Racism, Guns, Politics, Religion, etc...

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I am so confused by this line of thinking. Isn’t that an argument against having any laws? What’s the point of having laws if people are just going to break them?

The point is no lay person needs a weapon capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of minutes. There is no legitimate purpose for that use.

The problem with this way of thinking is that this rules out way more stuff than you realize. My 12 gauge turkey shotgun holds 5 shells. I can fire all 5 within about 5 seconds. It then takes another 10 seconds to reload. So I can fire about 20 shells per minute If I'm a halfway decent shot (it is a shotgun after all), that's 100 people in 5 minutes. I guess we could quibble about "matter of minutes", but given that the Vegas shooter only killed 58 people in 15 minutes of shooting...

Same thing with most handguns.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I am so confused by this line of thinking. Isn’t that an argument against having any laws? What’s the point of having laws if people are just going to break them?

The point is no lay person needs a weapon capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of minutes. There is no legitimate purpose for that use.

The point is, why make all these changes if they won't help? You just saw the stat, 11,000 homicides. There are so many more things that are killing people. Guns are not a problem.

I feel sorry for the families that lost their children but there is no way someone is going to rob my home.

 

[deleted480308]

I am so confused by this line of thinking. Isn’t that an argument against having any laws? What’s the point of having laws if people are just going to break them?

The point is no lay person needs a weapon capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of minutes. There is no legitimate purpose for that use.

being able to fight a group attacking my home or a tyrant is a very legitimate purpose

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I am so confused by this line of thinking. Isn’t that an argument against having any laws? What’s the point of having laws if people are just going to break them?

The point is no lay person needs a weapon capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of minutes. There is no legitimate purpose for that use.

That's fallacious logic.

This line of thinking is employed when someone wants to enact legislation that will harm someone else, whether financially or otherwise.

If you ban guns, you are harming gun owners in both tangible and intangible ways.

Why harm someone if there will be no demonstrable effect?
Who is harmed by outlawing murder?

That is simply a Sound bite.

EDIT:

There me be no point in me owning an AR, but it has been proven on a national level that the 1994 assault weapons ban was worthless.

So there's no point in banning them either

 

[owlegrad]

EDIT:

There me be no point in me owning an AR, but it has been proven on a national level that the 1994 assault weapons ban was worthless.

So there's no point in banning them either

I would be interested in that proof.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

"Muh meme got btfo so I'm upset"

Obviously it's not an argument against anything to type "muh" in front of it.
There may be a problem if you can't recognize that I'm trying to mock a point that is unworthy of serious discussion.

Like someone bringing up nukes after being pretentious and saying these discussions devolve into ideologues.
It's funny that you made that post, yet you don't seem to have any serious points or data to bring to the table.


Nope, you seem to want me to ignore the basis of your argument and you're refusing to acknowledge my point because of that.

You can keep it slow for me, and I'll keep it short for you:


You're not saying that "people" shouldn't have these weapons.
You're saying a government should had a monopoly on access.
Thus, the "nukes" point is an irrelevant non sequitur, since truly nobody should have nukes.
I can't tell if you intentionally engaged in this exercise in cognitive dissonance, or if you simply can't recognize it

There is never any reason for their use. Ever.

EDIT:

Thanks for being intellectually honesty enough to ignore the "well regulated" meme, but not enough to avoid mentioning it as if it hasn't been disproven both by historians and the Supreme Court.

My point was that it was an obviously irrational thing for normal people to own. It isn't a"non-sequitur." It's another weapon. "Arms" are weapons. I'm separating arms that should have no regulation with weapons that obviously should.
You're just creating pointless noise. It doesn't have to be nukes. It could be napalm or stinger missiles or actual machine guns...or any other weapon people obviously shouldn't be allowed to own. I don't understand why you think you are making a point. You aren't. You're just tilting at windmills.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Anteater has to be a Russian troll. Mods should check his IP address. It probably originates somewhere in Eastern Europe. It's best to just ignore him.

I don't think the FSB is targeting Student Doctor. I think its just a person amusing themselves. And me, to be honest.

