Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Published Voting Lists (by gun ownership)...Follow

#152 Mar 07 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I ignored your response because it didn't meet the criteria I asked for. And by not meeting, I don't mean that I don't agree with it meeting it, but that you didn't even attempt to do so. You listed off what restrictions you'd place on gun ownership, but that's nothing new. Anyone can do that. That's not what I was asking for, nor was it the point I was making. My point, which I thought was abundantly clear, was that no one could show how the restrictions they thought we should apply would actually be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings.

What did you expect me to do when, in response to that question, you proceeded to do exactly what I was complaining about people doing (ie: not explaining how their proposed restrictions would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings). So yeah. I ignored it.


1. So was that a "random tangent" and/or something that you couldn't follow?

2. You never demonstrated how what I stated wouldn't prevent these kinds of shootings, acknowledging the fact that "anything" is possible. You simply ignored it because you didn't want to address it. Your criteria was met because it addressed the scenarios discussed that allowed these actions to occur.

So unless you're against preventing criminals, the mentally unstable and/or "people in potentially dangerous environments", from possessing fire arms, then my response met your criteria.

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 5:27am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#153 Mar 07 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Zymunn wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
None relevant dribble


You missed the point. Focus.
Dude... you're talking to Gbaji.


I know who it is. I am not expecting focus. Just more dribble or more likely being ignored cause he can't respond.


Wait? My post was "dribble" (I think the word you're looking for is "drivel" btw), but yours was some font of wisdom? Lol. You made a joke post when you realized you couldn't counter what I wrote. Pretty much SOP really, but don't think that makes you special or anything. Any idiot can respond with the equivalent of "Your MOM!". So, um.. grats then?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Mar 07 2013 at 9:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

I ignored your response because it didn't meet the criteria I asked for. And by not meeting, I don't mean that I don't agree with it meeting it, but that you didn't even attempt to do so. You listed off what restrictions you'd place on gun ownership, but that's nothing new. Anyone can do that. That's not what I was asking for, nor was it the point I was making. My point, which I thought was abundantly clear, was that no one could show how the restrictions they thought we should apply would actually be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings.

What did you expect me to do when, in response to that question, you proceeded to do exactly what I was complaining about people doing (ie: not explaining how their proposed restrictions would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings). So yeah. I ignored it.


1. So was that a "random tangent" and/or something that you couldn't follow?


Um... The posts you actually made in this thread in response to my question about why the public (or an employer specifically) needs to know who owns firearms. You went off on a tangent about requiring "beware of dog" signs on people's yards, and another one about phone books versus tracking down cell phone numbers. Don't forget that I was responding to your assertion that you had responded to my specific request for a reason why such information needs to be made public with the statement about tangents and irrelevant comments.

Um... Which sorta makes you quoting yourself from a different thread, discussing a completely different gun issue a tangent as well, doesn't it?


Quote:
2. You never demonstrated how what I stated wouldn't prevent these kinds of shootings, acknowledging the fact that "anything" is possible. You simply ignored it because you didn't want to address it. Your criteria was met because it addressed the scenarios discussed that allowed these actions to occur.


You're the one giving proposals for gun control Alma. If you think those are good ideas then it's your responsibility to make the argument that such legal changes would have some positive impact with regard to mass shootings, gun crime, homicide rates, or whatever else you think is important. Having gun control for the sake of gun control isn't a valid argument.

Quote:
So unless you're against preventing criminals, the mentally unstable and/or "people in potentially dangerous environments", from possessing fire arms, then my response met your criteria.


Huh? I'm not against the first two at all. But your list of proposals doesn't target them. It makes it harder for everyone to own guns, but that's like saying we can prevent criminals from running free on the streets by putting everyone in jail. Is there something in your list that targets criminals and the mentally unstable? Cause I didn't see that anywhere.

As to the third, that's such a vague statement that I'm not going to touch it. I'm assuming you mean "gun free zones", but that's a bizarre way of expressing it. All areas are "potentially dangerous", so how you do limit that? Let's not forget that I had three criteria that you were responding to (in that thread anyway):

1. Would be effective at preventing the kinds of mass shootings we were talking about.

2. Would not violate the 2nd amendment.

3. Is made up of restrictions on gun ownership.


Remember that my point here isn't to argue *for* restrictions on gun ownership, but to illustrate how ineffective such restrictions are at accomplishing the goal (requirement #1), while not violating the 2nd amendment (requirement #2). It's designed to make you realize that such things aren't the right way to go and that perhaps we should be looking at solutions other than tighter gun restrictions to achieve that goal. I know that this is a more subtle approach and some people may be confused by it, but sometimes the it's best way to make a point like this sink in. I can argue until I'm blue in the face that we should be doing X instead of Y, if we want to accomplish A without violating B and not get anywhere simply because those I'm arguing against never argue *for* their position. So I have to force them to by asking them to provide an example of Y that accomplishes A, without violating B. Then, when they can't do it, I hope and pray that a lightbulb will go off.

