Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Fooling the gullibleFollow

#52 Jan 04 2013 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,435 posts
Oh. Smash? Ironically, about the only thing that can actually prevent a crime from being committed is an armed potential victim.

Except of course that it doesn't. Other than that, it's incredibly effective.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#53 Jan 04 2013 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
I've learned that if I carry around a gun, even if I don't want to, nothing bad will ever happen to me or anyone I'm around. Why do we even need the police or military? We can just give EVERYONE guns and the world will be a better place! Yay!
#54 Jan 04 2013 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,587 posts
I don't want a gun (can't own one legally, anyway), BUT I think we should give all civilian a brick wall.

That way, they won't need a civilian with a gun to kill someone who goes on a killing spree, they can just hide behind the wall until the shooting stops! Smiley: banghead
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#55 Jan 04 2013 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,435 posts
I've learned that if I carry around a gun, even if I don't want to, nothing bad will ever happen to me or anyone I'm around. Why do we even need the police or military? We can just give EVERYONE guns and the world will be a better place! Yay!

Works in Somalia, amirite?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#56 Jan 04 2013 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We should just have rain barrels full of guns on every street corner. So any time you see a crime or something... BAM!... guy with a gun right there to start firing!

We'd be the safest place anywhere. We shouldn't even bother with licensing or restrictions or anything. When you're being rape-murdered, do you really care if the guy shooting your rape-murderist is licensed or a criminal himself? Of course not. You just want the other guy dead. And, for that, that man is going to need guns.

Edited, Jan 4th 2013 10:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Jan 05 2013 at 4:07 AM Rating: Good
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,697 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I DON'T WANT A FRIGGIN GUN.

I do.

Quote:
I want gun control in place so those law-abiding citizens that NEED those guns aren't allowed to own them so that their insane relative can get a hold of them.

Well, **** you. I want good people to be able to protect themselves against bad people. You want good people to not have that option of protection against bad people. Guess which one sounds worse than the other.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#58 Jan 05 2013 at 5:19 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I DON'T WANT A FRIGGIN GUN.

I do.

Quote:
I want gun control in place so those law-abiding citizens that NEED those guns aren't allowed to own them so that their insane relative can get a hold of them.

Well, @#%^ you. I want good people to be able to protect themselves against bad people. You want good people to not have that option of protection against bad people. Guess which one sounds worse than the other.

No where did I ever say that no one should have a gun. I said *I* don't want a gun and I don't think more guns is the answer.

So **** you.
#59 Jan 05 2013 at 8:07 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Tupac wrote:
@#%^ all y'all.


Edited, Jan 5th 2013 8:07am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#60 Jan 05 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Well, @#%^ you. I want good people to be able to protect themselves against bad people. You want good people to not have that option of protection against bad people. Guess which one sounds worse than the other.
The more guns one, because bad people don't just go around shooting random people. You pretty much never have the need to defend yourself with a gun, ever.


Oh, and the less guns thing works pretty much everywhere else.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#61 Jan 05 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,473 posts
Quote:
At preventing everyone else from owning firearms? Yes. At preventing spree killings? Not so much.


LOL you should go look at some facts on that. I know you don't like facts but what the ****. Go read about Japan. The lowest per capita murder rate from guns in the world, and the lowest per capita gun ownership in the world. The government is entitled to perform search and seizure as they please, perhaps its a police state....but before you go off on a tangent about the people being able to fight back against government control...Tunisia toppled a 24 year old dictatorship despite having the second least number of guns per capita in the world...and conveniently launched the Arab spring.

Outside of hunting rifles guns serve no purpose other than killing people. It is their only purpose. Less Guns = Less Gun related murders. Numbers don't lie...of course you would have to accept facts as reliable sources of information...and we all know how you feel about facts.

Guns kill people. Period.

On the same day as Sandyhook a stabbing spree occurred in China...how many folks died in the stabbing spree 0. 0 @#%^ing people of 23 stabbed...You have to be able to see the difference. I hope.