 

[VA77]

Does anyone think that instead of going after the guns that maybe legislation should be introduce to reduce the amount of ammo that can be in a magazine. I couldn't imagine the carnage inflicted by a modified rifle fitted with a couple of drums listed below.
C-MAG Magazine AR10 7.62(.308) with Clear Covers,

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Does anyone think that instead of going after the guns that maybe legislation should be introduce to reduce the amount of ammo that can be in a magazine. I couldn't imagine the carnage inflicted by a modified rifle fitted with a couple of drums listed below.
C-MAG Magazine AR10 7.62(.308) with Clear Covers,

I can't think of a logical use of that for home or personal defense. Unless the Russian mafia is after you or something.

 

[deleted480308]

Does anyone think that instead of going after the guns that maybe legislation should be introduce to reduce the amount of ammo that can be in a magazine. I couldn't imagine the carnage inflicted by a modified rifle fitted with a couple of drums listed below.
C-MAG Magazine AR10 7.62(.308) with Clear Covers,

No. No magazine limit

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Does anyone think that instead of going after the guns that maybe legislation should be introduce to reduce the amount of ammo that can be in a magazine. I couldn't imagine the carnage inflicted by a modified rifle fitted with a couple of drums listed below.
C-MAG Magazine AR10 7.62(.308) with Clear Covers,

Its apparently pretty easy to swap out magazines, so even if you limit them to say 15 rounds that doesn't buy you much.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Again laws inhibiting guns in any way will not work. Sure law abiding citizens will follow....... But not criminals.

 

[BidingMyTime]

The government has all gun purchases and owners on a list and when we, the dems, get back in control these people are going to have to do a mandatory psych eval and give up their guns or face long prison sentences. There will be more mass shootings and with each one gun laws will get more and more strict, rightfully so.

'

No, there won't be. Democrats talk like they care about gun control, but they most assuredly do not actually care about gun control. They do not vote for gun control(unless they know it is a vote that won't actually change anything.) Democrats controlled the presidency, house, AND senate in 2008, for example....how many gun control laws did you see being passed then? Zero. And Zero will be passed if Democrats get in control again of the house/congress/presidency. FYI, with most controversial issues, there is very little difference between how Republicans/Democrats vote....although you would never know that by their talking points.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

My point was that it was an obviously irrational thing for normal people to own. It isn't a"non-sequitur." It's another weapon. "Arms" are weapons. I'm separating arms that should have no regulation with weapons that obviously should.
You're just creating pointless noise. It doesn't have to be nukes. It could be napalm or stinger missiles or actual machine guns...or any other weapon people obviously shouldn't be allowed to own. I don't understand why you think you are making a point. You aren't. You're just tilting at windmills.

Ok, I'll try to keep it under 30 words for you:

If regular person shouldn't have AR15, why should a policeman?


You don't want people not to have guns, you only want people who work for institutions rooted in racism to have them.

You are saying governments should have a monopoly on "arms" without stating why.

Do you think the killings of unarmed black men by police was OK?

There are police departments that have armored Humvees with M2HBs mounted on the roof.

Do you think that should be legal?

Lastly, I'd like to point out your problematic use of the words "normal" and "obviously"
It's indicative of closed mindedness and a lack of critical thought.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I would be interested in that proof.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_ban.htm

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

 

[Modest_anteater]

OK so you didn't actually cite a source. But I will:
Guns and Suicide: Racial Disparities in Gun Homicides and Gun Suicides

Let's look at some numbers here.

"For all 50 states plus Washington DC, the average rate of homicides using a gun of any type for whites was 15.88 homicides per 1,000,000 population, while the average rate of homicides using a gun of any type for blacks was 155.51 homicides per 1,000,000 population."

So blacks are 9.8X more likely than whites to kill someone else with a gun.

"For all 50 states plus Washington DC, the average rate of suicide using a gun of any type for whites was 83.68 suicides per 1,000,000 population; the average rate of suicide using a gun of any type for blacks was 31.0 suicides per 1,000,000 population."

Whites are 2.70X as likely to kill themselves compared to blacks.

In 2010 there were a total of around 11,100 homicides and 19,400 suicides.

Converting the above averages to percentages, that means white people killed themselves 14,000 times and other people 1,000 times for a total of 15,000 people killed (roughly).

Doing the same for black people, we get 9,900 other people killed and 5,200 times they killed themselves for a grand total of 15,100 people killed. So roughly the same.

Now let's look at that in terms of population percentages. In 2010 white people made up 72% of the US population while black people made up 13% of the population. So the group that is 5.5X more common caused about the same amount of total firearm deaths.

But yeah, white people are totally more violent gun users.

Thank you for kindly proving my point correct.

