Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1045 of 1184 (895279)
06-19-2022 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Tanypteryx
06-19-2022 10:58 AM


Re: Biden's speech
Tanypteryx writes:
Trump never had any energy policies.
Or maybe he did, but they were like all his other policies: exploitation for maximum profit no matter what the cost to future generations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-19-2022 10:58 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2022 11:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 1046 of 1184 (895341)
06-22-2022 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Percy
06-09-2022 9:45 AM


Re: Where are all the good guys with guns?
More on good guys with guns and how wonderfully effective they are. Today's NYT ran an article about it: Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?. I'll summarize.
433 active shooting attacks since 2000 ended this way:
  • 113: the attacked left the scene
  • 110: the attacker committed suicide
  • 98: police shot the attacker
  • 33: police subdued the attacker
  • 42: a bystander subdued the attacker
  • 22: a bystander/security guard/off-duty officer shot the attacker
  • 15: the attacker surrendered
A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun in 22 of 433 cases, or 5% of the time.
A good guy without a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun in 42 of 433 cases, or nearly 10% of the time.
Police stopped a bad guy with a gun, either by subduing him or shooting him, about 30% of the time.
Hopefully this ends the myth, at least in this thread, that the answer to the gun problem is more good guys with guns.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Percy, posted 06-09-2022 9:45 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by Tangle, posted 06-22-2022 6:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1060 of 1184 (895416)
06-26-2022 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1056 by marc9000
06-25-2022 9:27 PM


Re: Our Well Regulated Militia
This is a gun control thread. I think you should open a thread about the media and take all your complaints there.
You say the news media is at fault for not informing you? Yet, every open public budget plan for every federal agency includes arms and ammo for their internal security service.

Public hearings. That is where the interested person can find these things. And the media publishes such, openly, for anyone willing to dig through the minutiae of budget details on a federal agency.
The majority of the general public is not interested in page after page of budget plans, of boring public hearings, or digging through minutiae of budget deals for federal agencies. If the general public doesn't have these things summarized and presented to them by someone, oh, maybe the mainstream media whose job it is to do it, then they become uninformed voters. It's not their fault, they have work to do, and lives to lead.
The media should report on newsworthy events. I'm not sure distilling things like budgetary minutia qualifies unless they suspect something newsworthy is buried in the data, e.g., that the mayor is diverting city work to friends.
This was made clear in polls that showed a percentage of voters wouldn't have voted for Biden if they'd known about the Hunter Biden laptop,...
You don't have a poll. You have a graphic by someone named Kyle Martinsen who didn't reveal that he works for the Republican National Committee as their Deputy Rapid Response Director, and that he worked for the Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., committee during the 2020 election. He's probably around 24, not exactly old enough to have much if any experience with polling, and he went to the University of Buffalo but apparently didn't graduate as he's still a senior. Here's his tweet of his poll:
Here's a closeup of his poll graphic that's more easily readable:
He says his poll question was for people who voted for Biden who were previously unaware of the FBI investigation of Hunter Biden, but never says what percentage of his poll sample that was. Then he announces, obviously erroneously, that 16% of all Biden voters would not have voted for him had they known, when his poll population was only a subset of total Biden voters.
And then there's problems with his poll question:
If you had been aware of this actual evidence in emails, texts, testimony and banking transactions being investigate by the FBI, would you have <presents a number of alternatives>.
This question is known as "poisoning the well." Any poll can be tilted by using the question to feed in negative information. In this case the poll question references "actual evidence" while presenting none but leaving people the strong implication that it isn't the good kind of evidence.
Here's how one might honestly and neutrally phrase such a question:
The FBI is investigating Hunter Biden for possible violations of tax and money laundering laws, and Delaware is investigating whether he violated the law by not registering as a foreign lobbyist. Had you known about these investigations, would you have <presents a number of alternatives>.
Note that I also included the Delaware investigations. Had he asked the question this way he would have gotten different numbers, and then, were he to continue in an honest fashion, he would have reported that the percentage of people indicating they would not have voted for Biden was not a percentage of everyone who voted for Biden, but a percentage of everyone who voted for Biden who also didn't know about the Hunter Biden investigations.
But there's other important information that I could find nowhere on the net. What was his poll size (you need a poll population above around 1700 to have 95% confidence in the results) ? How did he insure that his poll population was a random sample (a random sample is essential to having high confidence in the results)? These are the type of poll requirements that demand an experienced team. Did he have an experienced polling team at his disposal? Who knows?
...and the related corruption between father and son during the Biden vice presidency. This information was all over Fox News and the New York post, but the majority of the public missed it, because the mainstream, over-the-air news covered it up. And the public didn't spend any time digging for it.
Fox News and the New York Post reported these things, yet the investigations haven't been completed yet, and very little information has been made public. Neither outlet is known for its investigative journalism, so it's unlikely they were reporting anything true. As far as I was able to establish, neither Fox News nor the New York Post have ever won any prestigious journalism awards ever. They don't have much credibility.
Climate change is an issue that makes it to the top 5 or 6 of biggest concerns for Americans. They didn't get that concern by digging through reams of scientific information, they got it because the news media summarizes it and sensationalizes it for them.
Sounds like you believe climate change is a fiction perpetrated on the American public by a sensation-seeking news media looking to build readership. Again, you should open a thread on the news media.
So you believe the general public is fully informed,...
I know this is addressed to AZPaul3, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but all the evidence says that the general public is woefully uninformed, the younger the worser. What led you to believe AZPaul3 thinks the general public is fully informed? That's crazy.
What I thought AZPaul3 said, and said very clearly, is that if you're uninformed then it isn't the news media's fault but your own, because the information is out there if you want it. You instead make a determined effort to remain as ignorant as possible about anything that doesn't align with your political views while swallowing whole all kinds of fictions and conspiracy theories from the right. The way your mind seems to work is that if it agrees with or reinforces what you already think then it must be true.
...and approves of all the various domestic government agencies, who are heavily armed, who use taxpayer money to satisfy their appetites for more and more ammo?
This is finally something closer to the thread's topic, though I know nothing about how armed most federal agencies are. My position is that the fewer guns the better.
One of the forum rules says something about "bare assertions". I don't mind bare assertions, if they are logical. Your bare assertion isn't logical. Do you have any links, any proof, that the public is cool with the IRS being heavily armed? Or you think that Matt Gaetz and I are the only ones who wonder about this? And what they believe they need ammo for?
Matt Gaetz, he of allegations of cocaine snorting and sex trafficking and shacking up with a 17-year-old girl and of showing images of girls he'd slept to Republican colleagues on the House floor, and of his legal troubles forcing him to let his law license lapse in Florida since it likely would not have been renewed anyway, is not exactly a font of truth. It is true that the IRS buys guns and ammo for its Criminal Investigation Division, but they have to deal with the modern day equivalents of Al Capone. There are 3300 employees in that division, and they have 4487 guns according to a 2017 Forbes report. I don't know if that's too many guns or not, but let's do a little math.
Let's say that 1500 employees carry guns in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. They have to go to a firing range periodically. Let's say they go four times a year and fire 50 rounds each time. That totals 300,000 rounds annually. The IRS allocates around $750,000 annually for ammunition, so if they purchased 300,000 rounds then they were charged about $2.5 per round. Sounds like a lot, but ammunition gets old and has to be replaced. If their inventory is 5 million rounds as Forbes reported and they replace 10% per year, then that's another 500,000 rounds, so redoing the math that would mean they're paying $0.94 per round. Does that sound reasonable, or still too much?
We don't know the specifics of how many IRS employees carry guns or at least were issued a gun, and we don't know how often on average they use the firing range or how many rounds they fire each time, and we don't know how fast they replace old ammo, but the IRS spending $750,000 annually on ammo seems like a pretty reasonable amount. My own preference is that they not carry guns at all, but given the information available on line the $750,000 doesn't seem out of line in the way Matt Gaetz of all the legal troubles makes it sound.
The IRS wasn't formed until 1953.
That's the year it was formally renamed the Internal Revenue Service (original name was Bureau of Internal Revenue), not the year it was formed. The organization goes back to 1913 when the 16th amendment was ratified. Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion in 1932, which couldn't have happened if the IRS didn't exist then: IRS investigation of Al Capone - Wikisource, the free online library
Wake up, marc9000! There is an entire society here you apparently neglect to see. The media is not responsible for your shoddy and politically-skewed attention span.