Sadly, it usually doesn't work, but I do try at least!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Mar 07 2013 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
So gbaji DOES want special treatment for gun owners? Is that what I'm hearing?
#156 Mar 08 2013 at 2:09 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
A citizen has the right to own a gun. He or she also has the responsibility to accept all terms and restrictions attached to gun ownership.

For a guy who argues that a woman who submitted to *** rather than be killed wasn't raped, you sure are delicate about the snowflake status of gun owners.


Are you referencing to me?
I thought Samira was clearly talking about gbaji.

What's your guilty conscience for?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#157 Mar 08 2013 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,315 posts
Belkira wrote:
So gbaji DOES want special treatment for gun owners? Is that what I'm hearing?
It's enumerated.

Nexa




Edited, Mar 8th 2013 2:01pm by Elinda
#158 Mar 08 2013 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
gbaji wrote:
Hahaha... um. Ok. Doesn't change the fact (haven't I already said this like 5 times?) that there's nothing in the first amendment that says that the government can't require you to submit a proposal for anything you want to say to the "ministry of speech" before you're allowed to utter a single word within earshot of another person in a public space. Yet, despite this massive omission, no one would bother even proposing such a law because of the universally understood unanimous SCOTUS decision that would show up about 5 minutes later.
I find it funny that you would pull out Freedom of Speech, a right that carries quite a few restrictions, when talking about Right to Bear Arms, of which you refuse to accept almost any restrictions at all.


Edited, Mar 8th 2013 9:04am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#159 Mar 08 2013 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,345 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Just to clear up any lingering confusion, Samira isn't me, either.


What!? Since when?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#160 Mar 08 2013 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Belkira wrote:
So gbaji DOES want special treatment for gun owners? Is that what I'm hearing?
Only if you don't call it that.
____________________________
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.
#161 Mar 08 2013 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
******
44,509 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I find it funny that
Do you really?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#162 Mar 08 2013 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Maybe Ugly is just easily amused?
____________________________
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.
#163 Mar 08 2013 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I find it funny that
Do you really?

I do, I find people undermining themselves to be rather hilarious, most times.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#164 Mar 08 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
******
44,509 posts
I guess, in a Road Runner cartoon sort of way. You know the coyote is going to fall off a cliff.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#165 Mar 08 2013 at 1:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
No I used the right word

It's the first definition, just to be clear about it.

#166 Mar 08 2013 at 1:53 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um... The posts you actually made in this thread in response to my question about why the public (or an employer specifically) needs to know who owns firearms. You went off on a tangent about requiring "beware of dog" signs on people's yards, and another one about phone books versus tracking down cell phone numbers. Don't forget that I was responding to your assertion that you had responded to my specific request for a reason why such information needs to be made public with the statement about tangents and irrelevant comments.


As much as you want to try to make them, those responses were not off on a tangent. You clearly realized that you were wrong and did what you (and others) tend to do when you're wrong, just skip it. The biggest concern was privacy and being seen as a "bad guy" for allowing the public to know that s/he posses something that could potentially cause harm. I countered those concerns by providing the aforesaid scenarios.

Gbaji wrote:

Um... Which sorta makes you quoting yourself from a different thread, discussing a completely different gun issue a tangent as well, doesn't it?


Only if your quota for ignoring a post changes.

Gbaji wrote:
You're the one giving proposals for gun control Alma. If you think those are good ideas then it's your responsibility to make the argument that such legal changes would have some positive impact with regard to mass shootings, gun crime, homicide rates, or whatever else you think is important. Having gun control for the sake of gun control isn't a valid argument.


What Gbaji asked wrote:
No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings.


You asked for restrictions and I gave them to you. You stated that it didn't meet your criteria which means you done an analysis. I'm asking for you to present your analysis on how those restrictions either violated the 2nd amendment and/or would not prevent these kinds of shootings.

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? I'm not against the first two at all. But your list of proposals doesn't target them. It makes it harder for everyone to own guns, but that's like saying we can prevent criminals from running free on the streets by putting everyone in jail. Is there something in your list that targets criminals and the mentally unstable? Cause I didn't see that anywhere.


Read #1.