"Whites are 2.70X as likely to kill a human compared to blacks"

Whites kill more humans both in terms of absolute numbers and relative to blacks. Suicide and murder are both killing with firearms. This is a distinction without a difference .

Ergo my point stands:

White men are by far the most violent demographic and kill more people with guns per a year than women or any other race.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

thank god, congress is finally starting to ban automatic weapons. This is only the start. Next we will ban all weapons and finally we will start dishing out serious jail time to these degenerate low-brow brutes. Hopefully gun owners will eventually be behind bars for their ownership of a device that has one purpose: to kill other humans.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Thank you for kindly proving my point correct.

"Whites are 2.70X as likely to kill a human compared to blacks"

Whites kill more humans both in terms of absolute numbers and relative to blacks.

Ergo my point stands:

White men are by far the most violent demographic and kill more people with guns per a year than women or any other race.

You didn't even read my Goddamned post, did you? I'll add some bolding to make sure you don't miss it this time around.

In raw numbers whites and blacks kill about the same number per year (blacks actually might kill more, my calculations had them killing 100 more people a year but that was with some rounding involved).

I'll repeat that again:

In raw numbers whites and blacks kill about the same number per year

Now the second point, that I will also repeat to make sure you don't miss it.

In terms of population representation, blacks are much more likely to kill a person with a gun than a white person.

And again...

In terms of population representation, blacks are much more likely to kill a person with a gun than a white person.

 

[Modest_anteater]

You didn't even read my Goddamned post, did you? I'll add some bolding to make sure you don't miss it this time around.

In raw numbers whites and blacks kill about the same number per year (blacks actually might kill more, my calculations had them killing 100 more people a year but that was with some rounding involved).

I'll repeat that again:

In raw numbers whites and blacks kill about the same number per year

Now the second point, that I will also repeat to make sure you don't miss it.

In terms of population representation, blacks are much more likely to kill a person with a gun than a white person.

And again...

In terms of population representation, blacks are much more likely to kill a person with a gun than a white person.

This is wrong. You are saying that blacks disproportionately murder people and that even though blacks kill the same absolute number as whites do bc of this disproportion blacks murder more that is true but you are cherry picking details.

The elephant in the room is that there are at least twice as many suicides as murders in a given year and suicides are disproportionately commited by whites so not only are there a lot more suicides by whites bc there are more whites but there is a crap ton more suicides by whites even relative to blacks. So given that suicides matter a lot more than murders given there are 2-3x more of these types of gun ending life events every year. Whites are the most violent race and kill more people with guns every year both absolutely and relatively by a large and significant margin.

 

[wagrxm2000]

More people die from flu complications then from guns.

The chances of a person getting killed by a gun are so miniscule, there is zero reasons to ban guns.

Why don't "anti-gun" people ever respond to comments about criminals not caring about laws? Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean they aren't useful.

 

[wagrxm2000]

This is wrong. You are saying that blacks disproportionately murder people and that even though blacks kill the same absolute number as whites do bc of this disproportion blacks murder more that is true but you are cherry picking details.

The elephant in the room is that there are at least twice as many suicides as murders in a given year and suicides are disproportionately commited by whites so not only are there a lot more suicides by whites bc there are more whites but there is a crap ton more suicides by whites even relative to blacks. So given that suicides matter a lot more than murders given there are 2-3x more of these types of gun ending life events every year. Whites are the most violent race and kill more people with guns every year both absolutely and relatively by a large and significant margin.

13k deaths, that is nothing.

 

[Modest_anteater]

More people die from flu complications then from guns.

The chances of a person getting killed by a gun are so miniscule, there is zero reasons to ban guns.

Why don't "anti-gun" people ever respond to comments about criminals not caring about laws? Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean they aren't useful.

Demand creates supply but supply also creates demand. more guns = more problems. Laws? guess what, laws work. did you know it's illegal to own RPGs, explosives and tanks? how many criminals do you see ignoring these laws and using tanks to rob banks?

 

[wagrxm2000]

Demand creates supply but supply also creates demand. more guns = more problems. Laws? guess what, laws work. did you know it's illegal to own RPGs, explosives and tanks? how many criminals do you see ignoring these laws and using tanks to rob banks?

Hahaha, why would anyone rob a bank with a tank?

You are so clueless it's hilarious

How are those laws working with the drug problem we have?