Oh my. The Postal Police have guns ... and have had guns since the pony express.
The Pony Express, yes, a time when most American males carried guns, and had NO GUN LAWS to obey. Does today's Postal Police have any new restrictions because of the new gun law Biden recently signed? Does any federal agency? Or are they, and all federal agencies passed over EVERY TIME a new gun law is passed for only the general public to obey?
Your modus operandi for responding to any issue seems to be "Open mouth, sound off senselessly about something, the less relevant the better."
While I favor any laws that reduce the number of guns out there, I don't think we should spend our scarce gun control capital on expanding firearm constraints inside federal agencies. That doesn't seem anywhere close to where the big problems with guns are. The most serious problems are suicides and the many, many one or two at a time shootings.
Enhancing background checks for gun buyers, part of the new legislation, is good. The rest of the bill, which incentivizes "red flag" laws and provides financial assistance for mental health and school safety, is like spitting in the wind: useless and pointless. Including dating partners as potential domestic abusers was the only other good thing.
You are such an idiot.
Another forum rule issue there,...
There's little administration going on here these days, but I gotta say that you'd be difficult for an admin to defend. I think in many cases admins would be faced with the question, "Is he actually sincere but stupid, or is he a troll?" There are no easy ways to get an accurate answer to that question, and so admins will instead apply other approaches, like trying to keep discussion narrowly focused on the topic.
...but I think that one was unofficially suspended when Trump became president, and the economy boomed.
The economy was already booming when Trump took office. You've said this many times and been corrected many times, yet you're still saying it. Behavior like this causes admins to lean in the direction of judging you a troll. Here's a graphic similar to the others you've seen so many times showing the economy with a healthy growth rate under both Obama and Trump:
Oh, but wait, what's that we see in 2020? Is the color yellow instead of blue? Is that a decline in GDP of 3.4%? Gee, who was president in 2020?
Now if you were an anti-Trump nut instead of the reverse and it had been you presenting that graph you would have just left it at that, or at least that's consistent with your history here. Were you anti-Trump you would have said that the economy went down in 2020, that that's all on Trump, and you would have left it at that.
But it isn't you presenting the data, it's me, and so honesty makes it incumbent upon me to note that 2020 was the first covid year when so much of the country shut down for various periods of time. Not Trump's fault. The mishandling of covid that resulted in the highest death rate in the developed world is Trump's fault, but not the economy.
It could have come back in force when he was finally out, but it better stay suspended for awhile, since his replacement is such a disaster.
I've already said a number of times how underwhelming I find Biden. He was just the obvious clear choice when the choice was between a normal politician (that's not praise) and an autocratic, narcissistic, anti-democratic liar with dreams of dictatorship.
So you and all your helpers can continue to call me a flurry of names, it's very impressive.
I find name calling deplorable, mainly because it demonstrates such laziness. If someone has trouble with facts and logic then just say so while citing specific examples. Calling him an idiot is just lazy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by marc9000, posted 06-25-2022 9:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by marc9000, posted 06-27-2022 8:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1062 of 1184 (895436)
06-27-2022 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1037 by marc9000
06-18-2022 10:57 PM