Gbaji wrote:

As to the third, that's such a vague statement that I'm not going to touch it. I'm assuming you mean "gun free zones", but that's a bizarre way of expressing it. All areas are "potentially dangerous", so how you do limit that? Let's not forget that I had three criteria that you were responding to (in that thread anyway):

1. Would be effective at preventing the kinds of mass shootings we were talking about.

2. Would not violate the 2nd amendment.

3. Is made up of restrictions on gun ownership.


Remember that my point here isn't to argue *for* restrictions on gun ownership, but to illustrate how ineffective such restrictions are at accomplishing the goal (requirement #1), while not violating the 2nd amendment (requirement #2). It's designed to make you realize that such things aren't the right way to go and that perhaps we should be looking at solutions other than tighter gun restrictions to achieve that goal. I know that this is a more subtle approach and some people may be confused by it, but sometimes the it's best way to make a point like this sink in. I can argue until I'm blue in the face that we should be doing X instead of Y, if we want to accomplish A without violating B and not get anywhere simply because those I'm arguing against never argue *for* their position. So I have to force them to by asking them to provide an example of Y that accomplishes A, without violating B. Then, when they can't do it, I hope and pray that a lightbulb will go off.

Sadly, it usually doesn't work, but I do try at least!


I provided a plan that not only addressed your concerns, but exceeded them. You are simply in denial in support of maintaining your weapons.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#167 Mar 08 2013 at 8:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Hahaha... um. Ok. Doesn't change the fact (haven't I already said this like 5 times?) that there's nothing in the first amendment that says that the government can't require you to submit a proposal for anything you want to say to the "ministry of speech" before you're allowed to utter a single word within earshot of another person in a public space. Yet, despite this massive omission, no one would bother even proposing such a law because of the universally understood unanimous SCOTUS decision that would show up about 5 minutes later.
I find it funny that you would pull out Freedom of Speech, a right that carries quite a few restrictions, when talking about Right to Bear Arms, of which you refuse to accept almost any restrictions at all.


That's an "interesting" take on things. Are you required to obtain a permit prior to engaging in *any* free speech (even in your own home)? Do we keep a public database of every word anyone says? Do we check to see if someone is a felon before allowing them to speak (again, even in their own home)? Firearm ownership is vastly more regulated than speech. And let me be clear, I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't be. But what you label as refusing to accept "any restrictions at all" is me trying to put the breaks on further restrictions of a right that is already quite heavily restricted already (and redundant!).

I accept tons of restrictions on firearms. I agree that large arms should not be owned by private citizens (tanks, artillery, missiles, bombs, etc). I agree that fully automatic weapons should not be owned by private citizens. I agree that using a firearm in a way that harms another should be punished. I agree that the right of ownership of a firearm should be taken away from those who've been proven to be dangerous to society (felons and the mentally incompetent). I agree that firing of a firearm on public property (or within most zones) should be restricted as a matter of public safety except in cases of extreme justification (self defense, security/police, etc).


You'll note that those restrictions are far more broad than those even remotely applied to speech. That's not enough for some though. They want an onerous licensing process to own a firearm, with fees/licensing. They want to restrict carry (the whole "bear" part of the right) as much as possible. They want to restrict the type of firearms that can be owned to a greater degree than it's already restricted, but with arguments that are open ended. The arguments for further restriction are often formed in a manner that puts the burden on the citizen to prove he "needs" to exercise that right, and not the other way around (questions like "why do you need more than a 10 round magazine" for example).


Those are the things I argue against. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so.

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Mar 08 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Zymunn wrote:
No I used the right word

It's the first definition, just to be clear about it.


As opposed to this word? Precision!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 Mar 08 2013 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Almalieque wrote:
What Gbaji asked wrote:
No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings.


You asked for restrictions and I gave them to you.


No. I asked for restrictions that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. If I asked you to name an animal that had four legs and was a feline, and you said "monkey", I'm not going to take your answer seriously either.

Quote:
You stated that it didn't meet your criteria which means you done an analysis.


Yes. I analyzed that you never claimed that, nor explained how, any of your restrictions would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. It was actually a pretty simple analysis.

Quote:
I'm asking for you to present your analysis on how those restrictions either violated the 2nd amendment and/or would not prevent these kinds of shootings.


Why? Seriously Alma. This is like you insisting that I must prove that a monkey is not a feline. At a certain point, I get bored of me saying "it's not a feline" and you saying "but you haven't proved it's not a feline" and demanding that I provide more proof, which you will then ignore anyway. So no. I'm not going to do it.

It's your list of restrictions. If you think they meet the criteria then *you* need to explain how they'll do that.

Quote:
Read #1.


I'm responding to your post. Saying "read #1" when it isn't in your post, is a good way to make me not read it. I have no clue what the **** you're talking about, nor am I going to spend the time opening another tab to read back through the thread to try to figure it out for you.

If you have a point to make, make it. That would include posting your statement and then writing why (in this case) you think that that restriction meets the conditions I placed. Saying "one of them did, but I'm not going to write it down, nor say why I think it meets the criteria, but you go read it and then tell me why it doesn't" isn't going to work.


Quote:
I provided a plan that not only addressed your concerns, but exceeded them. You are simply in denial in support of maintaining your weapons.


No, you didn't. You provided a list. I looked at it and saw nothing remotely close to addressing my concerns. See how easy that is. If you want to convince me otherwise, then actually try to convince me. Just saying "but I'm right" over and over isn't useful.