 

[wagrxm2000]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...rape-aggravated-assault-and-robbery-combined/

But aren't there laws?????? Hmmm

 

[deleted480308]

This is wrong. You are saying that blacks disproportionately murder people and that even though blacks kill the same absolute number as whites do bc of this disproportion blacks murder more that is true but you are cherry picking details.

The elephant in the room is that there are at least twice as many suicides as murders in a given year and suicides are disproportionately commited by whites so not only are there a lot more suicides by whites bc there are more whites but there is a crap ton more suicides by whites even relative to blacks. So given that suicides matter a lot more than murders given there are 2-3x more of these types of gun ending life events every year. Whites are the most violent race and kill more people with guns every year both absolutely and relatively by a large and significant margin.

Suicides don’t at all matter more. I’m not about to curtail my rights because someone else might commit suicide.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

This is wrong. You are saying that blacks disproportionately murder people and that even though blacks kill the same absolute number as whites do bc of this disproportion blacks murder more that is true but you are cherry picking details.

The elephant in the room is that there are at least twice as many suicides as murders in a given year and suicides are disproportionately commited by whites so not only are there a lot more suicides by whites bc there are more whites but there is a crap ton more suicides by whites even relative to blacks. So given that suicides matter a lot more than murders given there are 2-3x more of these types of gun ending life events every year. Whites are the most violent race and kill more people with guns every year both absolutely and relatively by a large and significant margin.

Now, its absolutely not. That's why I showed my work so completely in my original post including the difference in suicides by race and the significantly higher number of suicides by gun compared to murder by gun. Important points in bold.

Let's review:

On average, whites kill themselves 83.7 times for every 1 million people. Blacks kill themselves 31 times for every 1 million people. That means that for those 2 groups, whites comprise 73% of the suicides while blacks comprise 27% of suicides.

In 2010 there were 19,400 suicides. So white kill themselves 14,100 times. Blacks kill themselves 5, 300 times.

Now let's look at homicides. Blacks kill someone else 155.5 times per million people. Whites kill someone else 15.9 times per million people. That means for these 2 groups, whites are responsible for 9% of homicides while blacks comprise 91% of homicides.

In 2010 there were 11,100 homicides. So based on those percentages, whites killed someone else 1,000 times. Blacks killed someone else 10,100 times.

Now for basic arithmetic. White people: 14,100 suicides + 1,000 homicides = 15,100 people killed.

Black people: 5,300 suicides + 10,100 homicides = 15,400 people killed.

Note: These numbers are slightly different from last time as I rounded to a single decimal point while last time I used 2 decimal points.

Since I did round I assumed that a 1.9% difference in those total numbers is insignificant (ie. that those numbers are so close as to be equal).


So no, white people don't kill more people in total numbers than black people.

Interestingly, the white demographic from my original article does include Hispanics in the "white" category so its possible (if not likely) that white people kill significantly fewer people per year than black people.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Now, its absolutely not. That's why I showed my work so completely in my original post including the difference in suicides by race and the significantly higher number of suicides by gun compared to murder by gun. Important points in bold.

Let's review:

On average, whites kill themselves 83.7 times for every 1 million people. Blacks kill themselves 31 times for every 1 million people. That means that for those 2 groups, whites comprise 73% of the suicides while blacks comprise 27% of suicides.

In 2010 there were 19,400 suicides. So white kill themselves 14,100 times. Blacks kill themselves 5, 300 times.

Now let's look at homicides. Blacks kill someone else 155.5 times per million people. Whites kill someone else 15.9 times per million people. That means for these 2 groups, whites are responsible for 9% of homicides while blacks comprise 91% of homicides.

In 2010 there were 11,100 homicides. So based on those percentages, whites killed someone else 1,000 times. Blacks killed someone else 10,100 times.

Now for basic arithmetic. White people: 14,100 suicides + 1,000 homicides = 15,100 people killed.

Black people: 5,300 suicides + 10,100 homicides = 15,400 people killed.

Note: These numbers are slightly different from last time as I rounded to a single decimal point while last time I used 2 decimal points.

Since I did round I assumed that a 1.9% difference in those total numbers is insignificant (ie. that those numbers are so close as to be equal).


So no, white people don't kill more people in total numbers than black people.

Interestingly, the white demographic from my original article does include Hispanics in the "white" category so its possible (if not likely) that white people kill significantly fewer people per year than black people.

I can't believe the OP got an argument going about how white people kill others with guns around 15 per million people.