Re: Biden's speech
Was traveling and missed this one.
marc9000 writes:
Percy writes:
The reality is that the media is your favorite whipping boy. You've blamed them for innumerable things over the years.

Just like law abiding citizens with guns are your favorite whipping boy?

Why not just accuse me of being a communist?
Because I don't name call.
Ah, I see. False accusations about treating gun owners as whipping boys are okay, but false accusations of being a communist are not okay. I'm glad you draw the line somewhere about what kind of false accusations you're willing to make.
You propose laws for NO ONE but law abiding citizens, as if that will cause a huge number of guns to magically disappear.
I just want to reduce the number of guns in the country. Naturally this will require legislation, and a little further on I detail what that should cover.
Can't you learn from history, that prohibition DID NOT cause the consumption of alcohol to diminish in any meaningful way? That it caused nothing but additional trouble?
I've often suspected that firing a gun provides a high.
Your analogy of gun control with alcohol control doesn't hold up because examples from all over the world show that the fewer guns, the fewer gun injuries and deaths.
Probably producers and anchors and other high ranking staff in consultation together make these decisions. And yes, of course for a sitting president when he uses the airwaves to undermine democracy. It was known Trump was telling lies then, and he's still telling the same lies.
And Biden never lied when he said "I'M GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE VIRUS", several times during his campaign? The media didn't cut him off.
Let's say that every word out of Biden's mouth is a lie. How is that relevant to Trump's undermining of our democratic institutions and of democracy itself by lying to a base that accepts every unfounded claim he makes?
When it's factual that producers, anchors, and other high ranking staff in the mainstream media overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, they still make sure their news reporting is politically unbiased?
I think you need to start a thread about the media. This thread's about gun control.
If you have no defense for your years of insupportable accusations against the media, just say so.
As you know, I've supported them.
No you haven't. You've ignored all the rebuttals of your baseless claims, which seem to involve watching ABC World News Tonight and then applying all your gratuitous complaints about it to any news media outlet you don't like.
If you want to keep claiming that the mainstream media is completely unbiased, okay.
I never made that claim. My claim is that your claims are biased and exaggerated and frequently just plain wrong. I again suggest you open a thread on the media.
Your helpers will call me names for it, and we'll just have to leave it there.
My helpers? Paranoid much?
I have often said that politicians are all of the same breed. They possess similar qualities, it goes with wanting the job. Naturally some are better than others when it comes to honesty and integrity, but did any previous president, Republican or Democrat, ever lie in ways that threatened the foundation of democracy?
What way is that,...
You're asking for the blatantly obvious for reasons known only to yourself, but to answer your question, Trump called the election fraudulent, even though he knew that was untrue, because he knew it would stir up his base, sowing chaos and confusion that he hoped would disrupt and hopefully change the counting of the electoral college votes, finally resulting in the January 6th insurrection. He's still calling the 2020 presidential election fraudulent even though unable to unearth any evidence, and despite even many Republicans telling him they can find no evidence of fraud anywhere near substantial enough to influence the outcome.
...trying to incrementally destroy the second amendment?
Welcome back to the thread's topic of gun control. Why do you think requiring registration of firearms, requiring that people be licensed to own a firearm, and requiring that guns have more safety features would destroy the second amendment?
How did Trump equally threaten the foundation of democracy?
By undermining faith in our free and fair elections, and by conspiring to hold onto power even though he'd lost the election, i.e., he staged a coup which fortunately failed.
Getting off the backs of oil companies so the U.S. became energy independent?
You've drifted off the topic again, but the United States was already producing more oil than it consumed under Obama.
Now you're just employing scare tactics. Quality gun control would involve registration of firearms, licensing of firearm owners, and hopefully safety improvements to the firearms themselves.
So the government knows who has them, so taking the future step of confiscation becomes easy for them.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you. You know why the government requires registration of cars, boats and planes? Because they're preparing for the future step of taking them away.
I love how climate change alarmists accuse OTHERS of "scare tactics".
Good to know you don't name call.
marc9000 writes:
The more government requirements there are for skilled marksmen, the fewer skilled marksmen there are going to be.