Edited, Jan 5th 2013 4:37pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#62 Jan 05 2013 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
I'm sure this will be relevant soon enough.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#63 Jan 05 2013 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,267 posts
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a false dilemma: "If we take away guns, then people will use knives, if we take away knives, they'll use sticks, if we take away sticks, they'll use fists. Do you want to cut everyone's hands off?"



Actually, that's a slippery slope fallacy Smash. Try to keep them straight.


Nope. A slippery slope would be, "if they ban guns now, they'll ban knives next." It's an unsupported assumption of escalation.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#64 Jan 05 2013 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT

Government won't know you're serious about overthrowing tyrants if you don't murder some citizens in a townhouse now and then. Second Amendment represent!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Jan 05 2013 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,004 posts
Man, this guy isn't even the worst maniac shooter in the local area.

Talk about B-league villains.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#66 Jan 06 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,922 posts
Killing sprees do happen in countries with strict gun control. Two years ago a guy went nuts in Luik, Belgium. He used an assault weapon and hand grenades, killing six. (The assault weapon was Belgian, that's something I guess)

Then there's Hans van Themsche who shot and killed a two year old girl along with her nanny on the streets of Antwerp, after killing another woman. (Both women were of foreign origin, his motive)
That was seven years ago.


Then there's Van Gelder who stabbed three kids to death, after a trial kill of an elder woman. He wanted to kill everyone around him. I suppose it would have been seriously worse if he did have a gun.

The combining factor in all three cases was the mental state of the killers. All three were pretty nuts. Same with Breivik and the kid in Connecticut. Along with pretty much most sprees.
Guns do not kill people, people do that. It only makes it easier.

(And I'm not just saying that to defend the last profitable export product Belgium has, guns to the US mostly)
____________________________


#67 Jan 06 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,979 posts
So how many years did you have to go back to get two 'mass shooting' examples in foreign countries with stricter gun control laws?

I wonder how long you have to go back in the US to find two...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#68 Jan 06 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,922 posts
Belgium has eleven million inhabitants, the US over threehundred million.

And the gun control in Belgium is about the strictest in the world.
____________________________


#69 Jan 06 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Zieveraar wrote:
Killing sprees do happen in countries with strict gun control. Two years ago a guy went nuts in Luik, Belgium. He used an assault weapon and hand grenades, killing six. (The assault weapon was Belgian, that's something I guess)

The original point was to mitigate the amount of damage done. Pointing to rare occurrences every 3-4 years in a foreign country with strict laws (versus the "every three months" here in the US) only lends evidence to the effectiveness of those laws.

Put simpler, Gun Deaths per Capita Among Industrialized Nations

Edited, Jan 6th 2013 11:53am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Jan 06 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
Ziezeraar wrote:
Killing sprees do happen in countries with strict gun control.


Lung cancer happens in people who don't smoke.
#71 Jan 07 2013 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Zieveraar wrote:

Guns do not kill people, people do that. It only makes it easier.

That's the point.

You'll never rid the world of people that will do harm to other people. The absence of guns will minimize the impact.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#72 Jan 07 2013 at 8:49 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
More people are kicked to death every year than killed with Assault Rifles (in Homicide cases, not Wars)
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#73 Jan 07 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Firearms are equalizers.


So are nukes.
#74 Jan 07 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
More people are kicked to death every year than killed with Assault Rifles (in Homicide cases, not Wars)

Assuming this is true... And?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Jan 07 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
******
44,002 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Yep, how many people can you kill with 3 round shotgun vs say an AR-15 in 10 minutes?
Depending on the range, more with an AA-12.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Jan 07 2013 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
More people are kicked to death every year than killed with Assault Rifles (in Homicide cases, not Wars)

Assuming this is true... And?

I blame EQ snakes.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#77 Jan 07 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,435 posts
Yep, how many people can you kill with 3 round shotgun vs say an AR-15 in 10 minutes

Depends. If they were arranged properly, like a densely packed 1800's slave ship, you might get more out of the shotgun.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Jan 07 2013 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Quote:

Terrifyingspeed wrote:

More people are kicked to death every year than killed with Assault Rifles (in Homicide cases, not Wars)

Assuming this is true... And?