How is this even news?

 

[VA77]

Yeah. I was hoping to keep this in the medical/pharmacy field with information pertaining to current policies and procedures and if people felt they needed to change.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Yeah. I was hoping to keep this in the medical/pharmacy field with information pertaining to current policies and procedures and if people felt they needed to change.

How could it all be related?

 

[Modest_anteater]

Now, its absolutely not. That's why I showed my work so completely in my original post including the difference in suicides by race and the significantly higher number of suicides by gun compared to murder by gun. Important points in bold.

Let's review:

On average, whites kill themselves 83.7 times for every 1 million people. Blacks kill themselves 31 times for every 1 million people. That means that for those 2 groups, whites comprise 73% of the suicides while blacks comprise 27% of suicides.

In 2010 there were 19,400 suicides. So white kill themselves 14,100 times. Blacks kill themselves 5, 300 times.

Now let's look at homicides. Blacks kill someone else 155.5 times per million people. Whites kill someone else 15.9 times per million people. That means for these 2 groups, whites are responsible for 9% of homicides while blacks comprise 91% of homicides.

In 2010 there were 11,100 homicides. So based on those percentages, whites killed someone else 1,000 times. Blacks killed someone else 10,100 times.

Now for basic arithmetic. White people: 14,100 suicides + 1,000 homicides = 15,100 people killed.

Black people: 5,300 suicides + 10,100 homicides = 15,400 people killed.

Note: These numbers are slightly different from last time as I rounded to a single decimal point while last time I used 2 decimal points.

Since I did round I assumed that a 1.9% difference in those total numbers is insignificant (ie. that those numbers are so close as to be equal).


So no, white people don't kill more people in total numbers than black people.

Interestingly, the white demographic from my original article does include Hispanics in the "white" category so its possible (if not likely) that white people kill significantly fewer people per year than black people.

I don't agree with your suicide data.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/cdc-study-gun-suicides-getting-worse/

2010 is seven years ago and suicides have gone up while gun deaths have gone down. Using 2016 numbers the math comes out in my favor and you are wrong. Same with 2017. Sure if you want to cherry pick old data to prove a point fine but if we are talking about reality up-to-date issues and use the most data my statement stands correct.

Finally

"Interestingly, the white demographic from my original article does include Hispanics in the "white" category so its possible (if not likely) that white people kill significantly fewer people per year than black people."

True but Hispanics hardly commit suicide relative to whites so any loss in white non-Hispanic murders would be more than gained in additional disproportion of non-Hispanic white suicide. No matter what you do to the numbers I am still correct.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I don't agree with your suicide data.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/cdc-study-gun-suicides-getting-worse/

2010 is seven years ago and suicides have gone up while gun deaths have gone down. Using 2016 numbers the math comes out in my favor and you are wrong. Same with 2017. Sure if you want to cherry pick old data to prove a point fine but if we are talking about reality up-to-date issues and use the most data my statement stands correct.

Suicides is not a gun problem

Owning a gun does not increase a person's chance of committing suicide.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I don't agree with your suicide data.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/cdc-study-gun-suicides-getting-worse/

2010 is seven years ago and suicides have gone up while gun deaths have gone down. Using 2016 numbers the math comes out in my favor and you are wrong. Same with 2017. Sure if you want to cherry pick old data to prove a point fine but if we are talking about reality up-to-date issues and use the most data my statement stands correct.

Prove it. I searched for quite some time and 2010 was the most recent I could find that broke down the data by race.

Seriously, if you can find race-based data more recent I would love to see it. The only suicide data I could find that's newer breaks it down by race and gender and then separately by method but never all 3.

As for homicides, the gun homicide rate in 2016 was 11,000 (Gun-Related Deaths in America Keep Going Up) which is about the same as the 11,100 we saw in 2010 and that I used for my math. Ie. it hasn't gone down compared to the numbers I used.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Suicides is not a gun problem

Owning a gun does not increase a person's chance of committing suicide.

In fairness, it does increase their chances of being successful.

 

[wagrxm2000]

In fairness, it does increase their chances of being successful.

We're still talking about very small numbers.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

We're still talking about very small numbers.

I agree, and I don't actually think suicides should factor into the gun debate.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Ok, I'll try to keep it under 30 words for you:

If regular person shouldn't have AR15, why should a policeman?


You don't want people not to have guns, you only want people who work for institutions rooted in racism to have them.