Uh, okay, possibly. So?
So if an unforeseeable event happens in the future (Ukraine?) where as many citizens as possible need to be armed, there would be fewer people who would know how to use them.
Sure, I suppose that's true. But while you wait for this hypothetical invasion we have a horrifyingly high level of firearm-related suicides and homicides, and it's only getting worse:
I know, a laugher, just like on September 10 2001, the thought of U.S. planes being flown into buildings by terrorists was a laugher.
Boy, for someone who doesn't name call you sure have a way of saying some wickedly horrible things about people.
I think we need laws that benefit the most people (i.e., result in the fewest firearm related deaths), not that address one-of events that pull at the heart strings.
LIKE MASS SHOOTINGS?
Mass shootings are now occurring at roughly the rate of one per day. There have been 293 mass shootings so far this year, we're at day 178, so that's 1.6 mass shootings per day. Not a one-of.
After so many errors one wonders that you haven't already begun checking your facts before putting fingers in gear, but I guess it just isn't in you.
Then they're big stuff for ONE kind of law, get the guns from law abiding citizens!!!
The numbers tell us that guns in the home place the residents and their family and friends at greater risk of firearm injury and death, not less. People don't understand this, so after every gun incident in the news gun purchases increase.
But if people understood the reality then people who don't have guns would stand pat, and people who do have guns would review how safely stored their guns and ammunition are and consider reducing the number of guns they own or even getting rid of them entirely.
Forget about mental illness,...
Agreed. It isn't possible to predict what someone will do in the future.
...atheism taught in science classes,...
You're making things up again. Atheism isn't taught in science class. Atheism is not part of any science curriculum. Undoubtedly it comes up sometimes, but how teachers handle it will vary widely.
...decay of morals,...
If rising firearm injuries and deaths is caused by declining religiosity, then why does the more religious United States have far more firearm injuries and deaths than far less religious Europe? What the rising firearm injury and death rates actually correlates with is the number of guns.
I see you chopped the alert to your sarcasm detecter off what you quoted. Anyway, what I've actually said about gun nuts is that they're in love with guns. The guns have an almost mystical power over them that allows them, and you're a good example, to simply deny or ignore all the evidence of their danger and the damage they're doing to our society.
Some would say the mystical power of the brutality of football over football fans is a danger to society. Or violent video games. Or the murder of the unborn. Or climate change hysteria. Or a half dozen other things that have a mystical power over Democrats / Trump haters.
We'll just ignore this irrelevant flow of consciousness response. The facts seem to indicate that handling and firing guns provides a sense of pleasure and reward in many people. The specific physiological responses are many and varied, but adrenaline and serotonin are definitely involved.
My point is that I don't believe a free society can be maintained if many of its people so much take it for granted, that they have no concern for increasing apathy in their fellow citizens, who could be blind to the forces that want to destroy everyone's freedom, as has happened numerous times in world history.
When I said I don't watch TV news, you said, "Then you're very uninformed about what's actually going on," in Message 1012. You began by talking about my knowledge of what's going on in the world, but you argued that it was important to get it from TV news because that's how most people get their news, and suddenly you had shifted to that as the topic. That was not the topic, and it doesn't matter how well I understand how much the general public knows. If "man in the street" style interviews are any indication, on average they know and understand little but have very strong opinions nonetheless.
People who get their news from sources other than or in addition to TV are generally better informed. For me, watching TV news would be redundant and a waste of my time.
Now you're just echoing false claims from the New York Post (Murdoch Corporation) and the Washington Times (Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church) and other conservative media that have little interest in truth and accuracy.
Just like I don't believe the NY Times, Washington Post, and CNN have much interest in truth and accuracy. (and I'm not alone)
Except that you can't support your claims of quality news reporting from the NYP and WT, while I can support mine about the NYT and WP. I again suggest you open a thread on the media.
And more Americans than ever before trust right-wing conspiracy sites. One part of the formula for bringing down a country is to sow distrust in their institutions, among them the news media. It isn't necessary to convince people of lies. It's only necessary to sow confusion and doubt about what is true, and human nature takes care of the rest.
That's why Trump said, "Just say it was corrupt, and leave the rest up to me and Republican congressmen." He didn't want evidence the election was corrupt. He just wanted to sow confusion and doubt about whether it was corrupt. It's been over a year and half since the election, and though Trump is still claiming fraud, evidence anywhere near sufficient to change the outcome is still absent.
Let's keep the discussion anchored in reality. No one besides you is promoting conspiracy theories, including where you accuse others of promoting conspiracy theories.
In response you quote from a website that took a strong pro-Trump turn back in 2017 and accuses Democrats of conspiracy theories I've never heard of let alone that have ever been mentioned by anyone in this thread. It seems that if you want to know what the right is doing, you just look at what they're accusing the left of.
If someone in this thread is promoting conspiracy theories, that's fair game. If you want to discuss Democrat conspiracy theories then open a new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1037 by marc9000, posted 06-18-2022 10:57 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1068 by marc9000, posted 06-27-2022 8:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1075 of 1184 (895455)
06-28-2022 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1066 by marc9000
06-27-2022 8:19 PM