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 6:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Mar 08 2013 at 9:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji,

How about this? Why don't you provide at least one scenario in which my fully implemented plan would not significantly impact the probability of its occurrence and/or outcome?

Gbaji wrote:
No. I asked for restrictions that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. If I asked you to name an animal that had four legs and was a feline, and you said "monkey", I'm not going to take your answer seriously either.


I gave you restrictions that did not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. Read above, provide a shooting that would not be significantly mpacted by my fully implemented plan.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. I analyzed that you never claimed that, nor explained how, any of your restrictions would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. It was actually a pretty simple analysis.


And I'm asking you for your analysis. You simply said that my plan wouldn't be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings, but you have failed to express your analysis. What are the loopholes of my plan that allows for mass shootings to continue? You said this analysis was "pretty simple", so why is it so difficult for you to explain it? Why are you spending more time saying "nu-uh" as opposed to revealing your "pretty simple analysis"?

Gbaji wrote:
Why? Seriously Alma. This is like you insisting that I must prove that a monkey is not a feline. At a certain point, I get bored of me saying "it's not a feline" and you saying "but you haven't proved it's not a feline" and demanding that I provide more proof, which you will then ignore anyway. So no. I'm not going to do it.

It's your list of restrictions. If you think they meet the criteria then *you* need to explain how they'll do that.


Why? Because you're full of trash who will just continue to say "nope" regardless of what is presented. So, unless you explicitly express why something doesn't apply, you can't be held to a standard.

Either you forgot that you provided the challenge and/or you fail at the concept of criteria. I'm not asking you to do anything that you didn't already do. You made an analysis, I'm asking for your analysis. You're not doing anything extra. The amount of time and effort you put in your responses far exceeds your "pretty simple analysis". So why don't you just say it? Answer: Because there isn't one. The simple fact that your argument is "Nope.. that's not it, but I'm not going to tell you why. You have to read my mind" is evident of your denial.

Obviously you wont admit to it, so as stated, provide ANY FICTIONAL, but realistic, mass shooting scenario that would not be impacted by my fully implemented plan.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm responding to your post. Saying "read #1" when it isn't in your post, is a good way to make me not read it. I have no clue what the **** you're talking about, nor am I going to spend the time opening another tab to read back through the thread to try to figure it out for you.

If you have a point to make, make it. That would include posting your statement and then writing why (in this case) you think that that restriction meets the conditions I placed. Saying "one of them did, but I'm not going to write it down, nor say why I think it meets the criteria, but you go read it and then tell me why it doesn't" isn't going to work.


So, wait.. You don't read it the first time when it was in the post that you were replying to and now you want me to re-post exactly what you didn't read the first time in hopes that you will actually read it the second time? No thanks. If you chose to skip it the first time and not bother to reference it the second time, then you're obviously not trying to have a real discussion. If you can't figure out what "#1" is referencing to in the post in question, when it's numbered, then you have more serious problems. I give you a hint, it's the FIRST point, hence #1.

Gbaji wrote:
No, you didn't. You provided a list. I looked at it and saw nothing remotely close to addressing my concerns. See how easy that is. If you want to convince me otherwise, then actually try to convince me. Just saying "but I'm right" over and over isn't useful.


I'm not a mind reader. You made a "pretty simple" analysis, so provide it. If you can't provide your analysis, then make up a scenario that would cause a loophole in my plan.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#171 Mar 08 2013 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,568 posts
Remember that my point here isn't to argue *for* restrictions on gun ownership, but to illustrate how ineffective such restrictions are at accomplishing the goal (requirement #1), while not violating the 2nd amendment (requirement #2). It's designed to make you realize that such things aren't the right way to go and that perhaps we should be looking at solutions other than tighter gun restrictions to achieve that goal.

Wealth redistribution would be far more effective than gun restriction. Glad to see you come over to the winning team.
____________________________
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.

#172 Mar 09 2013 at 8:48 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
As opposed to this word? Precision!


Was there some point to posting a synonym? Couldn't be cause I said drivel was the wrong word could it? If so quote it.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 3:37pm by Zymunn
#173 Mar 09 2013 at 10:55 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Zymunn wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
None relevant dribble


You missed the point. Focus.
Dude... you're talking to Gbaji.


I know who it is. I am not expecting focus. Just more dribble or more likely being ignored cause he can't respond.


/obiwan

This is not the word you're looking for.
____________________________
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.


#174 Mar 09 2013 at 10:38 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
You think he's looking for drivel? I kind of think the drool fits on gbaji.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#175 Mar 11 2013 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Your Jedi power has no affect on me.

Zymunn wrote:
No I used the right word

It's the first definition, just to be clear about it.


#176 Mar 11 2013 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Your Jedi power has no affect on me.