You are saying governments should have a monopoly on "arms" without stating why.

Do you think the killings of unarmed black men by police was OK?

There are police departments that have armored Humvees with M2HBs mounted on the roof.

Do you think that should be legal?

Ok, Don Quixote. Slow your roll there. You are changing the entire point of the analogy. I really don't get why this is so hard for you to grasp. I'm talking only about the common dude on the street. Not about the police, not about the government...just the regular citizen on the street. My entire point is that there needs to be a logical line in which certain weapons are ok...others aren't. That's it. I have no idea how you extract that I think the police need weapons like that...or that I was sad that black people were killed by police...or whatever the hell else. You are making these crazy leaps of logic that aren't there. We clearly aren't on the same wavelength here.

Lastly, I'd like to point out your problematic use of the words "normal" and "obviously"
It's indicative of closed mindedness and a lack of critical thought.

Man, no it doesn't. Common sense is a thing. The founding document of this country started with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Which was basically Thomas Jefferson saying "Obviously..." And the only closed minded people on here are you and the anteater weirdo. You don't even know what my stance is on all of this is, which is the hilarious thing.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

'

No, there won't be. Democrats talk like they care about gun control, but they most assuredly do not actually care about gun control. They do not vote for gun control(unless they know it is a vote that won't actually change anything.) Democrats controlled the presidency, house, AND senate in 2008, for example....how many gun control laws did you see being passed then? Zero. And Zero will be passed if Democrats get in control again of the house/congress/presidency. FYI, with most controversial issues, there is very little difference between how Republicans/Democrats vote....although you would never know that by their talking points.

You are correct. It's their version of abortion. The GOP waves pictures of dead fetuses in front of the faces of certain religious people and they know they've got their vote. Same thing with guns. Both parties are corrupt. Though to be fair, the GOP is going a lot more overboard on the "being corrupt" thing right now. It might just be because they are in power, though.

 

[wagrxm2000]

You are correct. It's their version of abortion. The GOP waves pictures of dead fetuses in front of the faces of certain religious people and they know they've got their vote. Same thing with guns. Both parties are corrupt. Though to be fair, the GOP is going a lot more overboard on the "being corrupt" thing right now. It might just be because they are in power, though.

Or what channel you watch

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Or what channel you watch

I agree. That's one of the main things I can't stand about politics. I don't watch cable news. I get my news primarily from the AP. They have an awesome app that pops up notifications when something noteworthy happens. I recommend it. AP is one of the few news sources that is rated as least biased and highly factual by MediaBiasCheck as well as having a huge international footprint. Them and Reuters are my main news sources.

I encourage everyone to look up their main source of news on that site. If it's too biased*, stop reading/listening to it. Disconnect, read AP/Reuters, formulate your own opinion.

*That's not implying that slightly biased sources like Wall Street Journal or NY Times aren't good news sources. I don't want to imply that. But if you get your news from shamelessly biased sources like Drudge or HuffPo...or watch any cable news, period, you are being propagandized. And for love of God, stop using Facebook entirely.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Can a mod just update Modest Anteater's sig to say" Citation needed"?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Ok, Don Quixote. Slow your roll there. You are changing the entire point of the analogy. I really don't get why this is so hard for you to grasp. I'm talking only about the common dude on the street. Not about the police, not about the government...just the regular citizen on the street. My entire point is that there needs to be a logical line in which certain weapons are ok...others aren't. That's it. I have no idea how you extract that I think the police need weapons like that...or that I was sad that black people were killed by police...or whatever the hell else. You are making these crazy leaps of logic that aren't there. We clearly aren't on the same wavelength here.




Man, no it doesn't. Common sense is a thing. The founding document of this country started with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Which was basically Thomas Jefferson saying "Obviously..." And the only closed minded people on here are you and the anteater weirdo. You don't even know what my stance is on all of this is, which is the hilarious thing.

I'm not changing the point of anything.

When someone makes a loaded, fallacious argument, of course picking it apart opens up different points.

The point is worthless if you don't take the police into consideration.
Saying a civilian shouldn't own an AR but it's ok for the police to is like saying Oxycontin should be a C2 for patients but should be freely available to MDs.

And it's not that I don't know what your stance is, it's that you haven't thought deeply enough on the stance you're taking.

Please elaborate on and quote the specific parts of my posts that you consider to be closed minded.

Was it when I supported PoC, or when I quoted an objective analysis of the 1994 AWB?