Re: Our Well Regulated Militia
marc9000 writes:
This is a gun control thread.
Yes. So most of this message of yours is about things other than gun control. I guess I'll keep this message of mine focused on the gun control things.
You don't seem to remember much from previous posts. I very recently included comments about staying on topic in a message to you. Do you not remember it? It said that all topics tend to drift into side discussions as part of the natural flow, but that when a diversion onto some other topic becomes long or threatens to displace the main topic then it's time to consider taking it to another more appropriate thread. Does that sound familiar to you? It doesn't seem so, because nothing you just wrote indicates you have any awareness of it. What you said is more in the nature of trying to be intentionally annoying, especially since everything in my post that wasn't about gun control was a response to something you said. I don't generally just spontaneously go off-topic the way you do. My mind doesn't keep dropping into free-association mode, and I don't keep seeing associations that don't exist.
I think you should open a thread about the media and take all your complaints there.
It would be a lot of fun especially now, considering all the rioting that went on this past weekend was reported as "mostly peaceful" by the mainstream media. (Fox News showed a montage of those claims this evening, before showing all the fires and beating on windows and property damage and arrests for attempted murder of policemen, etc.) But everyone knows how biased the mainstream media is, there are tons of links that prove it. But my starting a thread would result in me being called names by a dozen or more posters here, and fending it off would be a full time job. I can't do a full time job here, the pay isn't too good.
Manage your time any way you see fit, but please try to avoid overwhelming main topics with side-discussions.
This is finally something closer to the thread's topic, though I know nothing about how armed most federal agencies are.
That's clear, most gun controllers don't.
Back up the bus there. Just like me, you also have no idea how armed most federal agencies are. You're just throwing out a quote from Matt Gaetz, of all people, who's just trying to distract attention from his legal troubles. It's like your mind is a magnet for unreliable sources.
I provided you specific information about the number of employees in the IRS enforcement division and how much ammo and guns they have and estimated how many carried guns and how many rounds they might use in a year and what the costs might be, and in your reply you...well, you didn't reply. You completely ignored that portion of my message. What's the matter - math challenged?
What did you think of the vid I showed above, of a government supplied bulldozer smashing hundreds of useful motorcycles and ATV's?
I don't usually watch videos (which I've told you at least several times now), so no, of course I didn't. A quick scan of your posts to this thread reveals a single video about Matthew McConaughey, so I assume that's not the one you mean. This is a big country, there are gazillions of things going on all the time. If you think this event represents some kind of meaningful and significant trend within the country that is worth discussing and in some way bears on gun control then please provide the video again. I'll do a quick scan and if it seems relevant and accurate I'll watch it.
What does this have to do with gun control? You'll notice that Ringo, and his green dot providers have no problem with antique cars also being crushed by government. They must have hobbies that don't include antique cars, that they think are no threat to the environment, and they have no fear of government crushers coming after them next. More likely, they have no hobbies at all. I see evidence of lots of people like that, they eat, sleep, sit on their ass, seek entertainment, and do as little work as possible, and burn with jealousy of people who achieve things, like owners of antique cars.
If this is your reasoning for why your video is relevant to gun control then please don't bother providing the video.
marc9000 writes:
One of the forum rules says something about "bare assertions". I don't mind bare assertions, if they are logical. Your bare assertion isn't logical. Do you have any links, any proof, that the public is cool with the IRS being heavily armed? Or you think that Matt Gaetz and I are the only ones who wonder about this? And what they believe they need ammo for?

Matt Gaetz, he of allegations of cocaine snorting and sex trafficking and shacking up with a 17-year-old girl and of showing images of girls he'd slept to Republican colleagues on the House floor, and of his legal troubles forcing him to let his law license lapse in Florida since it likely would not have been renewed anyway, is not exactly a font of truth.
Let's see, in one of your off-topic statements above, did you say something about "poisoning the wells"? (I love this place)
You're using the term "poisoning the well" incorrectly. If what I said was untrue then it would be character assassination, but it is true about the allegations, and federal investigators are looking into them. He's also been arrested for DUI. Read all about it: Matt Gaetz Legal Issues
Enhancing background checks for gun buyers, part of the new legislation, is good. The rest of the bill, which incentivizes "red flag" laws and provides financial assistance for mental health and school safety, is like spitting in the wind: useless and pointless. Including dating partners as potential domestic abusers was the only other good thing.
Yes I know, gun control measures are NEVER enough.
As I've said, what is actually needed is registration, licensing, and safety features.
I find name calling deplorable, mainly because it demonstrates such laziness. If someone has trouble with facts and logic then just say so while citing specific examples. Calling him an idiot is just lazy.
Calling HIM an idiot? Could you have worded that a little differently, or are you trying to make it look like I'm the one doing the name calling? Or are you calling Theodoric and AZPaul lazy?
You're having trouble following simple grammar. "Him" is the "someone" referred to in the previous sentence. I think name calling is lazy, but on the other hand, once you've detailed someone's errors several times, if they persist anyway then it doesn't seem reasonable that one should be required to detail the idiocies over and over again. Eventually, as Jefferson pointed out, ridicule is the only recourse.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1066 by marc9000, posted 06-27-2022 8:19 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1081 by marc9000, posted 07-02-2022 9:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1077 of 1184 (895457)
06-28-2022 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1068 by marc9000
06-27-2022 8:49 PM