Well, others have brought up the rate or volume of various types of lethal force, and I'm always curious if people really want to save others, or ar primarilly responding on an emotional level to the nature of gun violence.
To me, its a necessary part of the discussion, because if we are actually trying to make the world a safer place.......we have to operate from reality.
In reality, most states are already kicking people out of prison early due to overcrowding/funding issues and no real discussion happens about how many "Technical" violations of gun laws actually result in significant penalties. Any discussion of new legislation must address application.
Many years ago most 7-11's installed cash "Drop Safes" put up tape measure next to the door for accurate physical description/installed video capture systems & (in calif. at least) put up stickers that said "Use a Gun go to prison" (supposedly an extra 5 yrs for gun use) but many robbers now dont even go to prison AT ALL. (and many in prison are being sent back to counties for hybrid probation).
I would love there to be a Biometric Scanner of some type that wouldnt allow a gun to be used in random homicidal fashion, but......

The mental heath discussion is also dangerously close to going back to the dark ages (one flew over the cuckoos nest days) before the MHA of 1983 & Habeus Corpus civil rights suits.
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#79 Jan 07 2013 at 10:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,435 posts

Well, others have brought up the rate or volume of various types of lethal force, and I'm always curious if people really want to save others, or ar primarilly responding on an emotional level to the nature of gun violence.


No you aren't "curious". You've either decided on a position and want to take an intellectually dishonest approach to arguing in favor of it, or you're colossally stupid. The answer to you question is obviously "both". People really want to save others AND they're responding based on emotion. Pretending that it's logically unsound to decide "we need to find a balance between anyone having access to any means of killing other people and outlawing boards with nails in them" lacks any sort of credulity. Arguing where on that line we make it very hard to acquire some sort of weapon is all this is. Should I be able to go buy mustard gas shells at a flea market? Shout it be illegal to own a knife with a blade longer than 5 inches? These are the actual questions of the debate, not "well, more people are killed with rocks than assault rifles, golly, folks will just use rocks if there are now guns, doh do doh herp derp".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#80 Jan 07 2013 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,896 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Firearms are equalizers.


So are nukes.


Number of world wars prior to nukes = 2.
Number of world wars after nukes = 0

The power of statistics. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#81 Jan 07 2013 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
Quote:
Assuming this is true... And?
Well, others have brought up the rate or volume of various types of lethal force, and I'm always curious if people really want to save others, or ar primarilly responding on an emotional level to the nature of gun violence.

If A is deaths via kicking and B is deaths via gunshot, it's still better to have the yearly murder rate be A than A+B, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Jan 07 2013 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,435 posts

If A is deaths via kicking and B is deaths via gunshot, it's still better to have the yearly murder rate be A than A+B, right?


Don't be silly, you missed the obvious implication that with a void of easy to get guns, the mighty shod foot will fill the killing vacuum, and crazies will kick large groups of children to death.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#83 Jan 07 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,004 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

If A is deaths via kicking and B is deaths via gunshot, it's still better to have the yearly murder rate be A than A+B, right?


Don't be silly, you missed the obvious implication that with a void of easy to get guns, the mighty shod foot will fill the killing vacuum, and crazies will kick large groups of children to death.


And thus the Foot Clan was formed.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#84 Jan 07 2013 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
******
44,002 posts
Cowabunga.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Jan 07 2013 at 12:49 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
This thread just took a disturbingly chelonian turn.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#86 Jan 07 2013 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
doh do doh herp derp"

Put that to music and we might just have something !
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#87 Jan 07 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
This thread just took a disturbingly chelonian turn.

The rise and fall of the biped.