Zymunn wrote:
No I used the right word
It's the first definition, just to be clear about it.


Yeah, no.
____________________________
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.


#177 Mar 11 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Your Jedi power has no affect on me.

Zymunn wrote:
No I used the right word
It's the first definition, just to be clear about it.


Yeah, no.


Oh wow, thank you for correcting me. I had no idea what I really meant Smiley: rolleyes
#178 Mar 11 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Oh wow, thank you for correcting me. I had no idea what I really meant Smiley: rolleyes


No problem. With your apparent mastery of the English language, I figured you were probably used to it by now.
____________________________
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.


#179 Mar 11 2013 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
No problem. With your apparent mastery of the English language, I figured you were probably used to it by now.

I have a 1st amendment right. I can speech how I want
#180 Mar 12 2013 at 6:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,315 posts
You can even dribble on your drivel if you'd like.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#181 Mar 12 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How about this? Why don't you provide at least one scenario in which my fully implemented plan would not significantly impact the probability of its occurrence and/or outcome?


Sure. An 18 year old kid, with no criminal record, and who has not been declared incompetent, purchases a couple of pistols or rifles, with the legal size magazines, then walks into a school, or mall, or random street corner (we can't have metal detectors everywhere), and starts shooting people. There. Done. That's why the analysis was easy.

Oh, and at least a couple of your proposals are likely to violate some portion of the constitution anyway, so tons of infringement for very very little benefit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Mar 13 2013 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,568 posts
Sure. An

That's my nickname for Aung San Suu Kyi, also! Two word Gabaji and I have so much in common. What a revelation!
____________________________
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.

#183 Mar 13 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
******
44,509 posts
"Two Word Gabaji" is too wordy for a nickname. Just go with Gabbo.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#184 Mar 13 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,568 posts
"Two Word Gabaji" is too wordy for a nickname. Just go with Gabbo.

True. G2 maybe. Or 2G. Or toogee. Or "slack jawed buffoon". Nah, too long.
____________________________
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.

#185 Mar 13 2013 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
"Two Word Gabaji" is too wordy for a nickname. Just go with Gabbo.

True. G2 maybe. Or 2G. Or toogee. Or "slack jawed buffoon". Nah, too long.


Put it to a vote. Let the masses decide.
#186 Mar 13 2013 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
******
44,509 posts
Nicknames
Two Word Gabaji :4 (23.5%)
Gabbo :3 (17.6%)
G2 :2 (11.8%)
2G :2 (11.8%)
Toogee :2 (11.8%)
Slack Jawed Buffoon :3 (17.6%)
Other, or combination :1 (5.9%)
Total:17
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#187 Mar 13 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
I like "Two Word Gabaji". It sounds like a maneuver, like some kind of advanced board game technique in Chess or Go.

"His well-timed Two Word Gabaji took his opponent by surprise."

Edited, Mar 13th 2013 3:51pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#188 Mar 13 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Sure. An 18 year old kid, with no criminal record, and who has not been declared incompetent, purchases a couple of pistols or rifles, with the legal size magazines, then walks into a school, or mall, or random street corner (we can't have metal detectors everywhere), and starts shooting people. There. Done. That's why the analysis was easy.

Oh, and at least a couple of your proposals are likely to violate some portion of the constitution anyway, so tons of infringement for very very little benefit.


Great! That's a start.

First, as I stated, there are no laws in any scenario that will prevent any thing from ever happening. If your goal is to prevent all shootings, then you would have to argue against the 2nd amendment, in which supporting it would make you a hypocrite.

In any case, let's address your scenario.

1. You have a child with no criminal record and has not been declared incompetent. That would make him a "Law abiding citizen". So according to you and other proponents, laws aren't for him as he would "never" do anything wrong. So, do you agree that "law abiding citizens" is an irrelevant term only used to distract the public from the point as the result is the same? Or is this 18 year old a criminal, differentiating him from the people who follow laws?

2. He wouldn't be walking into a school or mall, due to the metal detectors.

3. As for some "random street corner", is this street corner in a low or high crime area? What time is it? Is this a highly populated area, like down town?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#189 Mar 13 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
So did Gbaji just show why "law abiding" gun owners do need stricter laws?

Quote:
An 18 year old kid, with no criminal record, and who has not been declared incompetent, purchases a couple of pistols or rifles, with the legal size magazines, then walks into a school, or mall, or random street corner (we can't have metal detectors everywhere), and starts shooting people.


Quote:
is this 18 year old a criminal


No he is a middle class white boy who got told by his parents they would not buy him the Xbox 720. So the street corner was in a crime free area. Unless you count hipster loitering as breaking the law.
#190 Mar 13 2013 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
**
493 posts
I voted for "other".
There wasn't a choice for No Marks Gbaji or Gbaji No Marks.
#191 Mar 13 2013 at 8:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Almalieque wrote:
First, as I stated, there are no laws in any scenario that will prevent any thing from ever happening. If your goal is to prevent all shootings, then you would have to argue against the 2nd amendment, in which supporting it would make you a hypocrite.