Re: Biden's speech
marc9000 writes:
Welcome back to just one off topic comment. Do you remember Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats claiming the elections they lost were illegitimate?
Yes, this is certainly off-topic. No, I don't remember Al Gore or Hillary Clinton claiming the elections they lost were illegitimate. The main reason I don't remember it is because it didn't happen. Here's part of Al Gore's concession speech (full text here):
quote
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.
  —Al Gore
And here's part of Hillary Clinton's concession speech (full text here):
quote
Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.
  —Hillary Clinton
And here's Donald Trump's concession speech in it's entirety:
quote
<crickets>
  —Donald Trump
But here's the kinds of things Donald Trump does say, this from a recent speech in Texas:
quote
...the election got rigged...The election was rigged, it was stolen,...all the shenanigans in the election...It was a disaster on election integrity...the fake election...they use covid in order to steal an election...
  —Donald Trump
Donald Trump is the only person in the history of the United States who has claimed that his presidential election loss was illegitimate.
Did you hear Elizabeth Warren recently claim the the Supreme Court is now illegitimate?
...
Do you think today's Supreme Court is illegitimate?
Yes, of course I read about Elizabeth's Warren's comments. Why do you think she said that? Could it be because the Republicans stole two Supreme Court appointments through political machinations? Could it be because three of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade promised to respect that precedent during the confirmation process? What can one say about a court where more than a fifth are illegitimate and a third are liars? And then there's Clarence Thomas, who's in a class by himself.
Did you hear the queen of Democrat intelligence, Maxine Waters say "To hell with the Supreme Court?" Are they doing this to stir up their base, knowing the rioting will get a free pass from the mainstream media?
Here's a slighter fuller version of her comments:
quote
You ain't seen nothing yet. Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us. The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them. Women will be in control of their bodies. And if they think Black women are intimidated or afraid, they got another thought coming. Black women will be out in droves. We will be out by the thousands, we will be out by the millions. We are going to make sure we fight for the right to control our own bodies.
  —Maxine Waters
Seems like an appropriate response to a court decision that will result in forced births. Here's a recent example of what will become more and more common: She wanted an abortion. Now, she has twins.
Welcome back to the thread's topic of gun control. Why do you think requiring registration of firearms, requiring that people be licensed to own a firearm, and requiring that guns have more safety features would destroy the second amendment?
Because it documents for them just who has the guns, making them easier to round up in the future, Australian style.
If you don't know who has the guns, then how are you going to implement the "red flag" laws you favor? When someone is somehow revealed to be a danger to themselves or others, how do you take their guns away if you don't know they have them? "Got any guns?" "Nope!" Now what?
The types of firearms that were part of Australia's mandatory buyback program were automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you. You know why the government requires registration of cars, boats and planes? Because they're preparing for the future step of taking them away.
Very good, that's it! Climate Change! Let's start with antique cars! But bulldozer drivers and arrogant checkered flag wavers need the government to get the guns first. They prefer to not get filled full of holes.
You're not very clear here. Are you against the registration of cars, boats and planes, too?
marc9000 writes:
I love how climate change alarmists accuse OTHERS of "scare tactics".

Good to know you don't name call.
What name did I call? (I love this place)
"Climate change alarmists" is a complement?
Boy, for someone who doesn't name call you sure have a way of saying some wickedly horrible things about people.
Pointing out a lack of preparedness and foresight of what could happen is the equivalent of name calling?
You need to read more carefully. I didn't label this particular thing that you said name calling. I called it wickedly horrible to say that those in favor of gun control consider 911 a laugher.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by marc9000, posted 06-27-2022 8:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1078 of 1184 (895458)
06-28-2022 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1076 by AZPaul3
06-28-2022 3:59 PM


Re: jar, of Texas
AZPaul3 writes:
Hey jar, you Texas guys always had open carry, right?
So did New Hampshire. There are no registration or licensing requirements. There's a gun store about 5 minutes away, so in less than a half hour I could be walking down Main Street with my loaded gun on my hip, safety off for ready use, and without a bit of training and with no lockboxes at home.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1076 by AZPaul3, posted 06-28-2022 3:59 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1084 of 1184 (895486)
07-03-2022 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1079 by marc9000
07-02-2022 8:34 PM


Re: Where are all the good guys with guns?
Theodoric went very easy on you. Message 1048 where you replied to a sarcastic comment from Tangle is the message in question:
marc9000 in Message 1048 writes:
Tangle writes:
You're not thinking straight Percy. If everyone had to carry a gun by law, then, as there's more good guys than bad guys, it would obviously work out. The trick is to arm everyone.
Very good, that's how Switzerland does it.
quote
As for gun-related crime in general, a 2001 BBC article reported that in Switzerland “the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.”
Gun Ownership in Switzerland
Tangle sarcastically comments that if it were the law that everyone had to carry, since good guys outnumber bad guys it "would obviously work out." You responded that that's how Switzerland does it and quoted Snopes, which doesn't back you up one bit. Switzerland is not a country of open carry. Theodoric responded with Wikipedia, which also doesn't back you up one bit, again because Switzerland is not a country of open carry. Here is your own Snopes reference contradicting you:
quote
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.
  —Snopes
The only way you can seem to find to defend your comments is to misunderstand the criticism and go off in some random direction hoping people will forget what you actually said.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1079 by marc9000, posted 07-02-2022 8:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1085 of 1184 (895488)
07-03-2022 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1081 by marc9000
07-02-2022 9:04 PM