....It was fun while it lasted.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#88 Jan 07 2013 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
More people are kicked to death every year than killed with Assault Rifles (in Homicide cases, not Wars)

Assuming this is true... And?
Ban steel-toed boots...DUH
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#89 Jan 07 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
More people are kicked to death every year than killed with Assault Rifles (in Homicide cases, not Wars)

Assuming this is true... And?
Ban steel-toed boots...DUH

Sure, but don't touch the stilettos. Smiley: sly
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#90 Jan 07 2013 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
More people are kicked to death every year than killed with Assault Rifles (in Homicide cases, not Wars)

Assuming this is true... And?
Ban steel-toed boots...DUH

Sure, but don't touch the stilettos. Smiley: sly
Screenshot



barely
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#91 Jan 07 2013 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
If people were more responsible with their guns, I'd be on the side of less control. But people aren't. Those guns weren't Adam's. They were his mother's, who owned them legally and should have done a better job of keeping them out of her psycho son's reach. She didn't, and now she's dead, twenty kids are dead, he's dead, and there's another national discussion about guns.

Why first graders? Who knows. Something snapped that reminded him of those boys who bullied him because he was different in 1st grade, setting the stage for the rest of his miserable life of exclusion from normal social interaction. Maybe he was visited by a ghost who told him it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster's will that he sacrifice innocent blood. Or maybe, he was just a really bad guy. We'll never know the *why*.

What we DO know though, is that if Adam's mother hadn't been able to stockpile a small ******* in her home (and if she had been able to admit that her precious little boy was a lunatic and kept him away from the **** guns) that day would have gone a lot differently.

I blame her, mostly. I grieve for the families of those kids, but for every lunatic taking a gun on a killing spree, there's a handful of people who just ignored his cries for help all the years before. If we aren't going to address the state of the average american's mental health, we sure as **** better keep closer control on what kinds of weapons are out there in the wild.

Edited, Jan 7th 2013 4:50pm by Torrence
#92 Jan 07 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a false dilemma: "If we take away guns, then people will use knives, if we take away knives, they'll use sticks, if we take away sticks, they'll use fists. Do you want to cut everyone's hands off?"



Actually, that's a slippery slope fallacy Smash. Try to keep them straight.


Nope. A slippery slope would be, "if they ban guns now, they'll ban knives next." It's an unsupported assumption of escalation.


Er... That's exactly what he's doing. He's comparing a proposed action (banning guns) to an end point in a string of such actions (chopping off people's hands), then arguing that since the end point is a bad idea that the proposed action right now must be. That's a textbook slippery slope argument.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Jan 07 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,979 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a false dilemma: "If we take away guns, then people will use knives, if we take away knives, they'll use sticks, if we take away sticks, they'll use fists. Do you want to cut everyone's hands off?"



Actually, that's a slippery slope fallacy Smash. Try to keep them straight.


Nope. A slippery slope would be, "if they ban guns now, they'll ban knives next." It's an unsupported assumption of escalation.


Er... That's exactly what he's doing. He's comparing a proposed action (banning guns) to an end point in a string of such actions (chopping off people's hands), then arguing that since the end point is a bad idea that the proposed action right now must be. That's a textbook slippery slope argument.


No, it's not that if they take away guns, they'll take away knives next (the slippery slope). It's that every gun criminal will just use knives instead of the original guns.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#94 Jan 07 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Torrence wrote:
If people were more responsible with their guns, I'd be on the side of less control. But people aren't.


"People" are. An incredibly small percentage of people aren't. But that's the same with anything in life. Do you have any idea how many millions of people legally own firearms in the US but don't go on shooting sprees? "People" tend to be vastly more responsible with their guns than they are with their cars, or their swimming pools, or household cleaners. But that would require actually applying a useful measurement for "responsible".

Quote:
Those guns weren't Adam's. They were his mother's, who owned them legally and should have done a better job of keeping them out of her psycho son's reach. She didn't, and now she's dead, twenty kids are dead, he's dead, and there's another national discussion about guns.


Hindsight is always 20/20.

Quote:
Why first graders? Who knows.


Many people know. You are not one of them because you have chosen to remain ignorant about the issue at hand. He chose first graders, and that specific class of first graders because his mother had been spending more time with them than with him and he felt she loved them more than she loved him. This was not a "I'm going to take these guns that are sitting around and randomly pick people to kill with them" and then just happened to choose that school and that class on that day. He wanted to kill that class of kids. Period.