Smash sucks his thumb, which is why I said "effective at preventing these kinds of shootings". I'm the one who originally said you can't prevent them entirely. The problem is there are two approaches: Try to make it harder for people to be able to obtain weapons and physically use them in these kinds of shootings *or* accept that prevention is nearly impossible and instead focus on reducing the likely body count when such a shooting occurs, which may by itself deter some shooters from bothering in the first place.

The gun control approach only works by preventing the person from having the weapons to use in the shooting in the first place. It therefore places very high restrictions on gun ownership, with very little results for the exact reason you keep mentioning, but seem unable to grasp the meaning. Since all people are "law abiding" until they commit a crime, in many cases, you can't prevent a person from doing something like this without restricting gun access to all "law abiding" citizens as well. You can't know if that person might commit a shooting, so your solution requires limiting his access to guns and the type of guns on the off chance that he commits a crime with them.

That's the wrong approach IMO.

Quote:
1. You have a child with no criminal record and has not been declared incompetent.


18 year olds are not children. I'd talk about the psychology of your choice of labels, but this post will likely be long enough, so I'll spare the peanut gallery (this time Smiley: sly )

Quote:
That would make him a "Law abiding citizen". So according to you and other proponents, laws aren't for him as he would "never" do anything wrong. So, do you agree that "law abiding citizens" is an irrelevant term only used to distract the public from the point as the result is the same? Or is this 18 year old a criminal, differentiating him from the people who follow laws?


Neither. I'd say that attempting to punish everyone because they *might* commit a crime is not only moronic, but is in abject violation of the most basic principles of a free society.

Quote:
2. He wouldn't be walking into a school or mall, due to the metal detectors.


What metal detectors? So you're advocating a police state then. This is exactly the problem with the gun control approach. While gun control is just one aspect of it, the basic concept behind it is troubling precisely because it presumes that we should restrict the actions of everyone on the grounds that they might commit a crime. Again, this is a violation of the principles of a free society. But this route is what you *must* follow in order for your approach to have any chance of success.

Long before you'll put a dent in the random/mass shootings, you'll have taken a huge chunk of our liberties away. That's why I reject this as a good methodology.


Oh. And aside from that, let me also point out that metal detectors don't actually prevent you from entering. They just warn people that you're there. All this means is that the shooter starts his shooting at the metal detector, and not a little bit past it. Unless you're proposing massive security gates, armed guards, gun turrets, and whatever other ridiculous thing you think will make every disarmed person on the other side "safe" that is.

Wouldn't it be easier to just allow the other folks to be armed? I'm honestly far far less worried by the thought that random people around me might be carrying guns than having to go through security checkpoints everywhere I go out of some fear that the one in a million odds of a shooting happening might just happen where/when I am. See, cause in the event that happens, the static security is less likely to be effective than random people in the crowd being armed. And lets not forget that if you make some areas super impregnable, the shooter will just go elsewhere. So while I'm safe in the armed fortress you've made my mall into, I'm less safe in the parking lot walking in. Or say, in the huge line waiting to get into the secure area.

You're failing to understand that there's no way to prevent someone who wants to kill a bunch of random people in a public space, unless you can put that level of security in *every* public space. That means every single part of the world I might travel in between my house and everywhere else. You just can't do that. It's not possible, even if we had the money and time to do so. Which puts us back at gun control, which is limited by the 2nd amendment. Thus, unless you're proposing to repeal the 2nd amendment, the approach you're using can't work. Ever.

Quote:
3. As for some "random street corner", is this street corner in a low or high crime area? What time is it? Is this a highly populated area, like down town?


Who cares? Any random public place where there isn't a security checkpoint and armed guards. So unless you propose to put them *everywhere* there will be places with crowds of people to shoot at that are not protected by your approach.

Let people carry their own weapons, and you don't have to spend a dime on that kind of security. Everyone is safe, everywhere, all the time. Better yet, since the would be shooter doesn't know who is carrying a weapon, he has no way to find where the unarmed targets are. It costs nothing. It puts no undo strain our our liberties. And it would actually be vastly more effective at preventing these kinds of shootings.

One wonders if people arrive at your approach because it's the best way to solve the problem at hand, or because they start by wanting to restrict gun ownership and then latch on to this as a justification. Because it honestly makes no sense at all. It's counterproductive towards the presumed goal. We need less stringent gun control, not more. Let more people own guns. Let more people carry guns. Let more people carry them concealed. Do that, and you'll see the rate of shootings like this decrease dramatically. And as a bonus, you'll likely see all sort of other crimes decrease as well. People are far less willing to try to mug someone if there's a possibility that person might be armed.