You can't just call something illogical or "closed minded" just because something makes you uncomfortable.

The very statement "We hold these truths" should be a clear sign for you that Thomas Jefferson had more self awareness and critical thinking skills than you do.
Do you see the difference between that and "everyone holds these truths to be self evident, obviously"?

You shouldn't quote things that literally contradict you.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I'm not changing the point of anything.

When someone makes a loaded, fallacious argument, of course picking it apart opens up different points.

And it's not that I don't know what your stance is, it's that you haven't thought deeply enough on the stance you're taking.

I didn't type anything loaded. I typed something that is what I would have assumed is common sense. And it isn't false. And you didn't pick it apart. You went off on a bizarre tangent that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Please elaborate on and quote the specific parts of my posts that you consider to be closed minded.

Was it when I supported PoC, or when I quoted an objective analysis of the 1994 AWB?

You can't just call something illogical or "closed minded" just because something makes you uncomfortable.

That you won't accept that I'm not talking about whatever the hell it is you think I'm talking about? I'm just trying to state the simple thought that there is a line that needs to be established between what arms the common person should be able to own and what they shouldn't...and you go off on this nutty tangent about how nobody needs to own nuclear weapons (which was my point)...and that the police didn't need certain weapons...and that black people were killed by police. Honestly, I'm barely even reading this thread. I'm just responding to the nutty responses you have to my posts. Are you getting people you are responding to confused or something? I'm just left wondering WTF you are going on about.

I barely even care about the gun debate to be honest, because its over. The NRA won. You won't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's just like abortion. It's over. The feminists won. People will always have guns...women will always have the option to have abortions. School shootings will continue. It's just life in America now. Oh well. Unfortunately the freedom to be armed increases the odds a budding spree shooter will have an easier time planning their spree. It's the world we've chosen. It is...what it is.

And none of this makes me "uncomfortable." I have no idea WTF gives you that idea. If it made me uncomfortable, I wouldn't have opened the thread.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I didn't type anything loaded. I typed something that is what I would have assumed is common sense. And it isn't false. And you didn't pick it apart. You went off on a bizarre tangent that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.



That you won't accept that I'm not talking about whatever the hell it is you think I'm talking about? I'm just trying to state the simple thought that there is a line that needs to be established between what arms the common person should be able to own and what they shouldn't...and you go off on this nutty tangent about how nobody needs to own nuclear weapons (which was my point)...and that the police didn't need certain weapons...and that black people were killed by police. Honestly, I'm barely even reading this thread. I'm just responding to the nutty responses you have to my posts. Are you getting people you are responding to confused or something? I'm just left wondering WTF you are going on about.

I barely even care about the gun debate to be honest, because its over. The NRA won. You won't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's just like abortion. It's over. The feminists won. People will always have guns...women will always have the option to have abortions. School shootings will continue. It's just life in America now. Oh well. Unfortunately the freedom to be armed increases the odds a budding spree shooter will have an easier time planning their spree. It's the world we've chosen. It is...what it is.

And none of this makes me "uncomfortable." I have no idea WTF gives you that idea. If it made me uncomfortable, I wouldn't have opened the thread.

"I would have assumed"
Are you not able to recognize the thick, syrupy irony there?

So if I post the following, you wouldn't consider it a grossly oversimplified, loaded statement?
"Normal people should not have access to opioids"

It's dishonest to say that your soundbite meme of a statement doesn't warrant more thorough discussion because "I'm not talking about that"


Why are you commenting about not reading the thread?
Are you doing it to save face because you're getting embarrassed?

You sound like someone who attempts something, is terrible at it, then says "I wasn't even really trying"

Watching you struggle to discover the idea that people are sentient beings that may see the world differently seems all too familiar, unfortunately.

 

[PharmDminus]

I didn't type anything loaded. I typed something that is what I would have assumed is common sense. And it isn't false. And you didn't pick it apart. You went off on a bizarre tangent that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.



That you won't accept that I'm not talking about whatever the hell it is you think I'm talking about? I'm just trying to state the simple thought that there is a line that needs to be established between what arms the common person should be able to own and what they shouldn't...and you go off on this nutty tangent about how nobody needs to own nuclear weapons (which was my point)...and that the police didn't need certain weapons...and that black people were killed by police. Honestly, I'm barely even reading this thread. I'm just responding to the nutty responses you have to my posts. Are you getting people you are responding to confused or something? I'm just left wondering WTF you are going on about.