While there are spree shootings where the guns are clearly a part of the fantasy element of the event itself for the shooter, this was not one of them. His objective wasn't "go out in a blaze of glory, firing cool looking guns at terrified people". His objective was to kill those kids. In this case, the use of the firearms to do so was secondary to his goal. In the absence of guns, it's almost certain he would have come up with some other method.

Quote:
Something snapped that reminded him of those boys who bullied him because he was different in 1st grade, setting the stage for the rest of his miserable life of exclusion from normal social interaction. Maybe he was visited by a ghost who told him it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster's will that he sacrifice innocent blood. Or maybe, he was just a really bad guy. We'll never know the *why*.


Wrong. We know exactly why he did it.

Quote:
What we DO know though, is that if Adam's mother hadn't been able to stockpile a small ******* in her home (and if she had been able to admit that her precious little boy was a lunatic and kept him away from the **** guns) that day would have gone a lot differently.


Unlikely. What we know is that if his mother had not had a small ******** he would have used some other method. He might have obtained chemicals to make explosives. Or locked the doors and set fire to the school. Set a crack squad of trained wombats on a kill mission. No way to know what exactly he would have done, but he would have done something.

What we also know is that given the precise events which did happen, if there had been other people in the vicinity with firearms, many lives could have been saved without the necessity of draconian legal restrictions on the actions of our citizens.

Quote:
I blame her, mostly. I grieve for the families of those kids, but for every lunatic taking a gun on a killing spree, there's a handful of people who just ignored his cries for help all the years before. If we aren't going to address the state of the average american's mental health, we sure as **** better keep closer control on what kinds of weapons are out there in the wild.


Again. Hindsight is 20/20. It's terrifically easy to be an armchair Monday morning quarterback and talk about all the things other people should have known to do differently. But the harsh reality is that we can't assume that every other person in the world will make perfect choices every time. So what are we supposed to do? Restrict people's actions to such a degree that they can't cause harm to anyone else? How do we decide who to restrict? Who gets to make that determination? I really do see two paths to follow here. One in which we attempt to use the power of the government to restrict people's abilities until they can't hurt anyone else, or one in which we give people the freedom to defend themselves from the actions of others.


I just think that the former choice is a poor one because it perpetuates the very problem we're trying to solve. Limiting people's ability to harm others also by necessity limits their ability to protect themselves from the harmful actions of others. The promise that the government can protect us tends to fail when we do this, leading to more people being harmed in situations where they are not allowed to protect themselves. If we continue to respond to such events with yet more government restrictions, we just continue to make the problem worse. I'm not arguing for an extreme on either side, but simply pointing out that "ban guns until gun violence stops" is just as impractical as "give everyone a nuclear weapon". The correct course should be somewhere in between. I just happen to believe we've moved to far towards the "ban guns" side of the issue. Certainly, in the case of "gun free zones", we're making our children in school less safe, not more.


And as I've pointed out numerous times in the two threads we've had on this subject. Unless we're willing and able to repeal the 2nd amendment, we can't possibly enact sufficient gun control measures to prevent this kind of crime. Assuming we're not going to be able to do so, then we should look for other solutions than increase gun control.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Jan 07 2013 at 7:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a false dilemma: "If we take away guns, then people will use knives, if we take away knives, they'll use sticks, if we take away sticks, they'll use fists. Do you want to cut everyone's hands off?"



Actually, that's a slippery slope fallacy Smash. Try to keep them straight.


Nope. A slippery slope would be, "if they ban guns now, they'll ban knives next." It's an unsupported assumption of escalation.


Er... That's exactly what he's doing. He's comparing a proposed action (banning guns) to an end point in a string of such actions (chopping off people's hands), then arguing that since the end point is a bad idea that the proposed action right now must be. That's a textbook slippery slope argument.


No, it's not that if they take away guns, they'll take away knives next (the slippery slope). It's that every gun criminal will just use knives instead of the original guns.


