next day.

The thing about guns, is that they offer a very quick and easy suicide method with a high probability of success. Person A who keeps a loaded gun in their drawer and one day thinks 'fuck it' and blows their own head off, is not necessarily more suicidal than Person B who has no access to guns and thus survives the night. The more effort is required to commit suicide; the higher the risk of suffering; and the higher the risk of failure; the stronger that 'fuck it' feeling has to be to overcome the natural resistance to killing yourself.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2019 9:09 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2019 11:19 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
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: 1014
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

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12798
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 720 of 834 (849173)
02-27-2019 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by marc9000
02-26-2019 11:19 PM


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)

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2019 11:19 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by marc9000, posted 03-09-2019 8:28 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 721 of 834 (849179)
02-27-2019 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by marc9000
02-26-2019 11:08 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.

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 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.

Your approach, driven at least in part by paranoia, is guaranteed to make a hash of things. Respond to one message at a time, and only to the content of that message. Don't try to cross-correlate the content of messages from different people - that's a hugely difficult task.

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.

Two comments. In your age group it is natural to for people to slow down as they age. Second, what is the proper goal of people as they ease into retirement? 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?

Just a side comment: among my own circle of friends it is common to hear comments like, "I'm so busy now that I'm retired I can't see how I ever had time to work."

I'm not necessarily accusing you of that, your life is none of my business,...

This website is a hobby. Writing software is a hobby (like this website's software, or download the RideGuru app if you've got an iPhone). Tennis is my sport. Golf would be one of my sports, but it just takes so dang long.

...but among my casual acquaintances who make no secret of their liberalism and Democrat voting,...

You have casual acquaintances who make clear their political leanings? Interesting. My experience is that politics rarely comes up in casual conversation with people you don't know well. One common topic of conversation is trying to find acquaintances or friends we have in common.

...I don't see ambition, I don't see useful hobbies.

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?

Useful hobbies, (which my life is loaded with) more often than not involve fossil fuels.

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.

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.

So liberals and Democrats produce little, and with little to lose and everything to gain through government redistribution programs they're not threatened by government seizures of production. And desire for gun control is driven by jealousy of how much fun shooting sports are.

That's an amazing fantasy world you inhabit.

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.

I have said many times in this thread that I do not know how we get from where we are to where we have to be.

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.

You can choose change or no change. Both have consequences.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Well, that was random.

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.

Gun deaths are down in Australia since they took away the guns:

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

You have misread your own link. When you quote the link saying:

quote:
The U.S. is 3rd in murders throughout the world.

The link goes on to say that this has been debunked:

quote:
The fact-checker site Snopes found the first claim to be "mostly false,"...

It's worse than "mostly false" - it's just a lie. The US is not "3rd in murders throughout the world," not even close, not even sort of close, not even remotely close. Look at List of countries by intentional homicide rate. We're around number 97.

quote:
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"?

Your own link says that that second part has also been debunked:

quote:
Snopes' overall conclusion: "No matter which way the data is tortured, it seems that there is no reasonable interpretation by which the United States could be ranked 'third in murders' worldwide, much less 'fourth from the bottom' once Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and Washington D.C. are exempted from those numbers."

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

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.

Marc, this is idiotic. You post no details, reference no source, so how am I supposed to respond? Did Bernie Sanders actually heap praise on Fidel Castro? Hell if I know. If he did, was it to praise their communist system of government? Seems unlikely. Was he perhaps praising their healthcare system. Hmmm, that actually seems likely, let me see what I can find on the Internet...

In November of 2016 on This Week with Martha Raddatz, Bernie Sanders was asked about his 1985 comments praising Fidel Castro for giving Cubans health care and education. She questioned why he said that given that it was a brutal dictatorship. Bernie replied:

quote:
No, of course, their economy is terrible. You're right, it is a dictatorship. They did have a good health -- do have a decent health care system and a decent educational system. A lot of people have left Cuba for better dreams, to fulfill their aspirations.

So, no, the Cuban economy is a disaster. No, I do not praise Fidel Castro.


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. In this context socialism and capitalism are not opposites. All the economies of Europe, which are far more socialistic than ours, are capitalist.

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.

You are, again, very confused. Reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels has nothing to do with socialism.

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

The second amendment is anachronistic. There is no necessity for a right to possess firearms. It should be a rare privilege.

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.

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.

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?

Again, you misinterpreted your page at the McElroy website - I'm not really familiar with McElroy, nor do I see any reason for increasing my familiarity with her. I'm sure she's a very nice person, but you've given no reason why she's relevant to this discussion.

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.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2019 11:08 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by marc9000, posted 03-09-2019 10:01 PM Percy has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019