But let's not let logic and reason overwhelm our irrational fears over guns.

Edited, Mar 13th 2013 7:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#192 Mar 13 2013 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
gbaji wrote:
But let's not let logic and reason...


You couldn't identify either if they walked up and shoved their figurative **** in your mouth.
____________________________
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.


#193 Mar 14 2013 at 4:27 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
While smearing faeces in your two strand hair.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#194 Mar 14 2013 at 4:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
491 posts
Quote:
*or* accept that prevention is nearly impossible and instead focus on reducing the likely body count when such a shooting occurs, which may by itself deter some shooters from bothering in the first place.
Well this seems a bit contradictory.

Quote:
You're failing to understand that there's no way to prevent someone who wants to kill a bunch of random people in a public space, unless you can put that level of security in *every* public space.

Well that is simply not true. I mean, sure, there's not a whole lot you can do to find them once they set out to to kill people, but that doesn't mean they can't be stopped from ever going out for a killing spree in the first place. There's a few effective ways to do this, but i guess you probably won't like any of them: Better education, better support for the mentally ill, more help for the poor, and of course restricted gun access.

Restricting gun access makes it more difficult for people who want to go out and kill a bunch of people to do so. Unfortunately, you're right, this isn't such an effective method. It would certainly help, but not all that much, unless done to such an extreme that it's a waste of time to even discuss, because as you said, it will never happen. Of course this doesn't really get to the root of the problem. Even without guns, people can still do a lot of damage with a knife, or bombs which can be made out of common houseful supplies. The solution isn't to physically stop people from killing each other, it's to make them not want to do so in the first place.

That brings us to the mentally ill. Sane, well-adjusted people do not just go out and shoot up a mall for no reason. It just doesn't happen. We need to stop treating the mentally ill like garbage, and start getting them help. And that doesn't just mean finding them and stuffing some pills down their throats. They need real support, and right now we do almost everything we can to ensure they cannot get it.

Improving education and help for the poor is just a no-brainer. The uneducated and poor are both much more likely to commit crimes than the rich and well educated. There are many reasons for this, but the solution is simple. We need to provide much better education, including (especially!) for the poor. Educated people are better people, in pretty much every way so this is really very important, and will improve society as whole in many different ways. The poor have more to gain, and less to lose from committing crime, get worse education, and often have no real access to mental health services, so it's no surprise they tend to commit more crime. I'm sure we already know how to improve that situation, so i won't bother covering it.

These are the things that matter. Improve these things, and crime will drop across the the board. Not because people are unable to commit the crimes, but because they no longer want to. And that is how to stop shootings. Not with metal detectors and strip searches to get into a McDonalds. Not by repealing the second amendment. And not by giving everyone guns so they can kill a shooter before they kill too many people. You do it by making sure all of society is healthy and happy.
____________________________
#195 Mar 14 2013 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,315 posts
Think back to the OP...

On tuesday was a hearing.
Quote:
State Rep. Corey Wilson says concealed weapons permit holders in Maine should be entitled to confidentiality under Maine law. And he made his case to members of the Legislature's Judiciary Committee.

The argument for making concealed permit carriers list confidential:
Quote:
"These individuals are not criminals, they are law-abiding citizens who have passed federal, state and local background checks every four years," Wilson said. 'They are not the individuals that we need to fear, and they should be protected. After all what is the point of having a concealed handguns permit if everybody knows that you have it.

Argument for the status quo:
Quote:
"Boiled down to its simplest terms, we believe that LD 345 proposes to give preferential treatment to a single class of permits in the state of Maine over dozens, if not hundreds, of other types of permits that are on file here at the state," Mahoney said. "These concealed handgun permits have been public now for over 32 years."

The bill has strong support. I think it will pass.

In other Maine gun law news, the town of Byron voted down a bill to require all homeowners to own a gun and ammo. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#196 Mar 14 2013 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
******
44,509 posts
gbaji wrote:
But let's not let logic and reason overwhelm our irrational fears over guns.
Says the guy with an irrational fear of logic and reason. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 Mar 14 2013 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,315 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But let's not let logic and reason overwhelm our irrational fears over guns.
Says the guy with an irrational fear of logic and reason. Smiley: laugh
Seriously. If we didn't have irrational fears over getting shot by a black guy in a hoodie, we wouldn't feel compelled to not only have a gun protecting our house, but a gun in our car and a concealed gun on our person. We could be having that easy old rational argument about regulation on guns for hunting and sport purposes. Remember that?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#198 Mar 14 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,568 posts
Smash sucks

Touche' G2!
____________________________
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.

#199 Mar 14 2013 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,315 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Smash sucks

Touche' G2!

That had to have been a set up.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#200 Mar 14 2013 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Elinda wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Smash sucks

Touche' G2!