Re: Our Well Regulated Militia
marc9000 writes:
I guess it depends on who is reading what I wrote. I really avoided responding to much of your off-topic comments in both Message 1060 and Message 1062.
All my off-topic comments were responses to your off-topic comments. I introduced no new off-topic subjects. They all originated with you.
You're right about the dependency on who is reading what you wrote. Everyone but you can see your errors quite clearly. Even while cleaning up your messes you create yet more messes.
What you see as "free association mode", comes from two distinct things; 1) As usual here, I'm facing a frantic gang, who pulls me in different directions, trying to shout down free speech.
You're justifying your illogic with more illogic. What you see as a "frantic gang" is simply what happens when one writes something wrong. The more wrong the more attention it draws. And it seems like you're having trouble with the "respond to the comment you just quoted" part of composing messages.
And 2), gun control is something that can have projections and repercussions that start an unlimited array of changes in a once free society.
What does this have to do with the incredible difficulty you have staying on-topic and avoiding free association mode?
I'll comment on the substance now. Here's the rest of your comment:
It has in past societies. Have you noticed, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, how in the news media (even the places where you get YOUR news) that the cries are "WHAT'S NEXT? Will abortion be outlawed nationwide? Will gay marriage be outlawed? How many more of our rights will this Supreme Court deny us?" But in the news, when it comes to gun control, there NEVER is question of WHAT'S NEXT? That should be an advantage to a forum like this, to discuss drifts into relevant, side discussions. But no, I guess not.
People are asking what's next about abortion, birth control, consensual sexual relations (gay sex and sodomy) and gay rights because conservative lawmakers are talking about it, as well as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as expressed in his concurring opinion on Dobbs (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Wikipedia). Gun control supporters feel very fortunate that the recent legislation passed. The likelihood of getting anything more in any practical sense for the foreseeable future seems slim, so no one who isn't delusional is talking about it.
I don't usually watch videos (which I've told you at least several times now), so no, of course I didn't. A quick scan of your posts to this thread reveals a single video about Matthew McConaughey, so I assume that's not the one you mean.
No it's not, your quick scan must have been lightening quick, because it was very plain. It wasn't embedded, but the link was very clear. Message 1057
Are you daft? Of course a scan for your videos can be lightning quick. They're videos. You click on "marc9000 posts only", hit Cmd-- a few times, and all videos just pop off the page. There was just that one.
And you *did* explicitly say you'd posted a video: "What did you think of the vid I showed above..."
If the video you referenced wasn't actually a video but just a link to a webpage with a video you should have said so, in which case I would have replied that I wasn't going to scan through all your posts checking every link to see if it might be to a page with a video. What you were requesting I do was just a tiny bit better than saying, "I posted a relevant link somewhere, go find it." You continue to find new ways to behave rudely.
But there was no need to watch your video. Since I knew the topic it was easy to find articles about it that could be read in much less time than watching the video. If you think the bulldozing of one batch of illegal ATVs, dirt bikes and motorcycles in NYC is representative of a growing and concerning national trend then please explain how?
It very much does feel like there should be much better ways of dealing with these illegal confiscated vehicles, but when you think about it you realize it's not that simple. They can't just be sold at auction to the public - they're illegal. One could designate a department to convert the vehicles to legal, but would that cost be recouped at auction? And wouldn't these once illegal vehicles be easy platforms for conversion back to illegal? Perhaps destruction was the most cost effective and overall effective way of dealing with the problem.
I hope these vehicles weren't seized and destroyed after just a single incident. I hope the destruction of these vehicles was a result of several citations and seizures with no effort to make the vehicles compliant. If not then I'm against the seizure and destruction of these vehicles.
This is a good time to point out the nasty habit you have of repeatedly finding something bad or negative and accusing the people here of advocating it.
And how is this relevant to gun control?
This should be an indicator to you that the 2022 U.S. government isn't a brand new, caring institution that we can blindly entrust all our freedoms to, without worrying the way tyrants in the past have operated. There are videos and instances from the past of government representatives destroying useful property. And that was before climate change was invented.
If that's what you see happening in this country, so far you've been unable to support that with evidence. And again, how is this relevant to gun control? The true goal of those who advocate gun control is reduced firearm injury and death with the accompanying greater freedom from the fear of guns and greater safety in our homes and in public. If there's a better approach than gun control of achieving that goal then this is the right thread for you to talk about it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by marc9000, posted 07-02-2022 9:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1094 of 1184 (895530)
07-05-2022 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1091 by Parasomnium
07-04-2022 5:09 PM


Re: Good guys with a vote: step up
Parasomnium writes:
Well Americans, if you want this madness to end, you know what to do come November. If after the midterm elections the Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority in Congress, the conclusion can only be that the American people, Democrats included, really want their country to be fucked up.
Whatever happens in November will be a reflection of the majority. Of course in some places the party in the majority has been busy at efforts making voting more difficult for those who threaten their hegemony and to create unrepresentative democracy through gerrymandering, which hardly seems the blame of the minority.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1091 by Parasomnium, posted 07-04-2022 5:09 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1095 by xongsmith, posted 07-05-2022 4:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 1097 of 1184 (895749)
07-18-2022 7:07 AM