I barely even care about the gun debate to be honest, because its over. The NRA won. You won't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's just like abortion. It's over. The feminists won. People will always have guns...women will always have the option to have abortions. School shootings will continue. It's just life in America now. Oh well. Unfortunately the freedom to be armed increases the odds a budding spree shooter will have an easier time planning their spree. It's the world we've chosen. It is...what it is.

And none of this makes me "uncomfortable." I have no idea WTF gives you that idea. If it made me uncomfortable, I wouldn't have opened the thread.

“women will always have the right for an abortion?”. I think you may be in for a surprise.......just need one more supreme court judge

 

[wagrxm2000]

“women will always have the right for an abortion?”. I think you may be in for a surprise.......just need one more supreme court judge

Yep this definitely needs stopped.

 

[SClENCE]

When looking at the Florida shooter, it seemed more like a failure of the FBI and local police. We don't need new legislation, we need law enforcement to actually do their job. This guy was reported to the FBI twice and they never even followed up with him. Instead of fixing the problem, people want to sacrifice more liberty to the government... the same government that failed to stop the shooter in the first place. Seems really stupid.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

When looking at the Florida shooter, it seemed more like a failure of the FBI and local police. We don't need new legislation, we need law enforcement to actually do their job. This guy was reported to the FBI twice and they never even followed up with him. Instead of fixing the problem, people want to sacrifice more liberty to the government... the same government that failed to stop the shooter in the first place. Seems really stupid.

Same with the TX shooter.
The military knew he was a piece of **** and did nothing.

Honestly, I don't understand how the teachers can't tell who the risky dangerous ones are.

Looking back through my education, I can pinpoint a bunch of weirdos that should've been monitored.
Pharmacy school included.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I'd also like to point out something that gets missed a lot.

WVU has danced around the concept, but I don't think they've articulated or understood it, maybe.
The problem with "hot" topics like guns, abortion, etc, is that they inspire strong emotional reactions.

Therefore, people have deeper emotional concern.

They instinctively defend points they know to be wrong and fabricate illogical things in pursuit of that defense because their deeper emotional concern.

They presume that since you disagree with them on this issue that they feel strongly about, that you are their enemy.
Therefore, everything you say, even factual, logical points, is seen as an attack.

That is why these discussions devolve so quickly.

 

[owlegrad]

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_ban.htm

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

I am getting 404 for both of those.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I am getting 404 for both of those.

Sorry, old bookmarks.
They're all behind paywalls now.

The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation


EDIT:

Found the 2004 one, but haven't had a chance to review it to make sure Feinstein didn't have her people alter it

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2mo_yEPzCIcp-84w5v-igA

 

[WVUPharm2007]

"I would have assumed"
Are you not able to recognize the thick, syrupy irony there?

So if I post the following, you wouldn't consider it a grossly oversimplified, loaded statement?
"Normal people should not have access to opioids"

Again...this is common sense. Is your entire thing that I'm not spelling out to a "T" that I'm talking about normal civilians and just typed "people?" You are failing to convey to me how you are getting from point A to point B in this leap of logic that you made.

Now the war on drugs...that's a much more interesting issue...to me, anyway...because something positive might actually be done about that...

It's dishonest to say that your soundbite meme of a statement doesn't warrant more thorough discussion because "I'm not talking about that"

WTF are you talking about? You are making up nonsense. I'm talking about how the debate should primarily center around what is logical for people to own vs not own...and you invent some nonsense about how the cops shouldn't have it and that black people are being killed. You do understand that there is a difference between discussing something I actually typed and you having a psychotic break with reality and debating things you imagined I typed, right?

Why are you commenting about not reading the thread?
Are you doing it to save face because you're getting embarrassed?
You sound like someone who attempts something, is terrible at it, then says "I wasn't even really trying"

I told you...I'm not really interested in the gun debate because it is over. The only reason I typed that was because you were going off about your previous posts that I didn't read or really care about. I was just being honest...this thread is tl;dr for my attention span. I'm just replying to your replies to me. The funny thing is that I'd probably be on your side because I think that the entire thing is futile. I can't help it if I keep getting dragged in by some dude with poor reading comprehension and penchant for proclaiming he's "embarrassing" people in an online argument when he is just confused. I'll admit, watching you tilt at windmills is amusing, but it's starting to get old.