That had to have been a set up.
Teaching Gbaji to communicate using fewer words one post at a time.
____________________________
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.
#201 Mar 14 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm the one who originally said you can't prevent them entirely.


So, you are arguing for anarchy as there's no law that prevent people from breaking rules.

Gbaji wrote:
The gun control approach only works by preventing the person from having the weapons to use in the shooting in the first place. It therefore places very high restrictions on gun ownership, with very little results for the exact reason you keep mentioning, but seem unable to grasp the meaning. Since all people are "law abiding" until they commit a crime, in many cases, you can't prevent a person from doing something like this without restricting gun access to all "law abiding" citizens as well. You can't know if that person might commit a shooting, so your solution requires limiting his access to guns and the type of guns on the off chance that he commits a crime with them.

That's the wrong approach IMO.


That's because you're chasing leprechauns. As you so nicely demonstrated, THERE IS NO relevance with the "law abiding citizen" term. You're creating a fictional label with the intent to befog the point.

Gbaji wrote:
Neither. I'd say that attempting to punish everyone because they *might* commit a crime is not only moronic, but is in abject violation of the most basic principles of a free society.


You wont back peddle your way out of this. Either the person in your scenario is a "law abiding citizen" who committed the crime or he's a law breaker who committed a crime. Unless you're arguing for anarchy or a fantasy land void of violence, hunger and hatred, you have demonstrated that the "law abiding citizen" label is irrelevant.

Gbaji wrote:
What metal detectors?

The same ones that are already implemented and practiced in society.

Gbaji wrote:
This is exactly the problem with the gun control approach. While gun control is just one aspect of it, the basic concept behind it is troubling precisely because it presumes that we should restrict the actions of everyone on the grounds that they might commit a crime. Again, this is a violation of the principles of a free society. But this route is what you *must* follow in order for your approach to have any chance of success.

Long before you'll put a dent in the random/mass shootings, you'll have taken a huge chunk of our liberties away. That's why I reject this as a good methodology.


Oh. And aside from that, let me also point out that metal detectors don't actually prevent you from entering. They just warn people that you're there. All this means is that the shooter starts his shooting at the metal detector, and not a little bit past it. Unless you're proposing massive security gates, armed guards, gun turrets, and whatever other ridiculous thing you think will make every disarmed person on the other side "safe" that is.

Wouldn't it be easier to just allow the other folks to be armed? I'm honestly far far less worried by the thought that random people around me might be carrying guns than having to go through security checkpoints everywhere I go out of some fear that the one in a million odds of a shooting happening might just happen where/when I am. See, cause in the event that happens, the static security is less likely to be effective than random people in the crowd being armed. And lets not forget that if you make some areas super impregnable, the shooter will just go elsewhere. So while I'm safe in the armed fortress you've made my mall into, I'm less safe in the parking lot walking in. Or say, in the huge line waiting to get into the secure area.

You're failing to understand that there's no way to prevent someone who wants to kill a bunch of random people in a public space, unless you can put that level of security in *every* public space. That means every single part of the world I might travel in between my house and everywhere else. You just can't do that. It's not possible, even if we had the money and time to do so. Which puts us back at gun control, which is limited by the 2nd amendment. Thus, unless you're proposing to repeal the 2nd amendment, the approach you're using can't work. Ever.


I differentiate reality from fantasy. Everyone realizes that there will always be crime. The goal is to dramatically reduce it, not chase the "mythical dragon" from South Park. Yes, the person at the gun point might get shot, but everyone beyond it is much safer as the attack MUST happen before the check point. Not only that, the likelihood of that person obtaining an illegal weapon is dramatically reduced.

Gbaji wrote:
Who cares?

I care. So, what is it in your scenario? You can't provide a variable changing scenario that adjusts to support your point.

Gbaji wrote:
Let people carry their own weapons, and you don't have to spend a dime on that kind of security. Everyone is safe, everywhere, all the time.


As stated in my post in the previous thread that you ignored, you're spending money in any scenario. Oh, and you're living in a fantasy world as everyone doesn't desire to carry weapons and shootings will always happen. You're simply just adding to the nonsense.

Gbaji wrote:
One wonders if people arrive at your approach because it's the best way to solve the problem at hand, or because they start by wanting to restrict gun ownership and then latch on to this as a justification. Because it honestly makes no sense at all. It's counterproductive towards the presumed goal. We need less stringent gun control, not more. Let more people own guns. Let more people carry guns. Let more people carry them concealed. Do that, and you'll see the rate of shootings like this decrease dramatically. And as a bonus, you'll likely see all sort of other crimes decrease as well. People are far less willing to try to mug someone if there's a possibility that person might be armed.

But let's not let logic and reason overwhelm our irrational fears over guns.


You say that and at the same time fail to counter my fully implemented plan. All you have done was demonstrate that strict gun laws reduces such violence.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CST