Finally, a Good Guy With a Gun!
Three people were killed and 2 injured before a 22-year-old from Bartholomew County killed the gunman at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indianapolis last night. This single incident is proof-positive of what the gun nuts have been telling us all along, that it only takes one good-guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. If only everyone was armed all the time mass shootings would all become more like this with only a few dead and injured instead of many. Yes, a few still die or are maimed for life, but that's a price we all willingly and proudly pay to remain the most free nation in the world. Not the most safe, but the most free, which is far more important, because you know you're free when you're packing and are constantly peering around every corner on the lookout for threats. (Mass shooting at Greenwood Park Mall leaves multiple dead, injured)
Keep this freedom in mind the next time you vote, which more and more of you will have to do in person as increasing numbers of jurisdictions are recognizing that mail-in ballots are just a source of widespread fraud and the way Democrats steal elections. Those of you who have been gerrymandered out of existence as a meaningful voter can just skip future elections. Those of you with insufficient ID or who have had all your polling places but one closed or who have to pass through a phalanx of open carry enforcers of honest elections can just stay home.
Long live freedom!
--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo, minor clarification.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1098 by ringo, posted 07-18-2022 11:47 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1099 by Percy, posted 08-04-2022 8:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1099 of 1184 (896275)
08-04-2022 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1097 by Percy
07-18-2022 7:07 AM


Re: Finally, a Good Guy With a Gun!
Here's another example of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun, in this case a robber. A man with an assault-style rifle entered an LA convenience store and pointed it at the 80-year-old owner. The owner grabbed a shotgun from under the counter and shot the man who fled out to a waiting SUV screaming, "He shot my arm off."
Whether at work or strolling around town or whatever, if everyone would just have shotguns with them at all times then crime would be much reduced. Any increase in shootings and stolen firearms and whatever else is easily justified by how much more safe we'll all feel.
The main perpetrator was found at a Southern California hospital in stable but critical condition. When his partners in crime and their stolen SUV were arrested they found a number of stolen firearms. I'm sure all those firearms were safely locked up by their owners in high quality lockboxes and that these criminals are just master locksmiths. The lesson here is that people should buy more guns and not worry about them getting used against themselves, family or friends or being stolen.
80-year-old store owner shoots suspect who attempted to rob LA-area convenience store
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1097 by Percy, posted 07-18-2022 7:07 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1100 by Theodoric, posted 08-04-2022 10:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1103 of 1184 (896492)
08-11-2022 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1101 by Phat
08-11-2022 7:13 AM


Re: In A Nutshell
About the "No one actually does anything" part, you do realize that if the Republicans in Congress and state legislatures were suddenly somehow magicked away that (ignoring the quorum problems) legislation would quickly be passed requiring registration, training, certification, licensing, inspections for proper storage, recertification, etc., everything that conservatives oppose but that would make our laws more closely resemble those in Europe where gun violence is much less.
The solution to gun violence is simple: fewer guns overall, and laws that require gun owners to be more responsible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1101 by Phat, posted 08-11-2022 7:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1104 by Phat, posted 08-11-2022 11:04 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1109 of 1184 (896515)
08-12-2022 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1104 by Phat
08-11-2022 11:04 AM


Re: In A Nutshell
Phat writes:
Perhaps the only question is this: With such legislation in place, would the thieves still be able to get their guns illegally?
Of course it will remain possible to obtain guns illegally. When have laws and law enforcement ever eliminated any type of crime? Any other stupid questions?
What's important is that the more that guns are properly stored in lockboxes, the harder it will be to steal them. Of course they'll need regulations for safe lockboxes. For example, this is not a safe lockbox:
A thief can just pick it up and walk out, then smash the box open at his leisure. A lock cable is almost useless since a serious thief will have a serious pair of cable cutters. A serious lockbox is bolted to a metal frame that has been integrated in some way to the building's structure. Bolting it to wood is useless because a crowbar can pry the lockbox out of wood. Oh, and you need a separate lockbox for your ammunition.
Once guns are safely locked away in serious lockboxes maybe people will realize the guns are not really available for home defense, and further, that their homes and persons have never been under constant threat of attack by thieves and murderers, that the country, most of it, is a far safer place than they thought.
--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1104 by Phat, posted 08-11-2022 11:04 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1118 by Phat, posted 12-12-2022 4:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1111 of 1184 (903054)
12-02-2022 1:11 AM


A Good Guy With a Gun
All you guys and gals out there all hot and bothered because you’ve got a gun to stop all those bad guys should listen to this story. A clerk at a gas station was robbed by two men who then fled. The clerk then pulled his own gun and pursued the men. He fired at them, wounding one in the leg. This wounded man then fired back, killing the clerk.
The robber will not be charged with murder because it was self defense. The prosecutor’s office decided that the clerk erred in pursuing the men.
The lesson here? If you shoot at bad guys and get shot or killed in return, it’s your own damn fault.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/...ct-police-say-suspect-w-rcna59657
—Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1112 by AZPaul3, posted 12-02-2022 4:27 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1115 by Phat, posted 12-02-2022 2:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024