Yes. That's a slippery slope: If we ban guns, they'll just use knives. And if we ban knives, they'll just use fists. And to ban fists, we'll have to chop people's hands off. Chopping people's hands off is silly, so we should not ban guns.

You're really going to argue this? It's a slippery slope. There's no question it's a slippery slope. Ask 100 experts on logical fallacies what fallacy this is, and they'll all answer "slippery slope". WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Jan 07 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,979 posts
You're stuck on the progressive nature of the hypothetical, and ignoring the purposefully limited choices of the logic which would lead to a 'false dilemma'. That doing away with the guns would do no good because they'd just move on to another <specific weapon>. Just because they list a bunch of weapons in a row doesn't mean in a 'slippery slope'.

The false dilemma.

"Banning guns is pointless because criminals will just use knives."

Edited, Jan 7th 2013 8:30pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#97 Jan 07 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
TirithRR wrote:
You're stuck on the progressive nature of the hypothetical, and ignoring the purposefully limited choices of the logic which would lead to a 'false dilemma'. That doing away with the guns would do no good because they'd just move on to another <specific weapon>. Just because they list a bunch of weapons in a row doesn't mean in a 'slippery slope'.

The false dilemma.

"Banning guns is pointless because criminals will just use knives."


Um... That's an inherent feature of all slippery slope fallacies though. We should use the label that best fits what's going on though, shouldn't we? The presence of an assumed progression and comparison between the first step and an endpoint makes it a slippery slope.


I'll also point out *again* that a false dilemma is an argument which assumes one has only two choices. Either X or Y. That's the "dilemma" part of the label. It's a fallacy when there are choices other than X or Y. Hence, the phrase "false dilemma".

The formulation you're trying to use doesn't fit since it's not a choice. It's a progression. if we do A, then B will happen. If B happens, then C will happen. If C happens then D, etc. I suppose you could argue that the argument assumes that the criminal has a choice of using guns or knives, when he really has other choices, but you're missing 90% of the argument if you read it that way. Also, as I pointed out above, if that was the case, then no argument could ever be called a slippery slope, since all slippery slopes make that assumption between each step. But since we do have a fallacy label specifically to identify that form of assumptive progression, then perhaps we should use that label since it best matches what's going on?

Edited, Jan 7th 2013 6:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Jan 08 2013 at 1:26 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,473 posts
Quote:
I suppose you could argue that the argument assumes that the criminal has a choice of using guns or knives, when he really has other choices, but you're missing 90% of the argument if you read it that way.


Speaking of logical fallacies, how many folks were killed in China in Decembers Stabbing Rampage. Or are you skipping my post because it is based on fact?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#99 Jan 08 2013 at 3:33 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,582 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Ironically, about the only thing that can actually prevent a crime from being committed is an armed potential victim.

You've convinced me to start carrying, heck think how one day I might just save you because you changed my mind? You might be walking back home late at night when some miscreant in a black hoody presses his piece into your back, and I'd see you being held up across the street. You'd know you couldn't trust him with your wallet, but you could trust me with your life. Just imagine how safe you'd feel with me pointing a gun over at you, ready to be your hero.

Edited, Jan 8th 2013 3:35am by Allegory
#100 Jan 08 2013 at 6:00 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Ironically, about the only thing that can actually prevent a crime from being committed is an armed potential victim.

You've convinced me to start carrying, heck think how one day I might just save you because you changed my mind? You might be walking back home late at night when some miscreant in a black hoody presses his piece into your back, and I'd see you being held up across the street. You'd know you couldn't trust him with your wallet, but you could trust me with your life. Just imagine how safe you'd feel with me pointing a gun over at you, ready to be your hero.

Edited, Jan 8th 2013 3:35am by Allegory

Yep, I'm sold. Guns for everybody!
#101 Jan 08 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,435 posts
The formulation you're trying to use doesn't fit since it's not a choice. It's a progression.

No, it's a progression leading to a choice. You're wrong. It's ok, no one considers you an expert in logic. Move on.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
lolgaxe, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (44)